Special thread: EACOP updates

[eliakeem]

Oil pipeline caught in EU feud with Total, Museveni

The President’s comments followed a resolution passed by the EU parliament

www.monitor.co.ug

Oil pipeline caught in EU feud with Total, Museveni​

Sunday, September 18, 2022

President Museveni commissions the Legacy Publication on Uganda’s journey to first oil to commemorate the announcement of Final Investment Decision at Kololo Independence Grounds in Kampala on February 2. Front row, left, is Tanzania Vice President Philip Mpango, Minister of Energy Ruth Nankabirwa (2nd right), and TotalEnergies SE chairman and chief executive officer Patrick Pouyanne (right). Back row, left to right, is UNOC CEO Proscovia Nabbanja, president of CNOOC Uganda Ltd Chen Zhiobiao, Tanzania minister of Energy January Makamba, and TotalEnergies EP General Manager Philipe Grouex. PHOTO / ABUBAKER LUBOWA
By Frederic Musisi

What you need to know:​

• The anti-EACOP resolution alleges human rights abuses, including wrongful imprisonment of and harassment of human rights defenders and the arbitrary suspension of NGOs

President Museveni asserted on Friday that development of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) will go on as planned to allow commercial oil production to start within the projected time frame of 2025.

READ: Address risks before construction of EACOP
After telling his ruling NRM party caucus as much at Kololo Independence Grounds on Friday, the President took to Twitter to tell the country that the under fire French oil giant Total Energies SE—the lead on the EACOP—are contractually bound on the $3.8b (Shs14 trillion) project.

RELATED​

• Uganda Parliament slams ‘racist’ EU position on oil pipeline​

  National Sep 16
  

• EU legislators raise more fears against oil pipeline project​

  National Sep 15
  

“I saw in the [news] papers that the EU parliament passed a resolution directing Total not to proceed with the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. Please, don’t waste your time thinking about that,” Mr Museveni reportedly told the closed door meeting.
He added: “We have a contract with Total written very well. The oil will come out in 2025, the first batch. The oil project will go on and no one can stop it.”
On Twitter, Mr Museveni said the government would look around for other investors to work with if Total succumbed to pressure.
Oil & Gas:Which project will bring what income
The President’s comments followed a resolution passed by the EU parliament, seeking to compel Total Energies SE and Uganda to defer construction of the EACOP by one year to allow for a fresh feasibility study to explore alternative routing of the infrastructure.
The resolution sparked outrage in Uganda, with pundits calling it another hallmark of Western sanctimoniousness and neo-colonialism.
The EU parliament’s resolutions are not binding but rather advisory to the EU Commission, the executive branch of the 27-member trading bloc responsible for implementing decisions and managing the day-to-day business of the EU.

Thursday’s resolution is the second resolution against Uganda to be passed by the EU lawmakers in less than two years. In February last year, the EU parliament unanimously voted to compel the commission to invoke the Magnitsky Act to sanction individuals and organisations after dust from the 2021 General Election settled.
Shifting goalposts
The anti-EACOP resolution was initially dressed in environmental concerns and climate activism. By the time it was passed on Thursday, human rights was the centre point of the debate.
One Western diplomat told Sunday Monitor “it is another grudge match” against the Kampala regime.
“Human rights is the key theme here. There are some voices back home that feel that our governments are letting him (President Museveni) get away with many things. This displeasure can be expressed in many ways,” the diplomat intimated.
For instance, since the protests last November in which more than 50 unarmed citizens died at the hands of state security operatives, the government has neither assumed a level of culpability nor arrested/prosecuted the perpetrators.
The EU is a huge funder of Uganda’s development budget, particularly infrastructure. Kampala has largely avoided a fight with Brussels, which would be akin to railing against a loaded purse.
ALSO READ: EACOP is immoral, stop it now
The anti-EACOP resolution alleges human rights abuses, including wrongful imprisonment of and harassment of human rights defenders and the arbitrary suspension of NGOs.
The EU MPs backing the resolution have further stoked the flames, propagating fears—real and perceived—about development of the 1,445km duct. The heated pipeline will transport Uganda’s waxy crude oil from the oil fields in mid-western Uganda to Tanzania’s Indian Ocean Tanga port en route to the international market.

