Is Syrian propaganda tool and oil company Gulfsands dodging EU sanctions?

Propaganda tool?

London-based Gulfsands Petroleum is operating as a propaganda tool for the Assad regime. In an interview from last Wednesday, the company’s communications director Ken Judge made statements that

  • claimed Islamic extremists had infiltrated protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s 11-year rule.

Yet the Syrian uprising is evidently supported by a broad swathe of the country. Scaremongering about “Islamic extremists” who “infiltrate” protests is an attempt to affirm the dictatorship’s distortion. (“Syrian govt claims Islamic extremists infiltrate rebel movement“)

  • defended Syria’s “efficient bureaucracy”, which allowed Gulfsands to sign a 35-year contract with fiscal terms “the best of any country in the Middle East” in only eight days.

Signing a 35-year contract in eight days is not evidence some much of efficiency, but of a dictatorship and corruption. Good practice involves publishing contracts and debating them within parliament and the public sphere, not making major economic decisions wiGulfsands Director Kenneth Judgeth no public oversight, transparency or accountability.

  • described their experience of working in Syria with the Syrian Government as “tremendous. [...] And we see every evidence of that continuing right to this very day.”

This last is from an interview two weeks earlier.

 

Dodging sanctions?

Serious questions needs to be asked as to whether Gulfsands are currently ignoring EU sanctions. The company based on Cork Street near Piccadilly, has close ties to individuals and organisations under sanction. 5.8% of Gulfsands shares are held by Al-Mashrek Global Invest Ltd, a fund recognised as tied to public corruption in Syria and controlled by the Syrian tycoon Rami Makhlouf, a central figure in Assad’s regime and cousin of the president. These shares were issued in 2007 in a special deal to accelerate extraction in Syria.

Al-Mashrek has been subject to EU sanctions (an asset freeze and a travel ban) since June, with Rami Makhlouf also listed individually by the EU and the US.

Gulfsands also holds a “strategic partnership” signed with Rami’s main Syrian front company, Cham Holdings, described by Gulfsands as “one of Syria’s most important business groups.” Through Cham Holdings, Makhlouf has dominated the Syrian economy in recent years, taking advantage of no-bid tenders and his relationships with key ministers to become the richest man in the country. As a result, Rami Makhlouf himself is the top hate-figure in Syria alongside Bashar and Maher Assad, with protests (including this photograph) denouncing his role and attacks on Syriatel, owned by Cham.

When the Gulfsands-Cham deal was signed in 2007, Gulfsands Chairman Andrew West was excited about the benefits of being formally allied with Assad’s top business crony: “We are optimistic that, in partnership with Cham Holding, Gulfsands will be able to acquire direct and indirect interests in several potentially high-value energy projects which have already been identified in Syria and Iraq.”
Cham’s Chairman Nabil Kuzbari – now also under sanctions – added, “For some time now, we have enjoyed a close working relationship with Gulfsands’ management and directors”. The joint venture – created as an acquisition vehicle for energy assets – was widely recognised as providing Gulfsands with the”influence necessary to achieve its aims in the region.”

Despite the EU sanctions on Makhlouf and Al-Mashrek, Gulfsands continues “business as usual” in Syria and has offered no public statement explaining how it will end co-operation or payments to either.

This is unsurprising, as Gulfsands has a history of dodging sanctions. The company was itself once a Houston, USA, based oil company with American directors. When in 2008 the US Treasury Department designated Makhlouf as a person benefitting from corruption who “used Syrian intelligence officials to intimidate” and whose “close business associations with some Syrian cabinet ministers have enabled him to gain access to lucrative oil exploration”, Gulfsands chose to maintain its alliance with Makhlouf. With US imposed sanctions on companies and US citizens dealing with Makhlouf, the company upped sticks, moved to London and sacrificed both its CEO and CFO.

The company does not set out the potential impact of EU sanctions in its annual report published in April 2011. The “Principal Risks and Uncertainties” leaves the issue untouched, an irresponsible lack of rsik assessment towards its shareholders.

Oil companies, possibly including Gulfsands, have also raised the issue of demanding compensation for sanctions. This creates an economic disincentive to further sanctions on oil exports or sales.

Gambling on repression

In his interview, Kenneth Judge sees no issues with aligning his company with the regime. Beyond that, the company is seeking to profit from instability, from its preparedness to work with a dictatorship that tries to cling to power:

“We’re a little further on the front foot in looking for new business opportunities elsewhere in the MENA region. And we are working quite earnestly to try to take advantage of perhaps the nervousness of some companies, or the inability of some companies, to finance themselves in the Middle East at the moment.”

