031-i. Advisory Review: EIA for Camisea hydrocarbon project - Peru
The NCEA issued an advisory review of two EIA studies for hydrocarbons exploration in the Camisea blocks and of a scoping document for the further development of these resources. The review of the EIAs was performed as a joint activity with Peruvian counterparts and therefore served as an on-the-job training. There seemed to be potential for development of a more extensive capacity development programme on EIA review, but this has not materialised.
Advisory reports and other documents
|29 May 1998: Advisory review|
|Accompanying letter ES|
|Appendices Advice ES|
The Peruvian authorities and Shell signed an agreement for hydrocarbon appraisal and development. These developments would take place in the Camisea blocks in the department of Cuzco. Two EIAs for appraisal and exploration in these blocks were already undertaken and approved. These would form the basis for a decision whether or not to proceed with the Full Field Development Programme (FFDP), consisting of three aspects: in-field production wells and pipelines, export pipelines, and coastal facilities for fractionation, storage and loading. Each of these aspects required a separate EIA.
The Netherlands Embassy in Lima asked the NCEA to review the existing and approved EIAs for appraisal and exploration. In addition, it requested the NCEA to review a scoping document for the three EIAs for aspects of the FFDP.
The NCEA established a working group with expertise in all relevant disciplines - among others exploration and production of hydrocarbons, toxicology, ecology, process engineering, health and safety, biodiversity, socio-economy. The working group paid a site visit to the area and discussed the project with relevant authorities and agencies.
In its advisory review, the NCEA concluded among others:
- Insufficient data are included on several aspects, including amount and composition of gas, chemicals used, waste generation, and noise generation;
- Shell's commitment to the 'highest international standards' and 'state of the art technology' is positive but cannot be verified from the EIA documents;
- A description of the autonomous development (i.e. without the proposed activities taking place) is lacking;
- Alternatives are not described and therefore a comparison of impacts of different alternatives is also missing;
- Gaps in knowledge are not identified;
- Insight in public involvement in decision-making is lacking.
On the basis of the review of the existing EIAs, the NCEA developed a review framework to serve as a guideline for the further EIA process for the FFDP.
Beside generating input for the requested reviews, the field visit also served as a capacity building activity with the competent autority (the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines). Through an on-the-job review of EIA studies in two workshops, participants' capacity in performing EIA review was increased. The workshop revealed a lack of capacity to criticize the contents of Shell’s EIA studies. Criticisms were directed towards the process (e.g. public participation) and not the technical contents. Shell also indicated that not having a counterpart on environmental and technical issues was a handicap for them in these activities. All groups indicated that they would very much welcome an EIA training programme in Peru, particularly one dedicated to developing technical expertise for EIA review. In mid 1998, however, Shell took the decision to withdraw its activities because no agreement could be reached with Peru on prices and tariffs.
Members of the working group
|Mr W.G. Been|
|Mr A.J. van Bodegom|
|Mr J.M. Marquenie|
|Mr L.A.F. Román Villanueva|
Chair: Mr J.W. Kroon
Technical secretary: Ms I.A. Steinhauer
Proponent and Component Authority
|Shell International B.V.|
|Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs|
|Ministry of Energy and Mines - Peru|
Last modified: 02 Apr 2019