What the Frack's Going On?

WHAT is going on about "fracking"?  Last week MPs overwhelmingly rejected a bid to impose a moratorium, suspending fracking for shale gas, although the government agreed to Labour proposals for 13 new conditions to be met before shale gas extraction can take place. Environmental campaigners and residents of areas threatened by "fracking" operations were dismayed, so were many trade unionists unconvinced that the damage "fracking" can cause will be outweighed by any new jobs.


During the Commons debate government ministers also pledged an "outright ban" on fracking in national parks. Earlier, a committee of MPs called for a moratorium on the practice on the grounds that it could derail efforts to tackle climate change. The Environmental Audit Committee also warned that there were "huge uncertainties" about the environmental impact of fracking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30993915

If you believe the Daily Mail version of events, mind, what happened was that Labour has hamstrung hopes of a great gas boom (perhaps an unfortunate phrase) by imposing its tough new rules, solely for fear of losing votes to the Greens.  Well, we are near election time, though anti-fracking campaigners had been hoping for a moratorium, and the Scottish government has just announced one. We have to admire the Tory tabloid's bravado if it thinks unrestricted fracking could be popular, when some of the most militant opposition has come from homeowners in leafy Tory constituencies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927603/Labour-puts-brake-fracking-Hope-new-gas-boom-dealt-blow-MPs-vote-raft-tough-regulations-shale-drilling.html


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/28/scotland-announces-moratorium-on-fracking-for-shale-gas
http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Moratorium-called-on-fracking-1555.aspx

"Fracking",  or  hydraulic fracturing is a technique whereby oil or gas are extracted by drilling down to shale rocks, then forcing a mixture of water, sand and chemicals at high velocity into the crack to force the oil and gas up to the surface like an artificial gusher. Proponents say it it is a cheapway of obtaining hydrocarbon fuels, and reducing the need for imports.

Opponents warn it can have a serious impact on the environment, risking contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, degradation of the air quality, bringing noise pollution and potentially  triggering earthquakes. A company fracking off Lancashire's Fylde coast had to suspend operations in 2011 after the second of two minor earthquakes hitting Blackpool.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquake-tremors-gas-drilling

An anti-fracking movement has grown up internationally, with major protests in affected parts of the United States,  and a couple of years ago in the West Sussex village of Balcombe, where worried residents welcomed campaigning "eco warriers"  coming to reinforce their fight. The local Labour Party congratulated the protesters. The Labour Representation Committee(LRC) in Sussex carried on the campaign against fracking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiH1g79Pew&feature=youtu.be

Fracking was banned in France in 2011 after public pressure. The government decided any economic advantage would be outweighed by the cost of preventive measures to protect the environment. The ban was upheld by an October 2013 ruling of the Constitutional Council following complaints by US-based Schuepbach Energy.

In Germany, government plans to permit fracking were cancelled within a month because of massive opposition from the public, the opposition parties, and some members of Chancellor Merkel's own CDU party.  A moratorium was declared, and since then shale gas fracking has been effectively banned in Germany.

In  the United States, the state of Vermont became the first to outlaw fracking in May 2012, and this was followed on December 17,2014 by the state of New York. There have even been moves to ban fracking in oil-rich Texas.

Doubts have been raised about the economic value of fracking,particularly when we see oil prices falling, though obviously the companies engaged in it see profits for themselves. Some of the companies in the USA have engaged former military psy ops officers to counter public opposition. Some in government there and perhaps here support fracking not for mere economic reasons but as part of a strategy to strengthen the West against Russia and Middle East countries. The new Cold Warriors charge that opposition to fracking is being funded or even masterminded by Russian oil and gas producer Gazprom.

Unfased by such accusations, there were environmental protests outside Parliament last week, as MPs gathered to debate fracking legislation in the government's Infrastructure Bill.  There had been fears that the same government which criminalised squatting intends to legalise trespass for companies wishing to drill under people's homes.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/04/plan-fracking-firms-drill-homes-queens-speech

Besides the dangers to the environment and health, MPs have voiced concern at the impact fracking has on climate change,both by the release of methane in the operation itself, and the effect of increasing hydrocarbon fuel use.


In the Commons, committee chair Joan Walley backed an amendment tabled by a cross-party group of MPs calling for fracking to be suspended for up to 30 months while an assessment is carried out. s
But the measure did not attract front-bench support and was defeated by 308 votes to 52. Labour's amendment was added to the bill, to loud cheers from opposition benches, which would impose 13 tests to be met before fracking. These include the completion of an environmental assessment and the need to consult residents on an individual basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30993915

Those who have ever experienced "consultation" by employers and government will have their own opinions of what value to attach to that.

What happened to the call for a moratorium?

Here's the Lib Dem MP for Wells, Tessa Munt, who described fracking policy as "irresponsible", "high risk" and "undemocratic", and said she would quit the government on the issue:

Yesterday I joined 51 colleagues and, confirming my opposition to fracking in Somerset on principle, I rebelled against the Government, voting for a moratorium - or 'freeze' - on fracking.
Unfortunately, the Labour Party sat on its hands and didn’t vote for the moritorium, although it claimed it was supporting this as endorsed by the Environmental Audit Committee’s Report published yesterday morning.
Interestingly, it was reported in the Times on Monday that two of Britain’s biggest unions – the GMB and Unite - weighed in yesterday morning, begging Labour MPs not to support a ban on fracking.  This may go some way to explaining the confusion over what was happening in the House of Commons and Labour’s 180˚ about-turn.

http://www.tessamunt.org.uk/no_fracking

The MP, who delivered a petition to Number 10 Downing Street with a total of 8,688 Somerset signatures calling for a fracking freeze altogether, accepted that Labour's amendments were an improvement on the government's bill, but goes on to say:  "Disappointingly, Labour called for two other votes during the short debate on the ‘fracking’ part of the Bill, the effect of which was not to allow time for any votes on the proposed changes to the trespass laws".

It was a report in the business freeby City AM which cited Tessa Munt herself as the source of the remark about trade unions,which had trade union activists asking what the hell was going on? When had union members been asked if they supported fracking?
http://www.cityam.com/208130/unions-helped-save-fracking-ban

We know that 'Progress', the business-funded Blairite faction within the Labour Party had sneered at the Balcombe 'eco-warriors' and called for a "healthy debate" about fracking before trade union and Labour conferences last year.  

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/09/09/wil-labour-learn-to-love-fracking/

See also:
http://www.leftfutures.org/2011/09/labours-party-within-a-party-latest-funding-figures/

On May 23 last year the GMB union carried an article on its website quoting Gary Smith, national officer for energy, "This whole issue of fracking needs to be subject to an honest and rational debate that focuses on a plan for energy, including gas in the UK".
Criticising government plans for compensation, the article said:  "This is a case of the Tories lining up big bribes for their supporters in their heartlands where the reserves are supposed to be."  It went on to say: "The case for fracking is yet to be proven either on environmental or economic grounds. There will be a major debate on the issue at GMB Congress next month".

http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/debate-not-bribes-needed%20-on-fracking

The GMB conference in Nottingham in June did pass a resolution on fracking,though I have been scouring the union's web pages,so far without success,to see what it actually said. Some local trades union councils in areas affected by fracking have been actively campaigning against fracking together with residents and environmental activists, and last year's conference of trades councils held in Cardiff on the weekend of June 14-15 passed a composite resolution from Suffolk and Greater Manchester, dealing with climate change and fracking.

Part of this read:
"Conference is further concerned by the extreme energy extraction methods such a hydraulic
fracturing or “fracking” and the extraction of unconventional gas, such as coal bed methane and shale gas which have the potential to increase global warning as well as creating other
environmental damage and contaminating water supplies".

