After school, I went straight to UCL to study maths. It was a great four years; most (though not all) of the courses were really interesting*, UCL turned out to be a great university (very friendly and lots going on), and I still can't think of a better place to be than London. It was more by chance than design that it worked out well though- I spent ages in the sixth form dithering over whether to go for maths or obscure languages (I was quite tempted by Anglo Saxon, Norse and Celtic, or Oriental languages- for some reason I never considered more standard choices such as French, even though I was doing French A-level at that point). In the end I decided maths was the best choice as it would be easier to keep up the languages I'd learned at school in my spare time than to study maths**, and I might even manage to learn new ones if I wanted to badly enough. I dropped French A-level (without regret as I had a personality clash with one of the teachers***) in order to take up AS Mechanics, and never looked back.****
So then came the really hard part, choosing the university. I asked my dad and my teachers where was good for maths, and got a list of ten or fifteen places. Not all of these would fit on the form we got given which let you order up a certain number of university prospectuses, and I'm afraid the ones that didn't make it were a random selection after I'd put down the places I was definitely interested in. I got back all the prospectuses and read them and looked at the photos and still didn't feel much further on. At this point my definite thoughts on the subject could be summarised as 1) I could see a distinction (in reputation and in concept) between Oxbridge and the rest- though I was a bit ambivalent about Oxbridge and wasn't sure whether I wanted to apply- and 2) I knew that I didn't want to go to Oxford as what with going to school there and meeting my friends there most weekends for a night out I rather felt I'd had enough of the town for several years and quite possibly for a lifetime. After much deliberation I did decide to apply to Cambridge- after all I didn't have to make it my firm choice even if I got an offer, and I also put down Warwick because of its reputation and because they had Ian Stewart and I'd read some of his popular science books. The other four places (Imperial, UCL, York, Bristol) were chosen without too much rationale, though the lure of London probably did influence my putting down the first two. I'm not quite sure why at this point I hadn't gone on any open days, except a Women in Maths day at UCL which wasn't an open day as such but also involved getting to see the college in passing (and was another reason I put UCL on the Ucas form), though it was probably something to do with not being a dynamic and motivated individual who always thinks one step ahead (despite the best efforts of the Head of Sixth Form to form all of us in that mold). On the other hand, there's a limit to how many open days you can go to without the school starting to make objections, since they have them on weekdays in term time, so I suppose even if I had gone to some it wouldn't have been enough to make it the basis for selection or not of all the places I was considering. But in the course of the application process I did at least get to visit the ones on my Ucas form- some of them because I was asked to interview there, and some because even though their policy was to make an offer without interview they invited candidates to come and have a look round anyway. The visits would have been quite a bit more fun if none of them had involved interviews and if their purpose was not to help in a decision that felt like it had the power to make or break the rest of my life- four years seeming then like quite a long time- but in spite of all that I did enjoy them, and they definitely helped me to make the next big decision. For example, even though Imperial was the only one of the six to pay for the prospective students' lunches, it went right to the bottom of my list because it seemed really unfriendly, whilst UCL, being the friendliest by far, got quite a few brownie points. Though I hasten to add I wasn't just going on friendliness...
