Corporate Watch -The Oil and Gas Industry

The oil industry is growing increasingly aware of its serious image problem. Put differently, people are becoming increasingly aware of the systematic abuses of people and nature inherent in the production and processing of petroleum.

Ecological impacts of the UK offshore industry
Here in the UK, the ecology of the North Sea has been devastated by over 30 years of oil exploitation. Now the oil companies are industrialising new, pristine areas, such as Cardigan Bay off Wales, and most significantly the North Atlantic, west and north of the Shetland Isles. These host an enormous biodiversity (including numerous cetaceans - whales, dolphins and porpoises), due to being at the interface between warm and cold water. The North Atlantic is deep water, a poorly understood ecology, recently found to contain rare cold water coral.

The ecological damage of the oil industry is not just from disasters such as the Sea Empress or Braer groundings; the impacts are systematic, arising from its ordinary, day-to-day operations. "The oil industry is environmentally suspect through and through", according to Guy Linley-Adams, Director of Conservation at the Marine Conservation Society. "The latest official figures show a huge rise in pollution. We can but wonder what the figures concealed by the DTI and UKOOA [UK Offshore Operators Association] will show" [1].

In 1996 223 oil spills were reported by companies to the Department of Energy. However, reporting is voluntary, and 82 slicks were detected during 257.5 hours (just 3% of the year) of aerial surveillance by the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), of which only 12 were reported [2]. Discharges of oil and chemicals have various lethal and non-lethal effects on fish, birds, molluscs, and cetaceans and other mammals. These include cancers, damage to growth, to feathers, scales and skin, to respiratory systems, to livers and to immune systems, and also disturbance of reproductive, feeding and other behaviour. Environmental umbrella group Joint Link estimates that even in good conditions only 10-15% of the oil from spills is ever recovered [3].

The first stage in the oil process is exploration, mainly by seismic surveying. Underwater explosions of around 250 decibels (the human pain threshold is at 140 db) are created with air guns, and underlying geology deduced from measurements on the reflected sound waves. This has a particularly disturbing effect on cetaceans, who use sound for communication and navigation, and may even be responsible for whale groundings [4]. Fish are also displaced, which in turn affects the cetaceans and birds which feed on them. Studies have shown that number of cod and haddock is reduced by up to 45% within 5 nautical miles of the blast. [5] The blasts can damage tissues, including lungs, guts and ears in mammals, and swim bladders in fish.

During drilling, "muds" (lubricants) are pumped down, to keep the drillbit cool and to regulate the flow of oil and gas. They consist of hydrocarbons, heavy metals (including cadmium, mercury and lead) and other toxic chemicals, and also contain corrosion inhibitors, detergents and biocides. Drill cuttings (the removed rock) are dumped on the seabed (totalling over 1.5 million tonnes in the UK North Sea). These cuttings cause smothering of seabed wildlife, and significant effects on community structure have been observed several kilometres from platforms [6]. The rocks surrounding oil reservoirs are often radioactive, and cuttings are also contaminated with oil, muds and chemicals. 3,826 tonnes of oil were discharged with cuttings offshore Britain in 1996 [7]. And to give an idea of the scale of the problem, over 6,000 wells have been drilled in the North Sea since 1964.

Rig and pipeline installation causes further disturbance to seabed ecosystems, through dredging, filling and anchoring. Underwater structures will be treated with protective chemicals, which release toxins into the water. From the rig there are discharges due to deck drainage, cooling water from machinery and sewage, plus constant noise and light pollution (including that from gas flaring).

Most fields contain water as well as oil and gas. This "production water", containing both oil and chemicals receives only very simple treatment before being discharged. As fields mature, the quantity of production water increases as the oil decreases, and may constitute up to 94% of production [8].

The scale of chemical usage in the North Sea is not documented; however discharges of production chemicals are estimated at 6,000 tonnes per year (30% of quantity used), plus 84,000 tonnes of drilling chemicals (57%). [9]

In September, in response to pressure from the European Commission and from campaigners on environmental impact assessments (EIAs), Energy Minister John Battle announced that he would "fast track" to bring in this year the latest European directive, which requires availability of EIAs on offshore developments for public inspection. However, there was no complaint from the industry at this, perhaps because of its severe need to be perceived as environmentally responsible. Battle went on to say that the new law would not delay offshore projects, nor raise the companies' costs: "It should all be fairly routine", he said. [10]

Impact of oil in developing countries
In developing countries the environmental impact of oil operations is magnified many times, and this severely disturbs the lifestyles and livelihoods of communities living nearby. This is well documented, particularly in the Shell / Ogoni case [11] (although some reports suggest that the current Caspian Sea oil rush makes Nigeria look sparkling clean [12]). It is worth noting that on top of the direct impacts, oil, due to its sheer value as a commodity, aggravates tensions between rival ethnic groups and with central governments, over royalties and compensation, and in many cases this leads to brutal repression by the police and military to keep dissent under control.

The same patterns of exploitation appear the world over - look for example at BP's collusion with the military to "disappear" protesters in Colombia [13]; at the use of forced labour by Premier and Total in Burma [14]; at the devastating impact on tribal peoples by Mobil [15] and Shell [16] (separately) in Peru, by Texaco previously and now Occidental in Ecuador [17], by Occidental and Shell in Colombia [18]. A less explicit form of abuse by oil is in political relations - note for example the West's deafening silence over the bloodbath in Algeria, a country where BP has substantial interests.

