Tag Archives: resistance

Shell supports Syrian regime with $55 million during crackdown; one out of six Syrian tanks runs on Shell oil

Posted on by
1

Today, a Shell-chartered tanker is scheduled to dock in the Syrian port of Tartous. The Heidmar TBN will collect almost 600,000 barrels of crude oil purchased by Shell. The shipment, worth over $55 million, has been marketed to Shell by state company Sytrol, an integral part of Assad’s regime of power.

Repression of the democratic uprising in Syria has seen the regime kill over 1,000 and imprison 10,000. Yet Shell, one of the largest foreign investors in Syria, continues its close co-operation with the Ba’ath regime – extracting oil, meeting with regime leaders, delivering crude to state refineries and purchasing crude exports.

PLATFORM is revealing Shell’s support for Assad’s dictatorship and the company’s reliance on his military & police apparatus. Highlights include:
* 17% of Syrian tanks – instrumental in the repression of the uprising – run on fuel derived from Shell crude.
* Continued revenues paid by Shell are helping bankroll Assad’s crackdown. PLATFORM estimates that 4-8 out of every 100 tanks used to repress opposition are financed through revenues from crude extracted by Shell and its partners.
* Democracy protests and strikes have spread across the oil-producing regions in the southeast and the oil export ports on the Mediterranean. Shell is only able to continue its operations in these regions because of the brutal state repression and extreme force used by military and paramilitary forces in crushing the popular uprising and placing the cities under siege.

PLATFORM Researcher Lorenzo Paluello said: “While the British and Syrian public believe that suppressing a mass democratic uprising with tanks is problematic, Shell continues to work hand in glove with the regime. The people of Syria are rising up for freedom, but this company has placed itself firmly on the side of corrupt dictators. While massacres take place on the streets, Shell relies on the regime’s violence to maintain the “stability” it desires. This is a stability which prioritises profits at the expense of freedom from torture and the right to life.”

The close relationship between Shell and the Syrian regime is clear from both Syrian government and Shell public statements:
* On April 29th 2011, Shell officials in Damascus were courted by Syrian Prime Minister Adel Safar, who “stressed government’s support for the work of Shell” and promised to continued “providing the necessary facilities [to] contribute to strengthening its [Shell's] role”. This was over a month into the uprising after hundreds of casualties and credible accounts of widespread torture. The regime was making sure to keep Shell, one of the largest foreign investors in Syria, close during the period of turmoil. Shell’s General Manager in Syria Graham Henley and Prime Minister Adel Safar reviewed activities and increased future co-operation and joint programmes.
* Shell’s Deputy General Manager in Syria has repeatedly praised the Syrian regime in terms that equate Assad’s regime with the Syrian people: “This success could not have been achieved without the strong partnerships that have been developed over the years between Shell and the Government of Syria. We believe that the relationship Shell has with the Government and the Syrian people is mutually beneficial.”
* Ongoing co-operation – since the uprising began – between Shell and the Syrian regime includes social programmes that “completes the work carried out by the Baath Vanguards Organization” - the youth wing of President Assad’s ruling Baath Party.

PLATFORM Campaigner Lorenzo Paluello said “While Cameron condemns Assad, he allows British corporate support for the brutal crackdown. By prioritising business interests and energy dominance over democracy and human rights,Britain’s foreign energy policy gives Shell and BP a green light to make deals with dictators and shut their eyes and ears to cries for freedom and democracy.
Shell should stop co-operation with the regime’s police and military forces while the brutal crackdown continues. If this means that Shall cannot continue its operations, that is the correct choice for any responsible actor.”


Graham Henley – General Manager of both Syria Shell and the Al-Furat Oil Company – has barely been in this job for a year. Before that he was responsible for Shell’s Gbaran-Ubie project in Nigeria in Bayelsa State.