In the end, with offers from all of them, I did choose Cambridge for my firm offer. This was probably mostly because of the reputation and the feeling that a degree from there would be better regarded; a small contributing factor may have been that my interviewer at UCL, after asking about the other places I'd applied and my intentions toward them, spent at least half of the interview trying to persuade me that it would be best for me to choose Cambridge (several years later I found out that he'd left UCL for Cambridge shortly afterwards- so probably wasn't feeling too much loyalty to UCL at that point). Certainly the place itself didn't appeal much- it was even smaller than Oxford and very grey. In fact a part of me was rather worried that I wouldn't be happy there, but it was a fairly subconscious part so didn't stop me choosing it. The insurance offer was harder- though tempted by London, Warwick was my second favourite- being a campus university, it conformed to the picture in my mind of What A University Should Be Like, and of course it had the prestigious maths department with Ian Stewart. But it didn't make a good insurance offer because it only differed from Cambridge in wanting lower STEP paper grades (and one less of them). I did try arguing to myself that the STEP papers were what I was having trouble with (for the first few months of attempting practice papers they seemed absolutely impossible) and that that was where if anywhere I would slip up. But even I could see it wasn't sensible and I went for UCL- partly because it was my third choice and partly because they had given me an offer of two Es and thus nobody could say it didn't make a very good insurance offer indeed. (They had a policy at that time, since stopped, of giving two E offers to applicants who were likely to put Oxbridge down as a firm choice, in the hope that UCL would become the applicant's insurance and would then get those students who were basically talented but fluffed up their A-levels)
And it was just as well that I did. In spite of my predictions about the STEP papers, I actually got the required grades for those, and it was my A-levels that were the problem. Specifically, and rather embarrassingly, the one in question was the Maths A-level. I actually got the grades Cambridge asked for, AAB and an A in AS Mechanics, but because they specified that one of the As had to be in Maths, I didn't make the offer. Most of the other offers also specified an A in maths, so it was fortunate that I had gone with UCL for my insurance. Of course, even though AAB and an A at AS are still very good grades, I was upset because being rejected by Cambridge felt like failing. But the silver lining was that at least I was off to London which was a lot more appealing than Cambridge as a place to live. And the first few weeks were so hectic and I was so busy adjusting that I didn't really think about it much until quite a way into the term- by which point I could say to myself that if I had gone to Cambridge I wouldn't have met any of my new friends, which would have been a shame. By Christmas I was enjoying UCL so much that I was even able to see missing the grade as possibly a wholly good thing. Now, I'm sure of it. UCL also has a very good reputation, but more importantly, I don't think there's a university or a town/city that I would have been as happy in. I can see now that I wouldn't have enjoyed Cambridge (the place mostly but probably also the academic side), and I don't think I'd have liked Warwick much either. So that's how I ended up with four great years!
*Graph Theory and Combinatorics, Computational Methods [Fortran programming], Linear Programming, and Algebraic Number Theory were the best; some mistakes I made in choosing were Mathematics in Biology, Logic and Algebra 4; other (compulsory) courses that I wasn't so keen on were Methods and Fluid Dynamics. **And indeed I have continued with my French; my speaking, writing and listening are still about GCSE level as I haven't had much chance to practice, but I've worked my way up gradually from very easy books via Tintin and Le Petit Nicolas to proper French novels and am happy to report that my reading is now practically fluent. Not to boast, or anything, you know, just thought I'd mention it. As an example of how I was right about that. Oh, never mind.
***Among other odious habits she used to refer to any other student in the same year as 'your little friend'- admittedly, being French, English was not her first language but still. Beyond the pale.
****I'm not sure why all the asterisks are in the first paragraph. It would make more sense to have them in the last paragraph where there wouldn't be so much scrolling- but I didn't have anything extra to say there :)
This blog is designed to provide an answer to the question 'What is university like?'. It's something I wondered from time to time until I experienced it for myself- even though my dad was a university lecturer and I went to work with him a few times in the school holidays when I was little, I still couldn't quite work it out. During my undergraduate degree (maths at UCL), it didn't even occur to me to write anything more ambitious than emails about what it was all like- I was too busy finding my way through living away from home for the first time and getting to grips with the new way of studying, not to mention getting involved with the various events and activities that surround you at university, and besides as a newbie I didn't really feel qualified. Now that I'm about to do a masters in statistics at LSE, it seems like a great opportunity to provide a window on my life as a student in London- and I realise that actually a newcomer's perspective is in some ways the most appropriate, since they notice things that those who have been there longer take for granted. In my case it will be informed by my previous time at university to give what I hope will be a combination of what it's like to experience everything right from the beginning, and knowledge gained from what I learned the first time round.
Although it's a postgraduate degree, I'm anticipating that, as it's a taught masters, life will be fairly similar to my time at UCL (allowing of course for the change in college)- and thus that this blog will be relevant to anyone interested in the undergraduate experience. In any case, I intend to comment on any major differences between the two as I encounter them.
Of course, as well as providing information and a sense of looking out through a student's eyes the idea is that this blog will be entertaining, interesting and amusing for the general reader. Well, I can only promise to try! But university life is engaging and varied enough to give me quite a helping hand.
