₦airaland Forum

oh, link doesn't work because Seun's filter replaced 'ga[i]y[/i]' with 'man lover.'

debosky:
The terms cannot be the same - the billions of dollars frittered away in Abuja and by many states would have been invested in the ND communities, they would have the bulk of the jobs, not some Northerners far removed from the effects of oil exploitation.

Right, but the terms of who gets what (as far as money goes) would be roughly the same. That the X dollars goes to NNPC and the FG rather than the ND doesn't mean that if the oil producing communities had negotiated a deal themselves, they'd not have gotten some value Y very close to X.

Y and X would be close to each other. . . this is what I mean when I say that the terms would be roughly the same.

You miss the point - this isn't about the fair value of the sale, it's more about the corrupted bidding process, where a bid loser was allowed to rebid slightly higher than the winner just to secure the lease - that indicates the process was rigged in favour of a particular bidder.

My statement wasn't a commentary on the (what may be) corrupt bidding process. And unless I misread your statement, neither is what I quoted.

My response was to this statement of yours:

Shell is only leaving because of the troubles with communities - no one in their right minds will leave 2 billion barrels of easily produced light sweet crude in the ground.

Their share in each OML has some dollar value. My point is that of course even "2 billion barrels of easily produced . . . " can be sold off, assuming you get fair value for it (whatever the dollar value of the OML share is. An open bidding process will probably approximate this dollar value pretty well.) So it isn't correct to say that nobody would leave it. . . you'll leave it if someone pays you whatever it is worth.

In simple terms, yes.

The NNPC exercises both the right of first refusal, as well as approval rights for changes through NAPIMS http://www.napims.com/dynamic.html

Case in point - BP wanted to sell its interests in Algerian Joint Ventures to the Russians, but the Algerians said no - end of deal.

This last bit, interesting. Didn't know that. Thanks.

So if that is the case, then what prevents NNPC or whoever from forcing a sale at a sweetheart price? From the perspective of the oil company, NNPC could arbitrarily depress the value you receive from selling your asset, if they were wanted to be malicious. Is there any real recourse they have?

Link doesn't work.

Interesting.

Over/under on how long Suswam stays in office? I put it at 1 year

[quote author=aloy-emeka link=topic=726897.msg8848484#msg8848484 date=1312400758]He settled them with drug money unlike this dude. Does that make him any better?. Tea party asiwaju negotiator. He must have paid the US govt from the Lagos state treasury.[/quote]lol

Indeed, he settled them from the Lagos State treasury 5 years before he got access to it, he settled them. He bought the judge, the (cook county?) district attorney, offered them property in Ikoyi in exchange as part of the settlement

lmao

debosky:
No - what would have been created would be a LOCAL oil company at state/LG level, directly owned/accountable to the communities, not to some thieving government in Abuja. A company locally owned is far more likely to negotiate for terms that are acceptable to the communities, not serving the needs of Abuja politicians.

For example - if Delta state communities owned the oil rights and decided on what policy, they are far more likely to accept Shell shutting down wells till they provide gas gathering equipment to stop flaring, instead of the FG who say Shell should NOT cut production to stop flaring, ostensibly because it does not affect their cushy lives in Abuja.

But in terms of revenue sharing, payouts, etc, the terms would largely be the same, yes? If today NNPC were handed over to the local communities, they'd probably not (as) feel cheated, would they? 95% of their beef would go away, I suspect (correct me if I am wrong!)

If the company was local, Shell would not have been able to get away with the atrocities it has gotten away with in the first place. Shell is only leaving because of the troubles with communities - no one in their right minds will leave 2 billion barrels of easily produced light sweet crude in the ground.

Are these interests being sold at a heavy discount relative to their value? I do agree that their desire to exit is in part due to that reason. . . but that doesn't mean they are selling for much less than fair value.

Secondly, if the community was at the centre of the initial deal ( as would be the case with a local oil company) there would be no sale without the explicit agreement of the communities.

Again, how does this work? Is this standard practice in the business? If I get a share in an OML say in Saudi or Mexico or some other oil producing country, I cannot sell unless my government partner gives me permission to do so?

erico2k2:
@ekt_bear
stop taking us back,this issue got nothing to do with LAND, we have defined that in earlier post, read backwards  lol,

I am not sure which post you are responding to? You'll have to be more specific about your objection and what you disagree with.

I just talked to Men on ground just now,in the original LEASE teh comunity had a say in it,there where things said  and signed and one of them was to give the first right of refusal to a LOCAL BIDDER ie if a LOCAL bidder can match an outsider he should first be offered.This is standard  and well documented unless an agreement could not be reached  then next bidder takes over evryone signs seal and deliver,Now in this case it was done behind closed doors now politics was at play from the top in this one, the OML 30 has the highest GAS Reserve in teh country,I say again you guys should guess who it was sold to,Im still waiting cos i got the answer, this is getting very intresting  lol

As I stated earlier, I am not saying that Shell should be able to violate any agreements it had. Including the right of first refusal.

Damn. 40k-> 10 million? That is insane.