NOTES
[1] The Heidmar TBN is scheduled to collect 80,000 tonnes or 586,639 barrels of crude on 29th May 2011. It was chartered by STASCO, the Shell Trading and Shipping Company.
The crude purchased by Shell could be a shipment of Syria Light or a sourer/heavier blend of Syrian crude. The latter is valued at a significant discount to Brent, hence our conservative estimate of the payment. If the Heidmar TBN is loading Syria Light, the value could be over $65 million.
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar…

[2] Syrian military vehicles run on fuel produced in Syria’s refineries at Homs and Baniyas, supplied with crude extracted in the east of Syria, near Deir Al-Zour.
As of January 2010, Syria’s refining capacity was around 240,000 barrels per day, according to the UE EIA. Shell contributes 55,000 barrels of high quality sweet Syria Light per day through the Al-Furat Oil Company. In addition, Syria imports around 95,000 barrels per day of gasoil/diesel.

[3] Based on Al-Furat exports of 45,000 barrels per day of Syria Light and 110,000 barrels per day of heavy/sour crudes by the Syrian Petroleum Company in 2008. Shell/Al-Furat extraction has remained at the same level since 2008, while wider Syrian extraction levels have fallen slightly, to 387,000 barrels per day. Oil revenues cover around a quarter of the Syrian budget, including military costs. Shell is the dominant foreign oil company. For the exact calculations contact PLATFORM.

Royal Dutch Shell profiting from Sultan’s absolute rule in Oman

Posted on by
Reply

Unrest has reached Oman, the usually “sedate” and “tranquil” Sultanate on the southeastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula. Inspired by uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain, Omani youth took to the streets to challenge government corruption, cronyism, unemployment and a lack of democracy. Protests spread across the desert country, with police firing bullets and teargas from helicopters, killing at least six demonstrators. Sultan Qaboos exercises absolute power over his kingdom, as he has for forty years since he deposed his father.

Political parties are banned, as is collective bargaining. Omani subjects can’t hold a public meeting without the government’s approval, or express criticism of the sultan in any form or medium. Publication of books is limited and the government restricts their importation and distribution.

This all adds up to a profitable business environment for Shell. The company was the first to drill in Oman in 1956 and exported its initial tanker load of 543,000 barrels of crude in 1967, only three years before Qaboos ibn Said overthrew his father Said ibn Taimur.

Today, Shell still dominates the oil scene in the sultanate. Although other companies including BP are extracting gas, 80% of Omani crude is extracted by PDO – Petroleum Development Oman. Royal Dutch Shell is the primary foreign shareholderin this joint venture, controlling a 34% stake alongside the government’s 60% holding. Shell staff fill key positions, including Managing Director Raoul Restucci and Exploration Director Martin Stäuble. The company takes around 200,000 barrels of crude per day – 5% of its global production – from a relatively risk free and highly profitably operation. Shell also played a key role in establishing, constructing and running Oman’s two LNG (liquefied natural gas) plants – Oman LNG and Qalhat LNG – near the coastal town of Sur that has seen repeated demonstrations.

Having worked closely with Sultan Qaboos’ regime for the past forty years, Shell has developed an ongoing symbiotic relationship with the despot. John Malcolm, the Managing Director of PDO and Shell most senior representative in the country until 2010, demonstrated his allegiance to the crown in an obsequious introduction to the company’s 2007annual report:
“I would like to give special thanks to Your Majesty for your unflagging support and wise guidance to PDO over the years. Looking forward, our challenge as a Company is to work hand-in-hand with Your Majesty’s Government to secure our capability to produce oil and gas for the next 40 years. [...]

As we move towards an ever more complex and challenging future, we know that we can count on Your Majesty’s continuing support and guidance. For our part, we reaffirm our commitment to securing the future of the Sultanate of Oman under the wise leadership of Your Majesty.”

Shell’s close partnership with the Omani government is part and parcel of Britain’s foreign energy policy towards the region. The Sultan long always been an anglophile, having attended school in Kent, trained as a British officer at Sandhurst and served in the British Army in Germany in 1960. Today, sports pavilions bear his name at both Sandhurst and the RAF officers’ college, Cranwell. But the military relationship went much deeper than educating a young Qaboos.

