LON:PHAR | SOCO - Netflix Release "Virunga"

10th Nov '14 by PhilHofGrowYourDough

37 comments 32180 reads

Hi All,

Funny but the other thread about the critical reports relating to SOCO's operation in Virunga National Park, DRC has been removed. I wonder why?

So Netflix has released the documentary/film Virunga and there has been considerable coverage in the press

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/05...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gorilla-film...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/opinion/gorillas...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/07/uk-film-n...

http://tribune.com.pk/story/788216/with-man-gone-w...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29924301

David Attenborough launches scathing attack ... http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/si...

From the Huffington post review - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/errol-morris/virunga...

it's clear that the operatives from the oil company SOCO do not have their best interests at heart. To me it's the most memorable line in the movie, produced in one of the undercover sequences recorded by French journalist Melanie Gouby. One oil company operative, clearly unable to grasp that some sympathies cannot be bought, says, "They don't give a #### about the gorillas!"

The operative is the British security contractor I refer to below not a direct SOCO employee but a contractor who does the dirty work but is one step removed.

There are loads of other links too.

I watched the film tonight and what struck me was:

1) The amazing courage of the wardens and the journalist who used under cover surveillance to gather evidence of corruption in a context where violence seems prevalent. How many of us are so convinced of our values and beliefs that we're prepared to die for them. Incredible bravery.

2) A bribe being paid on camera by a SOCO security contractor to the park's 2nd in command to get the inside track on developments.

3) A British SOCO security contractor telling it as it was and it was damning. In effect ... SOCO dont pay any bribes, but they employ us and we do all the bribing and paying off. The SOCO employee told him to "shut up" and reminded him that they were talking to a journalist. At least the contractor had the integrity to say it as it was.

4) Every man and his dog wants a slice of the oil money and they'll all do what they can to make it happen, even the M23 rebel head of communications. He acknowledged that they were useful to SOCO in order to smooth out resistance.

SOCO can hide behind a lack of 'facts' all they like but a lack of evidence doesn't mean something isn't true. Now I wonder if SOCO sacked the employee and the contractor because of their behaviour or because they were indiscreet?

As I said in…

Unlock with Email

Unlock with Google

Already have an account?
Login here

kenobi

13th Nov '14

The examples I cite. The first two are documented in the film. I list some behaviour and then a reaction. I did not say that SOCO were responsible for the reactions, however there would appear to be a pattern that any behaviour which challenged the smooth operation of SOCO's implementation was met with an extreme response

but not by soco, so an analogy would be that people protesting about fracking get arrested and locked up, I don't complain to the oil company, I complain to the government. It is out of socos control how officials enforce the laws. Not sure what soco has to do with this other than they represent the government exploring in virunga. All all this stuff about the dossier of illegal activity, can we at least call it alleged illegal activity until something is proven ? what has the prosecutor done ?

1) Don't replace SOCO, just stop the exploration and development in the NP

but again this is completely outside the control of soco isn't it ??

I don't understand why people are ranting against soco, it's as if I was building an extension which my neighbour didn't like, and instead of objecting to planning permission or taking it up with me or the council, suddenly the neighbours started having a go at the contractor. You need to raise these issues with the governement, crikey SOCO have gone so far as to say that they won't go any further without the agreement of the government and even UNESCO, if they can't be convinced theres a good way forward it will go no further, if they can, what's your opinion based on and worth ?

Do you honestly think I don't believe it happens? Of course it happens! The SOCO CEO is emphatic that it doesn't happen for SOCO though.

ok, great, welcome to reality, so another thing soco do that everyone else operating there would be forced to do, so what exactly is the issue, yes soco management deny it, and distance themselves from it, but in the real world this is what happens, exactly the same thing would happen with another oil company. In Iraq even the US Army paid the malitias to not attack them. While soco are there and spreading some dosh about, it's not in anyone's interest to start another war is it ? We will see what happens when they've gone.

re your points regarding what will happen to the wealth, I agree there are issues there, but it would bring some wealth to the area, and jobs, I think you would be much better arguing that a fund should be set up, perhaps administered by the belgian prince, who seems a sound fellow, to develop a sustainable future for virunga, for long after the oil has gone.

With respect to a corner of the park for oil, what if they then go on to discover potential directly under range of the gorillas? What precedent does partitioning up the park set for the carving up of other parks across the world?

more nonsense, as I'm sure you know, SOCO have always been clear that they'll never even look in the mountains, ( and it's as likely to find oil there as the gorrillas visit the 18 30 resort by the lake). and since they're not going to look it's pretty definite they're not going to find oil isn't it ?

SOCO has stated it will never seek to have operations in the Mountain Gorilla habitat

http://www.socointernational.com/current-status

It's my understanding that there are already precedents for changing boundaries of national parks for mineral exploration, and if we're honest, mining operations in national parks.

