Cross-posted from Amnesty blogs

Yesterday I wrote about a discussion in Parliament on the use of “super-injunctions” to gag the media. It turns out that no-one anywhere is keeping track of how many of these secret gags are being issued, or whether the judges involved are scrutinising the cases properly.

But another intriguing issue that came out of the same meeting relates to the  problem of “libel tourism”. Notoriously, under current UK law it’s now possible for anyone, anywhere in the world, who thinks they’ve been libelled on some website or another, to come to London and attempt to bankrupt the person responsible. Thus we have – for example – an Icelandic academic losing his home after being sued by a fellow-Icelander over things written on the University of Iceland website.

“Libel tourists” come here because it’s easy to win, even when you don’t have a case. The UK court system denies libel defendants a fair trial by effectively treating them as ‘guilty until proven innocent’, and because the legal costs of defending one’s self are up to 140 times higher than in other countries. This means that most ordinary people cannot afford adequate legal representation.

Those who really benefit from this system are, of course, law firms such as Carter Ruck, who help foreign libel tourists bring their exorbitant claims. What I wasn’t aware of until this week is that the UK taxpayer may also be helping to foot the bill. While the parties to the case pay lawyers’ fees, it was claimed during Tuesday’s meeting that the costs of actually running the court, paying the judges wages etc. comes out of the  public purse. If this is true, then not only are the likes of Carter Ruck making a fortune from these questionable foreign law suits – but we are indirectly subsidising the whole process through our taxes….

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.”- Donald Rumsfeld, 12 Feb 2002

On Tuesday I joined a meeting of the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights which focussed on “super-injunctions”. This is the name given to a legal order which not only bans a particular issue from being covered in the press, but also bans any reference to the ban.

It was one of these orders that had, notoriously, been used by controversial law-firm Carter Ruck, on behalf of oil-trader Trafigura, to suppress coverage of the now-famous “Minton report”, until the ban was circumvented by the online media. It was this that stirred the interest of the JCHR.

The meeting included journalists, editors, MPs, Lords and lawyers, including both the Guardian’s legal chief and two senior partners from Carter Ruck. The discussion was so wide-ranging that it would take more than one blog post to do it justice, but there were a couple of details that really stood out.

The first is that no-one knows how many secret super-injunctions are currently in force. While the UK state seems bent on meticulously recording every detail of its citizens’ phone, email and web-browsing habits, it is positively lackadaisical about tracking its own media gagging orders. Although each individual super-injunction is (we have to hope) being kept on file somewhere by the  judiciary, no-one, anywhere, is collating information  about the overall picture.

When asked about this issue in Parliament, the government’s response was simply that:

“The information requested is not available. The High Court collects figures on applications, however injunctions are not separately identifiable, and there are currently no plans to amend databases to do so.”

So there’s no way of knowing, on a global scale, how many of these gagging orders are being handed out, or for what sorts of purposes, or on whose behalf. It’s thus difficult to see how anyone could independently verify that the law is actually being applied fairly and proportionately.  What we effectively have is a secret state whose bans on media coverage are almost entirely beyond public scrutiny.

Individual newspapers will obviously know how many injunctions they’ve each received (the Guardian has reportedly had 12 this year alone), but as they’re forbidden from discussing the details, it will be impossible for newspaper editors to build up a global picture by talking to each other.

This lack of scrutiny seemed to be a real concern for members of the Committee, and there was much discussion about how they could determine the size of the problem and address it. One point I tried to make was that there is at least one group of people who could in theory tell us quite a lot about the number of super-injunctions being issued – the law firms like Carter Ruck who are involved in securing them.

At the moment we seem to  have a situation where the only people who have any idea of about the numbers,  are the same people who are profiting so handsomely from the UK libel/censorship system.

The second thing that stood out for me in the meeting was a discussion around “libel tourism”. It seems that our taxes may be helping to subsidise the activities of Carter Ruck, Shillings and their ilk, in this area. But more on that next time…

*Update* See also: Doc Richard – Trafigura suppresses scientific lecture – allegedly

*Update 2* Rebellion spreads – Caroline Lucas MEP mentions the unmentionable.

There’s renewed coverage today of the ongoing legal battles following the notorious Ivory Coast toxic waste incident, in which the oil trader Trafigura has been implicated.

The Guardian (UK), Times (UK) and New York Times (US) all report that the £30 million compensation payment by Trafigura to victims of the disaster is in danger of being misappropriated after an Ivorian court ordered that the funds be frozen.

But note also the contrast in how the UK and US media have reported the background to the story. Here’s how the New York Times covers it:

The waste was shipped by Trafigura, an international commodities trading giant. About 108,000 people sought treatment for nausea, headaches, vomiting and abdominal pains, and at least 15 died. All had apparently been poisoned by the toxic brew of gasoline and caustic soda, refining byproducts dumped by Trafigura’s contractor.

Here’s the Guardian:

Hundreds of tonnes of sulphur-contaminated toxic oil waste were cheaply dumped on landfills and in ditches around Abidjan in 2006. The cargo ship had been chartered by Trafigura. In the weeks after, the fumes caused thousands of sick people to besiege local hospitals.

…and here’s the Times:

A cargo ship chartered by Trafigura dumped hundreds of tonnes of sulphur-contaminated toxic oil waste around Abidjan in 2006. In the following weeks the fumes caused thousands of people to need hospital treatment.

The deaths of “up to 17″ Ivorians has been widely reported elsewhere. In previous articles, both the Times and the Guardian have referred to a UN report citing “official estimates” of 15 dead. So it seems odd that this seemingly crucial detail should now be omitted.

The New York Times is of course free to say what it likes because freedom of speech is protected under the US constitution, and New York State has a law which specifically prohibits the enforcement of UK libel judgements in NY, due to human rights concerns.

Fortunately in the UK we do still have (despite some recent confusion) an absolute right to report the proceedings of Parliament, so I can draw your attention to this recent statement from Evan Harris MP:

My understanding is that “Newsnight” is being threatened by the lawyers for Trafigura, Carter-Ruck, if it repeats an allegation… that deaths were caused by the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast, even though in 2007 Hansard reported the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations laid by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs before Parliament, and a memorandum of explanation to those regulations stated:

“The recent example of the release of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast leading to the deaths of a number of people and the hospitalisation of thousands underlines the risks involved in the movement and management of waste.”

