A Knight in Oily Armour: Tony O’Reilly and Exxon
Mobil
national | environment | feature
Saturday August 23, 2008 16:59
by Tel
Sir Anthony
That the
production wing of global energy corporation, Shell, has a presence in the
west of Ireland is now well known. Shell have been joined by another of
their kind; Exxon Mobil, sometimes known as Esso. It's a company which,
like Shell, has left a long dark oil slick like trail of controversy and
notoriety across the globe. Exxon Mobil are in alliance with Sir Anthony
O’Reilly, Ireland’s most influential businessman
In March of this
year, Exxon Mobil was awarded licenses for exploratory drilling in the
Porcupine Basin, which is in the Atlantic roughly parallel with Clare and
Kerry. For the exploratory bid Exxon Mobil combined in a consortium with
Providence Resources, and Scottish firm Sosina Exploration.This isn’t the
first joint venture involving these companies. In February 2006 they
announced a program to develop the Dunquin prospects, which are finds of
oil and gas, also in the Porcupine Basin. These finds alone are
potentially worth 20 billion euro. Providence Resources are also engaged
in exploration off the south east coast.
The tale of this latest energy industry development in the west, has
then at least two strands: the potential political influence that can be
brought in to support Providence Resources, and the international record
of Exxon Mobil.
Forty five per cent of Providence Resources is
held by Sir Anthony O’Reilly, and his son is the company’s CEO. Sir
Anthony is also, of course, CEO of, and owner of a large shareholding in,
the Independent News and Media group. IN&M owns the Sunday World, the
Sunday Independent, the Star, the Irish Independent, the Evening Herald,
part of the Sunday Tribune, many local papers in Ireland and many media
outlets overseas.
There are clear grounds for linking the
commercial interests of the O’Reilly empire, and the political influence
it wields through its major media holdings. To look at this in the context
of oil and gas consider the wild unsubstantiated slanders which have been
directed at the Shell to Sea campaign in Mayo by O’Reilly papers.
Something which they engaged in earlier, and to a much greater extent,
than the rest of the national media. This reached a crescendo of almost
parody in August 2007 when one columnist opined “Shell has been
scandalously remiss in not employing someone to bump off a few of these
fellows” as ““the rule of law has to be enforced, by apparently harsh
measures if need be””.
It would not be unreasonable to imagine
there are links between the particularly extreme stance on this issue
taken by the O’Reilly newspapers and the fact their owner also has
interests in oil and gas. Especially when, as we shall see, in other
instances there are documented links between those newspapers’ political
line and the other commercial interests of their major shareholder. Indeed
many years ago O’Reilly himself ascribed some of his successes in gaining
oil and gas exploration rights to political influence derived from media
ownership.
O’Reilly has long been committed to a particular vision
of the development of Ireland’s off-shore resources, previously through
the company Atlantic Resources, which was a spectacular failure. According
to his very sympathetic biographer, Ivan Fallon, this was “the most costly
and disappointing venture of his corporate career, a black hole into which
he poured millions of pounds of his private wealth, never to produce a
single barrel of oil.” The share price of Atlantic Resources crumbled
after a much hyped oil find turned out to be a mere puddle. Back then, in
1983, O’Reilly was interviewed by American magazine Forbes, and outlined
how his geologist selected six blocks of seabed and how Atlantic acquired
the exploration rights for those blocks, saying ““Since I own 35 per cent
of the newspapers in Ireland I have close contact with the politicians. I
got the blocks he wanted.”
It is interesting to digress to
O’Reilly’s interpretation of the failure of Atlantic Resources.
According to his biographer, Sir Anthony O’Reilly “would dwell angrily
on the political mishandling of Ireland’s natural resources policy, which
he reckons is the real story of Atlantic Resources”, this mishandling was
the “utterly destructive”, “simplistic public notion that Irish oil and
minerals belonged to the Irish people at large.” In fact the terms for oil
and gas exploration and production existing then, the tax rate, royalties,
licensing, and so on, were much less stringent on the oil companies than
those prevalent across much of the world. Nonetheless conditions were to
change and between 1987 and 1992 the terms were pared back to the extent
that companies can write off production costs against tax, conceivably
they may pay no tax at all. In the words of Mike Cunningham, former
director of Statoil Exploration Ireland, ““No other country in the world
has given such favourable terms as Ireland.”” Contrary to O’Reilly there
was actually more exploration going on in Irish territory before the
change to a new low/no tax situation in the late 80s and early 90s, than
there has been since then.