I'm not planning to start posting regularly until the academic year actually starts- probably from 24th September when I move into halls. So don't expect a new entry every day, but I'll probably write again a few times before then to give a bit of background information!
Again, I'm not stupid. Not that inability to spell is a sign of stupidity- far from it. Just to prove I can spell: wonderful business across exercise. See, it's not that I don't know how- I actually believe my versions are better...
I'm not stupid :-) I realise that I've included enough information in here for people to work out who I am (well, people who actually know me and see me from time to time, probably not random people dropping in from China or Brazil). So why am I not using my real name, if anybody it would mean anything to could work it out anyway? Basically so that no-one finds this site by searching for it (or any of the other names I've replaced with (very unimaginative) pseudonyms). I don't mind sharing with complete strangers- but it'd be a bit wierd having people I know reading this stuff. Of course, I accept that if you put things on the internet then you run the risk of people reading them. But with 1 billion internet users or whatever the figure is and with my current readership numbers, I don't think it's too much of a danger- and at least I'm not increasing the chances!
Hello! You may have gathered that we have something of a problem with Sir Peter Sutherland. What with all the people sitting on the stage with posters, the poster hanging from the balcony and so on, yes, I had kind of deduced you weren't too happy. Why is that? Glad you asked. To begin with, he's the chairman of BP- see overleaf for some of the things they've been involved in.
Ah yes. So maybe he's not a nice guy. But what happened to freedom of speech? We're right behind freedom of speech- we're not objecting to him coming to speak at LSE. In the past many other people have come to talk whose views we did not agree with and we were happy for them to have their say, even if we weren't happy about what it was they were saying. This protest is due to his appointment as Chair of LSE Council. The talk is a chance for us to protest while he's here at LSE.
Chair of LSE Council? What does that involve? Well, in the words of LSE's website, Council is "responsible for the overall determination of strategy and its members are company directors of the School". The Chair of Council is in addition a figurehead and representative of the School.
And you don't want to be represented by the chairman of a company with the, shall we say, interesting record presented overleaf? Absolutely not. But that's not the only issue. We also feel that, with the appointment of another person from the world of business to Council, the School is in danger of moving away from its social science and Fabian origins and becoming business orientated. It's also worthy of note that Peter Sutherland has no prior connection to LSE. BP have been a steady donator to LSE over the past few years though... Could this be the LSE equivalent of a cash-for-honours scandal?
So you're not happy. Ok, I see your point. But why are you protesting now? Wouldn't it have been better to express your views during the appointment process? You've put your finger on the wider problem. Students currently have no say in the choice of the Chair or members of Council. As well as Peter Sutherland not taking up the position as Chair, we also want to be integrated into the selection process. Otherwise, as someone pointed out, we might only get Kenneth Clarke instead.
Well, good luck to you. Thankyou. So you support us?
Absolutely. Can I join in? Please! The more the better. Come and sit with us on the stage. But this is a non-violent direct action, so we ask that you sit in silence, do not engage with any members of the audience, and do not struggle or fight if removed from the stage by security personnel (you can go limp though, to make it harder for them). The more the merrier!
If you're not quite up for that, but still want to show your support, then we have a petition you can sign: http://www.petitiononline.com/lsesuth/petition.html About 450 people have signed so far. If you believe that this appointment is a serious cause of concern for LSE students, and that this selection does not fit with LSE's reputation as a world-renowned social sciences institution providing ground-breaking research on human rights, social inclusion and environmental policy, then please come and join us on stage and/or sign our petition!
A few leaves from BP's record
Alaska
What happened? 265,000 gallons of oil spilled from a pipeline belonging to a BP-led group of companies in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska in March 2006 [A].
That's not their fault, right? After all, accidents do happen. Well, BP were fined $300,000 in May 2002 for not installing a leak detection system promptly (as they were required to by state law) [A], and the last time time that BP checked its Prudhoe Bay pipes for corrosion, using a machine known as a 'smart pig' was in 1992, something that the team leader of BP's corrosion management and chemicals program, Bill Hedges, admitted was "with hindsight [...] clearly a gap in our program" (after further but much smaller leaks in August) [B]. Production in Prudhoe Bay had to be shut down in August after the leaks while corroded pipeline was replaced [B]. Environmentalists have suggested that BP doesn't want to invest money in keeping its pipes well maintained because Prudhoe Bay is an aging oil field and thus gradually coming towards the end of its productive life [B].