Condemning the government's "dash for gas" and encouragement of fracking, the resolution pledged among other things to "Campaign against fracking and the extraction of unconventional gas, such as coal bed methane and shale gas"
http://www.tuc.org.uk/regions/union-issues/unions-community/trades-councils/2014-trades-union-council-conference

http://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Resolutions.pdf

Towards the end of that debate a delegate from the West Country took the mike to say that he understood the GMB union had come out in favour of fracking, and ask whether anybody from that union would care to say anything about the motion. Nobody took the bait. To be fair, delegates at conference represent their trades council, not their individual union, and are rank-and-file union members, not union officials, so not obliged to defend their union's policy. All the same, it is striking on reflection that nobody came forward to do so.

Nor did the GMB have much to say when the TUC in September discussed trades councils' representation.  This had been raised the previous year in a resolution moved by Bob Crow of the RMT, but with him out of the way, some union leaders seem to have felt they could bury the issue as well. It was left to representatives of two small unions -the teachers'and lecturers' ATLand the Society of Physiotherapists, to express misgivings about the trades council resolution, but when the chair called a card vote it appeared the much larger GMB and Unison had voted against it.     

Meanwhile at its conference opening at the end of June,  Unite, Britain’s largest union, with over 1.5 million members, re-affirmed its opposition to fracking, and said it would use its influence to prevent fracking operations, and advise its members not to work on fracking sites, or deliver materials to such operations. Unite's resolution specifically called for a moratorium on fracking,  and said it would 
encourage the Labour Party and Labour Councils to take actions formally opposing fracking. The union pledged itself to support local anti-fracking groups, help with funding, and encourage members at all levels of the union to link up with local campaigners.
http://greenleftblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/unite-union-has-today-re-affirmed-its.html

http://www.unitetheunion.org/uploaded/documents/Decisions%20of%20the%20Policy%20Conference%20201411-21375.pdf

See also:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-0e12-Unite-activist-stands-by-convicted-anti-fracking-son#.VM3uii6E1Nl
Which suggests that union officers may not all have been so keen.

So the report that Unite had joined GMB in calling for support to the tracking bill and not a moratorium has had Unite members clamouring to know how this could be, and what is going on?
So far a Unite officer has assured us the story is untrue, though we're waiting for an official statement.

The GMB did submit a letter, and it is on parliamentary records, calling for support to the government's bill. Our friend Gary Smith, GMB National Secretary for Energy and Utilities, says in the letter “The truth is this country will be using gas for many years to come and this throws up the challenge of where we get our gas from and whether we can use gas in a better way.
Having access to gas is a matter of national security. It also raises important moral issues that are yet to be debated properly; is it really right that we import gas from places like Russia or the Middle East, with all the environmental consequences transporting gas across oceans and continents has? Can it be right that we increasingly depend on gas from countries with regulatory and environmental standards lower than ours and where people don't have rights to object or protest, much less join unions?
http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/mps-should-back-infrastructure-bill

Though affecting concern for workers' rights elsewhere,this does not say what the union is going to do to assist them. It could almost be interpreted as telling us "You would not have the right to protest  in Saudi or Russia, so don't expect it here". But its main thrust is that talk about "national security", behind raising "moral issues". This is similar to the way some US congressmen talk, and we know that when great powers turn to autarchy, and "self-reliance", that's not instead of, but preparatory to,war.

It is also reminiscent of the bad  old days when unions like the GMB, affiliated with Public Service International, were implicated in acting as channels for the influence of the Central Intelligence Agency and MI6. With the GMB and its members fighting for working class interests on so many fronts, against austerity and blacklisting for a start, we thought class collaboration was a thing of the past.

But not content with influencing parliamentary votes, GMB was holding a  conference to promote fracking on Friday, in Blackpool, where local trade unionists have been campaigning against. That's risking another earthquake, I'd say! 

Shipload of Memories

I'M always a bit wary about stories that claim to be reporting "Jewish outrage" about something or other.  Not that Jews haven't the right to be outraged about anything. But too often the stories look like they've started in the news office, the "spokesperson" quoted was not leading an angry protest deputation, they were 'phoned for a quote; and the supposed anger over something trivial is pointed the wrong way.

l paid more attention to this story in Sunday's Observer, because it looked interesting, because Ed Vuliamy is a serious journalist whose work and integrity I've respected since the war in Bosnia; and anyway, I'm a sucker for pictures of ships! 

Jewish outrage as ship named after SS war criminal arrives in Europe

As Holocaust day nears, anger erupts at arrival in Rotterdam of the Pieter Schelte, the world’s largest vessel

The Pieter Schelte, seen entering the port of Rotterdam, is more than 120 metres wide. Photograph: Bram Van De Biezen/EPA

Leaders of Jewish communities and Holocaust memorial groups in Britain and the Netherlands have reacted with rage and despair at the arrival in Rotterdam of the world’s biggest ship, the Pieter Schelte, named after a Dutch officer in the Waffen-SS.

The vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, said: “Naming such a ship after an SS officer who was convicted of war crimes is an insult to the millions who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis. We urge the ship’s owners to reconsider and rename the ship after someone more appropriate.”

Ruth Barnett, a tireless campaigner who arrived from Nazi Germany as part of the Kindertransport, said: “I am outraged by the intensity and extent of denial and indifference that fails to challenge things like this ship, and allows the impunity for perpetrators to think they can get away with it.”

The London-based Lloyd’s Register dug in to defend its role in the ship’s building and development, while the shipbuilder said it had been named in honour of the owner’s father for his “great achievements in the offshore oil and gas industry


Allseas is owned by a Dutchman, Edward Heerema, who is the son of Pieter Schelte Heerema. The ship bearing his father’s name arrived in Rotterdam from the Korean Daewoo shipyards two days before the killing of four Jews at a kosher supermarket in Paris and three weeks before the Auschwitz anniversary.


John Donovan, a former Shell contractor who is completing a book on the history of the company’s relations with the Third Reich. His petition reads: “Please change the ship’s name so that it no longer sails under the name of a former Waffen-SS officer jailed for war crimes.”

Donovan told the Observer: “This public homage by Edward Heerema as the wealthy son of a Nazi war criminal is an affront to the relatives of tens of millions of souls who perished at the hands of Nazi Germany. The name is unacceptable.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/24/pieter-schelte-worlds-biggest-ship-ss-officer

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27595922/ns/world_news-europe/t/nazi-name-giant-dutch-ship-draws-outcry/#.VMchOy6E1Nk

It turns out that untimely though the ship's arrival was this week, the row about its name has been going for some time.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/70022/Nazi-name-row-torpedoes-ship-launch

Nevertheless, I'm thankful to Ed Vuliamy for bringing the issue to our attention,and the story up to date.

Lloyd’s Register, which has been closely involved in bringing the Pieter Schelte to launch and featured the ship in glowing terms on the cover of its magazine, stuck by its position. “It’s not our role to take a view on the name of a single ship,” said a spokesman, Mark Stokes.

Allseas refrained from comment, but its communications office sent “general information”, including an interview with Edward Heerema in the Telegraaf newspaper, and a summary of his father’s career. This stated that he “became a member of a national socialist organisation in the early stages of the second world war. From November 1942 to June 1943 he was a director of a company under the SS.”

It continues: “Heerema lost his sympathy for the Nazi regime, and defected in June 1943. At the end of the war he was arrested. His trial in 1946 led to conviction for the period of his detention awaiting trial.”

After living in Venezuela, according to his official biography, Pieter Schelte Heerema returned to Holland in 1963, becoming “a civil engineer with great technical creativity, and an entrepreneur … The choice of the [ship’s] name Pieter Schelte is [his son] Edward’s acknowledgement of his father’s great achievements in the oil and gas industry.”

