Oil's well that ends...

Government in bed with oil
Part of the difficulty in fighting oil is that all governments heavily back the industry. Between 1990 and 1995, the UK government subsidised fossil fuels by over £4bn (for r?, export promotion, competitiveness programmes etc.), while renewables received less than £400m. The UK also has the world's second laxest offshore tax regime and gives corporation tax relief against exploration and development costs(1). Don't expect David Simon's pals in the new Labour government to change any of this.

Oil and militarism
Look closely at virtually any Twentieth Century conflict and there's an oil story behind it. The case was obvious in the Gulf War, and the recent round of licensing for oil concessions in the seas between the Falklands and Argentina makes the conflict of 1982 more explicable. But in the Chechnia conflict the Western Press largely failed to mention the key pipeline from the oil rich Caspian Sea to the Black Sea running through Grozny. Nor was it reported that perhaps the first act of 'aggression' in the Former Yugoslavian War was Croatia's closing of the oil supply pipeline from Rijeka, on the Adriatic coast, to Belgrade or that the battleground of Eastern Slavonia happens to be a key oilfield, capable of meeting 40% of Croatia's oil needs. Or take a look at Angola or Algeria, Afghanistan or East Timor. And why do you think Hitler tried to take Russia?

Also note that almost every oil producing area, in developing countries at least, is a militarised zone.

But oil has been the essential commodity behind militarism since the First World War - no modern military machine can work without it - and this is at least part of the reason why war has so often been used to secure oil resources. It also explains why oil has always been intimately tied to the arms manufacturing and trading industries; from Churchill's purchase of BP to ensure fuel supplies for the new Dreadnought class of British Navy ships to the current Al Yamamah Deal in which the U.K. sells arms to Saudi Arabia in return for oil.

The oil industry is at the very centre of industrial capitalism, and permeates through its very part.

But resistance is growing. Campaign groups and individuals everywhere are gearing up to take on the oil industry

Crude Operators conference
The weekend of 10th/11th May saw a convergence of anti-oil campaigners of all shapes and sizes from around the world.

Saturday looked at the oil industry sector by sector, from exploration and production to refining and use, and finance, pr and lobbying.

Sunday looked first at Shell as a financial institution, as a power structure, and as an oil company, and then at the people in BP, including chief exec John Browne and his relationship with his mother. It was really brought home why we are fighting when Freddy Pulecio, a Colombian trade unionist, told us of his personal experiences of BP and the Colombian government.

A number of campaigning themes ran through the conference: the need to tackle the corporate pr machine, making links between communities and campaigns, and between environmentalists and workers and targetting the oil industry's weak spots.

Alternative annual report
On 13th May, the day before the Shell agm, Project Underground released a report (3) focussing on the company's operations in Nigeria,where it has operated for 40 years, and Peru, where it has just begun a 40-year contract. It analyses the pr rhetoric used, and demonstrates how Shell has not significantly improved its environmental and human rights performance in Nigeria, despite its claims to have done so, and how Peru looks set to follow a similar path, despite Shell's "commitment" to socially responsible development.

Shell agm
The 1997 Shell agm was the usual slick pr exercise. The board, said chairman John Jennings, was here to debate the issues in reasonable, civilised fashion. Those who asked ethical questions, on the other hand, were portrayed as ill-informed, and had no chance to challenge the factual correctness of Jennings' answers. And stakeholders could not disrupt the meeting, as this would have invited the "violent extremists" label.

The positive side was resolution 10, put to the meeting by the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility (ECCR) and the Pensions and Investment Research Committee (PIRC). Most importantly this called for an independent, external environmental and social audit of the Group's policy. This the board opposed, as chairman Jennings reminded the shareholders at every stage of the debate how they were supposed to vote. Proposer Christopher Hall of ECCR and seconder Anne Simpson of PIRC both argued eloquently, appealing not just to shareholders' consciences but also to their business sense. Jennings offered no more argument in return than that external auditing was unnecessary, as the board was handling it all just fine. Most of the other shareholders argued they should blindly follow the board, however stupidly it behaves.

Although defeated, the resolution had an impressive 10% of total shares behind it.

Climate change - Greenpeace
Taking an average global 1' C temperature rise as the maximum tolerable climate change (highly significant in climate terms, corresponding to an average 20cm rise in sea level), the human race may burn only another 225 bn tonnes of carbon(4). This is 25% of the KNOWN, economically exploitable reserves of fossil fuels, and a mere 5% of the predicted total resources. In other words, if we are to avoid climate catastrophe, most of the oil must stay underground. So why on earth are oil companies still exploring for more? This is the message of Greenpeace UK's biggest ever campaign. Rather than waiting till the limit is reached (around 2030 if business-as-usual continues) and panicking, we should be working now towards a phase-out of fossil fuels.

