1/50

AGRAÏMENTS

Al Martí Orta, per haver dipositat en mi la seva confiança, deixant-me participar en el projecte
que desenvolupa des de fa anys al Perú. La seva tasca i la seva persona em desperten una
profunda admiració.

A totes i cadascuna de les persones que m’heu donat un cop de mà amb aquest projecte:
Sònia Ambrós, Laura Sala, Miquel Àngel Vargas, Marta Borrós i Maria José Ramos, Elena
Méndez, Dídac Santos, Pedro Mayor, Ana Catarina Luz, Mireia Bartrons, José Peral, Toni Rosell
i Joan Lluís Riera. Sense les vostres aportacions, el projecte no seria el que és ara.

Als companys d’alterNativa, que m’han acollit amb els braços oberts.

Als meus amics, que són el millor que hi ha al món. A ells, especialment a l’Àlvaro, al Suau i a la
Sara, els hi dec gran part dels millors moments d’aquest any.

I a la meva família, com no, per tot el que han fet per mi durant tota la meva vida.

2/50
 INDEX

Description of the research project ............................................................................ 4

Original Research Article............................................................................................ 5

Abstract and keywords........................................................................................................ 6

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7

Materials and methods ....................................................................................................... 9

Results ............................................................................................................................... 14

Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 20

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 20

References......................................................................................................................... 20

Figures ............................................................................................................................... 22

Maps .................................................................................................................................. 23

Guidelines of the Journal ......................................................................................... 28

3/50
 DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT

The present dissertation is entitled “Spatial analysis of oil spill risks and impacts in the block
1AB, Loreto, Peru” and has been submitted in accordance with the requirements for the MSc
degree in Environmental Studies of the Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, ICTA-UAB.

This research work is intended to advance our knowledge on the oil spill risks and impacts
faced by indigenous communities in the Block 1AB, in the Peruvian Amazon. To this end, I build
up a methodological framework for the spatial analysis of the oil pollution exposure in tropical
rainforests, combining data issued from a participatory monitoring project in the region with
theoretical insights from different disciplines such as cartography, chemistry of pollution or
even environmental risk assessment.

Such a transversal approach converges with the research lines of the Ethnoecology Laboratory
and my hosting research group (Conservació, Etnoecologia i Canvi Global, CECG). My research
team has a long experience in ethnoecological studies approached from an interdisciplinary
perspective. Particularly, the study of environmental inequalities and impacts through GIS,
remote sensing and ethnocartography has been one of the mainstream topics of the group
and suits perfectly with the aims of the present dissertation.

This work represents a valuable contribution to the study of oil spill risks in the Peruvian
Amazon, since it provides for the first time a detailed spatial picture of the risk and impacts
related to oil pollution in the area, which might have many implications in terms of political
ecology. Moreover, the construction of a novel methodology for the study of oil spill risk
assessment opens up new avenues for future researches orientated towards a more in-depth
analysis and understanding of the hazards related to oil infrastructures. So, the present
dissertation is placed in this twofold approach: with a view to validate a novel methodology for
environmental research, but also to contribute to environmental study through the use of this
methodology. Such a conceptual line constitutes the theoretical framework upon which the
present research project has been developed.

4/50
 Original Research Paper

Environmental Research Letters

Spatial analysis of oil spill risks and

impacts in the block 1AB, Loreto, Peru

Mar Cartró Sabaté1*, Martí Orta Martínez1,2

1
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona, E-08193, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain

2
alterNativa. Intercanvi amb pobles indígenes, E-08011, Barcelona, Spain

*Correspondence Author: Mar Cartró Sabaté

Correspondence e-mail: marcartro@hotmail.com

Telephone: 609635644

5/50
ABSTRACT

The Peruvian Amazon is one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth and is also home to
around 60 distinct groups of indigenous peoples. Underlaying this territory there are large
reserves of oil and gas. The first concession for hydrocarbon activities was the Block 1AB
(Loreto). From the beginning of the oils activities in 1971 onwards, oil companies have not
taken adequate steps to mitigate the environmental and health impacts of their practices. In
this research paper, a methodological framework for the spatial analysis of the oil pollution
exposure in tropical rainforest has been built, combining data issued from a participatory
monitoring project in the region with novel multi-scale spatial approaches. Results show that
more than 24 million oil barrels have been spilled in the area, a quantity almost 100 times
bigger than the oil dumped in the Exxon Valdez spill. Regarding freshwater bodies, there are
more than 1000 km of stream that may be affected, almost a quarter part of the block
permanent rivers’ length. Considering the oil ingestion by animals and its mobility, we found
that area exposed to oil pollution is at least 15 times larger than the one declared by the
Ministry of Environment, which suggests that the affected area in the block 1AB is the 0.409%
of its extension.

Keywords: Peruvian Amazon, block 1AB, oil spill, pollution risk, indigenous communities,
spatial analysis, subbasin and permanent waters, animal mobility, oil ingestion, participatory
monitoring.

6/50
INTRODUCTION

The Peruvian Amazon is one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth for a broad range of taxa,
including birds, primates, amphibian and trees (Terborg et al 1990, Puertas and Bodmer 1993,
Doan and Arriaga 2002, ter Steege et al 2003, Pitman et al 2008) and is also the home to
around 60 distinct groups of indigenous peoples, including uncontacted peoples living in
voluntary isolation (INEI 2008, INDEPA 2009) Underlying this territory there are large reserves
of oil and gas, whose exploration and extraction is being stimulated by the growing global
demand and the oil prices (Finer et al 2008). Orta-Martínez and Finer (2010) claim that an
unprecedented 48.6% of the Peruvian Amazon has been recently covered by oil and gas
concessions (up to just 7.1% in 2003) overlapping 17.1% of the Peruvian Amazon protected
area system and over half of all titled indigenous lands.