 The Telegraaf article – reported from the ship’s “majestic bridge” and headlined “Unparalleled Dutch glory” – said the vessel was “set to revolutionise the offshore world”. Heerema tells the paper that his father “hardly ever talked about that time with his family … He turned his back on the Netherlands in 1947. Which also was a way to break away from the past.” But Donovan has unearthed an extraordinary case in the high court in London last summer, brought after Allseas fell victim to a fraud scam.

The judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith, asked a witness about Pieter Schelte Heerema: “He was in the Dutch SS, was he?” “No, he was in the German SS,” came the reply. Counsel then asked: “And then he left the SS, you say, in the middle of the war?” Whereupon the judge remarked: “I didn’t know you could leave the SS. I thought it was a job for life.”

THE CASE AGAINST PIETER SCHELTE

■ Before the Pieter Schelte was built, the Netherlands Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies was compiling information on its namesake. Its main researcher, David Barnouw, said Schelte was “a member of a small fascist party before the war, but was in Venezuela when the Germans invaded. Schelte saw it as a reason to return”.
■ Having joined the SS, “Schelte fought on the Russian front for the Wehrmacht, but was recalled to be part of the ‘East Company’, working for the SS in the occupied East. The job was to provide labour, and Schelte promised 2,000 Dutch volunteers. But they were not forthcoming, so he commandeered 4,000 for forced labour”.
■ As the war began to “go badly for Germany, he joined a resistance party, then went to Switzerland. He was interned after the war, tried and I think the judges found him one of their own – a good businessman, well educated”.
■ Schelte returned to Venezuela where, says Barnouw, “any suggestions that he helped Nazis to escape to South America are untrue”. But, he asks: “Why does his son, who is … not a Nazi, give this ship a name that people will inevitably discuss?”
■ Among Schelte’s remarks was his verdict that “the German race is model. The Jewish race, by comparison, is parasitic … Therefore the Jewish question must be resolved in every Aryan country”.

The Schelte story brings to mind a bigger fish.







PIETER SCHELTE HEREEMA (left) and SIR HENRI DETERDING


Although Marcus Samuel, who started the British side of Royal Dutch Shell, was Jewish (the Shell part of the name, and symbol, came from his unlikely business beginnings importing and selling painted sea shells), the Dutchman Henri Deterding who became chair of the joint company from 1930-6  was a Nazi sympathiser.  Indeed, he gave the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler more than sympathy, helping to finance the party's rise, and in 1936 offering Germany the sale of a year's oil reserve on credit.  Ousted from the board that year, he retired to  Krakow am See, in Germany.  

Evidently his was an active retirement:
Deterding was an honored friend and supporter of Hitler and a personal friend of Field Marshall Göring. They lived near each other in Germany and went shooting together. Deterding had also met Alfred Rosenberg, the chief Nazi ideologue and leader of the party department for foreign affairs. In September 1935, the German Foreign Office seconded one of its staff to Deterding as a personal assistant for political matters.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2010/11/06/royal-dutch-shell-nazi-secrets-part-2-financier-of-the-third-reich/

Deterding's connections  with the Nazis went back to early days. With them he dreamed of destroying the detested Bolshevism. In 1911 he had bought the  Azerbaijan oilfields from the Rothschilds,only to see these fall under Soviet rule after the revolution. With the Nazis he could plot revenge and war to get the oilfields back.

In England, Deterding had an honorary knighthood and a country estate, Buckhurst Park,Ascot, not far from Windsor, or Cliveden. When Alfred Rosenberg visited England in May 1933 he made for Buckhurst for talks with Deterding.
http://www.shellnews.net/wikipedia/WhoFinancedHitler.pdf#page=5&zoom=auto,-147,312


In Germany, Shell's subsidiary had already taken steps to make itself  Judenrein ,without waiting for Nazi legislation, or worrying what happened to those removed to make room for 'Aryans'.


Deterding maintained liaison with Dutch Nazis like Schelte Hereema from Germany.And some say Schelte's "resistance" group was nothing  of the sort,and his contacts with Nazis continued in his Latin American "exile"

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2015/01/27/nazi-rat-lines-and-pieter-schelte-heerema/

Post-script:

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/unite-demands-action-to-stop-ship-honouring-nazi-war-criminal-operating-in-british-waters/

Blood and Oil on the Tarmac

TWO WHO DIED  Christophe de Margerie (October 20, 2014) and (below right) Enrico Mattei (October 27, 1962)

A top European oil boss who rejected calls to restore Cold War barriers against trade with Russia has been killed in a crash at Moscow's Vnukovo airport, after attending a Russian government-hosted investors' conference in Gorki, and within hours of meeting Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev on Monday.

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Christophe de Margerie's corporate jet was taxying to take off late on Monday night when it collided with the airport's snow plough and then burst into flames. Fire engines extinguished the blaze but all four people on board the plane were killed. 

Early reports said Russian investigators accused the snow plough driver of having been drunk. But the driver denied this, saying he did not drink, because he had a heart condition.  Airport authorities are investigating further, and the 'plane's black box has not yet been examined.
   
Christophe de Margerie, 63,  had been chief executive of the French Total oil company, third largest in Europe, since 2007.  A statement from the office of French President Francois Hollande said: "Christophe de Margerie dedicated his life to French industry and to building up the Total group. He made it into one of the very top global companies. It said President Hollande valued de Margerie's independence of character and devotion to  France.

Russian President Vladimir Putin sent his condolences. Tass quoted a Kremlin spokesman as saying: "The President highly appreciated de Margerie's business skills, his continued commitment to the development of not only bilateral Russian-French relations, but also on multi-faceted levels.".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29699733


Among the first unofficial commentators on de Margerie's crash death was RT (Russia Today)'s highly unconventional business correspondent Max Keiser, who noted that the French oil chief had been one of the people who talked about "peak oil", meaning companies needed to harness all sources.  Keiser continued:

The last we heard from him, however, was from this July 5, 2014 Bloomberg story we covered:


“Nothing prevents anyone from paying for oil in euros,” de Margerie told journalists at the Cercle des Economistes conference in Aix-en-Provence, France. “The price of a barrel of oil is quoted in dollars. A refinery can take that price and using the euro-dollar exchange rate on any given day, agree to make the payment in euros.” The remarks from the head of France’s largest oil company are the latest in a debate sparked by an $8.97 billion fine slapped by the U.S. on French bank BNP Paribas SA (BNP) for transactions carried out in dollars in countries facing American sanctions. Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/10/christophe-de-margerie-ceo-of-total-has-reportedly-died-in-small-plane-crash-in-russia/#WP4zstQqPavzBDQU.99

I’m sure it had nothing to do with his death, of course [insert nervous laugh], but here’s the second comment on that Bloomberg article:

Also someone take a life insurance policy on that guy I have a feeling Langley mercenaries will make someone rich

Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/10/christophe-de-margerie-ceo-of-total-has-reportedly-died-in-small-plane-crash-in-russia/#8pL6IHYrTIrWxVmf.99

Langley, Virginia is the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA). In the United States, Forbes Business magazine did not rush into any speculation but had this to say:

Chatty and blunt, De Margerie didn’t hide his conviction that Peak Oil was a fast approaching reality, insisting at the time that the world’s producers would be hard pressed to ever grow past 95 milli on barrels per day. He may have revised that number upwards a bit in recent years, considering the booming development of tight oil in the United States, but his dogma remained the same as then: “There will be a lack of sufficient energy available,” he said. Because of this belief, De Margerie was tireless in grabbing new oil and gas opportunities for Total — while they were still available. De Margerie ventured out from Total’s headquarters in La Défense, the west Paris business district, to woo a who’s who of presidents, prime ministers, strongmen and dictators in places like Iraq, Iran, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Yemen, Angola and Burma. But none of De Margerie’s relationships have been more important than with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

This year De Margerie negotiated a venture with Lukoil to drill for tight oil in Siberia. And with Russia’s Novatek and China’s CNPC, Total is developing a $27 billion natural gas megaproject on the Yamal Peninsula. As De Margerie told Reuters this year, ”Can we live without Russian gas in Europe? The answer is no. Are there any reasons to live without it? I think – and I’m not defending the interests of Total in Russia – it is a no.”