References
1. "Stop Stoking the Fire", Greenpeace, May 1997 )
3. "Human rights and environmental operations information on the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies", Independent annual report 1996-7, Project Underground
4. These calculations were made by Greenpeace from data accumulated by the scientists working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the accepted mainstream authority on climate change. Astonishingly the calculation relating degrees of climate change with levels of CO2 emissions has not been done before, since the discussions have largely focussed on what countries can afford, rather than what is needed. However, these figures are thought to be conservative, as they do not take into account deforestation, nor emissions of greenhouse gases other than Co2.

Get their dirty, oily hands off our education!
A vast amount of funding of higher education, particularly in geology and engineering departments, is provided by the oil industry, which in return benefits both from research & development and from new recruits. A joint venture between Students for Environmental Action and Greenpeace is campaigning for education to be free from this pernicious control. Corporate Watch is currently carrying out a research project into the exact extent of this dependence. Any students who would like to help by asking a few questions - please call us. The eventual aim is to attach a stigma to oil, similar to that which nuclear has acquired ("Hey - fossil fuels are for dinosaurs"), so that only the least able students actually want to work in the industry.

Insuring the end of fossil fuels
At the Oxford Solar Investment Summit this February, bosses of 3 of the UK's biggest insurers agreed that climate change is threatening their very existence as freak weather brings in ever bigger insurance claims. However, although they agreed to back the development of solar technology, none went as far as reducing their vast investments in oil companies. The 3 are:

• Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, Asst. Gen. Manager, General Accident plc, Pithleavlis, Perth PH2 0NH. t. 01738 621202; f. 621 843.
  
• John Robins, CEO, Guardian Royal Exchange plc, Royal Exchange, London EC3V 3LS. t. 0171 283 710; f. 621 2599.
  
• Arthur Hayes, Group Exec. Dir., Royal & Sun Alliance plc, 1 Bartholomew La, London EC2N 2AB. t. 0171 588 2345; f. 826 1159.

There are of course some who remain stubbornly uncool: for instance Sir Martin Jacomb, chairman of the Prudential, the largest investor in Shell, recently said, "We are absolutely committed to sustainable development. ... But the idea that one can stop global warming by stopping consumption of fossil fuels, when mankind depends on it, is unrealistic. We have got to find economic and sustainable ways of using such fuels"(2). If readers spot any inconsistencies in these remarks, they should send them on a postcard to:
Sir Martin at Prudential Corp. plc, 1 Stephen Street, London W1P 2AP, tel 0171 405 9222. (Incidentally, The Pru opposed Resolution 10 at the Shell agm, as Shell has shown genuine improvement in its external communications!)

Cash out on Shell!
Resolution 10 showed Shell is incapable of being an ethical company - a strong case for disinvestment. Top 6 investors :

1. Prudential - 3.53%
2. Mercury (33 King William St., London EC4R; tel 0171 280 2800; fax 0171 280 2820)
   - 2.92%
3. Schroder (33 Gutter La., London EC2V 8AS; tel 0171 382 6000; fax 0171 382 6965)
   - 1.81%
4. Legal & General (Temple Ct., 11 Queen Victoria St., London EC4N 4TP; tel 0171 528 6200; fax 0171 528 6222)
   - 1.71%
5. Chase Manhattan (Woolgate Ho., 25-30 Coleman St., London EC2P 2LB; tel 0171 962 5000)
   - 1.60%
6. Royal Sun Alliance
   - 1.55%.

Cooperative Insurance Society (Miller St., Manchester M60 0AL; tel 0161 832 8686) is 17th with 0.82%; General Accident 23rd with 0.71%;
Universities Superannuation Scheme 28th with 0.65% (university lecturers' pensions - contact Third World First for this campaign). Many local councils appear on the list; churches, trade unions,even ethical funds invest in Shell.

ACTION UPDATE
On 11th May angry fishermen in 14 small shellfish boats blockaded the harbour at Sullom Voe oil terminal in the Shetlands, preventing supertankers from entering or leaving. The were protesting about damage to their livelihoods caused by the oil industry in the 1993 Braer tanker disaster.

On the same day a number of workers from BP (or "Blair's Pals") turned up at the Department of Trade and Industry to drill for sleaze. They found barrels of the black slimy stuff, oozing under the door. A rather wooden looking character called David Simon was with them, holding a brown envelope marked "with love, Tony".