With other issues the relationship
between political influence through a media monopoly and commercial
interests is better documented.
In September 1994, as reported in the
Irish Times some years later, there was a meeting between the Independent
Newspapers group and a representative of the then Taoiseach John Bruton.
Sir Anthony O’Reilly had personally demanded reform of the libel laws, a
ban on below cost selling by British newspapers, and exclusive MMDS
licences, the later being the wireless ‘cable’ TV system. The meeting was
particularly concerned with MMDS, and the Independent group’s demand was
rejected. According to the government report of the meeting the
Independent Newspapers group’s representatives said: "We will mount a full
frontal assault on you, as a Government, in the elections.", the same was
reported in an Independent group memo slightly less dramatically as
"We said they would lose INP as friends and would mean any future
administration would have a large bill to pay." INP standing for
Independent Newspapers.
Subsequently, just before the 1997 general
election, the Irish Independent newspaper swung over to supporting Fianna
Fail, running an editorial attacking John Bruton’s government, headlined
“Payback time”. This was the first occasion in its long history that the
newspaper did not back Fine Gael.
The new government was to facilitate
O’Reilly’s takeover of Eircom, and, to bring the story up to 2007,
following a high level meeting in the spring of that year directly between
Ahern and O’Reilly the Independent newspapers changed tack in regard to
their line on the issue of Ahern finances to taking a very Fianna Fail
friendly one.
A related issue is that of the secret payment of £30,000
to disgraced former minister and jail bird, Ray Burke, by an O’Reilly
company in 1989.
At this time Burke had ministerial responsibility
both for MMDS licences and other telecommunications matters, and natural
resources.
Burke was a key figure in the development of the new terms
for oil and gas exploration and production. The major changes being
introduced by him in 1987 being the tax write off, the removal of royalty
payments, and the abolition of any state participation. Burke has been
found in the tribunals to be corrupt and to have received corrupt payments
in the late 80s.
If that is one wing of the partnership, what of
the other, Exxon Mobil.
When the partnership between Providence
Resources and Exxon Mobil was announced in the spring of 2006, then
Minister for Natural Resources, Noel Dempsey, declared he particularly
welcomed the arrival to Ireland of Exxon Mobil. A consideration of their
global record answers the question whether their arrival should be greeted
or feared. It is a record which, even in its better known aspects is vast,
from Chad through to Columbia, from Texas to Indonesia, so particular
examples will have to serve to paint the general picture.
Exxon
Mobil is currently fighting a number of legal battles in the United
States.
One recent case arose out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in
Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989. This spill, involving at least 11
million gallons of crude oil, contaminated 1,500 miles of coastline. The
area was found to be still contaminated 15 years later.
In order to
gain permission to put their tankers through Prince William Sound Exxon
promised doubled-hulled ships, to have escort vehicles, and equipment with
the capacity to clear up a large spill. None of this was put into action.
Moreover they reduced the staffing levels on the tankers, just to make a
one hundred thousand dollar saving.
In 1994 an Alaskan court ordered
Exxon pay $5 billion damages to over 30,000 people affected by the
disaster. The company appealed the ruling, and eventually, in June of this
year, the payout was reduced by 90%. Another response to the Exxon Valdez
episode was the establishment of a separate subsidiary shipping company,
owned by Exxon Mobil, functioning as a legal shield so the Exxon Mobil
corporation itself may not be held responsible for future maritime
disasters.
While this maybe an extreme incident, it shouldn’t be
thought of as an isolated one, but rather as the pinnacle of consistent
corporate practise. Other parts of the Alaskan oil industry show the same
process at work. The Exxon Valdez was carrying oil from the port of
Valdez, the terminal of the Trans Alaska pipeline. This pipeline is
operated by a company called Alyeska, jointly owned by Exxon Mobil. In
2005 the company’s Chief Operating Officer, second in command over the
pipeline, revealed a list of around one hundred potential or actual
problems with the safety of the line. His position in the company was
terminated soon after. Other veteran staff backed up his stance. Three
years earlier Alaskan media revealed a letter from the owners to the
operators seeking to reduce the amount spent on safety.