The southern route to Tanzania was considered as the “least cost option” for the EACOP.
The EACOP company managing director, Mr Martin Tiffen, told Sunday Monitor that the project is significant to commercialisation of Uganda’s oil.
“EACOP [company] shall do its utmost to ensure the project is carried out in an exemplary manner in terms of transparency, shared prosperity, social and economic progress, and sustainable development, including the environment and respect to human rights,” Mr Tiffen said.
On the side of EU grudge with the Kampala regime is Brussel’s feud with Total Energies SE, which Brussels accuses of cozying with Moscow that attacked Ukraine, unprovoked, eight months ago.
While the Total Energies SE condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it emerged last month the company, with its local partner Novatek, operated a field used to generate jet fuel for Russian combat planes engaged in the war in Ukraine. The revelation last month sparked outrage in Brussels, the seat of the EU.
Total Energies SE denied the accusation. The company is the parent company of Total Energies EP, which is developing oil fields in Nwoya and Buliisa districts, and Total Holdings International B.V, which holds majority shareholding of 62 percent in the EACOP holding company.
Other shareholders are Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC) and Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC), each with a 15 percent stake as well as China’s oil company—Cnooc, with eight percent.

 

[eliakeem]

​

TotalEnergies walks a tightrope as fresh hurdles threaten to delay pipeline project

The oil company, siding with President Museveni, has also vowed that the projects – now in the development phase – will not be halted

www.monitor.co.ug

​

​

TotalEnergies walks a tightrope as fresh hurdles threaten to delay pipeline project​

Monday, September 26, 2022

Demonstrators protest against the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (Eacop) in Paris on September 23, 2022, calling for the protection of communities and nature in Uganda. PHOTO | AFP
By The East African

What you need to know:​

• The EU parliament resolution puts the figure of those affected at more than 100,000 – mainly farmers, who are already being displaced from their lands without prior and fair compensation, a number that the resolution also quotes as putting communities at imminent risk of displacement.
• It is obvious that the EU parliament’s resolution has shaken government officials in Uganda’s ministry of Energy, as well as those at TotalEnergies and the Eacop Company, who have all previously been very economic with information.

International oil major TotalEnergies will on October 10 answer to charges of environmental and human rights abuse before the European Union parliament in Brussels in a new threat to the actualisation of its East African Crude Oil Pipeline (Eacop) and related upstream oil projects in Uganda’s Lake Albert region.

The European parliament has summoned chief executive Patrick Pouyanné to Brussels to justify the project that the lawmakers denounced last week.
He will appear before the parliamentary Committee on Environment, Food and Natural Resources, as well as that of Human Rights. The outcome will determine how the company navigates this latest crisis.

RELATED​

• EU envoy pushes for mature oil discourse​

  National Aug 07
  

• No one can stop our oil project - Museveni​

  National Sep 17
  

READ: Uganda Parliament slams ‘racist’ EU position on oil pipeline
EU Parliament and economic sabotage
EU seeks to delay Uganda's oil pipeline works
Hit by opposition from environmentalists on one side and beleaguered by financiers on the other, Total is now walking a tightrope as it pushes ahead with the Eacop.
Last week, the European Union parliament passed a resolution calling for the French oil major and its joint venture partners to delay the projects by one year, to address environmental and human rights concerns.
That decision was dismissed by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni who said the country will look for alternatives if Total obeys the European Parliament.
The oil company, siding with President Museveni, has also vowed that the projects – now in the development phase – will not be halted.
As Total pondered how to navigate this crisis, President Museveni was on a warpath with the company, whose 62 percent stake makes it the biggest shareholder in Eacop. Uganda National Oil Corporation (UNOC) and Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation own 15 a percent stake each, with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) owning eight percent shareholding.

First, while meeting ruling party MPs’ caucus on September 16, the president warned that should TotalEnergies cave in to pressure from the EU parliament and halt Eacop or pull out of the project agreement, he is ready to drag them to the international court of arbitration.
He later tweeted dismissing the EU parliament’s resolution but more significantly, he fired a warning shot at the French oil giant.
“We should remember that TotalEnergies convinced me about the pipeline idea; if they choose to listen to the EU parliament, we shall find someone else to work with,” read the tweet on September 16.
Total is a corporate citizen of the EU and could be swayed by the lawmakers.
However, it is obvious that the EU parliament’s resolution has shaken government officials in Uganda’s ministry of Energy, as well as those at TotalEnergies and the Eacop Company, who have all previously been very economic with information. They are all now scrambling to volunteer information about the project, either through media briefing or on their websites.
For example, the Eacop Company this week uploaded on its portal the status of compensation of project affected persons (PAPS) – a key tenet on which the EU censure is partly based, as well as the environmental and social impact assessment.
Before the Brussels resolution, this information was not available.
Displaced persons
With construction slated to start by end of this year, only 331 out of a total of 9,513 Eacop’s PAPs in Tanzania will be physically displaced and have been selected for replacement housing, but the website says “construction of these houses is ongoing” without giving completion timelines.