I asked him in 2010 whether it was simply the case that international oil companies have no choice but to make deals with despots. “Bloody right!” he exclaimed. “Because we have not oil or gas. [...] This is why the French companies are always looking for partnerships.”

Sometimes he may have even crossed the line. In March 2007, a month after taking over as CEO, De Margerie was hauled in by French authorities for 36 hours of interrogation over a $2 billion deal with Iran in 1997 to develop its massive Persian Gulf gas field. In a 2007 interview with Petroleum Intelligence, De Margerie confirmed that he authorized payments of $40 million (for consulting and lobbying efforts) to middlemen–allegedly associates of former Iranian president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and his son. When Iran is someday welcomed back into the brotherhood of nations, you can bet Total will be ready to build it some LNG projects.

Because De Margerie was such a wildly effective dealmaker over the past decade, he leaves Total in an enviable position. The company has arguably the best portfolio of development projects among the super-majors, with particular emphasis on deepwater developments in Angola. Despite some delays completing error-prone megafields like Kazakhstan’s Kashagan, these new ventures are ready to goose Total’s output significantly. Total will likely add 500,000 bpd of production by the end of 2017, outstripping all the big European oil companies by a long shot and resulting in 2.8 million bpd of production by then. Free cash flow is expected to blossom from $3 billion last year to $8 billion in 2015 and $15 billion in 2017. Bernstein Research analyst Oswald Clint, in a research note last month, called Total his favorite stock pick among the European super-majors.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/10/21/totals-ceo-de-margerie-dies-in-plane-crash-moustachioed-dealmaker-predicted-peak-oil/

Although a BBC report suggested Total's Russian operations had been hit by sanctions, others indicate that De Margerie was determined to go ahead and resist such pressures. After quoting his success in in expanding African fields, a report in the Guardian said:

A staunch defender of Russia and its energy policies amid the conflict in Ukraine, De Margerie told Reuters in a July interview that Europe should stop thinking about cutting its dependence on Russian gas and focus instead on making those deliveries safer.

He said tensions between the west and Russia were pushing Moscow closer to China, as illustrated by a $400bn deal to supply Beijing with gas that was clinched in May.

“Are we going to build a new Berlin Wall?” he said. “Russia is a partner and we shouldn’t waste time protecting ourselves from a neighbour … What we are looking to do is not to be too dependent on any country, no matter which. Not from Russia, which has saved us on numerous occasions.” 

Total is one of the major oil companies most exposed to Russia, where its output will double to represent more than a tenth of its global portfolio by 2020.

Total is one of the top foreign investors in Russia but its future there grew cloudy after the 17 July downing of a Malaysian passenger airliner over Ukrainian territory held by pro-Russian rebels. The disaster worsened the oil-rich country’s relations with the west and raised the threat of deeper sanctions.

Total said in September that sanctions would not stop it working on the Yamal project, a $27bn joint venture investment to tap vast natural gas reserves in north-west Siberia that aims to double Russia’s stake in the fast-growing market for liquefied natural gas. De Margerie said then that Europe could not live without Russian gas, adding that there was no reason to do so.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/21/total-oil-ceo-christophe-de-margeriekilled-in-moscow-plane-crash-say-reports

Christophe de Margerie is not the first European oil company boss to die in a plane crash after stepping out of line with the other, particularly American, oil interests and Western policy, and pursuing national economic independence though trading with the Russians.

In Italy, Enrico Mattei,  who was put in charge of the state-owned AGIP corporation after the liberation decided that rather than break it up among private companies, he would expand and reorganise it to develop natural gas resources for Italian industry and reduce dependence on imported fuels. ENI, as it became,  Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (ENI), went on to negotiate important oil concessions in the Middle East and a major trade agreement with the Soviet Union. Mattei also pioneered the policy that oil-producing countries should receive three quarters of the revenue.

Although his politics were Christian Democrat, Mattei openly set out to break the grip of the 'Seven Sisters', the major oil companies of the world. He angered NATO, the US government and its agents within the Italian state when he went to Moscow in 1959, ignoring the Cold War to broker a major oil deal with the Soviet Union. He further upset European colonial powers, particularly the French, ironically,  by showing sympathy for independence movements and offering more generous terms for oil extraction than the big companies usually did.


On October 27, 1962 on a flight from Catania (Sicily) to the Milan Linate Airport, Mattei's jetplane, a Morane-Saulnier MS.760 Paris, crashed in the surroundings of the small village of Bascapè in Lombardy. All three men on board were killed.

The authorities said it was an accident. Many people suspected otherwise, and there were reports that evidence had been destroyed.

Wikipedia tells us:

On October 25, 1995, the Italian public service broadcaster RAI reported the exhumation of the human remains of Mattei and Bertuzzi. Metal debris deformed by an explosion was found in the bones. There is speculation that the fuse of an explosive device was triggered by the mechanism of the landing gear. In 1994 the investigations were reopened and in 1997 a metal indicator and a ring were further analyzed by Professor Firrao of Politecnico di Torino and explosion tracks were found.^[10] Based on this evidence the episode was reclassified by the judge as homicide, but with perpetrator(s) unknown.

 

Retreat at Grangemouth is Dangerous for All

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

Rudyard Kipling 

THE 11th-hour surrender deal agreed by my union at Grangemouth undoubtedly represents a blow not just to the workers there but to those throughout Scotland and Britain.

Responsible for a vital part in Scotland's industry and economy, the Grangemouth workers were among the best-paid, and well-organised. Unite is the biggest union in Britain, and under Len McCluskey's leadership it has advanced to the fore not only of workers' struggle to defend their rights and living standards but of the fight for working-class politics in the labour movement.

Threatened with closure of the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical plant by a billionaire capitalist, Jim Ratcliffe, sitting on his yacht off the South of France, McCluskey and Unite have agreed to a three year wage freeze, which amounts to a pay cut as inflation continues. They have surrendered the final salary pension scheme. And they have given up facilities for union convenors and the right to strike for three years, so the Ineos company management can resume attacking workers' rights and jobs without worrying about resistance.

Trivialising this episode as just another union "sell out" or blaming Len McCluskey just to score points in Facebook discussions hardly bears up to the seriousness of the issues. But it would be foolish to claim this as a victory.

As one of Len McCluskey's critics from the Left (he still has opponents on the Right) notes: "On Friday 25 October the workforce cheered the announcement of a deal that will keep the plant open. That was a natural feeling of relief but it was hardly an endorsement of the terms or the actions of their union’s leaders. Their sense of relief will be short-lived".

 "This defeat without a fight – the very worst sort of defeat – gives a green light to every boss, CEO and manager in Britain to go on the offensive. If even an exceptionally skilled workforce, like the one at Grangemouth, and a mighty union like Unite with its left talking general secretary, can be forced to eat humble pie, then aggressive managers everywhere will be tempted to follow suit."

http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/2013/10/grangemouth-too-big-to-fail-unite-too.html?spref=fb 
 Comment by Jeremy Dewar, on Jerry Hicks' blog. 

Writing from a very different angle, Iain McWhirter in the Herald agrees:

' THE spontaneous cheers of the Grangemouth workers on Friday at the news of their capitulation said it all.

This has been one of the worst industrial relations disasters of modern times and has disturbing implications for trade unionism, the Labour Party and Scotland. The workforce only narrowly escaped with their jobs, but had to accept all of Ineos's terms - a promise not to strike, a three-year wage freeze, zero bonuses, the end of final salary pensions. It was game, set and match to private equity.