Back in 2001, Ken Silverstein described in Salon how “the British have played an extraordinary role in Oman ever since the coup. For more than a decade afterward, British officers commanded all branches of Oman’s armed forces and hundreds more were “on loan” to the sultanate. No one was more influential in Oman than Timothy Landon, an officer in the British Special Air Services who was a classmate of the sultan’s at Sandhurst, the British military academy. He counseled the sultan on the coup, helped put down a leftist insurrection soon afterward, and later served as the rough equivalent of Oman’s national security adviser.”

This military support is not a thing of the past. The foreign office boasts in an article titled “The UK & Oman: our relationship”, that “The UK has a very strong defence and security relationship with Oman. Nearly 100 British military personnel are on loan to the Omani Armed Forces – the second largest such group anywhere in the world.”

Such military support is integrated with British government efforts to boost the interests of “our companies”. Only last Saturday, as protests were beginning to sweep the country, Lord Stephen Green, UK trade and investment minister,accompanied a a high-profile British business delegation including oil corporation representatives to Muscat.

What do Omanis really think of the Sultan? Media reports claim that most of Qaboos’ subjects only have praise for the Sultan, reserving criticism for his ministers. But only weeks before Mubarak’s fall, analysts failed to detect how broad and deep opposition to his rule ran. And in the days prior to the Day of Rage in Libya, most reporting claimed that Gaddafi held the allegiance of most Libyans and that a widespread uprising was impossible. With Shell and the FCO both favouring stability and their long, “unique” relationship with the regime, they’re banking on the country remaining “sedate” and “tranquil”.

BP support for Mubarak dictatorship revealed

Posted on by
1

The millions on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Suez are furious at Mubarak for upholding his own interests and those of Western powers and foreign companies at the expense of the Egyptian people. For decades, British and American oil companies worked hand in glove with the Egyptian dictatorship, enjoying its “stability” (lack of democratic change), “security” (repression of dissent) and “favourable business environment” (neoliberal policies and restrictions on trade unions).

Since Egypt’s first oil field at Gemsa came into production in 1910, the country’s resources have been dominated by London-based corporations. Back in the early 20th century, Anglo-Egyptian Oilfields – a joint venture of present-day BP and Shell – was the major operator in the country. A century later, vast chunks of the Gulf of Suez, Western Desert and Nile Delta remain long-term concessions granted to the same two companies, plus Reading-based BG.

BP is particularly proud of its “strong relationships with the Egyptian government”, boasting that it is the single largest foreign investor in the country and responsible for almost half of Egypt’s entire oil production, easily overshadowing all competitors. Describing itself as a significant part of the Egyptian oil industry for more than 45 years, the company witnessed Hosni Mubarak’s rise to power as Head of the Air Force and then Vice-President under Anwar Sadat, before he gained complete control in 1982. BP continued to extract crude and underwrite repression throughout more than four decades of Emergency Law, investing over $17 billion in oil rigs and pipelines. Billions of dollars in revenue payments enabled Mubarak to build up and arm both his civil and paramilitary police forces and the army.

In exchange, the regime ensured that its Western corporate allies profited handsomely over the years. Privatisation and reduced state involvement in the economy during the 1990s pleased the IMF, made billions for Mubarak’s associates and increased incentives to Western oil companies. Exploration and production concessions were made yet more profitable, with increased cost recovery allowances, larger blocks and longer license periods.

In parallel, harsh restrictions on freedom of expression, social movements and civil society reduced space for Egyptians to raise environmental concerns. In this context, BP has continued to drill new wells in the coral-rich but threatened Red Sea, including in its North Shadwan concession near the SS Thistlegorm, a British armed Merchant Navy ship sunk in 1940. Expanded oil extraction in these waters threatens the Egyptian tourist industry in Hurghada and the Sinai, especially after a major oil spill in June 2010. The Ministry of Petroleum, praised by BP, attempted to cover up the leak by claiming it was caused by a passing tanker discharging ballast.