Perhaps BP just didn't realise they had a problem. What do they have to say about it? They explained that they didn't think the pipelines needed very frequent inspection as the kind of oil they were carrying was very clean crude oil [B]. But its employees say that they warned the company many times of the increased risk of spills associated with such low levels of maintenance- "For years we've been warning the company about cutting back on maintenance," according to Mark Kovac, a union official (talking to the New York Times). "We know that this [the March spill] could have been prevented." [C]
Baku- Tbilisi- Ceyhan pipeline
What is it? A pipeline from the Caspian sea to the Mediterrranean, running from Baku in Azerbaijan to Ceyhan in Turkey via Tbilisi in Georgia. 1,750 km long, it is intended to carry 1 million barrels of oil a day [D].
You know, now you mention it, I think I’ve vaguely heard of it. What's the problem? Where to start? This is scratching the surface, but with limited space, here are just a few points:
The contracts between BP and the three governments in question override the countries’ social and environmental legislation and have been described as ‘colonial’ [I].
Work on the pipeline was stopped in 2004 by the Georgian government after BP began work in the Borjomi region (containing the Borjomi National Park and many mineral water springs) without a construction permit. The company was sent a reminder by the Environment Ministry that it needed to apply for the permit, but failed to do so and was illegally working without one for a week before the government intervened. The Environment Minister Tamar Lebanidze was reported to have said that she would not have approved BP's intended route for the pipeline through the Borjomi region, as it runs through an area that is very prone to earthquakes and landslides and if a pipe ruptured it could cause great environmental damage [E].
There have been human rights issues including violations of international fair trial standards in Turkey linked to the pipeline. For example, the case of Ferhat Kaya, who was sentenced to six months imprisonment for referring to jailed Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan as 'Mr Ocalan' in a speech (no, really- I'm not making this up), in spite of the fact that others who had spoken at the same event and were charged with the similar offences were either acquitted or had the charges against them dropped. "It seems evident from the circumstances of Mr. Kaya’s prosecution that he has been deliberately singled out for his entirely lawful work on the BTC pipeline, in direct contravention of all assurances given by BP, the World Bank and the UK government," said the Kurdish Human Rights Project Executive Director, Kerim Yildiz [F]. That wasn't the end of Mr Kaya's troubles: he was arrested again in May 2004, and alledgedly tortured (eleven police officers were accused of ill-treating him), because of his work with villagers affected by the pipeline. Once again violations of international fair trial standards were noted in his trial, by a fact-finding mission which observed it [G].
Other fact-finding missions to Azerbaijan and Georgia in October 2004 resulted in two reports produced by CEE Bankwatch Network, Friends of the Earth England, Wales & Northern Ireland, Les Amis de la Terre, France, Green Alternative, Georgia and the National Ecological Center for Ukraine. These revealed that some people whose land had been used for the pipeline or in its construction (for example for access roads) had not yet been compensated, while others had received inadequate compensation (for example due to their land wrongly being classified as agricultural instead of residential), and there were even cases of different people receiving different amounts of compensation for the same amount and type of land. The reports also detail safety issues for the people living near the pipeline, such as the pollution of their drinking water with inadequate alternative arrangements made for those affected. It is believed that this pollution is having a negative impact on the numbers of tourists visiting the area, which in turn causes economic problems for the inhabitants [G, H].
To give some idea of the ethical implications of the pipeline, a company like Barclays has actually refused to loan money for the project [J].
So not great, then. Still, at least the villagers round the pipeline are getting all that lovely oil, right? Er, no, actually. All the oil is going to the West (it's travelling from the oil fields to the sea where it can be shipped out)- though the region round the pipeline is energy deprived so they could certainly do with it [I].
Ok, that's pretty bad. Did you know that the pipeline is being partly funded by British taxpayers' money (via loans from the World Bank, the Export Credit Guarantee Dept and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) [K]? Or that the amount of oil it will transport will have an effect on climate change more than equivalent to that of all of the UK’s power stations put together [I]?
West Papua
What's happening there? The Tangguh Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project in Bintuni bay, West Papua.