In Uganda, out of 3,648 PAPs, only 203 will be physically displaced, and majority of these have elected for replacement housing. These too are under construction according to the website, but no completion dates are given.
The EU parliament resolution puts the figure of those affected at more than 100,000 – mainly farmers, who are already being displaced from their lands without prior and fair compensation, a number that the resolution also quotes as putting communities at imminent risk of displacement.
Uganda government agencies are also sweating to dispel claims that Eacop will cross numerous protected ecosystems, which will be impacted by the heated pipe operating at 50 degrees Celsius. Officials counter that there only five small rivers and out of the 1,443km of the pipeline, only eight percent is a forest reserve.
Protected areas
The EU resolution called for an end to the extractive activities in protected and sensitive ecosystems, including the shores of Lake Albert, referring to the 132 wells that Total plans to dig into the Murchison Falls National Park.
“They will find it very hard to navigate past this,” said Omar Elmawi, co-ordinator of the Stop Eacop campaign, a network of organisations opposed to the project.
“This project has many problems. The biggest amongst them is the human rights violations,” he added.
EU parliament resolutions often bite those targeted if the European Council, the arm that implements policy, adopts them. So far, the council has said little.
TotalEnergies has kept a brave face in the face of the EU parliamentary resolution’s far reaching ramifications, which could put on hold the $10 billion investment.

The project was signed off in February this year by TotalEnergies with joint venture partners CNOOC and Uganda National Oil Company.
Since the resolution was passed on September 15, the French oil giant has played the sovereignty card, tweeting that Uganda and Tanzania are sovereign states that have made the strategic choice to exploit their natural resources to contribute to the development of their countries, and as such, are not bound by resolutions of the EU parliament.
“TotalEnergies recalls the significance of the Lake Albert/Eacop project for Uganda and Tanzania, and we shall do our utmost to ensure the project is carried out in an extremely exemplary manner in terms of transparency, shared prosperity, social and economic progress and sustainable development, including the environment and respect for human rights,” said Pouyanné.
“The EU resolution to stop the construction of pipeline is not binding on all nations in the world, Europe, European Commission or even a sovereign country like Uganda or Tanzania,” said Ali Ssekatawa, the director of Legal and Corporate Affairs at the Uganda Petroleum Authority.
“The progression of our project will go ahead, and even rigs that are needed to extract oil have reached Mombasa, and efforts are underway to bring them to Hoima and Buliisa so that they start operating,” Ssekatawa added.
Sticking with schedule
Indeed, executives of TotalEnergies and state-owned UNOC say the projects will proceed according to schedule, with site preparation for the two upstream oil production infrastructure at Kingfisher and Tilenga currently underway.

The joint venture partners – TotalEnergies, CNOOC and UNOC – target commercial production of oil and gas in 2025, and are prepared to defy EU calls to delay the project.
The projects main infrastructure is a $5 billion 1,443km long pipeline from Hoima in western Uganda to the Tanzania port of Tanga.
The EU resolution piles on a series of financial and reputational crises that Eacop faced as well as protests in several cities over the project. There were also delays and postponement due to tax disputes between Uganda and TotalEnergies.
For instance, the shareholders were expected to announce financiers that would put in the project’s debt financing before end of July 2022, according to Peter Muliisa, the chief legal and corporate affairs officer at UNOC.
But UNOC chief Proscovia Nabbanja says the shareholders are yet to reach financial close for the project and are still raising equity contributions, which will make up 40 percent of the required $5 billion, while the remaining chunk is debt financing, which “is proceeding as planned.”
She revealed that all International Finance Corporation standards on the environmental and social impact assessment, land acquisition process and technical standards – which are key to obtaining financing – have been achieved and verified by independent auditors hired by lenders.
Authored by

 

[eliakeem]

Oil roads project can insulate EACOP

The oil pipeline will be buried underground from Buliisa District in Uganda to the coastal town of Tanga in Tanzania

www.monitor.co.ug

​

​

Oil roads project can insulate EACOP​

Tuesday, October 11, 2022

By Guest Writer

What you need to know:​

• By contrast, in Uganda statistics show that cutting down trees reduces forest cover and causes us at least 3.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year.