How can it be that that can be in Hansard, yet there are still threats of legal action against “Newsnight” if it reports the very same wording that is used in there? That cannot be right.

What Dr. Harris could also have mentioned is that, astoundingly, alongside these renewed threats, Trafigura’s libel action over this damning May 2009 news report, appears still to be ongoing.

Given the recent success of Twitter and Facebook in mobilising those outraged by the distasteful comments of Jan Moir, it was probably inevitable that other mainstream columnists would start to get worried.  Until recently, newspaper pundits have been free to air their opinions more or less unchallenged, loudly, regularly, and with scant regard for accuracy – beyond the requirement never to say anything bad about a (living) rich person or an advertiser.

Now that the internet has made it slightly easier for the public to answer back, many columnists seem jittery. The last few days have seen a flurry of news articles likening Twitter users to a ‘mob’, equating the loud criticism of Jan Moir with ‘censorship’, and warning us that online activism threatens  freedom of speech.

Writing in today’s Observer, Nick Cohen announces that “the same people who want freedom of speech for Parliament want to silence Jan Moir” (apparently he did a worldwide survey of every single person involved in the Trafigura protest, and that’s what they all said) and that “when Twitter heaved with protests against Jan Moir, apparent liberals matched conservatives and forgot every liberal principle they knew”.

The irony is that websites like Twitter are actually giving a public voice to thousands of people who never had much of a say before, thereby greatly increasing the value of freedom of speech in this country (since when does sending an angry letter make you a member of a ‘mob’?). The double-irony is that Nick Cohen, in denouncing Twitterers for the way that they have used this new-found public voice, seems to be acting in the same way as those who condemned Jan Moir for the way she aired hers. If he is right (which I don’t think he is) that the strong criticism of Jan Moir’s comments was an attempt at ‘censorship’, then it’s difficult to see how his strong criticism of the Twittersphere wouldn’t fall into the same category.

One liberal principle that Cohen himself appears to have forgotten is the value of condemning bigotry, whatever its source:

opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candor, or malignity, bigotry or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves

- John Stuart Mill, Chapter Two, On Liberty- click here to read the full context

To condemn a bigoted opinion, is not, in and of itself, to demand that the bigot be silenced or censored – we can merely be registering our disapproval of one particular view, and for many who complained about Jan Moir’s comments, this seems to have been the main point. In the words of Ian Hopkinson earlier today: “I resent the implication I want to shut #janmoir up – I just wanted to shout at her a bit”.

From www.parliament.uk

Culture Media and Sports Committee: Further written evidence from Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian

…Along with others of the European media and the BBC, we have recently been subject to what we regard as a prolonged campaign of legal harassment by Carter-Ruck on behalf of London-based oil traders, Trafigura.

Trafigura arranged the illegal dumping of 500 tons of highly toxic oil waste in the West African country of Cote d’Ivoire. Thousands of the population of Abidjan, the capital, subsequently became ill and, after a bitterly fought law suit, Trafigura has now been forced to pay a degree of compensation to the victims.

Carter-Ruck, like such other firms as Schillings, are trying to carve out for themselves a slice of the lucrative market known as ‘reputation management’. This is not about the perfectly proper job of helping people or organisations gain legal redress when they have been mistreated by the press.

It is a pitch to work with PR firms to pressurize and intimidate journalists in advance on behalf of big business. It exploits the oppressive nature and the frightening expense of British libel laws…

After the toxic waste dumping in 2006, Trafigura embarked on what was essentially a cover story. They used Carter-Ruck and PR specialists Bell Pottinger, working in concert to enforce their version on the media.

The cover story was that Trafigura used a tanker for normal ‘floating storage’ of gasoline. They had then, they claimed, discharged the routine tank-washing ’slops’, which were harmless, to a disposal company, and had no responsibility whatever for the subsequent disaster.

In fact, Trafigura had deliberately used a primitive chemical process to make cheap contaminated gasoline more saleable, and knew the resultant toxic waste was impossible to dispose of legally in Europe.

The Guardian experienced an intimidatory approach repeatedly in the Trafigura case. Other journalists at BBC Newsnight, the Norwegian state broadcaster NRK and the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant, told us of identical threats. The BBC eventually received a libel writ. NRK were the subject of a formal complaint – eventually rejected – to the Norwegian press ethics body.

A history of Carter-Ruck’s behaviour in respect of the Guardian is appended [APPENDIX 2]

On 27 June 2008, Bell Pottinger sent a threatening message to the Guardian. They had previously sent similar threats and complaints to AP, whose agency dispatch had been published on-line by the Guardian. The message ended:

“Please note that in view of the gravity of these matters and of the allegations which have been published, I am copying Trafigura’s solicitors, Carter-Ruck, into this email.”

The letter demanded changes to the Guardian’s website to include this information:

“The Probo Koala … left Amsterdam with the full knowledge and clear approval of the Dutch authorities.” It also stated that the disposal company in Amsterdam had asked for extra fees “without any credible justification” and that “ship’s slops are commonly produced within the oil industry. To label Trafigura’s slops as ‘toxic waste’ in no way accurately reflects their true composition.”

On 16 September 2008, Trafigura posted a statement on their website claiming:

“Trafigura is in no way responsible for the sickness suffered by people in Abidjan … The discharge of slops from cargo vessels is a routine procedure that is undertaken all over the world.”

The company knew this was a misleading and false statement.

On 22 September 2008, the Guardian’s East Africa correspondent, Xan Rice, asked Trafigura some questions, in view of the then impending trial of local Ivoirian waste contractors.

Trafigura refused to answer, a refusal coupled with another pointed referral to libel solicitors. Bell Pottinger wrote: “I am copying this email to Carter-Ruck”.

Xan Rice’s article was not published by the Guardian.

The Ivoirian trial convicted local individuals for toxic dumping, Trafigura subsequently abandoned some of their lines of defence in the English litigation they originally claimed they had no duty of care, and could not have foreseen what the local dumpers might do. Trafigura now agreed instead, to pay anyone who could prove the toxic waste had made them ill. They continued to deny publicly that such a thing was possible.

Xan Rice again asked some factual questions. On 14 November 2008, Bell Pottinger responded “Please note that I am copying this correspondence to Carter-Ruck and to the Guardian’s legal department”. They added: “Any suggestion, even implicit, that Trafigura … should have stood trial in Ivory Coast would be completely unfounded and libellous … We insist that you refer in detail to the contents of the attached summary”.