What's the problem? There were concerns among villagers about the effect of the project on the local population of shrimp, crab and fish, and on the mangroves- the inhabitants rely on these to survive.
The villagers were to be resettled, but there were issues with the compensation which many considered inadequate, and with the fact that BP were not telling the people affected when they would have to move- meaning that they couldn't plan building or farming activities properly.
Due to their experiences with the Indonesian military guarding sawmill and logging operations, the villagers were very worried about involvement of the military. There was a real possibility that they would initiate conflict in the area in order to justify their presence as security for the project. The military repression of 2001, which involved ten fatalaties besides disappearances and houses burning down, was linked to the Tangguh project- it was seen as being intended to show BP that they needed the military's protection [L].
Eh? Why are the military so keen to get involved? They get paid for performing guard duties. There is a history of human rights abuses associated with other projects- for example the Freeport/Rio Tinto mine, also in West Papua, and Exxon Mobil's gas installations in Aceh [L]. Colombia
What's happening there? BP operates the Cusiana and Cupiagua oil fields in Casanare province.
What's the problem? During construction of a pipeline to take the oil to the coast, the movement of large amounts of earth caused avalanches, changed the course of streams and filled up springs. This meant that some of the land in the area stopped being productive, and villagers had to move as they could no longer support themselves there.
BP failed to properly compensate people for their land, and many were unhappy about this, and put pressure on BP. There was a civil war in Colombia at the time, and although these people were nothing to do with the state or armed opposition groups, they were treated as subversives. A private security company, DSC, hired by BP, attended community meetings and used informers to find out about leaders, and this information was shared with the Colombian police and the defence ministry. Activists were threatened, intimidated and in some cases even murdered by local paramilitary groups. [M]
Texas
What happened? An explosion at BP's Texas City refinery was caused by petrol leaking from a broken unit. 15 people were killed and more than 1000 injured.
And I thought leaking water mains were bad. It takes on a whole new dimension when it's petrol, doesn't it? BP admitted there had been shortcomings in safety at the plant, and set aside $1.6 billion to settle more than 1,300 lawsuits. After all the other lawsuits relating to deaths and many of the injury claims had been settled out of court, Eva Rowe, the daughter of a couple killed in the explosion, was still refusing to accept BP's offer because she wanted the company to admit responsibility and take action to improve safety at the plant. If it had come to trial, an internal study would have been presented as evidence to show that BP ignored safety issues before the incident. But in the end BP apologised, acknowledged that it was to blame, and promised to make things safer both at the Texas City refinery and across the industry, and settled with Ms Rowe.[N]
Hello! You may have gathered that we have something of a problem with Sir Peter Sutherland. What with all the people sitting on the stage with posters, the poster hanging from the balcony and so on, yes, I had kind of deduced you weren't too happy. Why is that? Glad you asked. To begin with, he's the chairman of BP- see overleaf for some of the things they've been involved in.
Ah yes. So maybe he's not a nice guy. But what happened to freedom of speech? We're right behind freedom of speech- we're not objecting to him coming to speak at LSE. In the past many other people have come to talk whose views we did not agree with and we were happy for them to have their say, even if we weren't happy about what it was they were saying. This protest is due to his appointment as Chair of LSE Council. The talk is a chance for us to protest while he's here at LSE.
Chair of LSE Council? What does that involve? Well, in the words of LSE's website, Council is "responsible for the overall determination of strategy and its members are company directors of the School". The Chair of Council is in addition a figurehead and representative of the School.
And you don't want to be represented by the chairman of a company with the, shall we say, interesting record presented overleaf? Absolutely not. But that's not the only issue. We also feel that, with the appointment of another person from the world of business to Council, the School is in danger of moving away from its social science and Fabian origins and becoming business orientated. It's also worthy of note that Peter Sutherland has no prior connection to LSE. BP have been a steady donator to LSE over the past few years though... Could this be the LSE equivalent of a cash-for-honours scandal?
So you're not happy. Ok, I see your point. But why are you protesting now? Wouldn't it have been better to express your views during the appointment process? You've put your finger on the wider problem. Students currently have no say in the choice of the Chair or members of Council. As well as Peter Sutherland not taking up the position as Chair, we also want to be integrated into the selection process. Otherwise, as someone pointed out, we might only get Kenneth Clarke instead.