In recent weeks, an online battle has erupted from a debate in the European Union (EU) parliament over the proposed East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

EU member countries are in a frenzy for coal, a polluting fuel to keep them warm during the coming winter and the EACOP has caused a split between the fiercely naïve and informed individuals.
Activists who are campaigning against the EACOP have been claiming that the pipeline will emit about 34.3 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

RELATED​

• Nine students arrested over EACOP protest granted bail​

  National Yesterday
  

• Museveni stings West at Independence fete​

  National Oct 10
  

However, this is false because Uganda will be emitting a total of approximately 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from all the projects in the Albertine Graben and not limited to the pipeline.
The pipeline, therefore, does not show the significant danger in its emission, and measures have been put in place to control the negligible amounts of emission.
The oil pipeline will be buried underground from Buliisa District in Uganda to the coastal town of Tanga in Tanzania.
By contrast, in Uganda statistics show that cutting down trees reduces forest cover and causes us at least 3.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year.
The clarity in this to all and sundry is that implementation of the EACOP is not a danger after studies of this impact on the environment.The real problem here would be deforestation which is a leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions.
To insulate the environment against the emission from oil or pipeline, and infrastructure development of the road network to support the oil and gas development in the Albertine region, Uganda, has used a robust and strict environmental and impact social assessment policy through Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) in the implementation to the letter environmental protection mechanisms by avoiding deforestation or dangerous engineering practices that would hurt the environment.

Deforestation as we all know is mostly caused by poverty and underdevelopment.
In this case, during the construction of the oil roads, the government of Uganda had already started the campaign of Buy Uganda Build Uganda (BUBU).
This campaign was effected through UNRA’s contract issuance terms for the construction of these roads.
Providing employment opportunities to several youth in the region, significantly changed their financial fortunes which is a long shot that turns them away from the dangerous act of deforestation where these roads are being constructed and ultimately where the crude oil pipeline will go through to Tanzania.
Additionally, these projects “disrupt” people during the land acquisition process to pave the right of way for road development.
However, the existence of a generous government land compensation policy has enabled better resettlement for families and individuals to establish better and modern structures, hence improving the living condition of families.
This has also seen the establishment of a significant number of subsistence and commercial farmlands which have also been used as a means of environmental protection.
Ecuador’s GDP per capita was $4,400 in 2006, by 2016 they were at $ 6,248.1.
Calculated in terms of Purchasing Power Parity, this is an equivalent of about 60 percent of the world average. For a nation whose GDP per capita was $ 222.3 in 1960 compared to Uganda in the same year which was $62.3 in 1960 and $523.49 by 2005 and now stands at $675.6, which is 5 percent of the world’s average.

To further analyse this impact and policy enforcement, one can look at the case of Ecuador, Nigeria, and Angola which are oil-producing countries that almost started exploration at the same time and faced almost similar political challenges, although Nigeria suffered a brutal hand of the Biafra crisis in 1966 and Angola itself has seen a gruesome share of conflict.
Angola’s GDP per capita between 2006 and 2015 saw remarkable growth where in 2006 the GDP per capita stood at $3,010 but by 2015 it had grown to $4,153, an equivalent of 33 percent of the world’s average.
Nigeria’s GDP per capita was $1,967 in 2005 and rose to $2,448.2 in 2016, which is 20 percent of the world average, also demonstrating impressive development.
However, these two countries performed far below Ecuador during the 2006-2016 decade and this is attributed to political goodwill which cut out formidable plans and institutional coordination which enabled Ecuador to invest well and diversify in other sectors.
Today, Ecuador leads the Latin American region in energy security.
If it is that our friends from the Global North are not Greenwashing, then they ought to realise that the Global South is now ready to change the tide of significant social-economic transformation for its people.

 

[eliakeem]

 

[eliakeem]

Mambo yanazidi kunoga.