They claimed to be sueing for libel the senior partner of Leigh Day who was bringing the English lawsuit. They added that further Leigh Day statements “are the subject of a complaint in Malicious Falsehood”[sic]. In fact, the libel proceedings against Martyn Day had been stayed, and no malicious falsehood proceedings had been – or were ever – issued.

A closely-typed six-page statement was attached. In it the company claimed to have “independent expert evidence” of the non-toxicity of the waste, but refused to disclose it. Trafigura repeated the false claim that the waste was merely “a mixture of gasoline, water and caustic soda”.

No Guardian article, once again, was published.

On 3 December 2008, less than 3 weeks later, Trafigura formally admitted to the High Court the true composition of the waste in its document “Likely chemical composition of the slops”, [detailed above].

On 5 December 2008, Trafigura formally admitted their waste came from Merox-style chemical processing attempts, and not from routine tank-rinsing.

On 29 April 2009, Carter-Ruck wrote to a Dutch paper: “Trafigura has been obliged to engage my firm to bring complaints against Volkskrant … It is indeed the case that we have on Trafigura’s behalf, written to a number of other media outlets around the world in respect of their coverage of this matter”. Bell Pottinger also confirmed contact with journalists who published or broadcast stories that did not accurately reflect Trafigura’s position, but added: “We completely disagree with your description of Trafigura’s involvement in an ‘aggressive media campaign’.”

On 13 May 2009, Bell Pottinger, in concert with Carter-Ruck, issued a statement to the BBC repeating two assertions known to be false.

They said the Leigh Day statement “is currently the subject of a malicious falsehood complaint made by Trafigura”. They also claimed once more: “The Probo Koala’s slops were a mixture of gasoline, water and caustic soda”.

On 13 May 2009, Carter-Ruck wrote to the Guardian demanding the paper not “publish any reference” to witness-nobbling allegations, although they know these had already been the subject of a public statement by solicitor Martyn Day; the subject of a separate disclosure published by the legal correspondent of the Times; and the subject of a publicly-available court injunction banning further witness contact by Trafigura until trial. Carter-Ruck added that “so much as a reference to these allegations” would be “wholly improper”.

On 15 May 2009, Carter-Ruck issued a press release under its own letterhead, not Trafigura’s, claiming that High Court libel proceedings had been issued against the BBC for “wildly inaccurate and libellous”, “one-sided”, “misleading”, “sensationalist and inaccurate” publications.

On 22 May 2009, Carter Ruck told the Guardian: “It is untrue that the slops caused or could have caused the numerous deaths and serious injuries … Trafigura cannot be expected to tolerate unbalanced and inaccurate reporting of this nature. Accordingly, Trafigura requires the Guardian to … remove these articles from its website forthwith; and … publish a statement by Trafigura”.

The Guardian declined to remove its articles, but agreed to publish the statement. This said: “The fact is that according to independent analyses that Trafigura has seen of the chemical composition of the slops, it is simply not possible that this material could have led to the deaths and widespread injuries alleged. Similarly, it is not possible that hydrogen sulphide was released from the slops as alleged by the Guardian. Trafigtura will present these independent analyses in the High Court in Aututmn 2009.”

On 17 September 2009, the Guardian published documents on its front page detailing a “massive cover-up” by Trafigura.

On 29 September 2009, Trafigura announced it would pay £30m to the victims, rather than face a High Court trial.

From Amnesty International

Debunking denialism and the fight for treatment: Campaigning for the rights of people with HIV & AIDS in South Africa.

Date: Wed 11 November 2009

Vuyiseka Dubula is General Secretary of the Treatment Action Campaign, a leading voice on HIV/AIDs campaigning in South Africa. She is a dynamic young woman leader of TAC, who lives openly with HIV, and who has been at the centre of most of their campaigns over the last 10 years.

Vuyiseka will share the story of TAC, the importance of activism in achieving their goals, the campaigning techniques that they have found to be effective and some of the challenges they have faced along the way – including debunking the myths that have been promoted about HIV and AIDS.

We hope you can join us for what promises to be a hugely informative talk followed by a question and answer session.

Entry is free but booking is essential. Please contact aikta.hancock@amnesty.org.uk or call 020 7033 1677 if you would like to attend./

I’ve long been a fan of Al Jazeera’s willingness to cover stories and angles that other news media won’t touch, and was pleased to have the chance to contribute to the programme above. I was even more pleased when I saw how it had turned out – definitely one of the best overviews of the story that I’ve yet seen.

UPDATE …on a free speech tangent, the techie guerilla campaign against the litigiousness of UK chiropractors continues with a sneaky pop at the General Chiropractic Council.

Not content with embracing global warming denial dallying with anti-vaccination paranoia, and organising a £35-a-head pseudo-debate on AIDS, it seems that the editor of the Spectator, Fraser Nelson, has now gone one step further in his quixotic struggle against scientific rationalism. This week’s magazine  features an op ed by the notorious AIDS crank Neville Hodgkinson, dismissing HIV science as ‘the AIDS religion’.

Here’s an extract from a post I did on Hodgkinson earlier this year:

During the early 1990s, Sunday Times medical correspondent Neville Hodgkinson was bamboozled into running a series of articles – over a period of two years – claiming that:

“a growing number of senior scientists are challenging the idea that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes AIDS”…

“This sensational possibility, now being contemplated by numerous doctors, scientists and others intimately concerned with the fight against the disease, deserves the widest possible examination and debate.”

Hodgkinson declared in December 1993.

“Yet it has been largely ignored by the British media and suppressed almost entirely in the United States… The science establishment considers itself on high moral ground, defending a theory that has enormous public health implications against the ‘irresponsible’ questioning of a handful of journalists. Their concern is human and understandable, even if we might expect our leading scientists to retain more concern for the truth while pursuing public health objectives.”

As with the tobacco industry’s “scepticism” over the link between smoking and cancer, the views promoted by Hodgkinson tended to focus on gaps in the established explanation (many of which have since been filled) rather than on any empirical research showing an alternative cause. But he did use one of the recurrent rhetorical motifs of the AIDS denial movement – highlighting the case of an HIV-positive “AIDS dissident” who refused to take anti-retroviral drugs but remained healthy.