Most oil in developing countries is produced in militarised or semi-militarised zones. Some of the arms recently sold to Indonesia under Robin Cook's "ethical foreign policy" have been sold on the condition that they are available to protect UK business interests (notably contractor Amec) in the giant Natuna gas field in the South China Sea, whose ownership is disputed [19].

Many wars are fought over the ownership and control of oil. The first round of licensing for oil around the Falklands occurred this year, now deepwater technology has become available. Chechnya's secession from Russia was only worth fighting over because of the strategic pipeline which goes through Grozny, carrying Caspian oil to the Black Sea ports. The conflict came to an end when Yeltsin realised that his military operation had cost more than re-routing the pipeline [20]. And since Indonesia's brutal invasion of East Timor twenty years ago, it has worked with Australia (which has kept rather quiet about human rights), to develop the Timor Gap for oil exploitation [21]. The greatest area of conflict over oil of course remains the Middle East, which supplies 38% of the world's oil, and 51% of the US's. It is expected to supply 48% of world oil by 2010 [22].

Climate change
Perhaps the most fundamental impact of the industry is climate change. The predicted changes over the next 100 years will be faster than any for at least 10,000 years. The possible and likely impacts are reported not just by "scaremongering" green campaigners but by the Second Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

Flooding and coastal erosion currently threaten 46 million people, and this could rise to 92 million people with 50 cm rise in sea level, resulting in massive population migration, and loss of infrastructure of up to 10% of GDP in some countries. Freak weather events are likely to cause much damage. "Climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life", through heat waves, extreme weather events, contaminated water supply, air pollution and increased transmission of disease, including malaria (threatening 60%, increased from the current 45%, of the world's population), yellow fever, cholera and giardiasis. Impacts on ecosystems will be huge, with major disruption to agriculture and numerous species extinctions [23].

Worst of all, the effects of radical climate change are highly unpredictable, so in some cases the impacts could be even worse than the predictions. One recent model suggests that the change in ocean salt concentration due to melting icecaps will impact upon the mechanisms powering the Gulf Stream, and eventually reverse it. The result would be the delivery of cold Scandinavian water to the UK, instead of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico, and could lead to an average temperature DROP in this country of up to 10'C.

There has already been a measured mean global temperature rise of 0.6'C since 1860 [24]. The acceptable maximum tolerable degree of climate change suggested by the United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG) is a further 1'C rise. Beyond this, there may be "rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage" [25] (such as the emission of trapped greenhouse gases due to thawing of the permafrost, and evaporation from the sea) - also known as the runaway greenhouse effect.
If we accept this maximum, the IPCC's figures give us a total quota of 225 billion tonnes of carbon that we can burn, in the whole of the rest of the human race's future [26]. This figure assumes an immediate halt to deforestation, and ignores non-linear effects; it also ignores the fact that climate systems take some time to reach equilibrium - even if we stopped producing CO2 today, it could be a few decades before the average temperature stopped rising. This corresponds to 40 years of fossil consumption at current levels (6 bn tonnes carbon / year), and about a quarter of the world's proven reserves (820 bn tonnes) [27]. The conclusion is that the human race cannot even afford to burn the fossil fuels it already knows about. That the oil and gas companies continue to explore for NEW reserves is indefensible.

The Kyoto summit in December 1997, which set legally binding targets for CO2 emissions, was hoped to be a turning point. However, even while one of the worst El Nino weather systems of this century raged across the Pacific, any really meaningful action on climate was blocked by Japan, the US, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, plus of course the fossil fuels industry. After a week and a half of haggling, the final agreed proposal was condemned by all of the major environmental groups present (Climate Action Network, WWF, Greenpeace and FoE). It involves a global 5.2% cut in emissions by 2012 (compared to 1990 levels), spread between industrialised countries, ranging from an 8% cut for the EU, and 7% for the US, up to an 8% INCREASE for Australia and 10% increase for Iceland. To put this in perspective, the IPCC recommends a 60-80% cut in burning of fossil fuels, and the Alliance of Small Island States (whose very existence is threatened by climate change, especially since they don't generally have the money to build extensive flood defences), proposed an initial 20% cut in CO2 emissions by 2005, followed by bigger cuts thereafter.

Worse still, not only was no compliance mechanism established, but the final agreement involves several loopholes. In particular, ‘carbon trading’ is allowed (ie big polluters such as the US buying from other countries the rights to emit more CO2), and no rules or restrictions on this have been agreed. Some economists now predict carbon emissions to become the next major commodity on the global markets.

Countries are also allowed to create more ‘forest sinks’ rather than achieving their agreed targets, thus avoiding having even to meet the pitiful targets set for fossil fuel reduction, while covering their land with cash-crop monoculture. Since ‘carbonomics’ is far from being an accurate science, insufficient afforestation could lead to the global net CO2 reduction being even less than the 5%. [28]

Thus, all in all, there is very little pressure for countries to reduce their emissions.