The result will have been noted by every industrial employer in Britain, as the highest-paid and best-organised (in a trade union sense) industrial workers in Scotland have been humbled. Indeed, at times Grangemouth felt like a speed-dating version of the miners' strike.' 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/trade-unionism-the-labour-party-and-scotland-will-pay-price-for-the-grangemouth-i.22524694

Grangemouth bailout: Did Ineos screw the taxpayer of £134million?

25 Oct 2013 07:38

ANALYST Richard Murphy is baffled by the company's books and he revealed to the Record that the company actually made £7million in profit last year.

Newspapers and politicians who like to accuse unions and their members of "holding the country to ransome" were a bit more restrained in commenting on Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe doing just that. Nobody demanded that Ineos, a private equity company which became Britain's biggest chemical firm and biggest private company, and moved its HQ to Switzerland to avoid tax, should open its books. But both City commentators and government officials wondered about its deals and accountancy techniques. Not least accountants hired by Unite.    

"Rather than losing money, as the company claim, the chemical plant at Grangemouth delivered £7million in profits last year, analyst Richard Murphy told the Daily Record.
His claims fuelled speculation that Ineos used smart accounting techniques to paint a bleaker
future for the plant and secure taxpayers’ cash.
Murphy said the plant made £6million profit the year before, even after a pension fund shortfall was factored in.
Ineos claim it loses £10million a month.

Murphy, of Fulcrum Chartered Accountants, studied the Ineos accounts on behalf of the union Unite. He says the plant was making a fortune until Ineos apparently set out to make it appear loss-making.
He said Ineos, unlike any other company, decided to factor in their investment in the plant as a loss.
Yesterday, Treasury officials involved in negotiating a £125million infrastructure loan to Ineos said they had to ask for more information from the company over the complex financial structure.
The Scottish government have also chipped in with £9million of grants, making a total of £134million.
Ineos appeared to have presented their accounts in a way which emphasised their need for an urgent injection of finance to underwrite future infrastructure costs."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/grangemouth-bailout-ineos-screw-taxpayer-2528931

With Grangemouth there was more than the 800 jobs of  refinery workers at stake. As Jeremy Dewar notes:

"Grangemouth supplies 70 per cent of Scotland’s petrol pump supplies as well as a considerable amount in the North of England and the North East of Ireland. It processes 200,000 barrels a day and powers the Forties pipeline which transports a third of the North Sea’s output. At least 10,000 Scottish jobs depend on Grangemouth, which accounts for £1 billion of trade and makes up 8 per cent of Scotland’s manufacturing output..

http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/

As McWhirter tells us, "Grangemouth is key to the North Sea's biggest oil field - the BP-operated Forties field 110 miles east of Aberdeen. Up to one-third of the North Sea's entire crude oil production is fed directly into the Grangemouth site. During the strike in Grangemouth in 2008, 70 North Sea platforms were forced to shut down or reduce production. It is hardly surprising therefore that BP - former owner of Grangemouth - was heavily involved in this week's rescue and helped underwrite the new business plan."

There was also a complex political dimension to this battle. While the workers were still locked out and Ineos was pleading poverty, Labour MP Michael Connarty offered to take them at their word. "I would buy the plant for £1!", he told a rally outside the gates, adding that if Ratcliffe got a pay freeze and government subsidy he would be printing money. 

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-a922-Grangemouth-workers-stay-strong#.Um1nLRDYqzl

But Ineos had already been making its own use of the Labour Party connection. In the run up to the attack on pay and pensions they used the row over Falkirk Constituency Labour Party to victimise Grangemouth convenor Stevie Deans, who is also chair of the CLP, and was accused of encouraging Unite members and friends to join the Labour Party. (A serious offence!) Why should a Swiss-based company be concerned with Labour's selection processes?  One might as well ask who told Ed Miliband that he should ask the police to investigate whether there had been a Labour Party rule infringement?  As it was there were no charges to answer, and after Unite balloted members for strike action Stevie Deans was reinstated.

But Ineos had got its diversion, and opportunity to probe the union's defences and undermine its solidarity. And now, as workers return to a no strike deal, the Murdoch press heralds a renewed witch hunt against Deans in the Labour Party. 

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8211-why-the-ssp-will-support-the-grangemouth-workers

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/27/labour-falkirk-vote-rigging-inquiry

A lot of people were quite rightly raising the call to nationalise Grangemouth. With so much public money going in, and a private company ready to close down Scotland, why not? But who would do it? If the Con Dem coalition were unlikely to nationalise, how about the Scottish government? I'm not sure what powers it has, but has it the will-power?

With the independence referendum coming, and the Scottish National Party(SNP) concerned to fight off any challenge from Labour (to whom it has just lost the Dunfermline by-election), would its leader act boldly to save jobs and the Scottish economy, not to mention the SNP's radical and progressive image?

 Salmond spoke not about nationalising but about finding buyers for Grangemouth.  (Apparently the Chinese already have a share).

"At the same time, Salmond was on the line to Unite general secretary Len McClusky trying to persuade him that industrial madness had afflicted his Grangemouth office and that he had better have a word with them. The consequences might not only be a collapse of union membership - that's happening anyway - but serious damage to the Labour Party in Scotland. Johann Lamont is a Unite member and the union backed her leadership campaign in 2011.

Some Labour people might have been content to see the plant close, the better to damage Salmond, but the people of Scotland were looking for a solution, not another 1980s industrial horror show. This alerted Labour leader Ed Miliband, who has of course been in dispute with Unite over the Falkirk selection fiasco.

There were also direct appeals to the Grangemouth workers who had been divided on the action, about half having voted against it. By Wednesday night, confident of the workers' agreement, Salmond had persuaded Ratcliffe and brokered a deal which involved Ineos reopening the plant, investing £300m (most of which was effectively underwritten by the government) to provide a 20-year future for Grangemouth as a global player turning shale gas from America into plastics."

So now we can better understand Len McCluskey's reference to the "security of Scotland" when he announced his surrender plan.

Could there have been another way? It seems to me that in the present political situation, workers have to be prepared to occupy and take over plants, offices, banks and anything else, rather than being advised to wait passively for government -and a hostile government at that - to nationalise. At the same time I'm aware that's not easy, and saying "just like UCS", referring to an occupation more than thirty years ago in pre-Thatcher Britain, will not suffice to give confidence.

According to Jerry Hicks' supporters, "Unite could have altered the whole history of the dispute by organising the immediate occupation of the plant as soon as the lock out was threatened in mid-October. Its members would have been called on to close down the refinery; with union backing they could have refused and the workforce seized control of the equipment and the dispute.

Flying pickets and solidarity action around Britain’s other refineries would soon have had an effect in the petrol stations across the country. From a position of strength, the  British and Scottish governments should have been faced with the demand that Grangemouth be nationalised ..."      

http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/  

Just like that?

Even if Len McCluskey had felt able and willing to call such action, there is no guarantee it would have been supported. As Jeremy Dewar notes elsewhere the union was only able to get 60 per cent support for opposing the Ineos plans.

Dewar speaks of the need to build a rank and file movement and "wrest control" of the union, but I think focussing on elected officers (at a time when many union reps are victimised), official's salaries and leadership ballots, even if you are right, is not confronting the all-round political class consciousness which we need. Not that the political 'left' as it manifests itself these days is that much help.   

Success in Basra, So-so in London

HASSAN JUMA'A (with mike).  Case falls, after EIGHT attempts! Oil workers' leader thanks international solidarity campaign. 

REMISS of me not to update this blog on a couple of issues we have been following.

FIRST, from IRAQ, we got this news on Monday:

 CHARGES AGAINST HASSAN JUMAA HAVE BEEN DROPPED TODAY!
Today the company lawyer and the prosecutor have repeated the accusation against Hassan but in the same time confirmed that there is no damages caused by Hassan’s activities. The prosecutor have asked to close the case and drop the charges. Hassan’s lawyer didn’t need to present his defense and he didn’t expect that the prosecutor will demand dropping the charges. .... Hopefully this will deter future malicious and repressive prosecutions.