Jody Wells has been HIV-positive since 1984. He was diagnosed as having AIDS in 1986. Today, seven years on, he says he feels fine with energy levels that belie his 52 years. He does not take the anti-HIV drug AZT…

He feels so strongly about the issue that he works up to 18 hours a day establishing a fledgling charity called Continuum, “an organisation for long-term survivors of HIV and AIDS and people who want to be”. Founded late last year, the group already has 600 members.

Continuum emphasises nutritional and lifestyle approaches to combating AIDS, arguing that these factors have been grossly neglected in the 10 years since Dr. Robert Gallo declared HIV to be the cause of AIDS.

Tragically – if predictably – Jody Wells was dead within three years of the article being written.

Although Hodgkinson left the Sunday Times in 1994, his articles on the “AIDS controversy” continued to be disseminated online, lending valuable credibility to the denialist cause – and have been credited with influencing Thabo Mbeki’s embrace of AIDS denial in the early part of this decade.

Since his ignominious exist from the Sunday Times, Hodgkinson has largely been a marginal figure within the UK media, but perhaps Fraser Nelson could help to change all that…

See also: “Trafigura coverage still curtailed by libel abuse”

From Theyworkforyou

Evan Harris MP: My final question relates to the ongoing problems of English libel law in respect of Trafigura. My understanding is that “Newsnight” is being threatened by the lawyers for Trafigura, Carter-Ruck, if it repeats an allegation against Carter-Ruck that deaths were caused by the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast, even though in 2007 Hansard reported the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations laid by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs before Parliament, and a memorandum of explanation to those regulations stated:

“The recent example of the release of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast leading to the deaths of a number of people and the hospitalisation of thousands underlines the risks involved in the movement and management of waste.”

How can it be that that can be in Hansard, yet there are still threats of legal action against “Newsnight” if it reports the very same wording that is used in there? That cannot be right. Although there are powerful interests at stake, there is a public interest in the fact that there was a settlement made—hundreds of millions of pounds paid over in that settlement—and yet the public in this country are not allowed to know some of the contents of those news reports. We have a responsible media by and large in respect of such matters, and it is about time that English libel laws and English laws in general caught up with that fact.

For a glorious period around the turn  of the century, satirist Chris Morris produced a series of TV shows demonstrating just how easy it was to get attention-hungry politicians and celebrities to spout utter gibberish on camera.

In yesterday’s debate on freedom of speech in Parliament, one of Morris’s ex-victims, Gerald Howarth MP, seemed keen to exercise his critical judgement in defence of beleagured libel bunnies Carter Ruck.

If this is the best champion that the law firm can find, than perhaps they really are in trouble. Here are some choice clips of Gerald Howarth sharing his wisdom on paedophilia with Chris Morris’s Brass Eye back in 2001:

“How brazen and shameless is the modern paedophile?”

“I’d like to play you a piece of music…”

“Keep away from the guy with the funny eye”

“Gerald Howarth here for No Offenc”

From The Guardian

In the debate today Harris said it was his understanding that BBC Newsnight were also being “threatened” by Carter-Ruck if they repeated a claim, even though it was recorded in parliamentary Hansard. He said: “How can it be that that can be in Hansard, yet there are still threats of legal action against Newsnight if they report the very same wording that is used in there? That cannot be right.”

Speculation is growing over what in Hansard Evan Harris was referring to. I’m wondering if it might be this:

From Hansard

Mark Stephens…. We are seeing at the moment a real problem with a company called Trafigura who have retained lawyers to attack Green Peace International predominantly, but also media organisations who are reporting about the alleged toxic dumping in Africa of waste. They are doing this in a number of ways. Letters are being sent; they are suing the lawyers, Leigh Day, who are taking claims; I understand that Leigh Day are representing 16 people who died, 100,000 people who needed medical attention, including miscarriages, respiratory problems and organ failure, and there is a class of about 30,000 Ivorians who have suffered as a result of this toxic dump. It seems to me that it is wholly inappropriate for a very wealthy company to try and chill down discussion about toxic dumping through this kind of aggressive behaviour. For example, there are threats to individuals at Green Peace International; and there are also threats, for example, to the BBC. If the BBC want to get a balanced story and hear from Trafigura, on the one hand, and also someone from Green Peace International or a scientific expert, the threats to the BBC are being communicated back via the producers who are saying to the people from Green Peace, “But of course you can’t mention this, this, this, this and this because otherwise we might get into a defamation wrangle with Trafigura”. That seems to me just plain wrong. Let us have an open debate about it.

CarterRuck have already contacted your MP to give their views on libel, ahead of tomorrow’s debate on freedom of speech. Now’s your chance to give yours: www.tr.im/Cl3D

I thought it was about time I published this. Readers should know that I dispute several of the assertions made by Breco in the message below, and am very doubtful about many others. You should also be aware that since the email was sent to me, this happened, and this happened.

But aside from the content of the letter, the point is that the intimidation worked, at least for a while. I have not written anything of substance about Bredenkamp since I got this email, or done any further investigation. The reason for this is simply and solely that Bredenkamp is a multi-millionaire and I’m not. Due to the astronomical costs built into the UK libel system, and the massive advantage this gives to super-rich litigants, should someone like Bredenkamp decide to sue me, I would not be able to afford adequate legal representation. This would essentially guarantee that I would not receive a fair trial.

From:  “******@breco.info”  Friday, 29 June, 2007 9:11:53

To: richardcameronwilson@yahoo.co.uk

Dear Mr Wilson

I refer to your article Titanic Express as published on www.ukwatch.net (“The Article”). The circumstances of your sister’s death are truly appalling and tragic. By all accounts, she was a remarkably courageous and altruistic person and your desire to honour her memory by writing her story is laudable.

However, it is very disappointing to see that in the Article you make a number of incorrect and damaging statements about Mr John Bredenkamp.

1. You write in the Article: “Successive UN reports have implicated dozens of western companies in illegal profiteering from the DRC war, which is intimately connected to the Burundi conflict. Those named include the UK-based Zimbabwean arms dealer John Bredenkamp and Andrew Smith, the British owner of the “air cargo firm” Avient”.

• The UN Reports you mention refer to the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources of the DRC. Mr Bredenkamp was indeed wrongly named in one interim report and subsequently proved to the UN that the unsubstantiated allegations made about him were misconceived and false. In their Final Report of 25 November 2003 –nearly four years ago – he was totally exonerated by the UN of any wrong doing or unlawful activity.