I agree Virunga is special, but it's also vast, the gorillas are under no threat, your attempts to suggest otherwise reveal the weakness of your arguments.

There are win win situations here, there need not be vast installations to extract oil. If there is oil under the lake which is part of the same formation as the oil found on the other side of the lake, Congo could be entitled to a proportion of the revenues possibly without any extraction on this side at all. Soco have just had a similar situation in offshore west africa on a find bordering an ENI find.

I held shares in SOCO before the Virunga licence, in all likelihood it will come to nothing, and I'll be holding soco long after. I'm not going to change my investments because of shocking suggestions like, "soco do exactly what any oil company do " or "laws to allow oil expo enforced by the military or police of the country more forcefully than in surrey".

Why do you think that if soco bow to pressure (and lets be honest they've bowed pretty far by giving UNESCO a veto haven't they ?), the congo government will just say, oh well we won't bother then ?

What will happen is the licence will lapse as will a few years, and then they'll re auction it. And who might bid I wonder ? given the hassle soco have had, people who don't give a monkeys, that's who.

So be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it, and when you do , you might find it's significantly worse that you thought.

The level of ignorance is astounding, I went to the agm, and the wwf have done such a case on soco, that a fund manager demanded that soco stop drilling in virunga. The chap had to politiely explain that it's not a question of stopping drilling, there's been no drilling, all that's been is millions of dollars spent on local projects, health care, communications, roads, and some seismic shot on the lake (over 50 miles from the migrating MOUNTAIN gorillas which we just can't get away from even now ).

In an ideal world I would rather oil was not extracted from virunga, but if it's going to happen (and it's not socos decision one way or the other, any more than the builder can stop me building my extension by refusing to build it ), I think soco would be one of the better companies to do it.

there are plenty of bad things happening in virunga, it's got a huge population, and they have to survive, the 150 odd rangers killed over the last 10 years, they haven't been killed by soco, there are poachers and military groups, they are a much greater threat to the mountain gorillas, but not being listed on the stock exchange not such an easy target are they ?

no hard feelings, take care,

PhilHofGrowYourDough

Hi arkleseizure,

Personally I find game hunts sickening and I would like to see a situation where the integrity of any park is balanced with the needs of the indigenous population. However, if the local population choose to put the ecosystem of an entire species at risk then I personally believe the world population has the right to object.

Regards
Phil

peterg

There is no exploration or development in the NP.

The only operations Soco have in the NP are fulfilments of various social projects and commitments. The company made it clear months ago (if there could ever have been any doubt anyway) that further work will only happen if both the DRC govt and UNESCO agree. Those represent the two key players in the decision, the DRC representing the interests of the country and UNSECO the wider global interests. Given that there really seems no more to be said. If you ask if we should give precedence to the views of WWF or GW over UNESCO in making any agreement, should it ever happen, then the answer is absolutely not.

Peter

SalvorHardin

"So be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it, and when you do , you might find it's significantly worse that you thought."

Spot on. NGOs should be aware of the case of Talisman Energy, where pressure eventually forced Talisman to sell its stake in a project in the Sudan to an Indian oil company. It turned out that Talisman had been a moderating influence so once it pulled out the remaining partners didn't give a stuff about what the NGOs were saying and things became a lot worse. (Ezra Levant's book "Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands" goes into considerable detail about these events).

As to the WWF, other NGOs and The Guardian's habit of repeatedly lying about "drilling" (and many other matters), I vote for suing them. Drag them into the courts for libel and possibly the tort of "interference with contract".

http://www.popmatters.com/review/188007-virunga/

At once immensely profitable and very good at disguising what it does, SOSCO foments and funds conflict in the region in order to gain control of resources and, of course, reap profits.

I hope they have some evidence for the above. (well actually I hope they don't, since they've spelt the company's name wrong it's going to be hard to take legal action )

reap profit's eh ? or spend millions on community projects to win hearts and mind and spread money like confetti to be allowed to just shoot some seismic.

I look forward to my share of the "profits" of which they speak so definitely,

Mancman

Hi Kenobi,

I also found the following in the article you provided the link to:

SOCO means to drill, despite international law protecting the nation and its parks.

I think the Company should ask for a retraction of this statement, which is demonstrably untrue.

Cuthbert C

Who was it who said "Why let facts get in the way of a good story?"

Fangorn

Torquemada?

fuiseog

"This small UK company has pr staff and access to media outlets, lawyers, etc., the local people most affected have no one batting for them and it takes considerable courage to stand up and speak."

The World Wildlife Fund spends 24% of its revenues promoting itself and its causes in order to keep the money coming in. Some of this 'investment' was spent on its Virunga campaign.