The significance of the UK
Of 90 countries in which oil and gas have been found, the UK holds only 0.4% of the oil, and 0.5% of the gas; however it is responsible for 4% of oil production and 3.1% of gas production. Meanwhile the UK consumes 2.7% of the world's oil, and 3.2% of its gas (by contrast, the US consumes 25% of world oil). [29]

While not having huge amounts of oil and gas in its territory, the UK's significance lies in its being a corporate and an intellectual centre for the industry, and it is for this reason that an effective attack in the UK would knock the industry. One of the three oil futures exchanges in the world is in London (the International Petroleum Exchange, by Tower Bridge); two of the "Seven Sisters" (the dominant Western oil companies) - BP and Shell - are based there (the other five are American - Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Chevron and Amoco); and it is in the North Sea that much of the world's technology was developed in order to make economical the relatively small and complex fields. The North Sea is also important as a major source of oil and gas for the European market, as long-distance transportation is expensive. To give an idea of scale, the industry predicts capital investment of £19.7 bn on UK offshore between 1995 and 2000, one fifth of total UK industrial investment. [30]

Two thirds of the world's oil lies under the Middle East, where most of the production is by nationalised companies. This includes 26% in Saudi Arabia (the world's largest producer at 13%) and 37% between Iraq, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi and Iran. The other key areas are North America with 9% (mainly in Mexico), South America with 8% (mainly in Venezuela) and the former Soviet Union with 6%. When it comes to gas, 34% of reserves are in Russia (and 27% of production), and 15% in Iran. 25% of reserves and 33% of production of gas are in the US and Canada. [31]

Where does it come from?
The North Sea has been exploited for oil and gas for over 30 years. The fields fall into three main areas: the Southern (between the latitudes of north Norfolk and South Yorkshire) - all gasfilelds; the Central (Edinburgh - Stornaway) - both oil and gas; and the Northern (east and northeast of the Shetland Isles) - mostly oil. The 16th licensing round in 1995 opened up the new areas of the North Atlantic west of Shetland, Cardigan Bay off Wales, and Morecambe Bay in the east Irish Sea. The 17th round this April reflected the popularity of west of Shetland by awarding 76 blocks there, plus 28 north of Shetland, and just 10 in the North Sea. Bidding for the 18th round is expected to be opened early this year, and is likely to put the remaining 800 North Sea blocks on offer.

Proven reserves in the deep water west of Shetland comprise about 5% of total UK discoveries [32], a figure which could rise to 25% with new discoveries [33]. With most North Sea fields reaching maturity and their margins falling, and any new finds being generally fairly small, companies are looking for more profitable new fields. BP (as operator), in joint venture with Shell, leads development of the area: the Foinaven field came onstream in December 1997, and Schiehallion is to follow soon. Suilven was found in 1997, but is still going through appraisal. The Clair field in the area is huge, but as yet not economically exploitable. A few gas fields have been found, such as Texaco's Victory, but more will probably be needed before construction of a new pipeline can be justified.

The real significance of the Atlantic Frontier, as it is known, is its technology, the UK's strength. With 80% of the global increase in production outside OPEC expected to be offshore, the deep sea is a very important new growth area. While much deep sea work is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Atlantic has the added complication of extremely harsh weather conditions. Indeed BP's Foinaven field was originally planned to come onstream in 1995; it is because BP underestimated the difficulty of the conditions that it has been persistently delayed. The technology lessons of the North Atlantic are now being applied to offshore West Africa and offshore Western Australia.

Industry trends and directions
The entry into the North Atlantic is part of a world-wide trend in the oil industry to move into "frontier" areas, areas which were previously untouched. This has been led by rapid development of new technology, including seismic equipment, drilling techniques, subsea facilities, floating vessels, tough ice-proof rigs etc. New fields are more profitable than "mature" fields, and companies' share prices depend on their constantly acquiring new exploitable reserves.

Downstream (in refining, marketing and chemicals), margins have recently got much tighter (due to world-wide refinery over-capacity, the cheap supermarket petrol stations and Esso Pricewatch campaign), so there has been much consolidation in the sector - such as BP and Mobil merging their European downstream operations, Shell buying Gulf Oil (Chevron's UK downstream company) and shared petrol stations with other facilities (such as joint ventures between Texaco and McDonald's, and BP and Safeway).

So where is it then? (UK)
The UK has 93 offshore oilfields and 67 offshore gasfields in production, and respectively 21 and 5 under development [34].

The only really significant onshore field in the UK is BP's Wytch Farm near Poole in Dorset, which accounts for 4.5m of the 5.1m tonnes annual total onshore production [35]. The majority is offshore; however these fields are obviously serviced from land. For a start, there are seismic ships which carry out the surveys, and which rest in port, in the Western Isles of Scotland, and on the East coast of Scotland and England. From the websites below or an oil and gas trade journal in a university or other library (City Business Library is good - 1 Brewers' Hall Garden, London EC2, near Moorgate tube), you can find out where is being surveyed at a particular time. Seismic tends to occur during the summer, when the weather is favourable. It costs around £10,000 per square kilometre [36]. However, development of a well costs £5-10m [37].