Well, good luck to you. Thankyou. So you support us?
Absolutely. Can I join in? Please! The more the better. Come and sit with us on the stage. But this is a non-violent direct action, so we ask that you sit in silence, do not engage with any members of the audience, and do not struggle or fight if removed from the stage by security personnel (you can go limp though, to make it harder for them). The more the merrier!
If you're not quite up for that, but still want to show your support, then we have a petition you can sign: http://www.petitiononline.com/lsesuth/petition.html About 450 people have signed so far. If you believe that this appointment is a serious cause of concern for LSE students, and that this selection does not fit with LSE's reputation as a world-renowned social sciences institution providing ground-breaking research on human rights, social inclusion and environmental policy, then please come and join us on stage and/or sign our petition!
A few leaves from BP's record
Alaska
What happened? 265,000 gallons of oil spilled from a pipeline belonging to a BP-led group of companies in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska in March 2006 [A].
That's not their fault, right? After all, accidents do happen. Well, BP were fined $300,000 in May 2002 for not installing a leak detection system promptly (as they were required to by state law) [A], and the last time time that BP checked its Prudhoe Bay pipes for corrosion, using a machine known as a 'smart pig' was in 1992, something that the team leader of BP's corrosion management and chemicals program, Bill Hedges, admitted was "with hindsight [...] clearly a gap in our program" (after further but much smaller leaks in August) [B]. Production in Prudhoe Bay had to be shut down in August after the leaks while corroded pipeline was replaced [B]. Environmentalists have suggested that BP doesn't want to invest money in keeping its pipes well maintained because Prudhoe Bay is an aging oil field and thus gradually coming towards the end of its productive life [B].
Perhaps BP just didn't realise they had a problem. What do they have to say about it? They explained that they didn't think the pipelines needed very frequent inspection as the kind of oil they were carrying was very clean crude oil [B]. But its employees say that they warned the company many times of the increased risk of spills associated with such low levels of maintenance- "For years we've been warning the company about cutting back on maintenance," according to Mark Kovac, a union official (talking to the New York Times). "We know that this [the March spill] could have been prevented." [C]
Baku- Tbilisi- Ceyhan pipeline
What is it? A pipeline from the Caspian sea to the Mediterrranean, running from Baku in Azerbaijan to Ceyhan in Turkey via Tbilisi in Georgia. 1,750 km long, it is intended to carry 1 million barrels of oil a day [D].
You know, now you mention it, I think I’ve vaguely heard of it. What's the problem? Where to start? This is scratching the surface, but with limited space, here are just a few points:
The contracts between BP and the three governments in question override the countries’ social and environmental legislation and have been described as ‘colonial’ [I].
Work on the pipeline was stopped in 2004 by the Georgian government after BP began work in the Borjomi region (containing the Borjomi National Park and many mineral water springs) without a construction permit. The company was sent a reminder by the Environment Ministry that it needed to apply for the permit, but failed to do so and was illegally working without one for a week before the government intervened. The Environment Minister Tamar Lebanidze was reported to have said that she would not have approved BP's intended route for the pipeline through the Borjomi region, as it runs through an area that is very prone to earthquakes and landslides and if a pipe ruptured it could cause great environmental damage [E].
There have been human rights issues including violations of international fair trial standards in Turkey linked to the pipeline. For example, the case of Ferhat Kaya, who was sentenced to six months imprisonment for referring to jailed Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan as 'Mr Ocalan' in a speech (no, really- I'm not making this up), in spite of the fact that others who had spoken at the same event and were charged with the similar offences were either acquitted or had the charges against them dropped. "It seems evident from the circumstances of Mr. Kaya’s prosecution that he has been deliberately singled out for his entirely lawful work on the BTC pipeline, in direct contravention of all assurances given by BP, the World Bank and the UK government," said the Kurdish Human Rights Project Executive Director, Kerim Yildiz [F]. That wasn't the end of Mr Kaya's troubles: he was arrested again in May 2004, and alledgedly tortured (eleven police officers were accused of ill-treating him), because of his work with villagers affected by the pipeline. Once again violations of international fair trial standards were noted in his trial, by a fact-finding mission which observed it [G].