Tinubu was indicted like this guy, but never convicted (and didn't jump bail, lol.) From what I gather, he instead he settled out of court. He can come and go as he pleases to the US. Unlike this dude

@Ibime: I don't see the relevance of googlenomics to any of this. One presumably doesn't need to be on the ground to read and process information, yes? If there are facts that I am missing, that is another thing. But as far as I can tell, we just seem to interpret the facts differently.

It seems to me that you are using this "limited knowledge of wetin dey ground" as an excuse for a weak and poorly thought out argument.

Yes, Shell is a big and evil company. They did lots of bad things. We all get this.

But let's look at it from a slightly different perspective.

Suppose that the land had never been taken away from the oil producing communities. It still belonged wholly to them today. Would you all not have created something similar to NNPC? Would you not have auctioned off OMLs and found international oil companies to partner with your version of NNPC to extract the oil? The agreement you may have signed with Shell, for all we know might look exactly like the terms of the current one that the FG and NNPC have with Shell (where according to previous posters, a minority share of the OML is owned by Shell, with the majority %ge by NNPC).

If the above were the case:
A) would you give a sh1t about who Shell sells off their stake in the OML?
B) would you even have a moral or legal right to interfere?

I suspect the answer to both A and B is "no."

If so, then it seems to me that the lion's share of your anger should be directed at the FG and NNPC, not Shell.

That is akin to a Swiss Bank telling Nigerians that "what we do with Abacha's gold is none of your business"

No, it is not. This would be akin to Nigeria not first demonstrating that money in Abacha's account was stolen before going after it. You have to prove first in a court of law (not a court of public opinion, but one of law!) that something wrong happened first. Can you carry away the Abacha money without first getting a conviction? What happened to due process and the rule of law? When did jungle justice become the natural order of things?

erico2k2:
@ ekt_bear
They have violated the terms, ie they only leant of the sale after it was made hence the outcry.
Dont 4get these guys have been dealing with SPDC for the past 50 years,so they know when they arfe up to no good,dont get me wrong, SPDC had improved in some areas  but more need to be done,what they have done is recycle.Translation cut cost.The sad part of this is that theses changes are done by Nigerians too.Im gonna talk to men on ground to know what they have added or removed from the terms and condition of exploration that trigard the who kasala.

Got it. So that aspect, fine. Let the communities have a chance to bid also, imo.

debosky:
Read the story again - apparently they violated the integrity of the bidding process to surreptitiously bring in another company that failed to win the bid.

This seems a beef between some of the bidders in question (Vertex mentioned specifically) and Shell, not between Shell and the oil communities though? Seems to be a separate grouse.

Secondly, like others have posted, the leases usually have an integral community relations agreement on the types of developmental activities/employment that would be offered to the host community. To initiate the change without due consultation is a violation of due process.

Fine. If they have to notify the communities first before selling, then they should do so. I don't have a problem with that.

In Nigeria that is a big IF - we have heard numerous cases of deals being reneged on wantonly so I am not surprised by the circumspect view of the communities. They need to be able to assess the bidders ab initio and give a view on what would be best suited to their needs, instead of being handed a fait accompli.

So in your opinion they should be able to reject a winning bidder if they like? Even one who'll agree to maintain existing agreements? Or to what extent should they have input?

erico2k2:
I have  just read fru your responce, I see you aint no fool, but you are out of the paramitre of this debate, I sugest you read fru most of the inputes in this post  so that you are intune with the argument of the day, or else you gonna stray away from the conversation of the day.
let me say something here so you know,I dont knwo where you are based though, but here in the Uk,if you win teh contract to operate or provide certain services within a comunity or a coporate body you are bound by law to retain all its existing workers,honour all of thier Anual leave  and working conditions,how do you do this, both parties submit thier terms of agreement to work ie,The terms of contracts remains same btw new contractor  and workers,TRANSLATION.

Agreed, that makes sense and is how it should be.

Shell had violated this standard procedures  just to cut cost,if they the people dont fight this out,those terms and conditions as I stated in my last post if you care to read it  would be overlooked by the new owners of the so called rights.

How? Explain the bolded? Elaborate? Which specifically are they violating?

If they agreed to something and are not doing it, they should definitely be held accountable. If the guy they sell to violates a prior agreement about hiring workers from the local community, by all means take their @ss to court, etc. But that couldn't have happened yet, since the lease hasn't been sold off. . . ?

Dont be suprised these so called new owners are the one and only shell still but comming under diffrent name, if they are so transparent in what they are doing why did they not make it public so that evryone both local and internation would bid, then in that case the people would have know about it  and gone fru all its proposals  and see the terms and condition of the sale of this rights if its adding or taking anything from the existing terms and conditions, hope this clearifies things for you a bit??

Right, so if there is something screwy/non-transparent with the bid process, and if the locals are for some reason not being allowed to bid, then sure, that seems wrong.

But at the same time, surely you agree that if the new buyer will uphold the existing previous agreements with the oil communities, nobody has a right to dictate to Shell who they sell off to (unless this was something Shell agreed to)?

That really is the only point I'm making here.