In shallow water, such as in Morecambe Bay off Lancashire, two or more connected fixed platforms will be used; in deeper water it will be a larger single fixed rig, although with small and difficult fields increasing use is being made of "subsea tiebacks" whereby much of the production and separation equipment is installed on the seabed at the wellhead, and this is connected by pipelines to the existing infrastructure. In some cases, and always in deeper water, tethered floating rigs or vessels are employed, connected to the wells by flexible "risers", and oil from these is off-loaded onto tankers which carry it ashore. Most oil, and all gas, is brought ashore by pipeline, to the terminals shown on the map below.

Rigs are usually constructed in two parts: the base structure (jacket) which stands on the seabed, and the production and accommodation facilities (topsides) which go on top. Some rigs are imported, from Scandinavia, Spain or even the Far East, but there are a number of important shipyards for building and fitting rigs in the UK, as shown on the map.

Although the UK produces more oil than it consumes, over 50% of consumption comes from imports by tanker (and the balance is exported), to bring in different grades of crude. Oil tankers account for almost half of world seaborne trade. In 1992/93, 52% of UK imports came from Norway (some of it by pipeline), and 33% from the Middle East (nearly two thirds of which is from Saudi Arabia) [38]. The main ports for crude oil tankers are Milford Haven in south-west Wales, Ellesmore Port in Merseyside, Sullom Voe in the Shetlands, Grangemouth in the Firth of Forth, Fawley in Southampton and the Thames Estuary in Essex. There are refineries at all of these. On top of this, most other ports in the UK receive refined petroleum products, so at almost every port you will find the characteristic storage tanks.

The UK has 15 oil refineries, which receive their crude by tanker, or by pipeline from a terminal. You can probably arrange a guided tour of a refinery, as a group of students, artists or whatever. Some products from the refinery are transported by road tanker, either direct to garages, or to the distribution depots, which can be found in all major conurbations. Other products are piped away, such as aviation fuel to airports.

The companies involved
Shell and BP are the most prominent companies in the UK offshore sector, operating respectively 18 oilfields and 10 gasfields, and 17 oil and 10 gas. Also important are Amerada Hess and Amoco in oil, and ARCO, Mobil and Conoco in gas [39]. The UK has 8,400 km of operational offshore oil and gas pipelines [40]. The British and foreign companies (mainly American, but also Norwegian and others) mostly have head offices in London, while their upstream operating companies are based in Aberdeen, the centre of the UK offshore industry. There are a number of upstream (ie only exploration & production) British companies, such as Enterprise, Premier, LASMO, Monument and Hardy. There is also a large service company sector, which provides 75% of services to the UK sector, and 1% world-wide. These services include geological consultancy, drilling, oilfield process consultancy, pipeline laying, support ships and catering, and also construction and manufacture of equipment, ranging from rigs to drillbits to valves to drilling muds. Some companies work specifically for the offshore oil industry, while others are more general engineering or other companies. There are well over a thousand such companies, the vast majority based in Aberdeen. Details can be obtained from business directories in libraries.

The real power behind the industry is the majors, the Seven Sisters (although less so than a couple of decades ago - state-owned companies such as Petronas, Petrobras etc are becoming increasingly significant on the world stage, as well as in their own countries).

Oil industry sponging off the state
A characteristic of oil production world-wide is the extent to which government supports the industry (as well as not challenging it - eg at Kyoto). In the UK, with substantial markets for petroleum products, we don't suffer extra-judicial killings by the state, yet we still see extensive government "welfare" for the industry.

The Department of Trade and Industry is the regulator for the oil and gas industry, and is responsible for approving new developments. It grants production licenses, lasting three years initially, for companies to explore and exploit "blocks" of about 100 square miles. "Rounds" of licensing occur every year or two, and licenses are awarded to whoever is thought likely to EXTRACT THE MOST oil and gas [41].

The DTI's work as environmental regulator of the industry is hopelessly inadequate, at least partly because of the conflict with its other role - "to maximise the economic exploitation of natural resources". It relies mainly on the companies' self-reporting of oil spills. When inspections do occur, appointments are made with the field operators, rather than having random surprise checks. It remains to be seen whether the Labour government lives up to its promises to improve on both these issues. Since the 1971 Prevention of Oil Pollution Act, the DTI has only made one prosecution [42]. Meanwhile, information about the environmental records of the companies is not available to the public. The Marine Conservation Society had to wait nine months to receive such information, having refused to pay over £4,000 to search the database itself. While the DTI refuses to pass on information about the companies, all correspondence from environmentalists ends up on the desk of UKOOA, the industry's trade association [43]. A leaked letter from John Battle in September detailed the strategy on which he had worked with the industry, to deny Greenpeace publicity for its climate change campaign, and to limit Greenpeace's effectiveness by litigation [44].

Most scandalous of all is that the UK GIVES its oil and gas to companies FOR FREE. Companies pay "rent" for a license to operate in area, and any petroleum they remove and sell is theirs to keep, gratis. Whereas in most countries it is paid for in Royalties and tax, both have been abolished for new fields in this country. For fields approved since 1993, the only tax is corporation tax, the tax on doing business which companies pay whether they are making shoes or selling toothpaste [45]. While proponents of received economic dogma will argue that such a fiscal policy (the second laxest in the world, after Ireland) is what enables companies to operate the small and complex UK fields at all, this handout to one of the world's most profitable industries constitutes a clear case of corporate welfare, jarring hard against the government's cuts to welfare for people who actually need it. Although there is some concern in the industry about the taxation review for next spring's Budget, John Battle has promised no shock oil taxes. "We do not want to drive people away", he said [46]. The first New Labour Budget last July removed the levy on North Sea gasfields.