Other fact-finding missions to Azerbaijan and Georgia in October 2004 resulted in two reports produced by CEE Bankwatch Network, Friends of the Earth England, Wales & Northern Ireland, Les Amis de la Terre, France, Green Alternative, Georgia and the National Ecological Center for Ukraine. These revealed that some people whose land had been used for the pipeline or in its construction (for example for access roads) had not yet been compensated, while others had received inadequate compensation (for example due to their land wrongly being classified as agricultural instead of residential), and there were even cases of different people receiving different amounts of compensation for the same amount and type of land. The reports also detail safety issues for the people living near the pipeline, such as the pollution of their drinking water with inadequate alternative arrangements made for those affected. It is believed that this pollution is having a negative impact on the numbers of tourists visiting the area, which in turn causes economic problems for the inhabitants [G, H].
To give some idea of the ethical implications of the pipeline, a company like Barclays has actually refused to loan money for the project [J].
So not great, then. Still, at least the villagers round the pipeline are getting all that lovely oil, right? Er, no, actually. All the oil is going to the West (it's travelling from the oil fields to the sea where it can be shipped out)- though the region round the pipeline is energy deprived so they could certainly do with it [I].
Ok, that's pretty bad. Did you know that the pipeline is being partly funded by British taxpayers' money (via loans from the World Bank, the Export Credit Guarantee Dept and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) [K]? Or that the amount of oil it will transport will have an effect on climate change more than equivalent to that of all of the UK’s power stations put together [I]?
West Papua
What's happening there? The Tangguh Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project in Bintuni bay, West Papua.
What's the problem? There were concerns among villagers about the effect of the project on the local population of shrimp, crab and fish, and on the mangroves- the inhabitants rely on these to survive.
The villagers were to be resettled, but there were issues with the compensation which many considered inadequate, and with the fact that BP were not telling the people affected when they would have to move- meaning that they couldn't plan building or farming activities properly.
Due to their experiences with the Indonesian military guarding sawmill and logging operations, the villagers were very worried about involvement of the military. There was a real possibility that they would initiate conflict in the area in order to justify their presence as security for the project. The military repression of 2001, which involved ten fatalaties besides disappearances and houses burning down, was linked to the Tangguh project- it was seen as being intended to show BP that they needed the military's protection [L].
Eh? Why are the military so keen to get involved? They get paid for performing guard duties. There is a history of human rights abuses associated with other projects- for example the Freeport/Rio Tinto mine, also in West Papua, and Exxon Mobil's gas installations in Aceh [L]. Colombia
What's happening there? BP operates the Cusiana and Cupiagua oil fields in Casanare province.
What's the problem? During construction of a pipeline to take the oil to the coast, the movement of large amounts of earth caused avalanches, changed the course of streams and filled up springs. This meant that some of the land in the area stopped being productive, and villagers had to move as they could no longer support themselves there.
BP failed to properly compensate people for their land, and many were unhappy about this, and put pressure on BP. There was a civil war in Colombia at the time, and although these people were nothing to do with the state or armed opposition groups, they were treated as subversives. A private security company, DSC, hired by BP, attended community meetings and used informers to find out about leaders, and this information was shared with the Colombian police and the defence ministry. Activists were threatened, intimidated and in some cases even murdered by local paramilitary groups. [M]
Texas
What happened? An explosion at BP's Texas City refinery was caused by petrol leaking from a broken unit. 15 people were killed and more than 1000 injured.
And I thought leaking water mains were bad. It takes on a whole new dimension when it's petrol, doesn't it? BP admitted there had been shortcomings in safety at the plant, and set aside $1.6 billion to settle more than 1,300 lawsuits. After all the other lawsuits relating to deaths and many of the injury claims had been settled out of court, Eva Rowe, the daughter of a couple killed in the explosion, was still refusing to accept BP's offer because she wanted the company to admit responsibility and take action to improve safety at the plant. If it had come to trial, an internal study would have been presented as evidence to show that BP ignored safety issues before the incident. But in the end BP apologised, acknowledged that it was to blame, and promised to make things safer both at the Texas City refinery and across the industry, and settled with Ms Rowe.[N]