With such limited environmental oversight, BP has been eager to drive ahead with new prospects, “drilling to reach reservoir technical limits”. The company aims to create “a new profit centre” in the Nile Delta offshore region by introducing its deepwater ‘expertise’ from the Gulf of Mexico.

By investing $1 billion a year into the country and making Egypt one of its 14 global Strategic Performance Units, BP emphasized the faith it places in its relationship with Mubarak’s government. Hesham Mekawi, Chairman of BP Egypt, has lauded “the stability of the country”, insisting that British oil investors will have a sustainable business in Egypt for years to come. When the regime felt threatened only months ago by a potential US Congress resolution demanding that Mubarak “hold fair elections, allow international monitoring of elections, and respect democracy and human rights”, BP allowed the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, in which it is one of the primary players, to lobby hard andsuccessfully to scupper the debate in Congress.

The company that brands itself with green images of sustainability and responsibility has taken a simple approach to CSR in Egypt: Providing a handful of scholarships to Cambridge each year alongside continued support for the dictatorship.

So now that we’re witnessing a vast popular uprising across Egypt, has BP ended its allegiance and support for the dictatorship? The company’s website carries no comment on the democratic protests or the regime’s attempts at repression, referring only to “the ongoing unrest in Egypt” and evacuation plans. Meanwhile, drilling and extraction operations continue unabated, with most oil facilities located out of reach of normal street protests. BP is assuming that Egypt’s strong army will guarantee the security integrity its assets, and continues to pay revenues to and underwrite a regime now widely accepted as illegitimate.

Demands from the democracy activists sweeping Egypt include “Putting on trial all those responsible for the policies of impoverishment and torture”. Will BP Egypt Chairman Hesham Mekawi and BP ex-CEO Tony Hayward answer for their part in enabling and supporting Mubarak’s repression? Or will the company’s faith in strongman politics be rewarded with Mubarak’s survival or relative continuity through a military takeover?

Oil, British foreign energy policy and Middle East repression

Posted on by
Reply

British oil interests are tightly interlinked with our governments’ recent political and military support for Gaddafi’s regime. Libya’s oil reserves – the largest in Africa – long had Western companies drooling. Shell beat its competitors to the chase, signing a $1 billion gas contract in 2004 during Tony Blair’s first visit to Libya. After three further years of pressure, BP secured a deepwater block the size of Belgium.


Tony Blair & Mu’ammer Gaddafi

Both deals relied on government support. Shell drafted letters Tony Blair sent to Gaddafi, while BP ensured that a Prisoner Transfer Agreement was signed. The Embassy in Tripoli lobbied and Prince Andrew was dispatched to charm.Confidential FCO documents reveal up to 26 high-level meetings with Shell about Libya.

The potential profits are enormous, with Libya largely unexplored, close to Europe, and in BP’s words “one of the safest places.” Safe, perhaps because of the repression and silencing of journalists? On Monday, BP stressed that offshore operations would continue, despite reports of massacres.

Both Labour and the Tories have foreign energy policies that prioritise British corporate control over oil reserves, enabling close partnerships with dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Oman, Jordan and UAE.

Yesterday, standing in Tahrir Square, Cameron preached about democracy. Then he met the same generals that commanded Egypt throughout Mubarak’s rule, and urged them to co-opt opposition. These generals are BP’s allies, offering the stability the company wants. Until we see a re-orientation of foreign energy policy away from supporting repressive regimes that let us control their oil reserves, our government will stand on the wrong side of justice and freedom in the Arab world.


David Cameron and Ahmed Shafik – one of longtime leaders of Egyptian military regime, now Prime Minister

How BP made friends with Mu’ammar Gaddafi

Posted on by
Reply

On Monday, BP CEO Bob Dudley declared that “we remain committed to doing business” in Libya and stressed that offshore operations in the region were still open and continuing. That morning, stories of tanks crushing unarmed protestors in Benghazi and massacres by (British-built) sniper rifles had been front page news. As Dudley spoke, reports emerged of airstrikes targeting demonstrations across the country.