Don't panic - the industry is working on it
The UK oil industry has a devastatingly sophisticated public relations machine. Vast quantities of environmental reports and funding of environmental groups allow it to portray itself as the reasonable party, "engaging in debate". Those who criticise a company in the way it wants them to are simply shown as ill-informed (but thanks for your comments anyway), while it is "violent extremists" who get hot-headed and take direct action.

Recently however, the industry has increasingly been allowing its critics to speak publicly, and it is keen to be seen to get involved in "dialogue", to work "in partnership" with environmentalists. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have both had meetings with BP and Shell over the summer. This tactic too is highly effective. By engaging in discussion, campaigners lose their critical distance; their views are compromised and their positions de-radicalised, and they become less able to openly discuss the real problems of the industry. Meanwhile, the real radicals are isolated as extremists, and the environmental movement has been nicely cut in half.

Long debate about single issues keeps people from debating the industry's fundamental, systematic problems. Shell's operations in Nigeria are claimed to be a one-off slip-up of good practice, and can be resolved by tighter business principles and more "consultation with communities". Controls on leaks, spills and discharges can always be tightened, and then of course there is the universal faith of industrial environmentalism, Technology.

Enter climate change
Climate change presents a different kind of public relations problem, in that it presents a threat to the industry's very existence. Burning of carbon releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps the sun's rays and influences climate. It is as simple as that, and no new technology will change it.

Against strong consensus among scientists and even politicians, the American oil majors, led by Exxon (Esso) and co-ordinated through the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), continue to publicly state that the science of climate change is unproven [47]. In political circles they know this position is not credible, so instead argue that the economic costs of cutting CO2 emissions are just too high, and that unless developing countries also cut their emissions, a bias will be created against US competitiveness. (Or, in other words, the huge global bias in favour of US competitiveness would be reduced). Considerations of equity, of the world sharing its ecological quotas, don't seem to even get mentioned. Although the GCC was largely laughed at in Kyoto, its real power is back home in the US, and it had won the battle before Al Gore’s plane even took off. The GCC spent $13m on advertising in the US in 1997. Meanwhile the Senate passed by 95 votes to zero a resolution saying that the US should reject any treaty which harms it economy. Congress has been similarly malleable.

Europe gained environmental brownie points for its Kyoto proposal of 15% CO2 cut by 2010, and the UK for its 20% (although this is due to replacement of coal-fired power stations with gas). In this climate of environmental self-congratulation, the European oil companies simply cannot, in public relations, terms, get away with the hard-line position adopted by the US companies. Keen to be seen to be doing as much debating as everyone else, several, including BP and Shell, have made public statements that climate change is (probably) happening due to human activity. These statements have weakened the US companies' position.

The large environmental NGOs have congratulated BP and Shell for their "progressive" attitudes, and for upping their renewables investments this summer. This congratulation has been justified by some as widening the split in the industry; however it sends out rather confusing messages, and risks creating a similar split in the environmental movement. Companies cannot reduce their hydrocarbons output in any meaningful way, the loss of profits that would result would lead to massive disinvestment by shareholders, and probably the sacking of the directors by the institutional investors. The "action" BP and Shell have offered is more debate, more investment in technology, and emphatically not a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels. Meanwhile they divert attention from the real problem by pointing to their cuts in emissions from refinery operations.

Thus we see that the companies cannot save us from climate change. Kyoto has shown that the government will not help either.

This means we will have to dismantle the oil industry ourselves….

1997 – a year of anti-oil activism
1997 has seen a definite increase in action against the oil industry. Greenpeace has been campaigning against new oil developments around the world, including the Atlantic Frontier in the UK. The campaigns have all been in ecologically sensitive areas, perhaps so as to win the support of Greenpeace's traditional whale-loving constituency. However, the arguments have been about climate change, and in Greenpeace's core argument the logic is impeccable: if we fully exploit even just the oilfields already in production, the impact on climate will be devastating; therefore it makes absolutely no sense to be bringing in NEW fields. The campaign has involved applying for licenses to manage the North Atlantic oilfields (which it was refused because licensing depends on how much oil the applicant wants to extract, and Greenpeace wanted none); occupying the rock of Rockall in the Atlantic, which led to the UK government relinquishing its claim on the rock and on 200 miles of territorial waters beyond it; blockading seismic ships; occupying the BP drilling platform Stena Dee for nine days; and taking the government and companies to court over not carrying out environmental impact assessments on the North Atlantic developments. The case was eventually thrown out on a technicality, for not being lodged early enough.

Greenpeace is weaker on the solutions side, in that it has a tendency to overestimate the capabilities of solar power (indeed the straightforward, unsophisticated "switch to renewables" argument is rather easy to plump for), and to suggest that we can support current lifestyles without any reduction in total energy consumption; it has also been criticised for giving too much praise to BP and Shell for their "efforts" to address the climate change problem. Still, Greenpeace's radical position on "no new oil" has won perhaps unprecedented support from the grassroots movement. When BP tried to freeze Greenpeace's assets, there was a strong backlash against BP from the environmental movement generally, including Earth First!, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth and other groups, with the result that BP backed down.