Falsely associating cuddly looking photos of mom & baby Virunga gorillas and their volcanic mountain habitat (there cannot be oil in volcanics) with Soco formed a core content of WWF publicity. Their publicist Anthony Field distributed this tosh and it got plenty of column space in the UK national papers including the guardian and telegraph, where clearly the editorial gatekeepers get some sleep in at the wheel, or the pub!

Here's an exerpt from the telegraph site:-

"Africa’s oldest nature reserve, Virunga National Park in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo home to critically-endangered mountain gorillas, is at risk with “devastating consequences” if a British firm continues its oil exploration there, conservationists have warned. Two hundred of the world’s remaining 880 mountain gorillas live in the World Heritage Site."

Picture: Andy Rouse/WWF

If you don't believe me look for yourself. ( It's important to provide evidence of claims):-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/w...

WWF have shown no concern for local people. When I asked said publicist Anthony Field, who has been churning out this supposedly pro Virunga, anti-Soco propaganda on behalf of WWF for more than 2 years, if he had any idea what the human population of the Park was he was unable to give any figure whatsoever.

Whatever happens in Virunga is under the responsibility and control of the Congolese government. Abusing a small oil company which has a track record of honourable operations as a proxy to attack the legitimate decisions of the national government is not something that I find acceptable, particularily when the campaign is based on lies and trickery and dodgy journalism. IMO the people of Congo have had enough of that from their previous Belgian masters without neocolonial NGO's taking advantage.

arkleseizure

Who was it who said "Why let facts get in the way of a good story?"
Willi Munzenberg?
Similar politics, similar elitism , similar belief in ends justifying means, self appointed guardians of the planet whose moral superiority give them rights that trump those of indigenous / common people?

redhill

14th Nov '14

Reading through to catch-up on this thread I haven't nothing specific to add about the subject. However it is disappointing that anyone, such as PhilH, who doesn't follow the party line that Soco must be innocent is given a stream of red thumbs for bothering to present an objective view.

Lets be open minded on this subject, however much wishful thinking there is amongst shareholders it remains that we don't know the full story on this yet. Soco may be white and pure or there may be shades of grey - my own view has moved from one towards the other but we simply don't know.

As for the argument that if Soco gave up their rights in Virunga they would be taken up by a less honest and compassionate O&G explorer, that is tosh. That's like saying it's OK for Soco to be little bit bad because someone else just might be worse - not an argument that bears scrutiny.

Hi redhill

Perhaps the most surprising thing I have read on this stream so far is your comment that PhilH was bothering to present an objective view. I would be surprised if even he claimed that. His intent was fairly clear, he was trying to be provocative: Let the abuse begin whilst I go and hug a tree!

Perhaps we are all culpable for rising to the bait.

Actually JT, I was trying to present an alternative view to the original thread that prompted my interest which was entitled something like "SOCO - Telegraph, it's a hatchet job" however I knew by presenting an alternative view I would not win many friends amongst the oilers here given my previous experience of exploring a more balanced view.

I'm not trying to win friends, I'm trying to provide balance.

The example I cited about the SOCO contractor utterances are factual. He said those things on camera. I suggest you watch the film.

The film reports that de Merode delivered the dossier and then was shot. Fact!

The Telegraph reported on the fate of the fisherman that I cited. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/democraticrepublicofcongo/11075473/Battle-for-Virunga-The-fight-to-save-Africas-oldest-national-park.html

My personal opinion is that if Virunga is nominated or god forbids win Best Documentary at The Oscars (it already qualifies for consideration having won regional film awards ~~it's already shortlisted~~ ~~nominated~~) it will have an impact on the share price. Who cares about the 'air heads' in Los Angeles & Hollywood, it's the billions watching the SOCO shareholders need to worry about.

Best of luck
Phil

I see my post received the predictable red thumbs.

It's not relevant to the point I was making but puts it in some context that I've been holding Soco shares for over 10 years and currently hold the most shares I've held. However being a shareholder doesn't mean I have to believe that everything without keeping an open mind.

It's a shame that alternative points of view to what I think of as the party line on this board get shouted down for not being what the followers want to believe.

"The Telegraph reported......."?

The telegraph repeated without vaildation the unsupported claims of WWF publicist Anthony Field. In its struggle to get readers attention with evil oil, georgous gorillas and sexy savannah, the telegraph trades long term integrity for immediate sales gratification.

Sadly this kind of churnalism underpins the long term decline of the print media.

If the telegraph had serious public interest concerns they could have briefed and financed an investegative reporter to engage with the Company. It's sad to think that the people of Virunga and its near environs, all 3,000,000 of them, do not warrant that.

The current print media low cost business strategy does not budget for investegative journalism, so it's c*&p in, C*&p out.