Bob Dudley didn’t amend his earlier statement, nor was he asked to. Media article after media article cited the decision to evacuate “BP staff & families” – only the 40 expat staff of course, not BP’s Libyan employees. Some referred to the controversy over BP’s entry to Libya, and whether the company had lobbied for the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and Al-Megrahi’s release. But no-one questioned BP’s right or Dudley’s judgement in continuing offshore operations, in Libyan waters only miles from Gaddafi’s continued assault?

With Libya’s enormous oil reserves – the largest in Africa with most of the country still unprospected – ever so tempting, BP had been trying to break into Libya for years. The company lobbied hard, utilising the weight and levers of the British foreign energy policy machinery, despite knowing precisely what Gaddafi stood for. Barely a year before BP signed its deal, many protestors were murdered during February 2006 demonstrations in Benghazi.

Success arrived in May 2007, with then-newly appointed BP CEO Tony Hayward and Libya National Oil Company Chairman Shokri Ghanem signed the documents in Libya’s coastal town of Sirt. PM Tony Blair flew in to witness the event and Hayward describing his delight that “Our agreement is the start of an enduring, long-term and mutually beneficial partnership with Libya.“

BP had reason to be excited, and to pay the $350 million signature bonus towards new tanks and new rifles, or to be squirreled away in a hidden bank account. In the company’s words, the contract represented “The single largest exploration commitment in BP’s 100-year history and the single biggest award of exploration acreage by Libya to an international energy company in modern times.” The 54,000 square kilometres of acreage awarded to the company were four times the total of all other projects combined. The offshore Sirt basin block alone covers an area larger than Belgium. The terms of the Production Sharing Agreement signed were also more generous than those previously gained by US company Oxy and Austrian OMV.

Such a vast area in a resource-heavy area was likely to deliver, with estimates that BP would eventually spend more than $20 billion on exploration and extraction infrastructure. The offshore “seismic acquisition” – firing of high-intensity air guns into the ocean – begun in September 2008 alone was described as “one of the largest and most ambitious such projects ever embarked upon by our industry anywhere globally.”

Ian Smale, the head BP North Africa when the deal was struck, proudly described his sense of “partnership” developed with the Libyan regime over many cups of tea. Questioned about BP’s current exposure in Libya at an oil conference on Monday, Smale – now Head of Strategy for BP - responded, “With specific regard to Libya, our first concern is our people and the security and integrity of our operations.” BP’s security in Libya was provided by the military – presumably now either defected or overpowered by the growing opposition. Somehow it’s not surprising that Smale’s first concern was the security and integrity of our operations, even while newspapers were full with reports of atrocities. The frustration is that this is considered acceptable by journalists that quoted him.

Smale and Hayward themselves always knew that they were doing business with a repressive dictator. And they understood that working with Gaddafi would be easier if they could improve his image, and extoll how beneficial a relationship between Libya and BP would be for Britain.

An eight-page gleaming colour celebration of Libya’s “progress” was published. “Libya Rising” tells us that all is good: women are free, the streets are safe, Westerners are loved, people are becoming richer, BP will teach English, the country is open to business. Hints of brutal repression, prisons, restrictions on journalists or lack of democracy there are none. Not even a whiff of unhappiness. BP’s Libya business support manager Ian McGregor assures us that this is “one of the safest places I’ve been to with BP. [...] Initially, most people ask about security. They think it’s very unsafe, or there are a lot of army and guns everywhere. To be honest, it’s the absolute opposite.”

The BP hired journalist goes on to describe how Libya’s “per-capita income is among the continent’s highest”, obscuring the inequitable distribution of that income and rampant poverty. NOC Chairman Dr Ghanem gets to make an appearance as well, explaining how “the importance of Libya as a stable country” makes it a good destination for investment. The regime was, after all, the most stable in Africa – Gaddafi had ruled for 42 years.