In May the Crude Operators gathering in London brought together the big NGOs with Earth Firsters, human rights groups and indigenous campaigners from Nigeria, Burma, Indonesia, Latin America and the Middle East, and a number of veteran "independent" campaigners. The gathering was mainly used to share our understanding of how the industry works from various angles, and was followed by an action highlighting New Labour's regressive position and the appointment of BP's David Simon as a minister - black slimy stuff was tipped on the entrance to the Department of Trade and Industry, while "Blair's Pals" (BP) drilled for sleaze. Since then there has been a gearing up for action by lots of groups against the oil industry.

From the Earth First! gathering came the 100 days campaign, a wide coalition of anti-oil groups focusing their efforts around the build-up to the Kyoto climate summit. Actions have included occupation of Chevron's offices in protest at their Cardigan Bay development, disruption of an oil industry / government conference, publicity for the Colombia situation at a BP Chemicals open Day in Hull, several visits to company director's houses, and numerous forecourt pickets and visits to company careers presentations at universities. Some more ambitious and high-profile direct actions are also in the pipeline.

Future campaign directions?
Imagine a world without oil. A world without pollution from pipelines, tankers, rigs, refineries and traffic. A world in which goods could not be transported around the globe more cheaply than producing them locally. A world where people and nature were not systematically abused for the sake of a commodity on which all economies depend.

One obvious thing on which the industry depends is finance. Who supplies it? The biggest investors in the companies are pension funds and insurance companies. Massive claims arising from extreme weather events could put the insurance industry out of business - so why does it invest in the cause of climate change? Exactly this point has been made to insurance companies, by Oxford campaign group Solar Century and by Friends of the Earth. Some creative direct action to further express this could be very well placed. Of the pension funds, perhaps look at those held by groups such as trades unions, teachers or university staff. The list of shareholders can be obtained from the company itself (under sec. 356 of the Companies Act 1985 (see Statutes in Force in a library, or Corporate Watch issue 1), the company is obliged to provide this information), or alternatively by a full search on the company (costing £3.50) at Companies House (55 City Road, London EC1 or general enquiries 01222 380 801 for other offices).

Another question on finance is where does it happen? The London Stock Exchange is important, as is the International Petroleum Exchange, and the offices of the fund managers, of the analysts, of the financial consultants who manage share deals. All of these offices can be found out from company annual reports and from business directories in city libraries.

Another possible target group is the future workforce. Where do they come from? Schools, for a start. Presentations or speeches at schools in areas of high oil industry employment could be useful. Targeting careers presentations (the milk round) at universities has been done in a number of places last term, and can be very effective. There are also employment agencies which specialise in providing oil personnel. In approaching these, the job insecurity in the oil business should be stressed (as well as ethical issues). How long is the industry going to continue (employing people) while the effects of climate change become more profound? How long will workers be kept on while competitive pressures and the rapid advance of technology in the sector force increasing mechanisation? There are now several UNMANNED rigs in the North Sea (which the industry claims as improvements to safety!); meanwhile downstream ever tighter margins have forced massive consolidation and rationalisation. Gulf's Milford Haven refinery is to be closed, as is BP's Llandarcy lubricants plant in North Wales. Shell has recently announced the loss of 3,000 jobs across its European marketing sector (ie forecourts and distribution). Your future in the oil and gas industry? Forget it....

As mentioned earlier, the industry is becoming increasingly technology-driven; therefore research and development is of crucial importance. Much of this is carried out in universities, where it is cheaper, and contact is made with the broader, related research going on in the academic departments. In November this year the UK Offshore Operators Association sent a report to member companies encouraging them to increase their involvement in higher education. The key universities are in London (especially Imperial and University Colleges) and in Scotland (Heriot-Watt, Aberdeen, Edinburgh), although there are many others. Geology departments are used to analyse exploration data, while Engineering (and less so, Chemistry and other subjects) departments develop the structures and the processes for extraction and production. Imperial College students have just begun an excellent campaign getting students to challenge the conflict of interests of their Rector, Sir Ronald Oxburgh, who is also a non-executive director of Shell. The campaign to chuck out oil will be expanding to other universities soon (contact Corporate Watch).

Another very important interest group is the workers. Certainly, they have been heavily exploited by the companies in the UK. BP between 1993 and 1995 switched all its staff onto "single staff" status, meaning that unions could only negotiate on health and safety issues; pay and conditions are up to individuals to resolve themselves without support. This was achieved by a series of financial inducements and psychological pressure. In Shell Exploration & Production there has never been any collective bargaining except on grievances and disciplinary procedures. In 1993, Shell made all 400 maintenance staff at the Shell Haven refinery in Essex redundant, and asked them to re-apply for their jobs on the basis of no union recognition; the company refused to meet the T&G union. Tanker drivers from Shell Haven are paid for a standard delivery time, regardless of the actual time it takes - for example, the trip to London and back is paid for three hours' work, whatever the time of day, even though in rush hour the journey takes at least five hours [48].