• Mr Bredenkamp is not based in the UK neither is he ‘an arms dealer’. If you visit his web site, you will see that his involvment in the defence sector is as a passive shareholder in Aviation Consultancy Services (“ACS”) , a company which has agencies in Southern Africa for a number of reputable international aircraft manufacturers.

2. You go on to write in the Article: “To date the UK has proved reluctant to follow up the UN’s allegations, but Bredenkamp’s offices were raided by the Serious Fraud Office last year as part of the BAE corruption inquiry. One more reason to hope that CAAT succeeds in getting the inquiry reopened is that it may help shed some much-needed light on Bredenkamp’s business dealings.”

The fact is that there are no outstanding UN allegations in respect of
Mr Bredenkamp or his companies for the UK to follow up. He himself suggested to the Panel that his DRC joint venture should be monitored by the OECD, a process that was duly put in place. Furthermore, at the time of their Final Report, you should know that the UN urged him to remain invested in the DRC.

In respect of the SFO’s inquiries into media allegations about BAE Systems, let me make two points:

o there is no connection whatsoever with the UN Report in this enquiry.

o Mr Bredenkamp voluntarily flew to the UK late last year to offer his assistance to the SFO after they had visited his UK office and London house.

As regards his business dealings, please do visit the Breco web site www.breco.info to get an idea of what he really does rather that what the media or CAAT would have you believe.

I note that in your book Titanic Express (“The Book”), on page 142 you write in the Book: “And John Bredenkamp, a British-based Zimbabwean businessman with, according to the UN, ‘a history of clandestine military procurement,’ was accused of breaching European Sanctions by supplying British Aerospace equipment to the Zimbabwean forces fighting in the Congo.”

As previously stated, Mr Bredenkamp is not British-based.

The source of the accusation you refer to was an article in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper which was totally erroneous. ACS comprehensively complied with EU sanctions on behalf of their principals and this was fully demonstrated to the UN Panel, who accepted that there had been no breaches whatsoever.

If, in the future, you decide to write about Mr Bredenkamp or any of his companies, I would greatly appreciate it if you would be courteous enough to contact the group’s online press office – press_office@breco.info – with a view to checking that your facts are correct.

Bearing in mind the background to your book, Mr Bredenkamp has decided not to take any legal action against you, but please understand that he is deeply wounded by all of your erroneous statements.

Sincerely

***** ******
Press Office
Breco Group

Back to main article

Back to main article

Now that the real Trafigura Art Prize has been ‘disappeared’, the Alternative Trafigura Art Prize has a clear run… Results will be announced in early November – please send us your submissions!

I just received this press release in my inbox:

19 October 2009, London – Gallerist Cynthia Corbett today announced that her Art Prize will no longer be sponsored by Trafigura, and will instead be renamed the Young Masters Art Prize.

Cynthia explains “Since the prize was conceived 2 years ago we approached various art foundations and corporate organizations to sponsor an art prize. We feel that the recent events involving Trafigura are detracting from the main purpose of the prize, which is to celebrate emerging and newly established artists.”

The Young Masters Art Prize will be awarded to one of sixteen international artists who have been chosen to exhibit work at the Young Masters exhibition, which opened at The Old Truman Brewery last Thursday night with over 1200 visitors.

The winner of the Young Masters Art Prize will be announced on Tuesday 3 November, and the prize will be continued each year, with funding for the prize money sourced for alternative sponsors. This year the prize will be non-monetary.

The Young Masters Art Prize will be judged by an independent panel of high profile artists, journalists and historians.

Click here for full press release (word doc)

I’m delighted to announce receipt of the first entry for the ‘Alternative Trafigura Art Prize’, which was launched earlier today.

This work, by the formidable human rights campaigner Sara H, is entitled ‘The banana cake of enduring freedom’ (‘Bananen-kuchen von bleibende freiheit’) and features a newly-baked replica of the cake which was tragically destroyed during the recent struggle to defend press freedom in the UK.

Don’t Get Fooled Again is delighted to announce the launch of the ‘Alternative Trafigura Art Prize’. This prestigious new contest will celebrate the contribution to UK political life of the oil-company and serial litigant Trafigura, and will run concurrently with the official Trafigura Art Prize competition, with results to be announced on November 3rd. December 3rd! Deadline extended!

Submissions are invited from all artists and artistically-minded folk worldwide, and may address any subject, with the term “art” being understood in its broadest possible sense.

Our learned panel of judges will reveal the winners of this fiercely-contested prize in early November, via this blog. Entry is free, and the overall winner will receive a mouth-watering selection of banana-themed baked goods.

Instructions: Simply upload a copy of your artwork to Tweetpic, Flickr or Youtube, and post the link as a comment on this blog entry.

Jack of Kent has written a characteristically thoughtful blogpost about this week’s ‘flashmob’ protest outside Carter Ruck’s offices. Here is my response, which I’ve also posted as a comment on the article itself:

Thanks for this post, David. As one of those involved in this week’s Carter Ruck protest I’m happy to debate the wider questions that you rightly point out such tactics raise.

In my view, companies who abuse human rights and/or pose a threat to democracy need to be named and shamed. This would surely include an oil company whose negilence led to 18 deaths and 30,000 injuries, and who then fought tooth and nail to silence media coverage of the issue. But it would also, I believe, include a legal firm who sought to advance their client’s interests by exploiting a demonstrably unjust law in order to suppress the right to freedom of speech. Should such a firm then seek to do the same by using similarly unjust laws to attack the fundamental underpinnings of the liberal democracy in which they exist, it is then time, in my view, for ordinary people to get on the streets and challenge them directly.

Carter Ruck this week sought, on behalf of their client, to use the law to prevent media coverage of Parliamentary proceedings. They then wrote to both the Speaker of the House of Commons, and every MP, in an apparent attempt to stop next week’s debate on freedom of speech. This was not the normal behaviour of a law firm in a healthy liberal democracy. In my view, these were political actions, and they were political actions characteristic of a dictatorial regime, not a free and open society. If a law firm starts playing politics (whether or not they do so on the instructions of a client), I believe that they then become a legitimate target for peaceful political protest.

Many people were killed, tortured or imprisoned to win and defend the democratic rights that we still largely enjoy in this country.  These freedoms are now in danger, and our democracy has already been outrageously degraded by the attacks we’ve seen on civil and political rights over the last decade. If we want to remain a largely liberal and democratic society, rather than sliding slowly towards some form of corrupt pseudo-democracy, I believe that we will need to start mobilising political action now against all those now chipping away at our democratic traditions – including, where necessary, law firms.