Man they hit him with 23 counts

I wonder what the jail term looks like for this if you get convicted. Maybe he was smart to jump bail and flee the country.

Better to be vice governor of Imo State than in jail.

A link to the case file:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61458521/Imo-State-Deputy-Governor-Jude-Agbaso-Casefile-from-Nassau-County-District-Court

Obinoscopy:
What annoys me the most is the arrival of the policemen after the armed robbers have gone. They shouldn't have bothered coming in the first place!

+1

The police are shameful

Hrm. There may be a better chance of this happening in a post-Nigeria setting that in Nigerian one. Isn't going to happen though for the foreseeable (20-30 years or so) future

@Seum:

1. How much money did Ghana borrow from Nigeria? And did they get some sweetheart interest rate?
2. Was Nigeria giving these 20k or 30k barrels to Ghana for less than the market price? If so, by how much?

Blah blah blah

First of all, nobody is claiming that Shell is entirely innocent . . . that is a pretty silly mischaracterization on your part.

Second, of what relevance is all this red herring sh1t you bring up? Does any of that give the oil communities the right to dictate to Shell who they sell off their interest to, as seems to be the bone of contention in the original article?
They should not be able to sell off their interest to the highest bidder because "OBJ issued the Petroleum and Land Acts and [they] supported it?" Wth? Granted, if possible they should try to see if they can find a buyer in the community or whatever else they are demanding. But if Shell ends up not doing so, that is life.

Finally, regarding the red herring sh1t you bring up:
1. Go after the FG and fight to gain more control over the NNPC.
2. Or take Shell to a court of law (outside of Nigeria) and hit them there, if you truly believe they've somehow received stolen property (though as I've pointed out earlier, your analogy is probably the wrong one.)

I don't see how beating up some Shell officials because they want to get rid of their mining lease is a valid response.

Has nothing to do with teenagers. After all, the same politically oblivious adults presumably had no interest as kids, right?

And it isn't clear to me that people become that more politically active/interested as they grow up.

Anything you've read lately that you'd recommend?

all4naija:
I am so surprised people find joy in enslaving others. What a filthy mentality!

Err, none of us are alive who did the enslaving? Anyway, it isn't the best of things to do, but at that time it was accepted practice.

Interesting thread

Not just poor Nigerians, but poor people in general. It is a bad idea, but they do it anyway.

Just thought it was a pretty good post, surprised so little interest in it.

Q: State Commissioner Of Police Should Be Elected?
A: Yes

But on a serious note, yeah, it is as good idea to separate the police force from the rest of the government politically. I guess elections is a good way. But you also need to to be a non-political office, one supposed to be neutral (like the judiciary.)

The wife though is a northerner, right? I thought I remember reading that somewhere when this thread first was active

Oyo Empire enslaved a lot of Hausa as well. A lot of them escaped to join Afonja's rebellion.

Ibadan too seems to have enslaved Hausa.

Pushing those Zimbabwe farmers off of the land has in part destroyed Zimbabwe's economy. A once flourishing land that was one the breadbasket of Africa now is better known for exporting illegal immigrants rather than food

The main problem you whites made strategically was not sharing the wealth enough. Economic inequality eventually leads to social unrest.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I agree, we are hypocritical. Supposedly Lebanese are banned from many sectors in Liberia:

Easy relations with the political elites and the money to pay bribes also help. Liberia's Lebanese are unable to buy property and are banned from 26 industries, but simultaneous patronage by officials is common. "I budget for bribes," admits a Lebanese restaurateur. "Anyone wanting to do business here does."

http://www.economist.com/node/21256166

Yet if the white man does the same to the black man in his country, then he is a racist, bigot, etc, etc.

As we become wealthier, hopefully we can become less hypocritical 

So to conclude, rather than confronting the NNPC or government which took away their land, they are going after a softer target, the guy the FG signed a deal with (Shell and co).

When in fact, even if there were a ND Republic today, or had been one at independence, in all likelihood very similar deals would have been signed.  . .but this time with NNPC (or whatever the ND equivalent would be) more directly controlled by the oil producing communities.

This is probably one of the first times in my life I've felt sympathy for a MNC.

Now, once the interests are sold off to local players who are:
a) also profit-oriented
b) equally uninterested in "share the wealth" to compensate the oil-communities for the land seized from them by the FG
c) more willing to use any means necessary to protect their investment

Then what happens? May end up in as worse situation then when Shell was involved. At least Shell cares about its media rep. Some shadowy Nigerian businessman will not.

BTW, regarding the "handling stolen property" argument. . . doesn't one have to first demonstrate in a court or legally that something was stolen? To my knowledge you cannot go after the receiver of stolen property before doing this.

The analogy fails for a more fundamental reason though. . . it would be as if someone somehow hijacked control of Apple stock from the rightful owners, and then proceeded to sign some fair market deals with some 3rd parties as if they owned the company. In such a situation, again, you go after the guy who stole your stock, not the guy Apple sub-contracted to supply them processors.

Posted by: automania
Insert Quote
Thank you for putting me through  

Not a problem! Any time