However, it is difficult to know how we can really work with the workforce in an industry that we want to see the end of. Yes, we share a common enemy, but what do we want the workers to do? What do they want us to do? The author would appreciate any ideas on this. The most radical of the offshore unions is the Offshore Industries Liaison Committee (OILC), which is open in its distrust and criticism of the companies. Its main campaign area is safety, although it is naturally pissed off about workforce downsizing and union de-recognition. This year OILC paid for Freddy Pulecio of the Colombian Union Sindical Obrero to tour Europe and describe his disturbing experiences of BP and the Colombian military.

There are other groups we should be encouraging to take direct action - such as fishermen or those whose livelihoods depend on the tourist industry. This May, fourteen fishing boats blockaded Sullom Voe port in the Shetlands, delaying two supertankers for 24 hours. This was in protest at the damage to their catches of razor clams (and lack of compensation) due to the Braer disaster.

It is through such alliances that we can start to really challenge the grip of the oil industry. There are more people who've had enough of oil than you'd think.

References:
1: Marine Conservation Society News Releases, 4/9/97, 'Marine Conservation Society complaint upheld - UK oil industry breaking European law', and 1/8/97, 'Official pollution from UK oil rigs up'
2: data supplied to Marine Conservation Society by the DTI; MCS News Release, 1/8/97, 'Official pollution from UK oil rigs up'
3: Joint Link (tel. 01686 629 194), Polluting the Offshore Environment - the practices and environmental effects of Britain's offshore oil and gas industry, 1996, p.7
4: According to 18 whale and dolphin experts, from universities in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - Guardian, 14/5/97
5: Engas, Lokkeborg, S & Soldal, AV, 'Effects of seismic shooting on catch availability of cod and haddock', pub. Institute of Marine Research, Norway, 1993, quoted in Joint Link (op cit 4) p.6
6: Olsgard, F & Gray, JS, 'A comprehensive analysis of offshore oil and gas exploration and production on the benthic communities of the Norwegian continental shelf', pub. Marine Ecology Progress Series,1995, quoted in Joint Link (op cit 4) p.9
7: DTI, The Energy Report Vol.2 - Oil & Gas Resources of the UK, pub. the Stationery Office, 1997
8: Neff, JM, Rabalais, NN & Boesch, DF, 'Offshore oil and gas development activities potentially causing long-term effects', in Boesch & Rabalais (eds), Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development, pub. Elsevier, London, 1987, quoted in Joint Link (op cit 4), p.9
9: Hudgins, CM, 'Chemical usage in North Sea oil and gas production and exploration operations', report for Norwegian Oil Industry Association, pub. Petrotech Consultants Inc, Texas, 1991, quoted in Joint Link (op cit 4), p.10
10: Patricia Nicol, 'Government clamps down on oil projects', in Offshore Journal, p.1, supplement to Aberdeen Press and Journal, 11/9/97
11: More information: Project Underground, Shell Alternative Annual Report (below), or contact Delta (see contact list)
12: See, for example, Index on Censorship #4, 1997 (below)
13: Contact: Coalition Against BP in Colombia, BCM 7750, London WC1N 3XX, 0171 357 0388; or see Gillard, M, 'BP are oil rush villains' in Guardian, 11/9/96; or Ignite #1(below), p.1 and #2, p.13
14: Contact: Burma Action Group, 0181 341 9115; or see Ignite #2 (below), p.16
15: Contact: Survival International, 11-15 Emerald Street, London WC1N 3QL, 0171 242 1441
16: See Project Underground, Shell Alternative Annual Report (below)
17: See Index on Censorship #4, 1997 (below), pp. 153-162 & 171-176
18: See John Vidal, ‘Cliffhanger’, in Guardian Weekend, 20/9/97, p.16
19: Financial Times, 30/8/97, p.4
20: See Ignite #1 (below), pp.3 & 14-15; or Tegantai, April 1997, 'Oil and the other dogs of war', from Oilwatch (contact details below)
21: Contact: Tapol, 8 Hop Gardens, London WC2N 4EH, 0171 497 5355, hops@gn.apc.org
22: Dr Mamdouh G Salameh, 'Access to Middle East Oil - China vs the US', Petroleum Review, Nov 1997, p.516
23: Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pub. Cambridge University Press
24: ibid
25: UN AGGG, 'Responding to climate change: tools for policy development', ed. J Jager, pub. 1990, Stockholm Environment Institute
26: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pub. Cambridge University Press; discussed in Putting the Lid on Fossil Fuels (below), pp.45-59
27: op cit 23; discussed in Putting the Lid on Fossil Fuels (below), pp.45-59
28: For accounts of the Kyoto conference, see the websites www.foe.co.uk/climatechange/karchive.html, www.igc.org/climate/Eco.html, and www.greenpeace.org/~climate/index.html; full text of the Kyoto Protocol on www.cop3.de/fccc/docs/cop3.htm.
29: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy, 1995
30: DTI, The Energy Report - Oil & Gas Resources of the UK, pub. the Stationery Office, 1996, p.15
31: op cit 1
32: Meg Chesshyre, 'On target to peak again - UK production', in European oil industry supplement to FT, 10/9/97, p.ii
33: ibid, and op cit 6, p.74
34: DTI, Digest of UK Energy Statistics, pub. the Stationery Office, 1997, p.75
35: op cit 2, p.180
36: Oil, Shell Briefing Service, 1990, p.9
37: P King, 'Mixing oil and science', Science and Public Affairs, Winter 1996, pp.34-37
38: Institute of Petroleum, Oil Data Sheet 12 - UK imports of crude oil, 1992/93
39: op cit 6, pp.76-79
40: ibid, p.75
41: see DTI, The Energy Report Vol.2 - Oil & Gas Resources of the UK, pub. the Stationery Office, 1996, p.23
42: Corporate Watch #5, 'DTI Diagnosed', Winter 1997, p.32
43: Marine Conservation Society, News Release, 'Government oil rigs cover up exposed', 23/6/97
44: David Hencke, ‘Labour tells oil firms to sue Greenpeace’, in Guardian, 17/9/97, p.2
45: op cit 29, p.11
46: Lloyds List Energy Day, 'Britain brings forward field EIAs requirement', 11/9/97, p.3
47: see Corporate Watch #4, 'Disguise the Limit', June 1997, p.22, or the GCC's amusingly entitled website: www.climatefacts.org. For more general industry anti-climate lobbying, see Corporate Europe Observatory’s The Weather Gods (December 1997), available from CEO, c/o ASEED Europe Office, P.O. Box 92066, 1090 AB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ceo@xs4all.nl, http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/
48: See Ignite #1, p.16