I don’t believe there is an absolute dividing line between liberal democratic societies and tyrannical ones. A largely liberal democracy may have unjust laws on its statute books, such as the law which led to the prosecution for homosexuality of one of our national heroes, Alan Turing, within living memory of our grandparents’ generation. More recently, it was still possible to be prosecuted in this country for “blasphemy”. Today, someone who writes an entirely truthful article about another living person can be spuriously prosecuted under a libel law which, due to the financial cost of obtaining adequate legal representation, effectively denies many defendants their right to a fair trial.

Where a lawyer chooses to collaborate with the enforcement of an unjust, undemocratic law, they cannot, in my view, insulate themselves from the moral consequences of that choice, even if they are working within a still-largely-democratic society, even if they are acting on the instructions of a client.

I fully agree that cheap shots at the entire legal profession are lazy and unhelpful, but in a way that’s exactly my point. Lawyers are (notwithstanding those cheap shots) human beings. Human beings are moral agents. Moral agents make choices for which they are morally responsible, including choices within their professional lives. Perhaps it’s true that some other lawyers would have done exactly the same as Carter Ruck did this week, but I know that there are many others who would have refused, and would have done so not on legal grounds but on moral ones. In a situation where, as we are now seeing, what is legally acceptable begins to drift away from what is morally right, the role of individual conscience becomes crucially important.

14th September 2006
Waterson Hicks
130 Fenchurch Street
London
EC3 5LY

For the attention of Mark Aspinall

RE: Caustic Tank Washings, Abidjan, Ivory Coast

Dear Sir,

In accordance with your instructions of 7th September 2006 in connection with the above matter we
advise on the following issues:

“the chemical consistency of gasoline caustic washings, especially the nature of mercaptans”,
“the toxicity of such washings”,
“the correct method of disposal”,
“the environmental and health impacts of waste”.

This report is prepared on the basis of the limited information currently available to us and accordingly
our views may change in due course.

1. Introduction

2. Three cargoes of approximately 28,000mts of coker naphtha were loaded at Brownsville,
Texas by Mt Seapurha (20th March 2006), Mt Moselle (25th April 2006) and Mt Seavinha (1st
June 2006). All three vessels subsequently transferred their cargoes to Mt Probo Koala (11th
April, 19th May and 18th June respectively).

3. In order to reduce the sulphur content of these cargoes, on-board washing took place. To
each cargo, 50m3 of caustic soda (NaOH, 33% aqueous) and 8kg ARI-100 EXL catalyst
(Cobalt phthalocyanine sulphonate) was added. The mixture was circulated for 24hrs and
allowed to settle before the caustic solution was drained to the slops tanks. In order to ensure
complete removal, the bottom of the naphtha phase was also removed.

4. This process was found to have reduced the mercaptan sulphur content by approximately
47%, and the naphtha was subsequently used as blendstock to make finished gasoline.
5. The combined slops from these washing operations were reported as the following:

o 150m3 NaOH
o 370m3 treated naphtha and free water
o 24kg ARM 00 EXL catalyst.

1.5 It appears that some or all of these slops were disposed of at waste sites in and
around Abidjan, Ivory Coast approximately in August 2006. This is alleged to have
caused, or in part contributed to, a high incidence of health problems being reported,
including nausea, breathing difficulties, vomiting and diarrhea.

2, Technical Discussion

In this section we provide explanations of the various technical aspects arising in consideration of this
case.

2.1 Coker Naphtha is a hydrocarbon fraction that has been treated by “coking”, a thermal cracking
process that produces a straight-run petroleum (C5-C7) fraction from lower value heavy residual oils.
Si tout est comme ça,

2.2 Mercaptans are organic compounds containing Sulphur, which are also known as thiols. They are
analogous to alcohols (e.g. CH3CH2OH is ethanol, CH3CH2SH is ethanethiol). As a class of
compounds they are distinguished by their extremely unpleasant odour. Ethanethiol (ethyl mercaptan)
can be detected by humans in concentrations as low as 0.2 parts per billion in air. It is a component of
the skunk odour defence described as an intense rotten egg smell and was declared the “World’s
Smelliest Substance” by the 2000 Guinness Book of Records. It is added in very small quantities to
natural gas to allow users to detect leaks.

2.3 The process of the caustic washing of refined hydrocarbons to remove mercaptans and certain
other sulphur components, sometimes known as sweetening, is achieved in refineries by the Merox
reaction (MERcaptan OXidation).

2.4 The Merox Reaction
The first stage of this process is the reaction between Sodium hydroxide and any
mercaptans (thiols) present (Equation 1):
RSH + NaOH <-> RSNa + H20
(1)
Where R= hydrocarbon chain.

The product of this reaction is then oxidized in the presence of a catalyst (Equation 2). (In the subject
case, the catalyst used was ARI-100 EXL.)
4RSNa + 02 + 2H20 -»• 2RSSR + 4NaOH
(2)

The products are allowed to separate and the sodium hydroxide fraction is removed. In a refinery it is
then regenerated – the waste products are oxidised to relatively harmless sulphates which can be
handled by wastewater treatment facilities and the sodium hydroxide returned to the beginning of the
process.

2.5 In our view the exercise onboard the Mt Probo Koala was an attempt to replicate
this refinery process at sea.

3. Health and Environmental Impacts

In this section, outline information is provided concerning hazard constituents likely to be present in
the residues/slops produced by the process conducted on board the vessel. The concentrations at
which these compounds are likely to have been present are currently unknown although, as will be
seen below, we have made some relevant calculations.

3.1 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH, aqueous solution) is corrosive and can cause severe burns on contact
with skin. Any inhalation of mist would lead to burns within the respiratory system.

3.2 ARI-100 EXL (Cobalt phthalocyanine sulphonate) is listed by the manufacturer as an irritant to
eyes, skin and the respiratory system.

3.3 Coker naphtha is volatile and flammable and a possible irritant.
Page 3

3.4 Alkyl mercaptans (Thiols) are flammable liquids (ethyl-, propyl-) or gas (methyl). They are present
in coker naphtha at around 2000ppm. Their toxicity increases with decreasing carbon chain length.
Exposure to methyl or ethyl mercaptan can lead to a cough, headaches, nausea and breathing
difficulties. All have a strong unpleasant odour. Occupational exposure limits are around 0.5ppm in air.
Contact with acid will lead to hydrogen sulphide production.