The first concession for hydrocarbon activities was the block 1AB, an area of 4981.5 km2
located in the extreme north of the Peruvian Amazon in Loreto Department. In 1971 the
Peruvian government and the American company Occidental Petroleum Corporation (Oxy)
signed the contract for block 1AB. In 1972 Oxy drilled the first productive well and shortly
thereafter blocks 1AB and 8, which together occupied the whole of the Corrientes basin,
became the most productive in the country, at their peak accounting for 65% of national
petroleum production (Orta-Martínez et al 2007). In 2000, this concession was transferred to
Pluspetrol Norte S.A. and will expire in 2015. Its productivity has decreased last years and in
July 2011 it took a value of 18074 barrels per day (Bbls)1, representing the 11.24% of the whole
Peruvian oil production (MEM 2011). In the block 1AB, there are 11 central production
facilities, 360.3 km of main pipeline routes and 250 wells and is connected with the North-
Peruvian Pipeline. According to Hydrocarbons statistics yearbook of 2011 (“Anuario Estadístico
de Hidrocarburos”) (MEM 1996-2011), only 136 wells are currently active: 114 for oil
production and 22 for formation water reinjection.

The block 1AB is located in the large sedimentary Marañón Basin. The three main rivers that
cross this area are Pastaza river, Corrientes river and Tigre river, all of them are tributary of the
Marañón river. Around 10 000 indigenous people inhabit this block, mainly Achuar and Kitchua
communities. Nine settlements are located inside the block 1AB. However, others nearby
communities which are not directly settled in the block depend on their territory to hunt, fish
and plant small gardens for daily subsistence (Map 1). The population in this area is
characterized by low incomes and high rates of illiteracy, infant mortality and chronic
malnutrition (INEI, 1993 consulted in Orta 2007).

1
1Bbls is equivalent to 159 litres

7/50
Several environmental and health impacts (e.g. deforestation or pollution, and lead or
cadmium blood levels over established permissible limits (DIGESA 2006)) have already been
reported related to oil activities in the block 1AB. According to Orta-Martínez (2010) due to
negligence or cost-cutting, oil companies have not taken adequate steps to mitigate the
environmental and health impacts of their activities in the block 1AB. Since 2005, an ICTA-UAB
team, in collaboration with three indigenous organizations (FECONACO, FEDIQUEP and
FECONAT) and two local NGOs (Racimos de Ungurahui and Shinai) planned and developed an
indigenous program for mapping and monitoring the oil industry impacts. From 2006 onwards,
as a product of this participatory monitoring project a detailed database of oil spills has been
constructed.

To date, there has been no comprehensive review of the area affected by the oil activities in
the block 1AB. Oxy conducted studies to identify the major oil spills in the area (Pluspetrol
Norte S.A. 2004) and the Ministry of Energy and Mines evaluated the deforestation related to
oil activities (MEM 1998). The aim of this paper is to provide a more complete examination of
the impacts jeopardizing the biocultural diversity of the block 1AB. There is neither a scientific
work on animal mobility and ingestion of oil nor a spatial analysis of oil impact on the
hydrological nets. To fill this gap, this paper seeks to ascertain the area under the influence of
oil activities in the block, by means of both approaches, and taking also into account the
temporal variability.

The animal mobility and ingestion of oil approach aims to consider the following situation:
because of leaching by abundant rainfall, most soils of the Amazon basin are poor in soluble
nutrients and this low elemental content of soils can be reflected in significantly lowered
essential element concentrations in the overlying vegetation (Stark 1970 consulted in Emmons
and Stark 1979). Herbivores in nutrient-poor ecosystems may be able to overcome deficiencies
in essential elements by using natural mineral licks (Emmons and Stark 1979), where they
consume oil or drink water (Kreulen 1985 in Blake et al 2011). Concentrations of some
elements and environmental contaminants in ingested soil might be so high in comparison
with the concentration in an animal’s diet that the soil becomes important as means of
exposure (Arthur and Alldredge 1797 consulted in Beyer et al 1994). Moreover, the confusion
experienced by animals envolving mineral licks with dumpings has been documented. For
instance, Weeks (1978 consulted in Beyer et al 1994) observed white-tailed deer ingesting soil
from a site where unknown chemicals had been dumped, as well as from natural salt licks.
Faeces from these deer contained an average of 29.4% inorganic matter.

A spatial analysis through the treatment of the species’ mobility and oil ingestion has been
performed with the following mammal species: tapir (Tapirus terrestris, Linnaeus, 1758),
white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari, Link, 1795), collared peccary (Pecari tajacu, Linnaeus,
1758), red brocket (Mazama Americana, Erxleben 1777) and lowland paca (Cuniculus paca,
Linnaerus, 1766). They have been selected for this study for two reasons. On one hand, a study

8/50
carried out in lowland forest of eastern Ecuador by Blake et al (2011) suggests that these
animals are the most frequent mammals visiting the studied mineral licks and on the other
hand, these species represent more than 83% of the biomass extracted by the hunting for
alimentation purposes in the studied region (Escobedo and Ríos 2003). Estimates of the area
exposed to oil ingestion by these mammals provide a wider understanding of the spatial
exposure of this block to oil pollution risk, by means of an innovative approach.

The second spatial analysis focuses on the identification of basins and permanent rivers
exposed to oil spill impacts. According to Orta-Martínez et al (2007) indigenous communities
have always used superficial water for drinking and cooking. However, some studies as the one
performed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM 1998) recorded high concentrations of
contaminants such as Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and mercury in surface water from
tributary streams as well as in larger rivers, such as Corrientes, Tigre and Pastaza.

To summarise, the objective of this research is to determine the area exposed to oil spill risks
in the block, by means of two spatial analysis approaches, taking into account temporal
variability. The hypothesis of this research is that the impacted area by oil activities in the
block 1AB is much larger than the 2037.2 hectares that the Ministry of the Environment
(MINAM 2010) declares.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A preliminary search and pre-processing of geographical information has been a crucial asset
upon which the research presented here was developed. Given the difficult access to data
regarding mining and hydrocarbon activities and infrastructure and the insufficient
transparency policies undertaken by the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines and the
Peruvian state energy companies (Perupetro), obtaining this detailed information has been the
first challenge to overcome. The following sources have been selected for the purposes of this
study, due to their quality standards: Data related to limits and oil infrastructures of block 1AB
come from Perupetro (the Peruvian state energy company) databases, World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF) digitalisations and own digitalisations. Indigenous settlements and titled
indigenous lands data has been obtained from the “Instituto del Bien Común” database and
used indigenous lands spatial information comes from the participatory mapping project (Orta-
Martínez, under review). The digital elevations model has been downloaded from the US
Geological Survey. From this last data, permanent rivers were obtained. Subbasins data come
from Orta-Martínez (2007). Regarding to oil spills, georeferenced images of spills have been
digitalised by us from the Complementary Environmental Plan “Plan Ambiental
Complementario” (Pluspetrol 2004). The major source of spill data has been the database

9/50
created in 2006 by the participatory monitoring system, which includes detailed information of
oil spills, including pictures, geographic coordinates and a comprehensive description of them.