A year previous
to that Alyeska’s oil spill contingency plan was unable to adequately
address the puncture of the pipeline by a gunshot, oil poured out for a
full 36 hours. So the corner cutting that led to the Exxon Valdez disaster
is also a feature earlier on the Alaskan oil route.
This isn’’t
something peculiar to Exxon Mobil either. The Trans Alaska pipeline starts
in the Prudhoe bay oil complex, partly owned by Exxon Mobil, but operated
by BP. In 2005 a maintenance worker and trade unionist at the site was
interview by documentary makers saying “BP is cutting back on maintenance
mainly for short term profit, they have cut the budget on maintenance and
our systems have degraded, the pipelines are worn out, the pipelines need
to be replaced, BP have cut back on our emergency response services, while
they are taking care of the short term budget. We have had people who have
been injured, we have had people who have been killed, we have had
explosions and fires and damage to the environment.” . In 2006, a year
later, there was a massive oil spill at Prudhoe bay. Subsequent official
inquiries found miles of pipeline to be corroded, and that “draconian”
cost cutting had taken place.
Do we have any reason to think Exxon
Mobil operations in Ireland will be conducted in a more responsible
fashion than in Alaska?
We don’t know what is out there beneath
the Atlantic for Exxon Mobil to get. We can speculate that rising oil
prices, technological advancement, and greater restrictions on private
exploration and production in the main fossil fuel producing areas, will
make Ireland “a new hydrocarbon frontier", as O’Reilly junior put it.
Obviously this is the aim of those parts of the industry exploring
off-shore Ireland, and of those parts of the state engaged in supporting
them. Efforts to expand the territorial waters, - that is that much of
what is now international territory in the seas is to come under the
control of individual states, could also be a factor in the potential oil
future of this island.
It is worthwhile then to imagine what would
result if their “hydrocarbon frontier”” project is successful, based on
what we know of other instances. We could see the same jeopardising of
safety and the environment in the interests of reducing costs and
increasing profit as in the Alaskan cases.
We know that the point of a
corporation is to do anything to produce a good return for their
shareholders. We can be sure the exploitation of resources will be carried
out by companies with the intent of making the most profit with the
minimum outlay. That is after all the point of business. A failure to do
this would mean a failure to attract investment, and ultimately mean going
out of business.
It is the regulatory mechanisms of the state,
which in theory, should be the sieve through which profit accumulation
passes on its way to becoming something socially acceptable. It is in ways
a very dubious theory. Not least with who decides, and how, what is
socially acceptable. Not to mention the obvious lack of any potential
input from future generations who will have to live with decisions made
now.
Sticking with the theory though, can anyone express confidently
that the Irish state will successfully regulate a burgeoning oil and gas
industry, given that it has the most generous taxation set up for
exploration and production worldwide? Given that a major player in the
local industry has great influence in the Irish body politic. And given
that the state produces planning disasters out of housing estates and
roads, never mind refineries.
In fact I think we can be so sure of
it that I havn’t mentioned yet the strongest grounds for arguing that the
state will not make sufficient environmental protection to alleviate the
inevitable environmental destruction the industry will create. The
vanguard of that industry is already here. The Rossport experience has
shown the lengths the state is willing to go, not to regulate the
companies, but to facilitate them to an extravagant extent.
Note
legislative changes exempting the Rossport pipeline from planning
permission, and allowing Compulsory Acquisition Orders to be used by a
private company to seize the land for the route of that pipeline. Then
later An Bord Plenala overruling their senior planning inspector when he
recommended a rejection of the plan to locate a refinery at Ballinaboy.
Finally imprisonments and the stationing of a large force of Garda as the
coercive power behind those decisions.
It is unquestionable that the
potential is there for future resource developments to replicate the
Rossport scenario, with the planned sacrifice of a community’s living
space for shareholder gain.