Phil,

I'm not trying to win friends, I'm trying to provide balance.
You can go on repeating this stuff, and it might be true, but it might well not have anything to do with SOCO, and unless you have something other than inuendo, you should really stop over selling it, Is it balance or is it propaganda ??

So ? what does this prove ? If it was soco, or pro soco forces wouldn't they have taken him out before he handed in the dossier ? and you highlight this dossier, before you claimed it proved illegal activity in the park by soco, at least you're not claiming that now. I predict now, it goes no further, they have permission to explore the park, if UNESCO don't like it, they'll say it's a scientific study, which it's hard to argue with) As the article states,

"But five months on, who ‘they’ are remains a mystery." Has de Merode suggested it was anyone associated with SOCO ?? I've seen him interviewed about it, and he made no such suggestion, yet you keep suggesting that. In fact you link says

He refuses to speculate on who tried to kill him, but his efforts to save Virunga have made him plenty of enemies: the dozen rebel groups still inhabiting the park; the poachers who have killed thousands of its elephants and hippopotamuses; powerful figures who have illegally annexed its land; and those who cut down its forests for charcoal, a huge industry in a land with little electricity.

Still, I'm sure you know best. might be worth petitioning for the congalese goverment to take action against those who have annexed parts of the park, you seem to feel that every inch of it is critical, at least when it's SOCO potentially in the future maybe using part of the park temporarily, surely actually taking it now, premenantly is worse ?

The Telegraph reported on the fate of the fisherman that I cited. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaan...

you forgot to mention that soco has spent in excess of a million dollars in the park, not to mention the money bought in by contractors, and the $15,000 per month they've been paying for access to the park.

I regret if the Congalese army beat up a fisherman, I wonder if this would be note worthy if it couldn't be linked loosely to soco ?

I await with interest the outcome of this dossier you put so much emphasis on, I would be willing to bet it comes to nothing.

If soco are found to have attacked people, or conducted themselves badly, I assume they will be stripped of their license, and I will not be defending them.

I really appreciate your concern for the share price of SOCO should the film get nominated for an Oscar, I'm more concerned about the price of oil's effect on the soco share price. There's a very good chance that soco might pull out, because the seismic shows there's nothing there, or because no deal can be agreed with UNESCO, probably greater than 50% ?

No point worrying too much about the park until we know if there's even any interest in going further.

I appreciate your warnings about the share price, they seem a bit insincere to me, but I sympathise with your concerns for the park. ( I do appreciate you've managed to post without giving us the ridiculous gorilla warnings)

emptyend

21st Dec '14

There is an interesting (if garbled by translation, perhaps) piece on an African business website here: http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2014/12...

The article essentially concludes what we have said all along - which is that the company is just a bystander in the efforts of the WWF and others to raise money

Thanks ee, a good article.

8th Feb '15

More crap about Virunga:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/07/church-england-3m-mining-gorilla-leonardo-dicaprio-congo-virunga

The CofE claim to have been in discussions with the company for 18 months, but are now saying:

"The church now wants a “transparent independent inquiry of Soco’s operations in and around” the park, and an “amendment of the previously issued statement agreed between Soco and WWF … so that there are without exception no circumstances in which Soco would conduct further exploration or production activities in the Virunga national park”.

So apparently the Church doesn't regard UNESCO as an appropriate body to have a veto over any possible further exploration. A bunch of amateurs in Canterbury clearly feel they understand the issues better!

Apparently the Virunga film's website says:

“We are asking Soco to make a written commitment to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s government to never again work within Virunga national park’s existing borders.”

Why should the company make such a commitment to a government that is clearly keen that they should and when it's already agreed that the appropriate international body should have a veto?
The Church seems to imply that the company has been acting without authority from the government - a view that De Merode seems keen to create:

"De Mérode disputes this. “They were given a concession called Block 5, but that concession is much bigger than the national park,” he said. “The fact is, in the initial agreement signed in 2007, it specifically says they have to respect conservation laws. They chose to go in the park, and that decision is illegal. Just because they were given a concession doesn’t mean they can do what they want.”

He may view it as illegal, but it's perfectly clear to anyone whose followed this, as he clearly has, that the company was operating with full agreement of the government, and within its licence, and after agreement with the relevant conservation bodies. He may feel that the government's systems for protection of the environment are not up to the job, and he may be right, but the fact remains the operations were all fully negotiated and approved before being carried out.

Peter

9th Feb '15

I think the current oil price slump is more of an issue that wether the c of e sells a few million quids worth of shares. What kind of long term oil price might a virunga development require to be economic I wonder ?

When might we have an idea of what the siesmic shows ? if nothing significant enough then we can go home, and leave them to it,

K

SOCO - Netflix release "Virunga"

Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial

About the Author

PhilHofGrowYourDough

37 comments

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...