Due to the variety of sources, a homogenization of the data format (coordinate system,
projection, units, etc.) was required, as well as, in some cases, the use of specialised tools from
ArcGIS 10 to transform the data available in useful data for this study.

Oil Spill risk related to each infrastructure

Two different approaches have been used to calculate the risk of oil spill (and other pollutants)
associated to oil infrastructures: the operational risk approach and the known spills approach.

The operational risk approach: This approach allows calculating the past risk of oil spills. The
risk is calculated according to values from the literature for the systematic dumping that
occurs regularly in the following oil infrastructures:

• Wells (Oil extraction): Orta-Martínez (2010) claims that 2-6Bbls of crude oil were dumped
weekly in each well of block 1AB due to maintenance and pressure control activities
(‘operational leaks’). These obsolete practices were probably used until 2001, when the
block 1AB was transferred from Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY) to Pluspetrol
Corporation S.A. In this study, the ratio of 4 Bbls per week and well is used to define the
annual operational risk of wells.
• Wells (Drilling): According to (UNEP-IE/E&P-Forum 1997:15), the drilling of a typical well
produces 300-600 tonnes of drilling mud2 and 1000-1500 tonnes of cuttings. These drilling

2
E&P Forum/UNEP describes these muds as the “specialized fluid made up of a mixture of
clays, water (sometimes oil) and chemicals, which, once drilling commences, is
continuously circulated down the drill pipe and back to the surface equipment. Its purpose
is to balance underground hydrostatic pressure, cool the bit and flush out rock cuttings”
(UNEP-IE/E&P-Forum 1997:7). The specific composition of drilling muds varies at each oil
field. E&P Forum/UNEP suggests that “water -based drilling fluids have been demonstrated
to have only limited effect on the environment. The major components are clay and
bentonite which are chemically inert and nontoxic. Some other components are
biodegradable, whilst others are slightly toxic after dilution. The effects of heavy metals
associated with drilling fluids (Ba, Cd, Zn, Pb) have been shown to be minimal, because the
metals are bound in minerals and hence have limited bioavailability. Oil -based drilling
fluids and oily cuttings, on the other hand, have an increased effect due to toxicity and
redox potential. The oil content of the discharge is probably the main factor governing
these effects’ (UNEP -IE/E&P-Forum 1997:13). They affirm that major risks arise from spills
and leakage of chemicals and oil, and that simple preventative techniques such as
segregated and contained drainage systems should be incorporated into facility design and
maintenance. Other authors estimate the risk to be considerable since ‘common
components of drilling fluids can solubilize the barium, creating hazardous waste’ (Doyle
1994 consulted in Orta-Martínez 2007)

10/50
 muds have been abandoned on open waste pits or discharged straight into the nearest
water bodies (Orta-Martínez et al 2007).Such practices were probably used until 2001,
when the block 1AB was transferred from Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY) to
Pluspetrol Corporation S.A. In this analysis 450 tonnes of drilling mud and 1250 tonnes of
cuttings are the risk values assumed in a drilling of a well.
• Central production facilities: Pluspetrol (2004) reports the number of barrels of formation
water3 dumped per day in every battery, as well as the concentration of crude oil mixed
within the formation water in each production site. An average of 122000 Bbls of
formation water with a mean concentration of 255.6 ppm of crude oil is released to the
environment daily. The lowest values of barrels of formation water and barrels of crude oil
dumped by a battery have been assigned for those batteries in which these data were not
available. In this study these assumptions have been used to obtain the annual risk values.
According to Pluspetrol (2010), from 2009 onwards, the totality of formation water
produced has been reinjected. Consequently, the operational risk of this type of
infrastructure is considered null since2009.
• Pipeline: As a result of the analysis of the spill database produced by the participatory
monitoring (see Known spills approach), the number of oil barrels dumped per year in the
pipeline net is known4.

The known spills approach: This second approach is intended to analyse the current and future
risk of oil spills (and other pollutants). The risk is calculated based on the oil spills detected
through a participatory monitoring system.

From 2006 onwards, as a product of a participatory monitoring project a detailed database of

oil spills has been constructed. This includes pictures, geographic coordinates, information
about the origin of the spill and other descriptive data related to each affected area.

The oil spills reported have been used to calculate the risk associated to each infrastructure.
The quality and quantity of the database is very heterogeneous. On one hand, due to the
recent start of this monitoring project, lots of old spills have not been reported. Only detected
spills dated from 2005 onwards have been used for the calculation. On the other hand, the
monitoring has been more exhaustive in certain production regions than in others of the same

3
Formation, produced or production water is defined as ‘water originating from the natural oil
reservoir, that is separated from the oil and gas in the production facility’ (E&P orum/UNEP
1997: 56). The physical and chemical quality of the water varies in each oil field, but
broadly speaking ‘produced water is at least four times saltier than ocean water and often
contains “industrial strength” quantities of toxins such as benzene, xylene, toluene, and
ethylbenzene. Heavy metals such as barium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and mercury
have also been found in produced water. Produced water can also be radioactive—in some
cases, as much as 100 times more radioactive than the discharge of a nuclear power plant’
(Doyle 1994 consulted in Orta-Martínez 2007).
4
This value has been calculated for the period 2005 – 2011, but in this analysis it has been
extrapolated for older times Due to the limitations of the oil spill database constructed by
participatory monitoring, this value is probably an underestimation of the reality.

11/50
block 1AB. For instance, the lower the distance between an indigenous settlement and the
production place, the more detailed and accurate the monitoring in the area is. In fact, the
monitoring system is only implemented in one of the three major basins affected by the 1AB
oil block, the Corrientes River (by the indigenous federation of the Achuar indigenous
people).Due to this spatial heterogeneity, only the most extensively monitored production
area has been used to extrapolate the oil risk to other areas of the 1AB oil block. First of all,
the spills have been classified in two groups according to its origin (well or pipeline). Then, they
have been divided again in two categories depending on the volume dumped (i.e.< or >=10
barrels). Knowing the average of volume dumped in the spills of both volume categories and
the happening probability of both types of spills, an average volume dumped per spill has been
obtained for each kind of infrastructure.

