The company Nord Stream AG is planning to establish two parallel 1,220 km natural gas pipelines from Vyborg in Russia through the Baltic Sea to the German coast near Greifswald; see figure 6.12 in chapter 6, Resources. The pipelines will pass through Russian, Finnish, Swedish, Danish and German territorial waters and are therefore a transboundary project. In Danish waters, the project envisages around 137 km for each of the pipelines along a route which passes east and south of Bornholm. The Nord Stream pipeline project is also referred to in the section entitled Gas infrastruc-ture and security of supply in Chapter 6, Resources.
In connection with the Nord Stream project, both an EIA report, which focuses on the Danish section of the pipelines, and an Espoo EIA report (see box 5.4), which shows the entire project and any transboundary impacts, have been prepared. The preparation of the Espoo EIA report for the Nord Stream pipelines has involved all the Baltic countries, and there have been a number of public consultations concerning the project as part of the process.
Box 5.4
Espoo consultation process
The Espoo (EIA) Convention (the Convention of 25 February 1991 on Environ-men tal Impact AssessEnviron-ment in a Transboundary Context) is a UN Convention, ratified by Denmark and a large number of other countries, that is aimed at pre-venting the adverse environmental impact of proposed activities across borders.
In this connection, it is a requirement for the EIAs to be made at an early stage of planning.
Consequently, the Espoo Convention contains provisions on environmental impact assessment (EIA), public participation and consultations between the affected countries to prevent, reduce and control significant adverse trans-boundary environmental impact.
In an Espoo consultation process, the public in the areas likely to be affected by a proposed project is given an opportunity to participate in the environmental impact assessment of the project, including in the areas affected in other countries.
Alternative pipeline routes were investigated in connection with the preparation of the EIA report. The first alternative had to be abandoned, as the pipelines would have passed through an area which both Poland and Denmark lay claim to, while the second alternative was a route passing north and west of Bornholm, which gave rise to concerns on the part of the Swedish and Danish maritime authorities due to the heavy shipping traffic in the area between Sweden and Bornholm. This would also have required seabed intervention works in several locations, either through dredging or backfilling, to ensure that the pipelines were stable along this section.
The alternative chosen was a route passing east and south of Bornholm; see figure 6.12.
Overall, the southeastern route has the lowest risk profile and environmental impact.
On 4 March 2009, the DEA received an application from Nord Stream AG for a permit to establish the Danish section of the pipeline project. Nord Stream AG is owned by the Russian natural gas company Gazprom (51 per cent), the two German companies BASF (20 per cent) and E.ON (20 per cent) and the Dutch company Gas Unie (9 per cent).
Denmark and the other countries around the Baltic Sea have signed the UN Conven-tion on the Law of the Sea, which establishes a right to lay pipeline on the continental shelf, i.e. a sort of free passage. Coastal states can thus not prohibit such pipelines, but may demand that due consideration be given to natural resources and the environ-ment. Routes must also be approved by the coastal states concerned. In Denmark, permits for transit pipelines in maritime areas are issued by the DEA in collaboration with several other authorities in accordance with the Danish Continental Shelf Act.
The application included both the EIA report concerning the Danish part of the project and the Espoo EIA report. Both EIA reports were subjected to public consulta-tion in 2009 in both Denmark and the other Baltic Sea countries. The other Baltic Sea countries were asked to express their opinion as to whether the Danish section of the pipelines could impact on the environment in their respective areas. None of the consultation responses contained any suspensive conditions.
On 20 October 2009, the DEA granted a permit to Nord Stream AG under the Danish Continental Shelf Act to construct and lay the Danish section of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines. In order to subsequently commission the pipelines, the company must also apply to the DEA for an operating permit.
While the Danish application was being processed, the company’s applications for a permit for the Nord Stream project were also being considered by the authorities in Russia, Finland, Sweden and Germany. The authorities in these countries have also issued permits for the pipeline project.
The Danish decision has been appealed to the Danish Energy Board of Appeal by the Estonian Naturalists’ Society. Appeals have also been submitted against the German, Swedish and Finnish permits. In addition, two Estonian NGOs have lodged a com-plaint with the European Commission in which they claim that Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Germany have not properly complied with and correctly implemented the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in this case.
One of the factors considered in the EIA reports is whether the inflow conditions in the Baltic Sea would be affected by the installation of the pipelines. An analysis of the
flow conditions in the Baltic Sea has therefore been carried out and submitted. This analysis indicates that the pipelines would not have any significant negative impact.
The risk of contact with conventional and chemical ammunition dumped following the two world wars is also considered in the EIA reports. As conventional and chemical ammunition has been dumped in an area east of Bornholm, the Nord Stream company has investigated whether pipeline installation in the area could result in increased pol-lution of the Baltic Sea from the chemical ammunition and whether the ammunition constitutes any other risks. The company has checked the 137 km pipeline route in the Danish area for both chemical and conventional ammunition and taken approximately 100 samples of the seabed. These samples were investigated by both the National Environmental Research Institute (NERI) in Denmark and a laboratory under the University of Helsinki, which is certified in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. The results show either a low or no concentration of chemicals in the seabed, and the conclusion is that laying the pipelines along the chosen route will not result in any measurable environmental impact from the dumped chemical ammunition.
Fishing interests have also been taken into account. It appears that even though the pipeline will not be damaged by a trawl being dragged over it, the cutter vessels used by fishermen from Bornholm do not have sufficient engine power to drag the equip-ment over the pipelines. A solution has been found through an agreeequip-ment between the fishermen and the Nord Stream company, which will result in the fishermen con-cerned receiving financial support from the company to invest in new fishing equip-ment that can be lifted over the pipelines. As an additional benefit, the equipequip-ment will reduce the fuel consumption of the fishing vessels.
Archaeological finds of cultural heritage significance have been made close to the pipeline route. Some of these finds, e.g. certain shipwrecks, are protected by the Danish Museum Act. The pipelines will therefore circumvent these finds. A wooden rudder from a 17th century ship has been raised from the seabed for conservation and subsequent exhibition at a Danish museum.
Development of the Hejre Field
The partners in licences 5/98 and 1/06 (see appendix G2), which consist of DONG E&P, Bayerngas Petroleum Danmark AS, Bayerngas Danmark ApS and the Danish North Sea Fund, are planning to commence oil and gas production from the Hejre dis-covery and will therefore prepare an EIA report for the planned development of the Hejre Field. The DEA, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning have been given a preliminary briefing on the development plans.
Further development of the South Arne Field
Hess Denmark ApS is planning to further develop the South Arne Field on the Danish continental shelf in the North Sea with the aim of producing oil and gas. Hess has prepared a screening report, which concludes that the existing EIA report for the South Arne Field covers the planned development. The DEA has asked the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning to submit any comments on the EIA screening report. The DEA has pro-visionally concluded that the changes described in the report and the consequent environmental impacts will not give rise to any requirement for a new EIA report.
The DEA makes an assessment of Danish oil and gas reserves annually. During the past year, the DEA has worked on clarifying the principles for the future assessment of resources.
THE DEA’S CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR OIL AND GAS RESOURCES