The company’s main political concern in its annual report is that a “host country seeking to expropriate assets or change the terms of existing contracts.” But Gulfsands directors feel this is covered as “In the case of Syria we have successfully developed such relationships through Mahdi Sajjad as a result of our longstanding presence in the country.”

Rami Makhlouf will have given the Gulfsands board further reassurance with his statement that

“We will sit here. We call it a fight until the end. [...] They should know when we suffer, we will not suffer alone.”

Drilling as usual

Ken Judge also stated

“Whilst security is maintained at these facilities, we will remain able to operate our business.”

This is relevant, as parts of Syria’s oil infrastructure have begun to be targeted by the popular uprising, as people have realised that the crude produced by Gulfsands and Shell is the lifeblood for Assad’s regime. Gulfsands is relying on the Syrian military – now responsible for over 1,500 killings in recent months – to keep people away from the oil fields and pipelines.

Judge is happy to boast that at this point of crisis, Gulfsands is drilling and pumping at record levels:

“Having just returned from Syria with my colleagues, as I was there all last week, we’ve continued our activities whether they are in Damascus or in the field in the north east, uninterrupted throughout this period that you’ve seen on television or in the press. Without interruption, without interference or any consequence to our production, which has reached record levels. So in recent days we’ve been setting record levels of production for the company, and we’re actively working on projects to expand that production up to 24,000 barrels a day, in the second half of this year.”

Twelve wells are to be drilled in 2011, bringing extraction up to 33,000 barrels per day by 2012.

Gulfsands’ operations are concentrated in BLock 26, in the far north-eastern corner of Syria. This is the predominantly Kurdish part of the country, where the local population has long been subject to discrimination and repression.

Wikileaks cable shines light on ENI corruption in Uganda; Heritage offered to pay bribes in Congo

• SECRET US CABLE SHINES LIGHT ON ENI CORRUPTION IN UGANDA
• HERITAGE OFFERED TO PAY BRIBES IN CONGO

‘’If Tullow’s allegations are true – and we believe they are …”
US Embassy, Kampala, 17 December 2009

A secret United States diplomatic cable (below and here) published by Wikileaks last week has exposed the real politics of oil in Uganda, confirming that the Americans believed that corruption was endemic at the highest level of decision-making. The December 2009 report sent by the US embassy in Kampala confirms that:

- The Americans believed the allegations that Italian oil major Eni was trying to bribe its way into Uganda’s oil fields in late 2009 by making payments through the security minister (and ruling party secretary-general) Amama Mbabazi , using a holding company, TKL Holdings
- Tullow believe Tony Buckingham’s Heritage Oil – the very company it was partnered with -had also ‘compensated’ Ugandan politicians in order to facilitate a deal with Eni and assist Heritage’s exit from the country
- Heritage also offered to ‘take care’ of Congolese officials on behalf of its partner Tullow to get exploration moving on the other side of the lake

The cable, which largely reports a conversation between Tullow Vice President Tim O’Hanlon and the US Ambassador Jerry Lanier, was written at a crucial time: Heritage was seeking to sell its Lake Albert oil licenses to Eni; its then partner Tullow wanted them too. The three-way tussle resulted in weeks of secret negotiations in Kampala in which senior politicians lobbied on behalf of different corporate interests and money was widely rumoured to be changing hands.

Platform was handed a Ugandan intelligence document in January 2010, two months after the US cable was sent, outlining the ENI bribes – naming Mbabazi, the use of TKL Holdings, the role of frontmen Mark Christian and Moses Seruje, and the presence of Eni ‘broker’ Oded Mayer in Kampala.

No concrete evidence ever emerged. Heritage ultimately sold to Tullow, not Eni, and skipped the country without paying $400m in capital gains tax on the $1.3bn it received in the deal. Mbabazi remains one of the most influential of the National Resistance Movement old guard, close enough to President Museveni that few think he would have coordinated bribes without his boss’ sanctioning. It was reported at the time that Eni were furious that their payments had yielded no result.