Then, the ratio of spills per a single well or spills per meter of pipeline has been calculated
dividing the spills originated in each type infrastructures by the number of wells or the number
of meters of pipeline located in the selected area. In order to get annual ratios, these value
have been divided by the number of years comprised in the study period (2005-2011). These
annual ratios have been multiplied by the respective average volume dumped per spill. Finally,
the annual volume dumped per well or per meter of pipeline has been obtained.

Since data regarding oil spills in central production facilities is lacking (access to the monitoring
team is not allowed by the oil company), the risk of oil spill from a central production facility
has been assumed to be equal to the one for wells.

Estimation of the oil spill risk in the Block 1AB

In order to ascertain the annual quantity of oil and other pollutants spilled or discharged in the
block 1AB, the number of infrastructures (or the length, in the case of the pipelines) located in
this area has been multiplied by the associated risk of each infrastructure. This analysis has
been performed twice, using the values of past and present risk obtained through each
approach (operational risk approach and known spills approach).

Although the oil activities started in the block 1AB in 1971, the whole actual infrastructure was
created gradually. Own calculations based on data from annual Petroperú reports -‘Informe
Estadístico Anual’- (Petroperú 1970–89) and the Annual reports from the Peruvian Ministry of
Energy and Mines (Ministerio de Energía y Minas 1996–2011) give an average age of 25 years
to the whole infrastructure system. From these data, the quantity of each pollutant dumped
during the history of oil activity in the block 1AB has been determined.

12/50
Multi-dimensional spatial analysis

Hydrology

The aim of this analysis is to identify the exposition of permanent rivers to oil spills and the
discharge of other pollutants. Considering the risk of the different oil infrastructures and the
number of infrastructures located in every subbasin, the quantities of different substances
dumped in these basins and rivers are obtained. The following analysis has been performed
twice, using the values of past and present risk obtained by each approach.

Taking the digital elevation model as preliminary data, permanent rivers5 have been drawn by
the Hydrology tools of Arcgis10. Subbasins were delimitated by Orta-Martínez (2007) using the
application Watershed analysis from TNTmip software. On one hand, for every subbasin a spill
risk has been given in view of the presence of infrastructures in its area (kilometres of pipeline,
number of wells and central production facilities) and their operational risk. The aim of
quantifying the risk of spill in a subbasin is to ascertain the quantity of oil, formation water and
drilling products that have been dumped rather than to delimitate the exact affected area.
However, to produce a more comprehensible product, the area located upstream of the
infrastructure has not been symbolised as exposed to spill risk. On the other hand, permanent
rivers have been qualified as exposed when located downstream from the infrastructures
through the whole block 1AB. The transport of the different pollutants through the
hydrological system has not been analysed, since we have not considered flows of water,
dilution, evaporation, immobilization or other processes the different compounds may suffer.
A more in-depth analysis of the permanent rivers’ affectation has been carried out by
introducing the criteria Stream Order following the Strahler method.

Spatial analysis: animal mobility and oil ingestion

In this analysis, the area affected by the spills has been determined through the mobility of the
five selected mammals, which are identified as mineral-licks visitors and that play an important
role in the indigenous alimentation.

The independent variables of this analysis are the home ranges of the selected species, and
the number of barrels dumped by each infrastructure6 in the distance buffer polygons
delimitated by the home ranges. The home range for Tayassu pecari is 130 km2 (Kiltie and
Terborgh 1983), for Pecari tajacu is 1.5 km2 (Mayor et al 2007), for Mazama americana is1 km2
(Maffei and Traber2003 consulted in Tobler et al 2009; Nowak 1991), for Tapirus terrestris
is2.75 km2 (Ayala 2003 and Tobler 2008 consulted in Tobler et al 2009), for Cuniculus paca is
0.2 km2(Mayor et al 2007).

5
The threshold used to select permanent rivers from the whole flow accumulation path was
based on field data.
6
Large spills have been also buffered, as well as contaminating infrastructure from which the
spill risk is not quantified.

13/50
The following methodology has been performed for each species separately and using the
values of past and present risk. Therefore, 10 different scenarios have been examined.

Considering the oil infrastructure as the origin of the spills, distance buffers have been drawn
surrounding each installation. The home range diameter has been taken as a distance value.
Thereafter, every buffer polygon has received a risk value according to the surrounded
installation. Due to its continuous lineal character the risk given to pipeline buffers depends on
the home range of each species. The larger the home range is, the longer stretch of pipeline
fits inside this area and is reachable by the species. So, the risk given to pipelines buffers has
been calculated as the spill per kilometre of pipeline multiplied by the diameter of the species
home range. In order to take into account the increase of risk which entails the overlapping of
different buffers, the risk value of the overlapped areas has been added.

RESULTS

Oil spills in Block 1AB

From the beginning of the upstream activities in the block 1AB, 24 MMBbls7 of crude oil have
been dumped into the environment due to the operational risk of the oil industry
infrastructure. 5% of it came from the operational leaks from productive wells and another
0.1% has its origin in the pipelines net. The remaining and biggest volume of crude has been
spilled from the central production facilities into the rivers mixed with 10074 MMBbls of
formation water. Furthermore, in order to drill the 250 wells of the Block 1AB, 112500 tonnes
of drilling mud and 312500 tonnes of cuttings have been released into the environment during
this period. In average, 962 MBbls8 of crude oil and 403 MMBbls of formation water were
dumped into the environment each year.

The performed analysis of the spills database produced by the participatory monitoring system
suggests that, nowadays, each well and each kilometre of pipeline has an associated spill risk
of 1.78 and 3.07 Bbls/year, respectively. According to these obtained data, 1490.8 Bbls of oil
have been dumped each year in the Block 1AB from 2005 onwards. 69% of this quantity has its
origin through the pipeline net, another 29.8% comes from the wells and the remaining 1.2% is
released from the central production facilities.

7
1 MMBls is equivalent to 1.000.000 Barrels
8
1 Mbls is equivalent to 1.000 Barrels

14/50
Surface waters and basins affected by oil spills in Block 1AB

Since 1971, at least9 125 of the 574 subbasins that conform the Block 1AB have received some
type of pollutant.