 

[eliakeem]

 

[Magonjwa Mtambuka]

 

[eliakeem]

34m carbon lies about Uganda’s oil​

Saturday, October 15, 2022

Elison Karuhanga
By Elison Karuhanga
Columnist

What you need to know:​

• It is now clear that the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) will not kill lions and hippos or pass through 230 imaginary rivers. It is also clear that EACOP does not pass through Lake Albert or Lake Victoria or threaten most of the world’s chimpanzees.

Proponents of stopping Uganda’s oil project have been working overtime on manufacturing facts on an industrial scale. From imaginary rivers to imaginary emissions, a number of their claims have been roundly debunked. It is now clear that the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) will not kill lions and hippos or pass through 230 imaginary rivers. It is also clear that EACOP does not pass through Lake Albert or Lake Victoria or threaten most of the world’s chimpanzees.

It is agreed that the pipeline will not leave hundreds of thousands of people homeless or deprive 40 million people of drinking water. One stubborn outlandish claim has been made repeatedly by many activists and recently found its way into a misguided EU Parliamentary debate.
It has been made persistently by international NGOs and was even part of the official EU Parliamentary resolution; that EACOP will emit 34 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year for 20 years. On account of these supposed emissions, Uganda’s oil project has been described as a “climate bomb”.

RELATED​

• Independence, energy and security​

  Commentary Oct 09
  

• EU Parliament and economic sabotage​

  Commentary Sep 18
  

This false claim, repeated so frequently by activist groups, has received universal acceptance. Western media houses reporting on EACOP have reproduced this claim uncritically and yet, by comparison, Uganda will produce approximately 200,000 barrels of oil per day while Norway produces two million barrels of oil per day.
This is almost 10 times what Uganda is going to produce. Norway, however, emits 33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. To arrive at 34 million metric tonnes of carbon from Uganda’s oil project, we would have to emit more carbon than Norway while producing 10 times less oil than Norway. Obviously, this is impossible.
The 34 million metric tonnes claim is made all the more outlandish by the fact that the pipeline will be buried six feet underground. How can a pipeline, buried six feet underground, emit 34 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? It takes miraculous steel to pull off such a feat.

The activists, when challenged, contend that it is after the oil is transported and “burned” abroad that it will emit 34 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These back of the envelope calculations are based on the argument that Uganda should be responsible for emissions by motorists and industrialists who buy EACOP oil. They call these “end user emissions.”
This is not a standard they have for Norway or indeed for any other country. It is a measure of understanding carbon emissions tailored to Uganda. For Ugandan oil to produce that many tonnes of carbon it must be turned into petrol, diesel or aviation fuel and burned in cars or planes. So who should be responsible for those emissions? The country that produces oil or the country that makes cars and planes which burn oil? Or the end user who actually emits?
In any event, Ugandan oil is waxy. About 40 percent of its crude is best used for asphalt or bitumen. It is possible to refine all the crude into motor oils or to use it or some of it for other purposes like polyester, fertiliser, plastics or tar for roads.
To assume it will all go into cars for the next 25 years is speculative. It means the activists have pre-determined who will buy the crude in 2025, what it will be used for and how much it will emit. This is an imagination on an industrial scale.
The truth is the entire oil project will, at most, emit 1.68m metric tonnes of carbon per year if we produce 30kg of carbon per barrel which is the global average. TotalEnergies has, however, stated that it will produce 10.6kg per barrel, well below the global average.

Our refinery may emit more. It will produce petrol, diesel, jet fuel, LPG and heavy fuel oils for domestic consumption. Does that mean it will substantially increase Uganda’s carbon emissions? The answer is no.
As we all know, Uganda already consumes petroleum products. When we produce and refine Ugandan oil, we will stop shipping these on the sea in huge ships from the gulf bringing oil to Uganda. We will also stop the long distance trucking of fuel from Kenya to Uganda.
Uganda’s oil project is altogether a low carbon high value project. It is no wonder some attribute this Anti-EACOP campaign of disinformation to prejudice. It is time to lay facts on the table and curb the 34 million carbon lies.
The writer is an advocate and partner at Kampala Associated Advocates
elisonk@kaa.co.ug

 

[eliakeem]

PRIME

Total boss slams Europe MPs on pipeline stance​

Friday, October 14, 2022

By Frederic Musisi

What you need to know:​

• The top official faulted the EU parliament for failing to respect the rule of law and making resolutions based on unfounded allegations.