Key questions remain:
- On what basis did the US embassy believe the allegations to be true? Had they conducted their own investigation and why were their concerns not shared?
- Why was evidence not shared with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which was then investigating ENI for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for bribery in Nigeria?
- Do the United States or other embassies have evidence of other payments made by oil companies in Uganda? Has Tullow sanctioned bribes or has it turned a blind eye to payments facilitated by its new partners, Total and CNOOC?
- Why have repeated Freedom of Information requests made by PLATFORM to the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office produced no answers when these matters are almost certain to have been under discussion? Especially given that the US cable documents O’Hanlon specifically asking the US Ambassador to work “in concert with the British High Commissioner” to raise concerns over the Heritage-ENI sale.

The leaking of the cable has caused a storm in Uganda, with just weeks to go before the Presidential election and with Tullow still fighting for government approval for production to start alongside Total and the China National Offshore Oil Company. The decisions taken in 2009/2010 – and the process by which Tullow ultimately won the battle of the companies – are still cloaked in secrecy.

ENI have issued a spluttering denial. ”ENI denies the serious allegations which are completely without foundation and has instructed its lawyers to initiate legal proceedings to compensate for any damage caused to the company’s reputation,” a spokesman said.

Meanwhile, Tullow’s O’Hanlon wrote to President Museveni two days ago, denying the conversation with the American Ambassador and desperately trying to smooth out the situation. Tullow are already unpopular with Ugandan politicians – these revelations so close to the election will sour relations further.

He wrote: “No doubt you have been made aware of the illegal theft of confidential communications from various US Embassies around the world including that in Kampala and the publication of selected and often doctored elements of these on the internet.

In one such release, I have been mentioned as accusing your Honourable Ministers ONEK and MBABAZI of involvement in corruption during a meeting I had with the US ambassador last year. This is absolutely false.

Of course, I never made such a claim to the US ambassador but merely discussed with him at our meeting in December 2009 the detailed stories published in the previous week’s local press and the associated rumors circulating in Kampala at that time. I have no evidence to present implicating the Honourable Ministers in corruption and have no reason to believe that the rumors sweeping Kampala at the time were actually true.

I can assure Your Excellency that we will continue to monitor these matters closely and will work in any way we can with the two Ministers involved to help clear their names. I remain available in Kampala and welcome any advice you may have to offer in this regard and sincerely regret this entire unhappy episode.

Respectfully Yours

Tim O’HANLON 
Vice-President, African Business

HERITAGE OFFER TO PAY BRIBES IN DRC

The cable also quotes O’Hanlon bemoaning the company’s lack of progress with its license on the other side of Lake Albert, in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

‘O’Hanlon said TULLOW’s exploration efforts on the DRC side of Lake Albert are hampered by TULLOW’s refusal to pay off key Congolese officials, including President Laurent Kabila. O’Hanlon added that Heritage recently offered to help TULLOW “take care” of problems on the Congolese side in order to begin exploration. TULLOW refused, according to O’Hanlon.’

Platform was handed a letter in Kinshasa in May 2010 confirming that Heritage had handed over legal “rights of negotiation” to its partner Tullow two years before. The two companies had signed a disputed Production Sharing Agreement in 2006 (leaked to PLATFORM and available here) and had been lobbying for exploration to start since then. The cable now reveals that Heritage did in fact still have a presence in Kinshasa which it was willing to exert on behalf of its partner – but behind the scenes. In the cable, O’Hanlon says Tullow refused this help. But Congolese are still asking:

- Why were Heritage and Tullow granted their original PSA in 2006? What payments were made then?
- If Tullow was officially handling negotiations with Kinshasa in 2009, why were Heritage still in a position to ‘take care’ of problems?
- Does Tullow now admit that it believed its DRC partner was prepared to offer bribes?
- Did the British Embassy in Kinshasa know about Heritage’s proposal to pay bribes? If so, why have the FCO, UK Trade & Industry and BIS not restricted their diplomatic support for the company, including its operations in Iraq?
- If the British Embassy was not informed by Tullow about Heritage’s offer, will it now – in light of these revelations – re-evaluate its close relationship with Tullow?
- Given the allegations about Heritage’s willingness to pay bribes, has the British Embassy in Kinshasa now passed all relevant information to the Serious Fraud Office in London?

The leaked cable only provides a first, partial picture of how companies and governments are colluding at Lake Albert to enrich themselves and the lengths oil executives will go to in order to secure contracts. Many other examples of corruption are well known to local journalists and communities at Lake Albert but cannot be proved without tracing the money or catching intermediaries red-handed. In many cases, evidence will only emerge much later, or when particular politicians and companies fall out of favour. But we are already getting glimpses of the dirty deals and dishonest politics that lie behind the promises and public relations. Heritage have left Uganda and DRC with $1bn in their pocket. But the nature of their relationships in both countries must still be the subject of urgent investigation.