Systematic oil spills have been affecting all these 125 subbasins. Each year, 44% of the polluted
subbasins have received less than 50.5 Bbls of oil; another 44% got 50.5-2500 oil Bbls and the
remaining 12% received 25000-182600 oil Bbls (map 2).

Moreover, the totality of formation water produced in the period 1971-2009 has been
released in 15 of the 125 affected subbasins. 26.7% of them received the lower volume of
formation water: 1095 MBbls each year. A 46.7% got annually 16425-36575 MBbls of this
product and the remaining 26.7% got 67525-94900 MBbls of formation water per year (map
3).

At least 65 of the 125 affected subbasins have probably received drilling mud and cuttings
produced during the drilling of the wells. Almost the half (44.6%) of these basins has got 2972
tonnes of these products. A 27.7% has received 5944 tonnes and in the remaining affected
subbasins 8916 - 29720 tonnes have been dumped in each one (map 4).

According to the probabilities obtained from the participatory monitoring system, nowadays
spills have affect at least 125 of the 574 subbasins that conform the Block 1AB. Each year,
54.4% of the polluted subbasins receives less than 8.5 Bbls of oil; 35.2% got 8.6-21.5 oil Bbls
and the remaining 12% received 21.6-50.5 oil Bbls (map 5).

In both scenarios, 22.2% of the permanent rivers comprised inside the Block 1AB may have
been directly affected or received polluted waters from upstream (table 1). More than 610
kilometres of rivers with a low stream order (1-3) value are exposed to the oil industry and are
close to the spill origins, representing the 14% of this type of rivers. Rivers classified with the
higher stream order values (6-7) present 165 kilometres (97.06%) in a risky situation, usually
farther from the contamination focus than the small rivers.

9
These values are underestimated, because the location of some wells remains unknown to the
general public, and we consider that they could easily be located in subbasins which we
have classified as non-affected in this study.

15/50
 Rivers of the Exposed rivers % Affected
Stream Order
Block 1AB (Km) (Km) rivers
1 2515,9 239,9 9,5
2 1227,9 217,1 17,7
3 514,1 155,7 30,3
4 307,8 182,5 59,3
5 163,7 129,0 78,8
6 63,7 63,5 99,7
7 106,4 101,6 95,5
Total 4899,5 1089,4 22,2
Table 1. Percentage and kilometres of affected rivers according to their
stream order. Source: Own elaboration.

Area exposed to pollution considering animal mobility

As regards the specie with the smallest home range (Cuniculus paca), 6.3% of its theoretical
habitat -6.3% of block area- (315.2 km2 of 4981.5 km2) is exposed to oil pollution. Concerning
to Mazama americana, Pecari tajacu and Tapirus terrestris, this percentage increases to 13.6%
(678.3 km2), 16.5% (821.5 km2) and 21.9% (1093 km2) respectively. Finally, for the almost
nomadic (Kiltie and Terborgh 1983) Tayassu pecari, 94.2% (4690.8 km2) of the area is exposed
to pollution. Figure 1 shows the difference intensity of the pollution risk for every species due
to the overlapping oil infrastructure, and for both approaches applied.

DISCUSSION

From the beginning of upstream activities in the block 1AB, 24 MMBbls of crude oil have been
dumped into the environment. This quantity is almost 100 times the oil dumped in the Exxon
Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 and more than 2.5 times the oil released in the Arabian
Gulf/Kuwait spill in 1991, considered the largest oil spill in history (NOAA 1992). According to
Orta-Martínez (2010), due to negligence or cost-cutting, oil companies have not taken the
adequate steps to mitigate the environmental and health impacts of their activities in the
block 1AB, and when operations began, they carried out practices that were illegal or severely
restricted for decades in most oil producing states of the USA (Goldman, La Torre López and
Lya Ramos 2007 consulted in Orta-Martínez 2010). One of these practices is the dumping of
untreated production waters into freshwater streams and waterways. An average of 122000
Bbls per day of formation water, with a mean concentration of crude oil of 255.6ppm, have
been released in each central production facility -own calculation based on PAC (2004)-. These
dumping practices were the origin of almost 95% of crude oil spilled annually in the block. The
wells had also a high associated operational oil spill risk, which according to Orta-Martínez

16/50
(2010) was 2-6 Bbls per week and per well. This infrastructure was responsible for 5% of the oil
spilled. To these spills, we have to add the drilling muds (300-600 tonnes) and cutting (1000-
1500 tonnes) dumping when drilling a new well (UNEP-IE/E&P-Forum 1997:15), as well as the
frequent pipeline spills.

Regarding to the past risk of oil spills, we found much higher volumes of total oil spilled than
the amounts reported by the oil industry. According to the records of oil spills between 1998
and 2006, reported to OSINERG (the regulatory body for energy investment) by the oil
companies, the annual ratio of barrels dumped in the Block 1AB during this period was 26.8 oil
Bbls/year, while our results show that, in average, 962000 Bbls/year of crude oil were dumped
annually into the environment. Even comparing the data reported by the oil companies with
the present risk of oil spills obtained from the spill database produced by the participatory
monitoring project (from 2005 onwards), the volume of total oil spilled and then number of
spills occurred are much higher in the second figures, that suggest an annual oil spill of 1490.8
Bbls and an average of 119 spills per year, against the ratios of 26.8 oil Bbls/year and less than
one spill per year declared by the companies. Such an extreme contrast may be explained, at
least in part, by the fact that companies neither report oil spills smaller than 10 Bbls10 nor the
oil contained in the formation waters discharged into the environment. So that, we can affirm
that the figures that they report are great underestimations of the real situation.

Although production standards have improved since the 1970s (e.g. reinjectation of formation
water since 2009, decrease of the operational risk associated to well maintenance practices,
etc.) infrastructures of the Block 1AB are prone to spills. Volumes of oil spilled in block 1AB
(according to Pluspetrol data) are extremely high even when compared to Pluspetrol average
volume of oil spilled all over the world (4.36 Bbls/MMBOE versus 34.83 Bbls/MMBOE). Such
high volume of oil spilled in 1AB oil block, could be due to the longevity of oil infrastructure
(most of the pipelines have never been replaced) and the insufficient capacity of storage tanks
and drainage systems at well sites and waste pits (containing drilling muds or spilt
hydrocarbons) to cope with unexpected increases of oil well pressures or with run-off due to
heavy rains or excessive dumping.