The case that an alteration in state
policy in regard to such matters could be brought about from within
parliament is greatly weakened by the presence in government of the Green
party. It is still a green light all the way for Shell in Mayo, the N.R.A.
in Tara, and the U.S. Military in Shannon. If the purpose of private
enterprise is to make profit no matter what, and the state is willing to
facilitate that irrespective of environmental cost, then another force is
needed to counterbalance big business and, to some degree, bring
environmental protection about.
This can only be found in the
development of an opposition movement based outside the Dáil circus. It
seems very unlikely that such will arise. Reading about 20,000 people
attending an anti-nuclear festival in Wexford 30 years ago seems very far
removed from today’s circumstance. Nonetheless, this is the only
alternative.
- This article is included in Galway based zine
Yellow Roman Candles which should be on sale in Charlie Byrnes’ bookshop
very shortly, and in other places in the city, or you can get the pdf of
the zine by e-mailing thevillagegreen(AT)gmail.com - with this: @ put in
the address where it says (AT)
Related Links on Shell to
Sea and the Media:
Shell to Sea and the Russian attack on
Georgia- Evening Herald finds a connection
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88770
The
Irish Times plugging for Shell Oil in Mayo again
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80725
Rossport
Solidarity Campaign: Still attracting Front Page Coverage.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79937
Shell
2 Sea protest outside Independent News Papers
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79919
RTE
breach poll guidelines and fail to publish a key poll finding
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79860
Sunday
Indo reckon Shell to Sea campaign to redolent of "the North"
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79794
Maura
Harrington singled out by Sunday Independent
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79766
The
Political Wing of Providence Resources Launches Another Salvo At Shell to
Sea
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79018
Yoho
I'm a Provo! or the Never Ending Sunday Shell Smear
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78890
Daily
Mail's Propaganda War against Shell to Sea
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78870
Shell
and the Garda in Mayo: How the Papers reported it.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78855
Sunday
Press Review: MSM Inveighs Against Rossport and Anti-Fascists.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78773
Socialism,
Shell, the Sindo, Sir Tony, and Selling the Family Silver.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75446
Related
Links on Exxon Mobil:
Corporate Watch on Exxon Mobil
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=292
Refinery
Reform Campaign
http://www.refineryreform.org/
New
Expose´of ExxonMobil, "Out of Balance" Released
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79191
Exxonmobil's
contribution to global warming revealed
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/exxonmobils_contribution_t_28012004.html
the
exxon files - exxonmobil continues to secretly fund climate change
deniers
http://www.foei.org/en/campaigns/corporates/exxon-files
Some
Like it Hot - Exxon Mobil Funding of Climate Change Denial
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
Greg
Palest - Court Rewards Exxon for Valdez Oil Spill
http://www.gregpalast.com/court-rewards-exxon-for-valdez-oil-spill/
Documents
Reveal Trans-Alaska Pipeline In Trouble
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/spilling.html
Deadly
Drilling in Aceh
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/DeadlyDrilling_Aceh.html
The
Acehnese Resistance Movement and Exxon Mobil
http://www.american.edu/TED/ice/aceh.htm
Indonesia
–
Oil and Mining Projects Threaten Communities in Aceh and Papua
http://www.amnestyusa.org/justearth/indonesia.html
Exxon Mobil in Columbia
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/list.php?r=287
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (2 of 2)
Jump To Comment: 1 2Good work Tel and something that definatly needs to be known by the public at large. The O'Reilly Press along with an RTE now hijacked by FF/PD elements is a very toxic combination for the future wellbeing of this country. So much so that ireland is in no position to lecture the likes of Russia or China on their media freedoms.
It may be worth keeping in mind also that, as history has often shown, a person like Sir Anthony O'Reilly might (in reality) be little more than a "front man" for the so called "Money Masters" -- i.e. members of the Rothschild and Rockefeller families and their close associates in the global banking world.
As some readers will already know, free copies of a video titled "The Money Masters" (which is in two parts), can be viewed at the present time on one of the Google web sites, and the necessary address information is provided below.
Among the dozens of very interesting quotes and insights contained in this particular video is the following:
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
The above quote was chosen partly because it contains an Irish "link", on account of the fact it originates from Woodrow Wilson -- whose maternal grandparents emigrated to the United States of America from Strabane in County Tyrone (Northern Ireland) in 1807. For those who may not know, Woodrow Wilson was the twenty-eighth President of the United States of America and he served during the period 1913 to 1921.