Hassan Juma'a Awad, the leader of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, had been facing charges that he organised strikes and campaigned against oil privatisation, in other words did what a union leader ought to be doing, but as Iraq since "liberation" has retained legislation from Saddam Hussein's regime where unions are concerned, he was facing a possible prison sentence. Here is a report from an international union centre:

"The Basra court hearings, originally tabled for 20 March, 7 April, 15 April, 2 May, 19 May, 3 June, and 17 June were all postponed when the Ministry of Oil, the Southern Oil Company (SOC) and its legal representatives consistently failed to provide any evidence in support of their claims that Hassan Juma’a was guilty of undermining the Iraqi economy by organizing illegal strikes and publicly criticizing the privatization of Iraq’s oil.

"The 1 July hearing took less than 30 minutes to reach the decision to drop the charges after the company lawyer and the prosecutor repeated the accusations against Hassan but at the same time confirmed that there were no damages caused by Hassan's activities. The prosecutor asked to close the case and drop the charges. On this occasion Hassan's lawyer did not even need to present his defense.

"If convicted he would have faced stiff fines and up to three years in prison. This is the first time an Iraqi trade unionist has been charged under penal code 111-1969, an archaic law that the Saddam Hussein regime used to repress state employees".           

http://www.industriall-union.org/union-victory-basra-court-finally-drops-charges-against-hassan-jumaa

A number of international union organisations were supporting Hassan Juma'a against this threat, US Labor Against the War(USLaw) circulated an international petition, and here in London a number of us had pledged to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy if the oilworkers' leader was sentenced.

Hassan Juma’a issued this statement on behalf of the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU):
 “In such a happy occasion we would like to thank unions, federations, organizations and individuals who have contributed to the International Campaign to drop the charges and signed the letter addressed to Mr. Prime Minister of Iraq. Around 41 international federations and unions, 44 national federations and unions, 68 non-governmental organization contributed to the campaign. We specially thank the following organizations which tributed to the coordination of the international campaign: Initiative of Solidarity with the Iraqi Civil Society (ICSSI), the (USLAW), International Solidarity Center (SC) and IndustriALL.

 This verdict is a victory of the union freedoms in Iraq and the entire world. It is the best evidence that labour international solidarity is capable of achieving rights.
 
 To the Iraqi government and the ministry of oil: IFOU and its president were never against or source of harm to the Iraqi economy. We were the ones who protected oil and work facilities during difficult times including the occupation period. However, we will continue to practice our rights guaranteed by the Iraqi constitution including our right on trade union organization, defending workers and oil workers' rights and the national interests. We will continue our struggle and call for the issuance of a labor and trade union law. We are open to cooperate with government and international organizations to achieve this demand.”

And so from Iraqi oilworkers to the staff at London Metropolitan University who have been facing victimisation in what looks very much like a case of the authorities bowing to outside pressure. The most senior of those under threat, Professor Stephen Jefferys, issued this statement on Monday:
  

STEVE JEFFERYS takes a break from troubled academe with his granddaughter

With one bound...

< I am writing to you to thank you for supporting our campaign and signing a petition in February and March of this year protesting at the suspensions by London Metropolitan University of myself (Professor of European Employment Studies), Max Watson (the UNISON trade union branch chairperson) and Jawad Botmeh (a Palestinian who had served 13 years in prison as a result of a major miscarriage of justice) in connection with the Working Lives Research Institute having given Jawad work. You may remember that the suspensions followed immediately after Jawad's being elected by LondonMet staff to represent them as a Governor on the LondonMet Board of Governors.

The result of your efforts was a real success: we were all reinstated by March 13. Jawad resigned as Governor on March 14 and is now back at work.

However, senior management has continued to attempt to make life difficult for Max and me by charging both of us with 'serious misconduct' in connection with Jawad's appointment to a half-time casual job in 2008. This was despite the fact that his 2010 appointment to a permanent post was what triggered his ability to stand as a Governor - and the fact that this appointment went through HR and was raised with Professor Malcolm Gillies, five months after he became VC.

In our hearings and at our appeals both Max and I were found 'guilty': Max for 'not remembering' how Jawad had found out about job and for allegedly 'coaching' him (the only candidate); me - although no rules were broken - for failing to approach an even more senior management to approve such a 'controversial' appointment.

While Max was a junior administrative assistant at the time of Jawad's appointment, and I was responsible for it - a decision that led to no risk or damage to the university, staff or students (unlike a series of other decisions taken by other senior managers, none of whom we were told at my appeal, has ever been taken before the university's disciplinary proceedings) - our punishments are now different.

As from today, July 1, the Final Warning I was issued on April 23rd, has now expired. It is for this reason I am now able to write to you all to explain what has happened.

Unfortunately, Max Watson has got a six months' Final Warning which will now only expire on November 1. This is disgraceful treatment of a worker who did absolutely nothing wrong; and it confirms concerns that the management has all along aimed to victimise him because he is an effective trade unionist. This issue is obviously of particular concern to the UNISON trade union, the UK's largest public sector union, but it it also of concern to all who are concerned with rights at work and social justice.

One final suggestion. The Working Lives Research Institute is about rights at work and social justice. If you are not already on our mailing list, I would like to invite you to go to
http://www.workinglives.org/contact-us/mailing-list/subscribe.cfm
and to sign up. Besides showcasing the research projects we work on, under Courses on the website you will find our flagship Professional Doctorate programme - the DProf (Researching Work). This is a part-time doctoral programme that operates on a 5 a year two-day intensive study basis and leads to a doctoral degree usually based on a thesis probing a professional issue of direct relevance to you. Do contact us if you are interested... a new cohort is starting in October.

Of course, our DProf programme will now be enriched with a critical analysis of our own arbitrary managerial action and of the ethics of human resource management, as well as with examples from our recent research on Forced Labour (for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation), http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jun/05/european-governments-oblivious-forced-labour-conditions

Once again, Thanks for your support. You helped us win reinstatement.
Solidarity remains as important for social justice as ever.

yours in solidarity

Steve Jefferys
(In personal capacity)
Director, Working Lives Research Institute,
Faculty Advanced Institute for Research (Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities)
London Metropolitan University
www.workinglives.org

Disaster that won't be forgotten. Struggle that still goes on.

PIPER ALPHA at night. 167 killed as North Sea rig blazed.
 
TWENTY FIVE years after the worst ever oil rig disaster, the blaze on Piper Alpha, in the North Sea, in which 167 workers were killed, there has been a conference to consider the lessons. The BBC is to screen a film about it. But trade unionists fear lives could be lost again, because the government is reducing provision for health and safety inspections in offshore oiland gas, as in other industries, and because workers are frightened to open their mouth about health and safety in case it leads to them losing their jobs and being blacklisted, in the same way as has happened to building workers.   

Trouble on the Piper Alpha rig, operated by Occidental oil in the sea north-east of Aberdeen, started with maintenance issues. On July 6, 1988, one of two pumps sending oil and gas to the mainland had its safety valve removed for routine maintenance, and replaced with a temporary cover.  The on-duty engineer filled out a permit which stated that Pump A was not ready and must not be switched on under any circumstances.

When the night shift began at 6pm, the engineer found the on duty custodian busy, so placed the permit in the control room, and left. This permit disappeared. There was another for general overhaul of the pump , and so did another for genral overhaul of the pump

At 9:45 p.m. problems with a methanol system had led to an accumulation of hydrate ice formed by gas and water combining, and causing a blockage in Pump B. So pump A was restarted, apparently without realising it had no safety valve.  The temporary plate cover was obscured from view by machinery. At 9.55pm escaping gas ignited and caused the first of two explosions, also damging the firefighting system. While the firefighting system was not on automatic control and could not be remotely started from the control room, two outlying platforms joined by pipe to Piper Alpha continued pumping oil and gas into the damaged rig, where it escaped and fuelled the flames.