When comparing our results related to the current spill risk with the ones reported by
Pluspetrol between 2008-2010 (Pluspetrol 2010), again a huge contrast is observed, although
in this case the company’s reports include oil spills larger than 1 Bbls. In accordance with the
calculations by Pluspetrol 2010, 277.7 Bbls of oil were dumped to the environment each year
and 13.5 spills occurred each year in the 2008-2010 period. Our results, based on the spill
database created by means of the participatory monitoring project, estimate in 1490.8 Bbls
the oil spilled annually in the Block 1AB, overcoming more than five times the number of
spilled Bbls reported by the company. According to our results, the number of spills occurring

10
Until 2006, oil companies were obligated to report to OSINERG only the spills bigger than 10
barrels

17/50
annually is 119, from which 15.6 are originated in wells and central production facilities and
103.4 took place through the pipeline net. Such differences may be explained because the
company fails to report the total amount of oil spills.

Although the whole sources of oil pollution have not been taken into consideration in this
analysis (i.e. periodic cleaning of pipelines, the use of untreated hydrocarbon residues from
the bottom of storage tanks for company road maintenance, the abandonment of open pits of
crude oil testing in exploratory wells or pollution plumes from gas flaring and burning of
petroleum spills, etc.), the study of the most pollutant activities enables a spatial and temporal
interpretation of the distribution of pollution risk.

The number of subbasins affected by these pollution activities is really high: almost 22% of the
subbasins are directly11 in risk to be affected by oil spills, including the Tigre, Corrientes and
Pastaza river basins. Regarding freshwater bodies, there are more than 1000 km of streams
and rivers that may be affected, almost a quarter part of the block permanent rivers’ length.
The transport, evaporation, immobilization or other processes that the different oil
compounds may suffer through the hydrological system have not been analyzed. However, we
have considered under risk of being affected by oil spills all flow paths from a source of
pollution through the whole block 1AB arguing the fact that in 1998 the Ministry of Energy and
Mines (MEM 1998) recorded high concentrations of contaminants such as Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPH) and mercury in all the rivers receiving production waters, even in the
larger ones (such as the Corrientes, Tigre and Pastaza) despite their capacity for dilution. High
concentrations of hydrocarbons, barium, lead and chlorides were also found in samples of
surface water from tributary streams. Petroleum spills of varying sizes were identified on the
surface of rivers and on land (MEM 1998). Thereafter and considering the high quantities of
pollutants dumped through history, the number of kilometres of rivers affected is probably not
overestimated. It is important to take into account that although block 1AB is not overlapping
with any protected area, some rivers that cross this area flow to the National Reserve Pacaya-
Samira and the Ramsar site “Complejo de humedales del Abanico del río Pastaza”, jeopardizing
these valuable natural sites.

Regarding the area exposed to oil pollution, the results found by considering the animal
mobility and soil ingestion in the spatial analysis, depend on the species in which the study is
performed. On one hand, as for the animal with the smallest home range (Cuniculus paca),
6.3% of its theoretical habitat -6.3% of block area- (315.2 km2 of 4981.5 km2) is exposed to oil
pollution. On the other hand, with regard to the almost nomadic (Kiltie and Terborgh 1983)
Tayassu pecari, 94.2% (4690.8 km2) of the area is exposed to pollution. We can contrast these

11
We have considered that a subbasin risks to be affected directly by oil spills when a well,
pipeline or central production facility is located in its area. This percentage could increase
considerably if we take into account that many subbasins are located some tens (even
hundreds) of meters downstream from oil infrastructures that are surely affected by oil
pollutants.

18/50
results with those suggested by MEM (1998), claiming that the 10538 hectares of the block are
deforested, affected by effluents or covered by crude oil spills. Taking into consideration both
studies, we can obtain a more complete view of the variety of impacts of oil activities and the
area exposed to them.

When comparing our results related to the area exposed to contamination considering the
animal mobility with the affected area value given by MINAM (2010), even the area affected in
the scenario of a very territorial species (Cuniculus paca) is more than 15 times larger than the
value that the company claims. MINAM (2010) declares that only 2037.2 hectares (0.409% of
the block area) is impacted by oil activities. This fallacy is only taking into account the area on
which the installations are placed.

Our results highlight also relevant socio-environmental implications of the pollution risk that
have to be taken into account. In this case, we refer to the importance of the species under
study for the feeding of the indigenous communities in the area. Tayassu pecari is the animal
which contributes the most in terms of biomass (35.79%) to the indigenous diet (Escobedo and
Ríos 2003). According to our results, the hunting of a white-lipped peccary having visited a spill
is probable in almost the whole block 1AB. The other selected species contribute a 47.47% to
the biomass extracted by hunting. The average area exposed to contamination regarding these
species is alarming. It occupies 747 km2 (14.6% of the block area).

The results of this study have both a theoretical and a practical significance. In theoretical
terms, the current article provides a methodological framework for spatial oil pollution
exposure analysis. At a practical level, this study has many policy implications for the
mitigation of the environmental and health impacts related to oil activities in the Peruvian
Amazon as well as in any other oil extraction project elsewhere, since it provides evidence of
huge areas affected by oil activities, areas with a larger oil pollution risk than the one reported
by oil companies, in terms of area under exposure (Petroperu in MINAM 2010) and in terms of
volume of oil and other pollutants discharged into the environment (Pluspetrol 2010). Further
research should aim for an integral vision of the impacts of the oil activity in the block,
considering the study of deforestation and forest disturbance associated to oil activities.
Moreover, a more detailed analysis of the affectation of basins and rivers (as well as other
surface water formations such as pools) could be performed by the consideration of
evaporation, biodegradation, dilution, immobilization and other patrons.

19/50
CONCLUSIONS

The present work seeks to ascertain the total area under the influence of oil activities in the
1AB oil block, by means of an interdisciplinary approach, taking into account temporal
variability. The methods developed in this work provide novel approaches to study the area
exposed to oil spills in tropical rainforests. Up to date, the area affected by oil activities in the
rainforests has been only estimated through deforestation rates and land cover and land use
change studies. There is neither a scientific work on animal mobility and ingestion of oil nor a
spatial analysis of oil impact on the hydrological nets. In this sense, this study represents a step
further, since it provides a more detailed representation of the risk of oil pollution in the block
1AB and in similar concessions located in tropical rainforests.