Later on Monday, CNBC broadcast part of an interview BP CEO Dudley about a new deal with India’s Reliance Industries. With the Libya story so big, correspondent Rebecca Meehan was eager to ask what he made of the situation in Libya and North Africa. The video shows Dudley relaxed and happy to explain that the situation “has not disrupted any of our businesses at any point so far. Our activities are far away from any of the troubled areas, but time will tell.” According to Meehan, he went on to explain that BP was “committed to improving the business in Libya regardless of the political situation”.
“Regardless of the political situation” - dictatorship or not.

Although to be fair to BP, the company did apparently try to improve the lives of Libyans who might not benefit from the billions of dollars the company planned to transfer to Gaddafi’s regime. On June 14 2010, BP also ran a public road safety event.


BP Road Safety Event – June 2010

 

Terrible timing: BP announce drilling plans during Libyan “Day of Rage”

Posted on by
Reply

In the morning of Thursday 17 February, Libyan protestors responding to a callout for a Day of Rage began to fill the streets in Benghazi and other major cities. Over a hundred demonstrators had already been shot and wounded in previous days, but now the people broke through the barrier of fear. A crackdown ensued, with police and military snipers executing unarmed demonstrators with bullets in the head.

Several hours later, BP spokesperson Robert Wine (+44 (0)20 7496 4827) told journalists in London that the company would begin drilling in Libya imminently in BP’s Ghadames block. “Onshore, we’ve got a rig in place and they are getting ready, so that should get under way shortly.” Deepwater drilling off the coast in BP’s Sirt concession in would follow soon afterwards.

Maybe Robert Wine hasn’t been watching Al-Jazeera like the rest of us and hadn’t picked up on the uprisings in Tunisia (west of Libya) or Egypt (east of Libya)? Had he not heard that Libyan’s were attempting to emulate their neighbours, and that Gaddafi’s troops were using fierce repression to prevent another North African revolution?

At what point does a popular uprising start to factor into BP’s PR strategy and risk analysis?


BP exploration blocks in Egypt

Oil activist in DRC slams repression & Perenco secrecy during interview

Posted on by
Reply

Pastor Jacques Bakulu has been campaigning against oil companies operating in western Congo for over 20 years. The secretive Anglo-French company Perenco took over Chevron’s concession in 2004 and claims to be producing 25,000 barrels a day. None of its four contracts are publicly available. In February this year Perenco were once again accused of pouring toxic waste into the Atlantic.

There are other companies looking to exploit onshore and offshore fields in the next few years, including UK-registered Surestream. On the other side of the country, two unknown companies have just been granted a license to explore at Lake Albert and the government has plans to carve up the massive cuvette centrale in the search for more oil.

Bakulu has witnessed at first hand DRC’s first foray into oil production and worries that Bas-Congo’s experience will be replicated across the country.

What are communities angry about in Bas-Congo?

Lack of jobs. Always. We know the oil is there and for twenty years it has been coming out of the ground but there are no jobs and there is no development. There is no electricity in Moanda [the capital of the province]. The environment is being damaged every day. Gas flaring happens all the time and the air is polluted. And it’s all kept secret.

What have you seen of the contract Perenco is operating under?

We have never seen the concession contract! We are still trying to see it after all these years. But we know the type of contract is the first mistake. With the concession arrangement the government only receives tax, we don’t know the real amount of oil and the company says they have no obligations to the people. We have always asked ministers to change the contract to a Production Sharing Agreement (PSA). We’d have more control that way. But the problem remains that we still don’t have an oil law! It’s with Parliament only now. And the government is incapable of making contracts and negotiating.

DRC does not have a national oil company; not really. Cohydro trades, that’s it. That’s why all our technicians are in Cabinda or Angola. We need to build expertise.

A PSA would not necessarily be that much better, depending on the terms. Many PSAs are actually thinly disguised concession agreements.

Well, I once said to Perenco, ‘We want a PSA’ and they said to me, ‘Sure, we have no problem with that, we and the government will have the same rights as now. It’s no different!

How do people protest?

It’s difficult because there is so much poverty. Also, oil is offshore as well as onshore. Our organisation CEPECO is always with communities seeking to build awareness and encourage opposition. There have been many demands for jobs. People have blocked roads for a day and the technicians have not been able to get to their platforms. In January 2010, in Boma people protested inside an installation itself demanding work. The company actually invited people inside for a meeting but when they got in they were put in cars and taken to the police. 16 people were arrested.