Further reading:
The Prize - the epic quest for oil, money and power, by Daniel Yergin, pub. Simon & Schuster 1991 - The classic text on the history, politics and culture of the oil industry.

Ignite, issues 1 (Nov 1996) & 2 (Dec 1997), from Platform (address below) - satirical free newspaper looking at the oil industry, TNC culture and London transport. #1 fosuses on human rights and #2 on climate change and addiction.

Shell Alternative Annual Report, 1997, by Project Underground (address below) - in depth analysis of Shell's pr rhetoric and the reality in Ogoni, and how the new development in Camisea in Peru is going the same way.
Index on Censorship #4, August 1997 (tel. 0171 278 2313) - focusing on oil and human rights, especially Caspian Sea .

'Crude operators', by Andrew Rowell, in Ecologist Vol 27 No3, May/June 1997, p.99 - on general trends in the industry toward frontier areas, and the impact of these trends on people and nature.

Putting the Lid on Fossil Fuels - why the Atlantic should be a frontier against oil exploration, by Chris Rose, Greenpeace, 1997 - the basis of Greenpeace's 'No new oil' campaign': carbon logic argument for ending fossil fuel use, plus ecology of Atlantic Frontier.

Corporate Watch #5/6, Winter 1997/98, pp.30-33 (see contact list) - three articles: BP's corporate culture and power structure, and personality of chief exec John Browne; analysis of inadequate oil regulation by DTI; argument against trusting oil companies to develop renewable energy.

Oil, Shell Briefing Service, 1990 - The basic, easy-to-understand, introduction to what the oil industry does and how it does it - given by Shell to its employees. Available free with a good blag from Group Public Affairs (tel. 0171 934 5293).

Contacts:
Marine Conservation Society, 9 Gloucester Road, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire HR9 5BU, 01989 566 017, www.mcsuk.mcmail.com - on the ecological impact of the UK offshore industry.

Project Underground, 1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703, USA, tel. 001 310 705 8983; project_underground@moles.org; www.moles.org - on impact of oil and mining on the South.

Oilwatch, 0171 435 5000 - support and networking group for groups affected by oil in the South, especially South America.

Climate Action Network UK, 49 Wellington St, London WC2E 7BN, 0171 836 1110 - information exchange on climate change. Publishes simplified explanatory briefings on the science, the policy process etc.

Platform, 7 Horselydown Lane, London SE1 2LN, 0171 403 3738, platform@gn.apc.org - on oil and corporate culture generally, and especially BP.

Action Globale Contre l'Industrie Petroliere, c/o Greenpeace, 7 Boulevard Carl Vogt, 1205 Geneve, Switzerland, tel. 0041 22 329 1351, fax 0041 22 320 4567 vargas2@uni2a.unige.ch - international activist network (some of them speak English!).

Offshore Industries Liaison Committee, 6 Trinity Street, Aberdeen AB11 5LY, 01224 210 118 - the most radical offshore union.

Solar Century, 32 St Bernard's Road, Oxford OX2 6EH, 01865 513 534, www.solarcentury.co.uk - working with insurance companies.

Greenpeace UK Oil Team, Canonbury Villas, Islington, London N1 2PN, 0171 865 8100, www.greenpeace.org.uk

Friends of the Earth UK Energy Team, 26-28 Underwood Street, London N1 7JQ, 0171 490 1555, www.foe.org.uk

Useful websites:
www.offshore-technology.com - guide to worldwide oil and gas fields, including detailed diagrams, plus information on the (service and operating) companies responsible for each part.
www.petroleum.co.uk - Institute of Petroleum site, including news (eg contracts) and lots of other useful information.
www.petrodata.co.uk - all kinds of useful information about oil.
www.slb.com/80/petr.dir/guthery.html#Pointers - a site of links to just about anything else you could need.