10:04 p.m. The control room was abandoned. Piper Alpha's design made no allowances for the destruction of the control room, and the platform's organisation disintegrated. No attempt was made to use loudspeakers or to order an evacuation. Emergency procedures instructed personnel to make their way to lifeboat stations, but the fire prevented them from doing so. Instead the men moved to the fireproofed accommodation block beneath the helicopter deck to await further instructions. Wind, fire and smoke prevented helicopter landings and no further instructions were given, with smoke beginning to penetrate the personnel block.

As the crisis mounted, two men donned protective gear in an attempt to reach the diesel pumping machinery below decks and activate the firefighting system. They were never seen again.

By the time rescue helicopters reached the scene, flames over one hundred metres in height and visible a huindred kilometres away prevented safe approach. Tharos, a specialist firefighting vessel, was able to approach the platform, but could not prevent the rupture of the Tartan pipeline, about two hours after the start of the disaster, and it was forced to retreat due to the intensity of the fire. Two crewmen from the standby vessel MV Sandhaven were killed when an explosion on the platform destroyed their Fast Rescue Craft; the survivor Ian Letham later received the George Medal.

The blazing remains of the platform were eventually extinguished three weeks later by a team led by famed firefighter Red Adair, despite reported conditions of 80 mph (130 km/h) winds and 70-foot (20 m) waves. The part of the platform which contained the galley where about 100 victims had taken refuge was recovered in late 1988 from the sea bed, and the bodies of 87 men were found inside.

Various recommendations were made by an inquiry into the disaster, and accepted by the industry. It was also recommended that the government transfer responsibility for safety in the North Sea from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive, to avoid a conflict of interest between productivity and safety considerations. Survivors and relatives formed an association to campaign for better safety.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha

The disaster also boosted a determination by offshore oil industry workers to organise themselves. The Offshore Industries Liaison Committee, formed to link workers regardless of trade or original union eventually became a union in its own right, though not officially recognised by management or within the TUC. In 2008 it became part of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT), a merger which made sense as the RMT already had diver members.

It is Jake Molloy,  formerly OILC general secretary, and now Aberdeen-based regional organiser for the RMT, who is warning that the dismantling of a specialist offshore safety division set up by the government after the Piper Alpha accident will make things worse and should be reversed.

Oil and Gas UK, a lobby group for the major oil companies,  issued its latest annual health and safety report before the Piper 25 conference in Scotland, outlining a 48% reduction in the number of reportable oil and gas releases over the last three years, plus an all-time low in 2012 in the incidence of "over-three-day injuries".

Jake Molloy says these statistics were irrelevant if those employed offshore were still too frightened to report safety breaches because they believed they could lose their job. "Overall safety in the North Sea has improved since Piper Alpha but I have got two safety representatives in my office now saying they cannot do what they are meant to," he said. "You can have all the statistics and the technology in place but it does not make a blind bit of difference if people are under pressure, being bullied, or just disengaged."

Molloy is worried that companies driving to cut costs cut endanger jobs and safety, with workers frightened to risk their employment if they raise safety isues.     

Molloy says oil companies subcontract almost all North Sea work to third-party contractors, meaning those employers are more scared of losing their multimillion-pound deals through lost work time than interested in listening to difficult issues raised by their employees. Some managers rule in a climate of fear where employees dread an "NRB" (not required back) on the grounds of a one-off complaint about their behaviour.

He said even safety representatives feared their employers and did not have the authority to halt operations as they do in Norway, where the overall industry safety record is much better.

The decision by the government to dismantle the offshore safety division inside the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and subsume its functions inside a newly created energy division covering onshore and other installations is also troubling the RMT. "HSE says this restructuring will make no difference but I remain to be convinced, as does the rest of the trade union movement in Scotland. We are also worried that the role of the HSE is being diluted,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/16/oil-gas-workers-safety-fear-sack

See also: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jake-molloy-1876900


There are obvious parallels here with the building trade where workers who raised safety issues found themselves blacklisted. In fact, among the names which stood out among the files of the employers' blacklist Consulting Assocation was that of Glasgow academic Charles Woolfson, apparently becoming of interest after he criticised safety standards in the wake of the Piper Alpha disaster. There were suggestions big companies could put pressure on the institution employing him.

 How an academic got on the blacklist

OILC to RMT, and Enemies

Eight different unions were trying to organise in the offshore oil industry before the OILC got started. In their hard struggle for recognition, safety representation, and wages commensurate with the industry's profits as well as the risks and harsh conditions they faced on the North Sea, workers not only had to contend with hardfaced employers but with two-faced union officialdom.

In March 1991, union officials signed a new 'hook up' agreement with the bosses, over the heads of the workers. Rank and file resentment and anger led to the OILC declaring itself an independent trade union, which gained official certification.They also gained support from the Norwegian offshore union OFT.

Efforts continued to win united action with other unions, for instance to gain better pay and conditions for the worse off workers, like those in catering services, often migrant workers, whom RMT and the TGWU represented.

But even when the OILC decided to rejoin the family, as it were, by merging with the RMT in 2008, its troubles were not over. Two larger unions, the Transport and General (TGWU) and Amicus, had merged and held their first joint executive meeting, and as the bureaucrats looked for ways to chuck their weight about some of them discussed  a move to chuck the RMT out of the Trades Union Congress (TUC).

I thought at first this was a heavy handed follow up to the RMT being expelled from the Labour Party. This had been because it permitted its Glasgow branch to support the Scottish Socialist Party. But I was told in my union branch  that the RMT's "crime" in the eyes of some people was that it had accepted the OILC, a union outside the TUC, to enter the fold.

At that I pointed out the hypocrisy, to say the least, when our new partners in Amicus had brought back in the EEPTU electrical union, and some of its leaders and methods. The EETPU had been outside because it was expelled from the TUC, after Wapping. The OILC was only outside because of its efforts to organise workers, not for scabbing as the EEPTU had done performing Murdoch's bidding.

The irony was obvious enough, as my branch had originated from the breakaway Electrical and Plumbing Industries Union, formed by workers opposed to the right-wing EEPTU leadership and determined to stay with the mainstream trade union movement. But we too had been denounced as a "split" by some of the same people condemning the OILC, before we eventually voted to join the TGWU.     

 Anyway, others more important and influential than me must have thought the same thing, because I never heard more of the plot to oust the RMT, and I don't know whether it ever amounted to more than talk or if anything was done, or even recorded of it. It is possible the change of leadership in Unite put the matter to rest. Still, I am recording it now as a reminder of what not just the RMT/OILC but the decent majority of Unite members are up against.  



Piper Alpha oil rig disaster

http://www.oilc.org/

The OILC Saga

Struggle in North Sea Oil industry

Concern as companies drive to cuts costs

Tell corrupt Iraqi regime to take its hands off trade union brother!

HASSAN JUMA'A


HASSAN JUMA'A  leader of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions is facing a potential jail sentence when he appears in a Basra court on Sunday, May 4, chrged with ‘Overstepping the Duties of a Public Official’. His ‘crime’ is organising protests and building union strength in opposition to oil privatisation, and standing up to anti-union Baath regime legislation which the Occupation and successive Iraqi governments have upheld since 2003.  


Journalist, campaigner and Unite union activist EWA JASIEWICZ met Hassan Juma'a in Iraq, and helped bring him to Britain to meet trade inionists and peace campaigners. Appointd by the Iraqi oil union as its international representative Ewa worked with Iraq Occupation Focus and the oil industry-focussed group Platform on the Hands Off Iraqi Oil campaign, supporting Iraqi oil workers resistance to the big Western oil companies and privatisation. Ewa has written about her friendship with Hassan, and the background to his court case, in this guest blog for Platform.