The chief executive officer of the French oil giant, Total Energies SE, Mr Patrick Pouyanne, has slammed the “adversarial” conduct by a section of European Parliament (EU) MPs on September 15 during the passing of the resolution against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

READ: Did Bobi Wine get it wrong on Uganda’s oil and EACOP?
In a letter addressed to the president of the EU Parliament, Ms Roberta Metsola, a week later on September 22, Mr Pouyanne criticised the manner in which the resolution, denouncing alleged human rights abuses during pre-construction activities of the EACOP was passed in 48 hours, without hearing the Paris-based company’s side.

RELATED​

“I very much regret that the company and, by extension, its 105,000 employees should be publicly accused in this way by your institution, without being approached at any point for a prior adversarial discussion. I cannot help but feel that your Assembly should reach its opinions on subjects that it is free to select itself completely independently,” Mr Pouyanne wrote.
He added: “It seems to me that, in this case, the adversarial principle on which the rule of law is based has not been respected in any way whatsoever. And I consider that the Parliament’s adoption of resolutions containing factual inexactitudes, and statements based on unfounded allegations, some serious, to be most damaging.”
“The fact that the Subcommittee on Human Rights decided to extend an invitation to me after the fact, to express myself when the decision had already been taken, for aduration of “eight minutes” (according to the terms of the invitation), does not in any way correct the situation created by this deliberation, because the adversarial principle can scarcely apply retroactively. You will understand that I do not intend to accept the invitation under these circumstances.”

ALSO READ: Why EACOP project must go on
On September 15, EU MPs voted by a majority of 334 to pass the resolution that seeks to compel Uganda, Tanzania, and the Total Energies SE to elevate standards and adopt international best practices during the development of the EACOP.
One hundred and ninety-nine MPs voted against the resolution while 60 abstained. Prior to passing the resolution last month, a section of EU MPs were in Kampala for a fact-finding mission during which they met several stakeholders, including local NGOs and government agencies, and were apprised about pre-construction activities of the $3.8b (Shs14 trillion) project.
However, to the dismay of authorities in Kampala and Paris, some EU MPs stoked some claims.
One EU legislator, Germany’s Malte Gallee, shared on his Twitter account detailing possibly hundreds of rivers and streams through which the duct snakes from the central pumping terminal in Hoima in mid-western Uganda to Chongleani terminal at Tanga Port in Tanzania.
To the contrary, only 8km of the EACOP cuts through protected areas out of the total 1,443km pipeline route, while only 111km of the project right of way borders protected areas.
Regarding the resolution, whilst advisory, President Museveni blasted the EU MPs as “ego-centric-know it all” and warned that if TotalEnergies SE succumbed to pressure at home in Europe to walk away from the oil project, the government would shop around for other partners to work with.
EU resolution demands
The EU resolution demanded that Uganda, Tanzania and Total Energies SE—which backed the southern route through 10 districts in Uganda and 24 districts in eight regions in Tanzania—delay construction of the project by one year to consider another route with least environmental footprint.

ALSO READ: Address risks before construction of EACOP
The southern route to Tanzania was, however, considered as the “least cost option” for the EACOP. Other routes considered were, via north eastern Kenya to Lamu port which option is laden with mountainous terrain and insecurity at the border with Somalia, or to Momaba port which was found to be congested.
Tanzania’s Dar-es Salaam port was also considered but was found to be busy. The EACOP Company managing director, Mr Martin Tiffen, last week told a meeting of the Civil Society Coalition on Oil and Gas, an umbrella body, that they are open to engage with civil society actors based on facts.

 

[Magonjwa Mtambuka]

... Other routes considered were, via north eastern Kenya to Lamu port...

Tatizo loote linaletwa na hawa nyang'au.

 

[eliakeem]

Tatizo loote linaletwa na hawa nyang'au.

Watapigana na kupambana, lakini hawata shinda.

 

[eliakeem]

CNOOC

 

[eliakeem]

ACP - EU Parliament okays pipeline project​

Thursday, November 03, 2022

Activists protest against EACOP at head offices of TotalEnergies in Kampala on November 2, 2022. PHOTO/ABUBAKER LUBOWA
By Elizabeth Kamurungi

What you need to know:​

• Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa says the negative effects of the project have been exaggerated.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Thomas Tayebwa says he held “fruitful engagement” with members of the European Union Parliament over their resolution to compel the Ugandan government to halt the Shs13 trillion East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project (EACOP).