This blog piece was written by Taimour Lay, Former PLATFORM researcher, Uganda and DRC

For more information on the history of Tullow and Heritage in Uganda and DRC, see PLATFORM’s reports athttp://www.carbonweb.org/uganda and http://www.carbonweb.org/drc



Tar Sands & corruption in Colorado

As the California Zephyr climbs slowly into the Rockies, my fellow train passengers in the observation carriage stare in silence through the enormous windows, as we pass hundreds of miles of narrow gorges, red rock cliffs and frozen waterfalls. Coyotes run through the snow as the train approaches, while studious bald eagles perched above streams ignore us, focusing instead on the fish in the clear water.

As we drop towards Utah the rail line follows the Colorado River, as it widens and gathers pace from various tributaries – it will become a mighty force at the Grand Canyon, before hitting the deserts of the south-west. Here its strength is sucked out of it – not by the scorching sun, but by Las Vegas, Los Angelese, thirsty agro-businesses and canals. Treaties guaranteeing Mexico a fair portion of the water are ignored, with barely a trickle crossing the border.

Yet here in the mountains of Colorado, the river remains barely more than a stream. Beaver dams span much of it, and hot springs join it – melting the ice briefly. In thin spots, we can climpse the cold water rushing past below.

Just a few miles north of us, Shell is trying to develop Rocky Mountain oil shale – a non-Canadian form of tar sands. Known as “the rock that burns,” oil shale refers to rocks that release liquid petroleum when heated to extreme temperatures. The highly controversial process could deliver immense fuel production, but many are worried about contamination of wild areas, pollution & draining of precious water and climate crisis acceleration.
Shell has already been working at Silt, near Rifle in Colorado since 2006, developing the infrastructure and technology to extract crude. Local farmers are opposing Shell’s operations, worried about the impacts on their livelihoods. A further 1.9 million acres of public land in Colorado, Utah & Wyoming are being made available in leases for commercial development by the US Bureau of Land Management.

However, a criminal investigation has been opened into Shell’s obtaining of these three lucrative leases on federal land in Colorado. The Justice Department is investigating whether Bush’s Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton illegally used her position to benefit Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company that later hired her. Shell apparently received “some of the best lands”, was the only company to secure three leases (no other company received more than one) and applied the day after the government released its call for proposals.

In early 2006 the department awarded Shell the three oil shale leases. Norton resigned two months later, saying that she had no job lined up. In December of that year, Shell announced it had hired Norton as in-house counsel to its unconventional fuels division, which includes oil shale.
 While Interior secretary, she had embraced an industry-friendly approach to environmental regulation that she called “cooperative conservation” and pushed the department to open more public land for energy production. Norton also backed commercial development of the oil shale reserves buried in the rocks of the Mountain West.

Each leases granted access to up to 160 acres of federal land apiece to develop shale programs — with an option to increase that to 5,000 acres once a technique proved commercially viable. 

On average, each of those 5,000-acre lease tracts holds an estimated $700-billion worth of recoverable oil (at a $70-per-barrel price), according to James T. Bartis, a shale expert at Rand Corporation. Shell has estimated the costs of recovering the oil at (an unrealistically low) $30 per barrel (to persuade its investors). In theory, this could leave Shell with a potential profit of about $1 trillion after royalties if all the oil is extracted.

Oil corruption in Congo (Brazzaville) – documentary

Yet another strong documentary from Al-Jazeera’s People & Power series, this time on oil corporations operating in Congo (Brazzaville), corruption and gas flaring.

 

Congo Brazzaville is one of the poorest countries in the world, despite the fact that it produces nearly 300,000 barrels of oil a day.Denis Sassou Nguesso, the country’s president has been in power for all but five of the last 30 years, since a military coup in 1979.

He has long been suspected of siphoning off large portions of the country’s oil revenues but suspicion only turned to proof when documents produced in court showed that oil belonging to the state had financed his son’s spending sprees in Hong Kong, Paris and Barcelona, and on his own stays in luxury New York hotels.

Many of Congo Brazzaville’s four million people are enraged that wealth from the country’s precious natural resources has been spent on luxuries when most of the population lives on less than a dollar day.