(the author of this and the reporter featured in this report is also a HOIO activist)


For action photos and HOIO BP shareholder briefing click www.handsoffiraqioil.org

Shareholders quiz BP board over Iraq
April 17th 2008

As 'corporate pirates' gave out shareholder briefings under the banner of 'BP in Iraq - Blatant Piracy' outside, a number of be-suited HOIO activists were present at the BP AGM inside.

The activists asked the board probing questions on the company's alleged corporate social responsibility in pursuing privatisation contracts in occupied Iraq.

Greg Muttitt of Platform asked BP Chairman Peter Sutherland whether BP were concerned about the prospects of repeating history with its disastrous contracts and presence in Iraq in 1925.

BP signed contracts 80 years ago in Iraq when it was occupied under a League of Nations mandate and ruled by a British-installed monarch King Faisal. The concession contracts signed under such conditions were incredibly unpopular and were eventually renegotiated with BP ending up being effectively expelled from the country. The historical parallels to today's Iraq are striking, pointed out Muttitt. By re-entering Iraq in order to sign long-term contracts when the country is occupied, would BP be risking not only its investments and assets but also its reputation by being associated with the spoils of such a deeply unpopular war?

Peter Sutherland replied that Muttitt's question was not factually correct - perhaps Sutherland needs to re-read both British imperial and his own company's history - and stressed that the company has no personnel on the ground and 'has provided assistance, not to make a political impact'.

He continued to say that, 'The future structure of assistance and our stance is clear - to support the Iraqi government in a hydrocarbon agenda. Any community must benefit from our investment and all investments will be set against the criteria of long-term mutual advantage. We will not exploit short-term weakness for long-term gain'.

Greg Muttitt reminded Peter Sutherland that perhaps he should speak to his Exploration and Production Manager for the Middle East Steve Peacock who appeared to contradict the impression of a 'Hands Off' attitude by BP. Peacock recently stated in an interview with Reuters that BP had a long-term agenda and interest in Iraq beyond the signing of Technical Service Contracts.

Sutherland continued to say, 'We have behaved entirely properly and responsibly.'

'No decision has been taken with regards to exploitation or hydrocarbons in Iraq - there has been no decision, agreement of commitment taken with regards to Iraq'.

'Grace Kelly', an ally of HOIO asked the following question on Environmental and Human rights.

'If BP is truly a human rights company, committed to moving 'beyond petroleum' how can long-term investment in a core hydrocarbons-based business, locking in climate-change inducing emissions for generations, be compatible with moving 'Beyond Petroleum'? Is it responsible to make long-term investments in the hydrocarbons of Iraq - of which there is a reserves to production ratio of 173 years and which will mortgage the Iraqi economy to its oil, and not alternative forms of energy and economic development such as solar and hydro-electric power? Please justify how this agenda coheres with one of moral responsibility and environmental responsibility, to the children of Iraq and our children everywhere?'

Sutherland replied that he had 'always wanted to answer a question from Grace Kelly' before re-iterating that BP was committed to human rights and environmental responsibility and that it had undertaken no decision regarding a long-term presence in Iraq.

Post-event, Tony Haywood, BP CEO, refused to answer questions from media however Press officer Robert Wine fielded inquiries.

Wine upheld the company line of there being no decision or plan for BP's agenda in the country, despite the glaring contradictions in such a line, given the company has paid lobbyists to focus on a particular outcome beneficial to BP - long-term reserve-booking contracts, Production Sharing Agreements, and has had held meetings with Iraqi government officials advancing this agenda over the past four years.

A reporter also reminded Robert Wine of this, and that at the Iraq Petroleum 2007 conference in Dubai last year, John Heavyside, business manager for BP in Iraq, revealed the company's goal of securing Production Sharing Agreements in Iraq. He had said: "We want to take risks and get incentivised to perform better; service contracts don't really allow us to do that. It's what we all want, all the international companies here. Production-sharing agreements offer a win-win situation. They are equitable and offer lucrative returns and benefits to both the state and investing companies."

When repeatedly asked to justify how there can be 'no plan or decision' with regards to BP's intentions given the potential business there, the press officer continued to pass the buck by saying that there were no plans and that 'It's up to the Iraqis to decide, they will decide, it’s their decision as to what happens'. Which was not the question. Reminded that should a quote or position be sought from the Iraqi side, an Iraqi government representative would be approached, and that the line of questioning was in relation to BP's plans - not those of the Iraqi government, the Press team could offer no more than 'It's up to the Iraqis' to decide.

When asked which Private Military Security companies BP could be using in Iraq in order to protect assets and staff, the interviewer was bizarrely told to 'stop being so childish'. When pressed as to why a perfectly reasonable question concerning the mitigation of risk and protection of operations would be perceived as childish, the officer replied, 'That's like asking us what catering or cleaning company we're going to use'.

Does BP know the qualitative and strategic difference between a catering company and a security company?

The press office continued, 'How can we give you detail of something that doesn't yet exist'.

When challenged on how BP can claim not to be a political company, when its executives sit on numerous energy security related committees advising government, Robert Wine replied,

'We simply offer our opinion'. Probed further about how the point of sitting on advisory and policy-forming boards is to not just offer opinion but influence and decision-making, he replied:

'We are part of committees given that we seek to have influence which benefits the company - and that's normal, there's nothing sinister in that, that's how the world works'.

So is BP acting in the 'Iraq's best interests', 'British interests' or its own?