3.5 Sodium alkyl mercaptides (sodium alkanethiolate, RSNa) are flammable solids that are soluble in
water. They are the product of the reaction between mercaptans and sodium hydroxide. As with the
mercaptans, toxicity increases with decreasing carbon chain length. Sodium methyl mercaptide
(CH3SNa) is harmful by ingestion and inhalation, corrosive and toxic. Contact with skin can lead to
permanent ulceration.

3.6 Sodium hydrosulphide (NaHS) is the product of the reaction between hydrogen sulphide and
sodium hydroxide. It is harmful, toxic by inhalation and ingestion and can lead to production of H2S
gas. It will cause skin ulceration and possible corneal damage.

3.7 Sodium sulphide (Na2S) is a by-product of the reaction. It is soluble in water and is corrosive and
harmful. Inhalation of mist may lead to lung damage. Contact with acid will produce H2S gas.

3.8 Dialkyl disulphides (RSSR) are the product of equation 2. They are not soluble in water. Dimethyl
disulphide is flammable and is judged to be very toxic to humans and dangerous to the environment.

3.9 Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is a corrosive gas. It is highly toxic. At low concentrations the gas has a
strong unpleasant odour. UK Occupational Health guidelines allow exposure to 5ppm for 8 hours or
10ppm for 15 minutes. Between 20 and 100ppm the ability to smell the gas is lost. Negative health
effects, such as eye irritation may be observed from as low as 20ppm. Prolonged exposure at these
low levels may result in pharyngitis and bronchitis. Between 250 and 500ppm, pulmonary oedema
may occur. Above these levels, other effects may occur such as vomiting, breathing difficulties, loss of
consciousness and death. A single breath of 1000ppm concentration in air may be sufficient to induce
a coma and death.

3.10. There are other components of the naphtha, such as phenols, which may react with the sodium
hydroxide to form further harmful chemicals.

3.11 The above comments relate to the likely effect on humans of the compounds mentioned, they
would also have a severe and negative effect on soil and aquatic flora and fauna due to their acutely
toxic properties and high COD.

Discussion

In this section, the specific details relating to the discharge in Abidjan are discussed.

4.1 Although we have little detail of events as they occurred in Abidjan, we understand that the
residues and slops produced by the performance of the simulated Merox process on board were
discharged from the vessel and found their way onto waste tips in or around Abidjan. By their very
nature these residues/slops will have contained all of the potentially harmful substances listed in
section 3 above.

4.2 These substances can be subdivided into categories; those that are harmful only on close contact,
those that are volatile and may achieve concentrations in the air that are harmful at some distance
from the location of the substance or that whilst themselves are only harmful on close contact but may
degrade into other substances that are volatile that may cause harm at some distance. In the first
category we would put sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), the ARI-100 EXL catalyst and the materials
originating from the ‘other components’ of the naphtha referred to in point 3.10 above. In the second
category we would put mercaptans, mercaptides, sodium hydrosulphide, sodium sulphide and dialkyl
disulphides. All of these are liable to have noxious smells themselves and, by degradation, are likely to
release hydrogen sulphide into the atmosphere.

4.3 Of course the quantity of each contaminant present in the waste and its concentration would be
significant in determining the extent of any effects in the locale of the waste. No such information is
available. However we have considered the situation concerning the whole cargo and made various
calculations as follows.

4.4 Measurements taken before and after the washing process show that the total amount of
mercaptan sulphur in the naphtha was reduced by 47%. This is equivalent to 72.765 tonnes of
sulphur. This would have been initially converted into mercaptides, as demonstrated in equation 1.
Some of these mercaptides would then have been converted into the relevant disulphides and
remained in the naphtha, and some would have remained as mercaptides, or been converted to
sodium sulphide or sodium hydrosulphide which would subsequently have been discharged with the
water. The conversion rate for this reaction is not known in this instance, that is for this shipboard
process, although clearly it is relevant because it dictates the quantity of sulphur compounds likely to
be present in the waste.

4.5 To investigate this question we have considered the refinery process. The manufacturer of the
ARI-100 EXL catalyst have produced approximate figures for the percentage of the waste products
above that may be found in typical refinery caustic waste. These figures are shown below. Where a
range is given, the highest number is used to indicate the maximum potential presence of each
species.

Waste product
Mass in 285 mt slops on
% of Waste by Weight
Mt Probo Koala
NaOH ( Sodium hydroxide)
Na2S (Sodium sulphide)
NaHS (Sodium Hydrosulphide)
NaSR ( Mercaptides)
(Tonnes)
10
2
2
4
28.5
5.7
5.7
11.4
(Suarez, 1996)

4.6 However, the reaction may not have occurred efficiently because of the high
concentration of sodium hydroxide used. Research into the Merox reaction by Liu et al
(2005) found that the optimum concentration for use in the sweetening of LPG was
2.75 moles/litre. Above this concentration, the reaction efficiency declined steeply and
at 8.25 moles/litre , the conversion rate from mercaptides to disulphides was just 20%.
The 33% aqueous solution used on the Mt Probo Koala was approximately 11
moles/litre. This was clearly well above the most efficient concentration and so limited
conversion might be expected.

4.7 While it is not appropriate to apply these figures directly to the operations on the
Mt Probo Koala, it is not unreasonable to surmise that there was a considerable
quantity of mercaptide, sodium sulphide and sodium hydrosulphide dissolved in the
aqueous phase of the slops, possibly far greater then found in refinery produced
caustic waste.

4.8 The organic naphtha fraction that was also drained into the slops tanks (46.5% of
the total volume according to the AVR analysis) would have contained some of the
original mercaptans, at approximately 950ppm, along with some of the alkyl
disulphides that are the product of equation 2.

4.9 The effect of the preceding is that the slop/residue waste discharged from the
vessel is likely to have contained very high concentrations of noxious sulphur
compounds dissolved in the water phase and high concentrations in the naphtha
(hydrocarbon) phase.

5. The likely effects of improper disposal of such residues.

5. In this section we discuss the potential effects of such waste on people exposed to it as a result of
improper disposal.

5.1 The most severe symptoms are likely to be experienced by those living and
working at or near the dump sites who may come into direct contact with the liquid
slops residues and high concentrations of gas. For these people, the possible
consequences are burns to the skin, eyes and lungs, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of
consciousness and death.