I first met Hassan 10 years ago in Basra. It was six months since the invasion and the fall of some echelons of the regime – others were being recycled into the service of the Occupation. I'd heard about strikes in the Oil Sector and travelled down to Basra to check out was happening. I was excited that class struggle was challenging imperialism in such a direct and collective and open way, after so many decades of repressive dictatorship.

But I was wary. Who was behind these unions? Were there Baathists at the helm? What were their politics? Baathist yellow unions were still around and I had no intention of supporting them. Meeting Hassan and the other men and women fronting up the Southern Oil Company Union I was struck by the diversity of the steering committee. Communists, Islamists, younger and older activists. All were anti-regime – Hassan himself had been jailed three times under Saddam – and all were anti-occupation. They knew exactly what the invasion had been focused on – oil, support for Israel, widening western influence in the region, weakening Iran, imposing corporate rule and fomenting sectarianism to achieve this.

Hassan’s wife was Sunni, he was Shia. This had never come up in all the months I spent with his family – six children, 3 boys and 3 girls – during the many evenings in his humble, deteriorating stone house in Jhoumouria, a working class district in Northern Basra. We drank sweet thick tea, boiled on the stove all day, and ate fresh naan-like bread with fried-to-a-pulp tomatoes. We talked about the new Bremer Orders, anti-union managers, how to garner international support, how to organise, what was Privatisation going to mean? And about the Baathist security apparatus employees that were now working as security guards for the new mercenary companies crawling all over Iraq.

I found out about the ‘difference’ between Abu and Om Ali when were on a trip to Scotland to meet Fire Brigades Union leaders. Hassan joked that under the occupation administration’s agenda, he should kill his wife ! Such was the level of sectarian rhetoric and policy being pushed in the country. For Hassan and the SOC Union, unity at work and unity nationwide were key priorities. It was common to hear ‘We do not recognise these categories, Sunna and Shia, the Occupation brought them – we are Iraqis’.

Hassan enjoyed his visits to the UK. He stayed in my home when I lived in Manchester and we visited Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium where his message of support in Arabic can still be found in the visitor’s book. Comrades from the then Transport and General Workers Union in Salford were fascinated by him. ‘Whass his name again? Nessun Dorma?’ The nickname stuck.

From an original founding membership of about a hundred, the Union grew to a federation of over 23,000 workers. Links were made with unions in the Kurdish north. Joint co-ordinating meetings became common-place. Anti-privatisation conferences where papers examining the agendas of the likes of Shell and BP were presented and links with international trade unions and NGOs were developed.

"... to me, and so many others, he was and is, a working class hero" 

                                       Ewa Jasiewicz

The SOC Union grew to become the General Union of Oil Employees and later the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions and a front of working class resistance to the western aims of privatising and controlling Iraq’s oil. An Oil Law, part drafted by and hard-lobbied for by the biggest oil companies in the world, has still not been passed, due to popular resistance. Oil experts, some political parties and Islamic scholars had their role in making sure it would not pass but it was also the visible, loud and determined street and workplace protests of the oil and other trade unions that established a public, common interest in keeping Iraq’s oil in the hands of the Iraqi people.

The Production Sharing Agreement – the PSA – is an unknown entity in the UK and arguably all over the world, but a household terms and a red hot potato in Iraq. The neutral and fluffy sounding contract that private oil companies crave to secure decades of control over public resources became emblazoned across banners and placards all over the country, in large part due to awareness raising by the IFOU, with the help of social justice and environmental campaigners from the global North, like Platform in London. Who would have thought that this secretive, codified, technocratic ‘thing’ that is the PSA was become a shouted-out, negated, we-know-your-game public enemy?

Abu Ali, or Hassan Jumaa, was a well respected figure in the community, as someone who had supported the families and widows of those killed under the Baath regime and in the wars with Iran and the West. He was often inscrutable. Never a word wasted. Every word counted under the regime because the wrong one could be your last one. He played his cards close to his chest. But he also had a killer sense of humour and was often hilarious and irreverent. For some in Basra he was an ardent communist, for others, an Islamist. Rumours flew. But to me, and so many others, he was and is, a working class hero, a community, workplace and country-wide activist for social and economic justice and liberation.

Real liberation, human, class-struggle liberation that sees all resources and the environment as a commons to be respected. These were and are the politics of the IFOU – developed through an understanding of Iraq’s anti-colonial history, Islamic economics and Islamic social principles, communism and on-the-ground organising in the face of dictatorship, war and occupation. These are the politics – the politics of a commons – that are so dangerous to Power which seeks to dominate, divide and denigrate people who get ‘in the way’ of capital. It’s no wonder that the Iraqi government, the subcontractor of Western imperialism, is cracking down on mass, participatory movements – like the trade union movement – that challenges its’ anti-social agenda.

Last week, I met an Iraqi shop-owner in Warsaw, we had a chat over the cumin and dates. We talked about his family in Baghdad, and how bad the situation was. I told him about the Union and Hassan and how he might end up in Jail. Saeed, the shop owner, was not shocked. ‘For challenging the oil companies? Of course he is going to Jail, aaadi, normal’. I looked back at him glumly. He continued, matter-of-fact but up-beat. ‘No really, it’s normal, he will go, directly, ah, but its ok’.

The ‘ok’ being the so common ‘T’awodna’ – ‘we got used to it’ ethos – that you hear all over the Arab world in response to bloody and harrowing struggles that never end, and which steadfastness holds out over. But it isnt ok. And there’s a real risk it will happen.

Dozens of unions worldwide have endorsed the solidarity pledge for Hassan, thousands have signed a petition and there was a snowy protest at the Iraqi embassy in Warsaw (a one-woman protest if I’m honest. My Polish friends joked this a ‘medium sized protest for Poland. A small one is just over facebook and the web. Nah you did well’ they said). There will be solidarity observers at Hassan’s trial and his comrades in all Union in Iraq will be watching too. The story should be news but the ‘what bleeds leads’ agenda still rules when it comes to the Mainstream Media.

We need to be prepared for more punitive and repressive actions against trade unionists in Iraq and to respond to them with solidarity and support. The game of divide and rule is still being violently played out on the bodies and in the communities of ordinary people all over the country. Death and imprisonment are still key tools of censorship in the hands of Iraq’s and all governments. The battle for justice and liberation is far from over and we can’t forget the working class heroes in Iraq still fighting the occupation of capital and designs of imperial powers.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT: Get your organisation or union to sign on to US Labor Against War’s letter to the Iraqi Prime Minister

Protest at your local Iraqi Embassy, and let us know about it!

Oil workers leader facing jail sentence

STOP PRESS!  Change of Dates -

Hassan's case is postponed until SUNDAY MAY 19th now. This is the second time it has been postponed. Has the Iraqi government found it difficult making its case?  The Ministry of Oil has not provided the Southern Oil Company with any 'evidence' against Hassan. The judge also reminded the SOC that protest is allowed under the Iraqi constitution.  Our protest now postponed till MONDAY May 20th

 DEMONSTRATION :  MONDAY,  MAY 20th  LONDON
   17:00 hrs AT THE IRAQI EMBASSY
21 Queen's Gate London, Greater London SW7 5JE

Hassan Jumaa Awad is the leader of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions. He is facing up to 3 years in prison for 'overstepping the boundaries of a public official' for 'organising strikes and protests' against Oil privatisation, occupation and attacks on workers' terms and conditions in the oil sector. He is in court in Basra on Sunday May 5th. This protest is in solidarity with him and the thousands of Iraqi workers who are forbidden from organising, have had their unions ruled illegal and are fighting back under an ongoing Occupation. The Iraqi government still bans Unions in the Public Sector - Iraqi Unions want this lifted.