Russian mining firm accused of using global heating to avoid blame for oil spill
Nornickel said permafrost thaw could have caused catastrophic diesel spillage in Arctic Environmental groups have accused a Russian mining firm of emphasising the role of global climate change in last weeks historic oil spill in part to avoid punishment for its ageing infrastructure and potential negligence in the accident. The World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace Russia said that although climate change likely played a role in the spillage of more than 20,000 tons of diesel fuel that turned two rivers crimson near the Arctic city of Norilsk, the risks of thawing permafrost to Arctic infrastructure were publicly known and could have been addressed months or years earlier. The accident is one of the largest in Russian history and had been compared by Greenpeace to the Exxon Valdez spill. Regional officials on Tuesday said some pollutants from the leak had reached Lake Pyasino, a large body of water that leads to the Kara Sea. But the main damage has been done to the local Ambarnaya and Daldykan rivers and may take a decade to clean, local officials and environmentalists have said. Nornickel said that its monitoring did not show that the lake had been contaminated, citing the endeavour and the sacrifice of the accident responders who had responded to the spill and placed sea boons to halt the fuels spread. A Russian emergency official on Tuesday also said that contamination levels in the lake remained within the maximum permissible concentration, according to data from Russias environmental watchdog Rosprirodnadzor. The operational director for the mining firm Nornickel, Sergei Dyachenko, had earlier denied that negligence at its subsidiary could have caused the accident. In a company press release, he said that anomalously warm temperatures may have sped the thaw of permafrost beneath a gas tank and led to its collapse. In another press release, the company blamed the accident on a sudden sinking of supports of the storage tank which served accident-free for more than 30 years. Experts have pointed to the broad impact of climate change in Russias Arctic region over the past decade, noting in particular how thawing permafrost has led to fissures in apartment buildings in Norilsk. But environmental groups say they are worried that Nornickel, a company that has been attacked in the past as one of Russias biggest polluters in the Arctic, is now seeking to twist concerns about climate change to its defence. Its an attempt to write off Nornickels failure in risk management and ecological safety on the fashionable topic of climate change, said Alexey Knizhnikov of the World Wildlife Federation. The main factor is mismanagement. The accident, and a government investigation into its causes, is likely to have serious repercussions for Russian industry in the Arctic. Russian oversight agencies have drafted plans to review oil reservoirs throughout the region and investigators have charged one power plant official with violating environmental protection rules, which carries a maximum sentence of five years. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin , also gave a public scolding last week to Vladimir Potanin, the billionaire president of Nornickel, about the companys ageing reservoirs. If you had changed them on time, there would have been no environmental damage and no need to foot such costs, Putin told Potanin in a televised video call. Nornickel has pledged to cover all costs for the cleanup and to restore the local environment. Greenpeace Russia last week put out a statement titled The melting of the permafrost is not an excuse for Nornickel, noting it believed the company sought to avoid responsibility for the accident by blaming it on climate change. The environmental organisation noted that as far back as 2009 it had reported on the risks to Russias oil-and-gas infrastructure from thawing permafrost. Its not possible that the company did not know about [thawing permafrost], but it is possible that the company used a dangerous facility irresponsibly, said Vasily Yablokov, Greenpeace Russias climate project manager. Weak enforcement and business cost decisions meant companies were hesitant to replace technology, he said. In principle, the interests of businesses are put above the ecology, said Yablokov. A Nornickel spokesperson said: So far, we have only named a possible version of what happened. Final conclusions can be drawn only after the investigation is completed. She also said the company was actively involved in the clean-up from the accident. During a conference call with investors and analysts on Tuesday, Dyachenko said the company believed that thawing permafrost was the cause of the accident. He said: There wasnt any precise monitoring being done on permafrost before [the accident], adding that local efforts to monitor the thawing permafrost were focused on the city of Norilsk and its residential building stock. In a statement provided after publication, Nornickel said it categorically rejects accusations of any attempts to avoid blame or downplay its responsibility for the diesel spillage in the Arctic, adding that such accidents were absolutely unacceptable regardless of their primary cause. The company said it was cooperating with law enforcement agencies and had launched a full and thorough internal investigation into the accident. We unequivocally accept that climate change risks, including those of abnormally high temperatures in the Arctic, must be properly addressed and mitigated. Nornickel has immediately launched a comprehensive inquiry into the increased risks we are now facing so to avoid climate-change related accidents in future. We fully accept our responsibility for the event and are making appropriate financial provisions and arrangements for related legal liabilities as well as additional voluntary commitments in order to mitigate the inflicted environmental damage, the company said.