Perhaps the three most amazing things regarding the problem that President Woodrow Wilson was obviously very concerned about (in 1916), and which by now has grown into a full-blown GLOBAL predicament of gigantic proportions (as some people see things), are these:
a) The problem in question involves what is almost certainly the biggest "financial scam" in the whole of human history;
b) It continues to be so cleverly concealed, by all sorts of very cunning, secretive and deceptive means, that almost nobody knows anything about it at the present time, even though the present-day "Rothschild" version of the scam has been in operation in various forms in parts of Europe (including England) since the 1600s;
and, last but not least, that
c) Nobody has so far been able to stop it, even though hundreds (and possibly thousands) of senior lawyers, politicians, and academics in the United States have long been well aware of it down through the 10 generations or so in question: dating back all the way (for example) to the days of master-lawyer, and master-politician, Thomas Jefferson -- principal author of the American Declaration of Independence signed in 1776, and 3rd President of the United States of America during the period 1801 to 1809. Try as he might, even the mighty Thomas Jefferson failed to fully weed out the scam, and he went to his grave (in 1826) fully convinced that it would bring to human society nothing but trouble of the worst kind imaginable if it was not completely stamped out by some lawful means.
The following three quotes also come from the "The Money Masters" video:
"The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. MONEY WILL CEASE TO BE THE MASTER AND BECOME THE SERVANT OF HUMANITY." (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America during the period 1861 to 1865.)
"In the United States today we have in effect two governments ... We have the duly constituted Government ... Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated Government in the 'Federal Reserve System' operating the money powers (completely unlawfully many believe) which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution." (Former U.S. Congressman and Lawyer Wright Patman of Texas, who was born in 1893, and who died in1976.)
"The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole...Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world's money..." (Dr Carroll Quigley, former Professor of History at Georgetown University, Washington D.C., who was born in 1910, and who died in 1977.)
As is stated in their video, the authors of "The Money Masters" clearly hope that "EDUCATION" (via the Internet) may have a major role to play in bringing this very worrying problem to an end. Among many other things, including the growing threat of yet another major war, or a long string of such wars perhaps, this particular problem appears to make a complete mockery, and a sick joke, of the crucially important social principles of "democracy" and "the rule of law", which only exist in what is very largely bogus form really (at the present time): albeit that a great many well-meaning, innocent, and trusting people (far too trusting for their own good perhaps?) have been very cleverly duped and hoodwinked by all manner of means into believing otherwise.
"The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead." (Aristotle 384 to 322 BC)
With the 2008 Presidential Elections in the United States (scheduled for Tuesday, November 4th) just 10 weeks or so away, it will be interesting to see if the infamous United States Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (and its closely associated legislation) becomes a Presidential Election issue?
If it does not, then perhaps we should all beware? -- and be cautious -- VERY cautious!!
Not surprisingly, and with due regard for the present global financial crisis (which is probably entirely contrived by the "Money Masters"), many observers now strongly believe the United States Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and all closely associated legislation, should be repealed without further ado; and, the sooner the better: both for the United States of America, and for the rest of the World (including the Republic of Ireland).
Some will be pleased to see that rather than just describe the problem, those associated with the "Money Masters" video also have what they refer to as a "Monetary Reform Act", which they believe could provide a gentle and lasting solution to the set of difficulties in question. A four-paragraph summary of this suggested solution, which boldly addresses the much dreaded and "keystone" core issue of "fractional reserve banking" head on, can be viewed at http://www.themoneymasters.com/mra.htm .
The "Money Masters" Video Part 1 of 2 (103 minutes):
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204 .
The "Money Masters" Video Part 2 of 2 (106 minutes):
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683 .
Some may be interested to know that an attempt was made on May 9th 2008, several weeks before the Lisbon Treaty Referendum held in the Republic of Ireland on June 12th 2008, to draw the attention of Prime Minister Cowan TD (and a selection of his government colleagues) to the set of "Federal Reserve Act" problems referred to above. The text of the letter, and scanned copies of the associated Post Office receipts, can be viewed at http://www.humanrightsireland.com/PrimeMinisterCowen/9May2008/Email.htm .