My leaflet for the Sit-in

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]

Sources:
A- RIGZONE- https://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=30206
B- USATODAY- http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-08-08-pipeline-usat_x.htm
C- The Independent- http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article352561.ece
D- Baku Ceyhan Campaign- http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/news.htm
E- Baku Ceyhan Campaign- http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/press_releases/georgia_halt.htm
F- Baku Ceyhan Campaign- http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/press_releases/arrest.htm
G- Baku Ceyhan Campaign- http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/press_releases/ffm.htm
I- Baku Ceyhan Campaign- http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/moreinfo.htm
H- Bankwatch Georgia report- http://www.bankwatch.org/documents/ffm_georgia_report_04_05_1.pdf
J- Baku Ceyhan Campaign- http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/press_releases/barclays_says_no.htm
K- Baku Ceyhan Campaign- http://www.bakuceyhan.org.uk/press_releases/ffm.htm
L- Down to Earth No. 52- http://dte.gn.apc.org/52BP.htm
M- Colombia Solidarity Campaign- http://www.colombiasolidarity.org.uk/images/resources/privatising%20violence.doc
N- Times Online- http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2446434,00.html