The results presented here can contribute to a rigorous policy debate, which is urgently
needed as the Peruvian Amazon is set to face a dramatic increase in hydrocarbon-related
activity (Finer and Orta-Martínez 2010). The present approach opens up new avenues for
future researches orientated towards a more in-depth analysis and understanding of some
potential environmental and social impacts, through a historical and spatial analysis of the oil
pollution risk.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We want to thank all organisations that are involved with the participatory monitoring
program: FECONACO, FEDIQUEP and FECONAT, and all the indigenous people who participate
in the creation of the database. Without them, none of all this would be possible.

REFERENCES

Beyer N, Connor E and Gerould S 1994 Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife The Journal of
Wildlife Management 58 357-382

Blake J, Mosquera D, Guerra J, Loiselle B, Romo D and Swing K 2011 Mineral licks as diversity
hotspots in lowland forest of eastern Ecuador Diversity 3 217-234

DIGESA 2006 Evaluación de resultados del monitoreo del río Corrientes y toma de muestras
biológicas, en la intervención realizada del 29 de junio al 15 de julio del 2005 Informe No-
2006/DEPA-APRHI/DIGESA Dirección General de Salud Ambiental, Ministerio de Salud.

Doan T M and ArriagaW A 2002 Microgeographic variation in species composition of the

herpetofaunal communities of Tambopata Region, Peru Biotropica 34 101–17.

20/50
Emmon L and Stark N 1979 Elemental composition of a natural mineral lick in Amazonia.
Biotropica 11 311-313.

Escobedo A and Ríos C 2003 Uso de la fauna silvestre, peces y de otros productos forestales no
maderables en las comunidades de las etnias Quechua y Achuar del Río Huasaga, Loreto-Perú.
Undergraduate thesis of the Biology Degree. Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía peruana.
Iquitos, Perú.

Finer M, Jenkins C N, Pimm S L, Keane B and Ross C 2008 Oil and gas projects in the western
Amazon: Threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples PLoS ONE 3 e2932.

Finer M, Orta-Martínez M, 2010 A second hydrocarbon boom threatens the Peruvian Amazon:
trends, projections, and policy implications. Environmental Research Letters 5 014012

Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo de Pueblos Andinos, Amazónico y Afroperuanos (INDEPA)

2009 Mapa Etnolingüístico del Perú (Lima: INDEPA) available at
www.indepa.gob.pe/archivos/mapa.swf.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI) 2008 II Censo de comunidades indígenas

de la Amazonía Peruana 2007(Lima: INEI) .

Kiltie R and Terborgh J 1983 Observations on the Behavior of Rain Forest Peccaries in Perú:
Why do White-lipped Peccaries Form Herds? Tierpsychol. 62 241-255.

Mayor P, Santos D and López M 2007 Sostenibilidad en la Amazonia y cría de animales

silvestres. Iquitos – Perú I.S.B.N.: 978-603-45058-5-8.

MEM 1998 Evaluación ambiental Territorial de las Cuencas de los ríos Tigre-Pastaza Ministerio
de Energía y Minas, Lima.

MINAM 2010 Áreas intervenidas en actividades de exploración y explotación de hidrocarburos

en la Amazonía Peruana. .

Ministerio de Energía y Minas de Perú 1996–2011 Anuario Estadístico de Hidrocarburos (Lima:

Ministerio de Energía y Minas).

Ministerio de Energía y Minas de Perú 2011 Producción promedio de hidrocarburos líquidos –

petróleo. Bloque 1AB – Pluspetrol Norte. Julio 2011 (Lima: Ministerio de Energía y Minas).

NOAA 1992 Oil spill case histories. 1967-1961. Summaries of significant U.S. and International
Spills Report No. HMRAD 92-11 (Washington: Hazardous materials response and assessment
division)

Nowak R 1991 Walker’s Mammals of the World. Volume 1. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, USA and London, UK.

Orta-Martínez M 2007 Etnocartografía de impactos de la actividad petrolera en el Río

Corrientes. Master Thesis in the PhD Programme in Environmental Sciences. Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona. Barcelona, Spain.

21/50
Orta-Martínez M 2010 Oil frontiers in the Peruvial Amazon. Impacts of oil extraction for the
Achuar of Río Corrientes. PhD Programme in Environmental Sciences. Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona. Barcelona, Spain.

Orta-Martínez M, Napolitano D A, MacLennan G J, O’Callaghan C, Ciborowski S and Fabregas X

2007 Impacts of petroleum activities for the Achuar people of the Peruvian Amazon: summary
of existing evidence and research gaps Environ. Res. Lett. 2 045006 Petroperú 1970–89 Informe
Estadístico Anual (Lima: Petroperú).

Pitman N C A et al 2008 Tree community change across 700 km of lowland Amazonian forest
from the Andean foothills to Brazil Biotropica 40 525–35.

Pluspetrol 2010 Informe de Sostenibilidad Ambiental y Social 2010 available at

http://www.pluspetrol.net/infsostambsoc2010.pdf

Pluspetrol Norte S.A. 2004 Plan Ambiental Complementario del Lote 1AB. (Lima: Pluspetrol
Norte S.A.)

Puertas P and Bodmer R E 1993 Conservation of a high diversity primate assemblage Biodiv.
Conserv. 2 586–93.

Terborgh J W, Robinson S K, Parker T A III, Munn C A and Pierpont N 1990 Structure and
organization of an Amazonian forest bird community Ecol. Monogr. 60 213–38 .

Tobler M, Carrillo-Percastegui S and Powell G 2009 Habitat use, activity patterns and use of
mineral licks by five species of ungulate in south-eastern Peru Journal of Tropical Ecology
(2009) 25:261–270

UNEP-IE/E&P-Forum 1997 Environmental management in oil and gas exploration and

production. An overview of issues and management approaches. UNEP IE/PAC Technical
Report 37 / E&P Forum Report 2.72/254.

22/50
 Map 1. Indigenous communities and oil infrastructures

!
(
(
!
(
!
San Jacinto
(
!
(
!
(
!
Forestal
Ó
( (
!
(!
!(
(!
(!
! (

Ó
(
(
!
!
(
!
(!
!
(!
(
(
!
(!
!(
( (
!
(
!