Do people also protest specifically about the environmental damage?

Yes, they do. But people do want the oil to be produced. I can’t be against oil completely. We need it. It’s the only way out of poverty for Bas-Congo because we have nothing.

This interview was conducted by Taimour Lay with Pastor Jacques Bakulu in Kinshasa in May 2010.

Ballad of the Black Gold

Posted on by
Reply

From the RSW blog: “New from Talib Kweli, this hard-hitting music video unpacks the story of of Nigeria’s oil curse, the Ogoni struggle and the complicit role of Western governments and companies. Warning: this video contains strong political lyrics.”

 

Oil spills & military collusion continue in Niger Delta as Exxon’s offshore fields go down

Posted on by
Reply

With the media searching for new angles on BP’s Gulf disaster, stories on the devastation in Nigeria and the “normality” of spills in the Delta are now finally making it back into the papers – see Benoit Faucon’s piece in the Wall Street Journal and Adam Nossiter’s NYT article.

It’s about time, as several Exxon spills in quick succession have raised the stakes, despite the company trying to cover up the true extent. A major spill from the company’s Qua Iboe oil fields led to community protests with fisherfolk and women’s groups challenging Exxon. Rev Samuel Ayadi of the Artisan Fishermen Association of Nigeria explained that ”We are sick and tired of the oil contamination of the marine environment, which has made fishing a nightmare and less lucrative. Rather than co-exist with us, Mobil wants to force us out of the sea, and we have no other place to go.” Rev Ayadi also demanded that Mobil (Exxon’s subsidiary in Nigeria) refrain from using chemical dispersants to contain oil spills, noting that the poisonous chemical kills fish fingerlings. “The use of ‘Teepol dispersant’ is unsafe for marine life. The chemical is toxic and wipes out generations of fish. Any fish that survives it is tasteless,” he added.

When women demonstrated outside the company’s buildings, soldiers “guarding” the facilities apparently attacked, causing serious injuries including at least one broken leg.

Exxon admitted to a spill caused on June 21st only after three days and repeated complaints by local community members to the company and Nigeria’s National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA). But the company is still claiming that this is a “minor” spill of several hundred barrels from its offshore oil rigs. NOSDRA responded that “the volume [of oil spilled] claimed by the oil firm is doubtful. The oil deposits were sighted at the shoreline, if the volume was insignificant as claimed, it will not get to the shoreline, which is about 20 kilometers from the spill location.” Realistic estimates place the crude released into the sea at closer to 100,000 barrels.

Spill at Exxon’s Qua Iboe Terminal, from Justice in Nigeria Now

Exxon has accepted that the recent spills were due to its own technical failures, not sabotage or theft. The companydeclared force majeure on exports from the 400,000 barrel a day Qua Iboe Terminal back in May following the May 1st spill. Shell had declared its own force majeure on Bonny Light crude oil liftings only a week previously, as a result of leaks and fires on its Trans Niger pipeline.


Source: WSJ: “The fire and smoke plume from the Trans-Niger pipeline in the Niger Delta, April 2009.”

Colombian army attacks striking BP workers

Posted on by
Reply

Claire Hall from Espacio Bristol-Colombia describes how the Colombian army has joined in the repression of striking BP workers in Casanare.

from Upside Down World:

“A five month long mobilisation against BP in the Casanare region of Colombia has escalated after the Colombian army entered the BP installations with force this week and confronted workers who have been peacefully occupying BP installations since May 23 to protest BP´s failure to conclude negotiations with the workers and community.

At midday on Wednesday a heavily armed commando group of the National Colombian Army leapt over the security fence of the Tauramena Central Processing Facility and subjected the group of workers to physical and verbal aggression. Oscar Garcia, of the National Oil Workers Union said “this war-like handling of a group of workers is an excessive use of force and treats a labour conflict as though it were an issue of public order. This shows how BP is bent on war against workers who are only demanding that their fundamental rights be respected.”[i]

The calm response by the striking workers brought the situation temporarily under control but the army remains present and tensions are high. Colombia continues to have the highest level of trade union murders in the world with 17 trade unionists murdered so far this year.