5.2 Of significant concern is that the sulphur compounds can break down in the
environment and release hydrogen sulphide gas.

5.3 The high number of reported casualties suggests that, unless the waste tips are
frequented by large numbers of people, the extensive presence of gaseous pollutants
as the cause. This is clearly consistent with there having been a significant release of
hydrogen sulphide gas. This would cause effects ranging from serious respiratory and
eye problems at high concentrations near to the source through to discomfort and
nausea brought about by the unpleasant smell in areas further from the source where
the gas plume is more diffuse. These are the precise effects reported in this incident
and we conclude hydrogen sulphide release to have been the likely cause.

6. Further Considerations

In this section we raise any matters that are pertinent to the issue and may require
further investigation.

6.1 The company employed by the operators of the Probo Koala to dispose of this
waste may have attempted to treat or partially treat the material before dumping.
These attempts included the addition of acids, which may have seemed logical in
order to neutralise the sodium hydroxide. Such actions would in fact have been
inappropriate unless conducted under tightly controlled conditions as it would have
exacerbated the production of hydrogen sulphide gas. Knowledge of any treatment
attempts would be invaluable in determining the final constituency of the waste.

6.2 The waste site is likely to contain a variety of other compounds, some of which
may have been toxic and reactive. This is especially likely if the sites have previously
been used by the waste disposal companies for other, perhaps improper, chemical
disposal operations. Information concerning the dump sites may help to identify the
presence of other harmful compounds and which might have been partly responsible
for this incident by reacting with the Probo Koala slops, or (and unlikely) even solely
responsible.

6.3. Press reports of such incidents are notoriously unreliable and often overstate the
problem. Further it is well known that ‘mass hysteria’ can cause a general over-
statement of effect. It may well be that local enquiries may establish that the effects of
the incident were less than have been reported.

7. Questions

In this section we raise questions that may be useful to investigate.

Was the waste properly characterised before hand over to the waste disposal
company?

Were samples taken before or during the pumping to shore?

Did the waste disposal company treat the waste in any way prior to disposal?

Was the waste pumped onto the disposal site or dumped in containers?

Have any samples (soil/water/air) been taken at the site since the dumping?

Has any analysis of air samples in the affected area taken place to establish exactly

what chemical species are present and causing the problems?

. Further Action

8.1 Samples from the dumping locations and air and water samples from the surrounding area would
aid the investigation and help to show whether the incident in question is partly or wholly responsible
for the health effects reported, as would any analysis of the slops/residue waste before or during
discharge. Sampling should be conducted carefully and to a proper program which would be entirely
dependent on local circumstances. It should be born in mind that the sampling and any subsequent
analysis should be capable of identifying other and unexpected contaminants to establish whether
dumping of toxic wastes on the sites was a regular occurrence.

7.2 Information on the waste sites, including a summary of the types of waste disposed there,
especially any toxic or reactive chemicals, would be helpful if available (which we doubt) to thoroughly
establish the type and/or source of the pollution

8. Proper disposal regulations, as defined within the EU.

8.1 These compounds are hazardous, are so identified on the relevant manufacturer’s safety data
sheets and as such their disposal is governed in Europe by Council Directive 91/689/EEC on the
Disposal of Hazardous Waste. This legislation describes the need to separate hazardous and non-
hazardous waste and to report any waste disposal occurrences with full details of the type of waste
and the method of disposal used.

8.2 The spent caustic waste produced on-board the Mt Probo Koala appears to have been dumped on
terrestrial waste sites. This means that the incident would be covered in Europe by Council Directive
1999/31/EC, commonly called the landfill directive. Inspection of this legislation reveals that
this dumping was in contravention of these regulations on several counts. The Landfill
Directive prohibits the disposal of waste that is:
» liquid;
» corrosive or
« flammable.

One may therefore conclude that the landfill disposal of this waste, which is liquid,
corrosive and flammable, would be forbidden in a European Union member state.

8.3 While it is possible to dispose of these compounds by incineration, the odour and
potential harmfulness of the resultant fumes mean that this is not practical in
populated areas. Ideally, the solution would be treated by “Wet Air Oxidation” during
which the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is significantly reduced and these
compounds are oxidised to relatively harmless sulphates and carboxylic acids which
can then be handled by standard wastewater treatment facilities.

8.4 So far as we are aware there are no local regulations special to Ivory Coast.
However an ex member of our staff with whom we still work has recently toured
African countries on behalf of the UN to discuss the establishment of such regulations.
He advises that the intent of most Countries that he visited is to implement regulations
similar to those applicable in Europe.

8.5. Consideration should also be given to the effects of the Basel Convention on the
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal.

9. Conclusions

9.1 The slops produced during the caustic washing of three cargoes of Coker
Naphtha, totalling 500m3, were identified as a mixture of “spent” NaOH, naphtha, free
water and an organo-metallic catalyst used in the Merox reaction. This mixture was
also likely to contain several reaction intermediates and by-products, including but not
limited to Na2S, NaHS, NaSR, RSSR and H2S.

9.2 Appropriate disposal methods for such a material include separation and
treatment using wet air oxidation followed by wastewater treatment.

9.3 The compounds listed above are capable of causing severe human health effects
through inhalation and ingestion. These include headaches, breathing difficulties,
nausea, eye irritation, skin ulceration, unconsciousness and death. There would also
be a strong and unpleasant odour over a large area. All of these effects were as
reported in this incident.

9.4 Some of these symptoms may only be experienced by those in direct contact with
the waste whilst others are a consequence of gas inhalation. Some symptoms such
as nausea may be a result of exposure to low levels of foul smelling fumes.

9.5 Other factors such as any treatment method adopted by the disposal contractor or
the presence of other chemical waste on the site may have exacerbated the problem.

9.5 Under Council Directive 1999/31/EC, disposal of this waste onto landfill sites
would be forbidden in a European member state.

This report was prepared prior to the arrival of documents providing details of events at the discharge
port and will be updated in due course.

We trust that the above is of assistance and will be pleased to assist further as required.

Yours faithfully,

Minton, Trehame & Davies Ltd.

John Minton.

References
Suarez, F. J. (1996) Proper use and spent solution management ensure the safest and most cost-
effective operations. Hydrocarbon Processing
Liu, R., Xia, D., Xiang, Y. and Tian, Y. (2005) Effects of Caustic Concentration on LPG Sweetening.
Petroleum Science and Technology, 23: 711-721