(
!
12 DE OCTUBRE

(!
!( MARISCAL AVELINO CACERES
Bartra
( (
!
(! !
! (
(!
! ((
! !!
(( !!
(
(
! (!
! (
!
( Shiviyacu
(
(!
!
!
(
!
( MARSELLA
Ó
( !((
(!
(!
!
(!
!(
(

Ó
( (
!
(!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
! SAN JUAN
(
!

(
! !!
(( JOSE OLAYA VISTA ALEGRE
Huayuri
(
!

TENIENTE RUIZ

Ó
(
! !
(
(
!((
!
0 4,5 9 18 27 36
(
!
(
! (
!
Kilometers
(
!
!
(
(
! Capahuari Norte
(
! NUEVO CANAAN

Ó(
!
((!
!(
(
!(
!
(
!
Dorissa
( (
! !
(!
!(
(
!
ANTIOQUIA
Jibarito Legend
(
!
Capahuari Sur
TITIYACU
( Gathering
!
(
!
Ó
!!
( (
(
(!
!(
(
!
(!
!(
(
!

(!
!(!
(
(!
!

Ó
(
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!(!
(
!
(
LOTE1AB

ÓÓ Ó
!!
( !!
(
Central production facility
( (
((
(!
!
((
! (!
!(
(
! NUEVA JERUSALEN
(
(
!
(
! (
! Well
ANDOAS VIEJO !
(
Pipeline
(
!
NUEVA
(
! ALIANZA DE CAPAHUARI
(
!
Indigenous settlement
(
!
HUAGRAMONA
(
!

1:600.000 Titled and used indigenous land

(
!
SWIN CAPAHUARIYACU
SAUKI
 Map 2. Exposure of subbasins and permanent rivers to past oil spill risk

± 0 4 8 16 24 32
Kilometers

San Jacinto Legend

Forestal
LOTE1AB

Ó
( Central production facility

Well
Bartra
(
!

Marsella B5 Pipeline
Shiviyacu
Rivers
Oil spill risk
Unexposed
Huayuri
Exposed

Oil Spill risk

Capahuari Norte Dumped Bbls per year
0,08 - 8,50
Dorissa Jibarito
8,51 - 21,50

Capahuari SurGathering 21,51 - 50,50

50,51 - 350,00
350,01 - 2500,00
2500,01 - 90000,00
90000,01 - 182600,00
stdbasin_extract
1:600.000
 Map 3. Exposure of subbasins to past formation water spill risk

±
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
San Jacinto
!!
(
Ó(
!
(
(!
!(
(!
(!
! (
(!
!(
Forestal
(
!
(
!
((Ó
(!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
! (
!

(!
!(

0 4 8 16 24 32
( (
!
(! !
! (

Kilometers
(!
! ((
! !!
(( !!
(
((
Bartra
(
! !
(!
!

(
!
(
(
!
(
!
(!
!(
Marsella
Ó ( B5
Ó
((
!
(!
!
!!
((
(

Shiviyacu
(
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
( Ó (
!
(
!

Legend
(
!
!
(
!
(
! !!
((
(
!
(
! Block 1AB
Huayuri
(
!
Ó(
(
!
(
!
!
( Ó
( Central production facility
(
!
Well
(
! (
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
Pipeline
(
!
(
!
Capahuari
(!(!( Norte
Ó
(!
!(
(
! ( (
!

Formation water spill risk

!
(!
!(
(
!
Dorissa
(!
!
(!
Ó Jibarito
( (
!
(
!
((
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(!
!(
Ó (!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
Dumped formation water bbls
(
! (!
!(!
( (!
!(!
(
1095000 - 16425000
!
( (
!
(!
!( !!
((
Gathering
ÓÓ
( !(!((!(!(!(!(
16425001 - 36500000
(
!

(
!
36500001 - 67525000
(
!
(
!
!
(
67525001 - 94900000
!
(
(
! (
!

1:600.000 Subbasins
(
!
(
!
 Map 4. Exposure of subbasins to past drilling muds and cutting dumping risk

±
!
(
(
!
!
(
(
!
(!
!(

Ó
San Jacinto
(
!
((!
!(
(!
(!
! (

!
(
!
(!
!
(!
(
(
!
(
Ó
Forestal
(
(
!
!!
((

(
!
(
!
(
!

(!
!(
0 4 8 16 24 32
Kilometers
( (
!
(! !
! (
(!
! ((
! !!
(( !!
(
(
! (!
!((
!
(!
!
(
!
(

Ó
Marsella B5
( Ó
( !((
Bartra
(!
(!
!(

Legend
(
! (!
!

Ó
(
Shiviyacu
(
!
(
!
(!
!((
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
!(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
! !!
(( Block 1AB
(
!
(
!

Ó
(
!
Huayuri
( (
!
!
(
Ó
( Central production facilities

Well
(
!
(
! (
! (
! (
!

Pipeline
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!

Ó
Capahuari
(!
(
!(
(
!( Norte
!
(
! ( (
! !
(!
!(
!
( Muds and Cuttings Dumping Risk
Ó
Dorissa Muds and cuttings tonnes per year
Ó
(!
!
(( ( Jibarito
! (
!
(
!
(!
!(
(
!
(
!
( (
!
(
!(
!
(!
( (
!
2972,00
! (
!
(
! (!
!(!
( (!
!(!
(
!
( (
!

ÓÓ
(!
!( !!
((
Gathering
(( (!
!
((
2972,01 - 5944,00
! (!
!(
(
!

(
!
(
! 5944,01 - 11888,00
!
(
(
!
!
( 11888,01 - 20804,00
(
!
20804,01 - 29720,00
(
!
(
!

1:600.000 Subbasins
(
!
 Map 5. Exposure of subbasins and permanent rivers to current oil spill risk

±
San Jacinto
Forestal

0 4 8 16 24 32
Kilometers

Legend
Bartra

Shiviyacu
Block 1AB

Ó
( Central production facility

Huayuri (
! Well
Pipeline
Rivers
Capahuari Norte
Spill risk
Dorissa Jibarito Unexposed
Exposed
Capahuari SurGathering
Spill risk
Dumped oil bbls per year
0,1 - 8,5
8,6 - 21,5
21,6 - 50,5

1:600.000 Subbasin