“It is no secret that since BP arrived in the early nineties we have not been able to organize workers until now due to the presence of paramilitary groups operating in the oil fields,” said Edgar Mojica from the National Oil Workers Union.

At night workers sleep chained to machinery under temporary shelters as a precaution against any further attempts to violently remove them.

“BP thinks that we will give up, tired and afraid but we will put up with these conditions as this is a struggle for everyone,” said Ramiro from the Movement for Dignity of Casanare. “We will only leave here when BP signs an agreement on salary increases, more dignified working conditions, security guarantees for all involved in the mobilisations, and honours the pre-agreements made in the environmental, human rights, social investment and goods and services commissions.”

The workers are saddened but not surprised at the measures they are forced to take to try to reach agreements with BP. The mobilisation started in February of this year. Workers were forced to take direct action and block access roads to BP’s installations after the oil corporation refused to recognise the workers rights to a union and to a collective bargaining agreement. The blockades were violently attacked by ESMAD, the notorious Colombian riot police, in an operation to end the protest.[ii]

This is not the first time that civil society movements against BP have been met with violence. In 2003, communities protested against BP, demanding action on ecological, social and labour issues. BP refused to negotiate. In the months following community leaders involved in the mobilisation were assassinated (2004 Oswaldo Vargas, 2005 Parmenio Parra).[iii] Furthermore, a preliminary public hearing held in 2007 in the UK on BP’s activities in Colombia confirmed that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that BP has a case to answer that it is complicit in the extermination of social organisations in Casanare as part of direct strategy to maximise profits.”[iv]

Despite the history of repression, the response to the ESMAD attack in February was overwhelming. Two thousand people marched in support, fifteen more road blockades spontaneously sprung up, community members and local businesses joined the strike and the Movement for the Dignity of Casanare was born. BP was forced to listen and agreed to participate in the five commissions. Popular assemblies where held to decide on the bargaining demands which were later presented to BP on March 23. However, after two months of dialogue, the labour commission had made no advances and the current strike began.

Casanare is a region characterised by extreme levels of poverty, in spite of the oil that flows out of the region to the United States. This poverty has been worsened by the environmental degradation caused by the oil exploration and extraction, and the susbequent contamination and loss of water sources, according to local farmers whose livelihoods depend on water.

“We have heard about the BP incident in the USA. We send our condolences to the families and fellow workers of those who died due to the failure of BP to take the necessary measures to ensure safe operations and protect the lives of people working for them,” said Garcia of the National Oil Workers Union. “Here in Colombia, BP has also shown their lack of respect for life. They have brought about a war that has left over 9000 people dead.”

He added, “We categorically hold BP to blame for this latest catastrophe in the USA and we demand that BP repairs to the extent possible the damage they have caused. We extend our solidarity to the Northamerican people affected and we ask for your solidarity with the Casanarean people and you are welcome to visit and see how things are here.”

BP continues to provide support to the 16th Brigade, which was created in 1991 in order to provide security to the oilfields in Casanare. They have a long, cruel and documented history of human rights violations, including: extrajudicial executions, disappearances, murders, torture, rape and the forced displacement of campesino communities. However the grave humanitarian crisis in Casanare and its relationship to the oil industry – in particular to BP – is not deterring the Movement for the Dignity of Casanare.

“Despite BP´s misinformation campaign we are determined and united and we will keep resisting with dignity,” said Ramiro. “And if we can unite with people from the USA we will be even stronger and achieve much more.”

Espacio Bristol-Colombia is an autonomous collective of people working in solidarity with communities and organisations fighting for peace with social justice in Colombia. We are based in and around the city of Bristol (England), with a growing membership from across the country, and are part of the international Network of Friendship and Solidarity with Colombia (Red de Hermandad).