READ: Why EACOP project must go on
Address risks before construction of EACOP

RELATED​

• Total boss slams Europe MPs on pipeline stance​

  National Oct 14
  

• Transparency is key in oil sector​

  Commentary Oct 19
  

“Big win for EACOP as the African, Caribbean and Pacific-European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly adopts an Amendment that allows us to explore our oil and gas industry. We committed to do this in a responsible and sustainable way but also invest in renewable energy,” Mr Tayebwa tweeted.
The engagement happened at the 42nd session of the African, Caribbean and Pacific-European Union (ACP-EU) Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Maputo, Mozambique, yesterday.

The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly brings together elected MPs from the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states and the European Union.
Its work is directed towards promoting human rights, democracy and greater cooperation between the European Union and the ACP states. Mr Tayebwa is leading a Ugandan delegation to the three-day assembly in Maputo that started on Monday. Mr Tayebwa said the negative effects of the project have been exaggerated and are based on deliberate misinformation.

“Uganda’s oil projects are projected to emit 80kgs of carbon dioxide per barrel. Other global projects emit an average of 80kgs per barrel. Developed countries should accelerate their energy transition since they are the biggest polluters. They must deliver on their pledge of $100b to address mitigation challenges. Time to walk the talk,” he said.
READ: Mediation collapses, NGOs want case against EACOP to proceed to trial
Did Bobi Wine get it wrong on Uganda’s oil and EACOP?
Meanwhile, a group of rights activists yesterday stormed the head offices of the TotalEnergies in Industrial Area, Kampala, with a petition to the oil giant to pull out of the EACOP deal.
Armed with placards with messages of the alleged gross side effects the development of the sector will have, particularly on women, the group who were denied entry to the offices, camped outside the gate for close to an hour.

Later, officials from the EACOP led by the deputy managing director, Mr John Habumugisha, and Mr Jeremy Roeygens, the land and social manager, arrived to receive the petition.
In the three page document, the activists argue that the EACOP is an environmental and human rights bomb. They further accuse the oil giant of compulsory acquisition of land. Ms Shamim Nambassa, the former Makerere Guild President who was among the protestors, called for special interventions before the project is implemented.
But Mr Habumugisha said they have followed all the best international standards in terms of compensation and environment footprint.
“No one is going to be displaced without fair compensation. Where there is a grievance, there is a committee to ensure it is resolved... ” he said.

 

[eliakeem]

Who do Uganda’s NGOs represent?​

Wednesday, November 02, 2022

By Guest Columnists
Permit me to respond and provide some answers to Andrew Mwenda’s commentary in the media last month on the above subject matter relating to NGOs. I have worked in the NGO world for over 7 years and 10 years in a state institution namely the Uganda Human Rights Commission(UHRC) and therefore relatively conversant with the subject matter.

We derive our mandate from the supreme law of the land known as the Constitution of the Republic of 1995 as amended. Article 38 is explicit- It provides that citizens have the right to participate in the governance affairs of their country through their elected representatives or civic organisations (read NGOs). Second, the national objectives and direct principles of the state policy recognise the presence and role of NGOs and the government is obliged to respect their independence. So for some NGOs to take a stand on the EACOP pipeline whether you agree or disagree with them is neither here nor there! They are just exercising their right to freedom of thought and expression.
Third, there is no common stand or position as to whether to continue or stop EACOP by the sector but rather there is a common stand that there are human rights issues relating to the environment, ecosystem and the right to property that we feel or need that should be addressed by duty bearers and multi nationals under the global compact on business and human rights. There is nothing like a common voice speaking to halt the EACOP! And no western country has advised or funded us to do so, we have a stake in this country and know what is good for national interests or bad for the country.
The author further raises questions related to accountability- NGOs in Uganda are not homogeneous and you can verify this from the regulator-The NGO Bureau. Speaking of the National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders Uganda (NCHRD-U) we are a corporate body and accountable as per our Constitution to our members commonly referred to as human rights defenders registered under the Coalition through the highest decision making body known as the Annual General Assembly that meets every year. We are not accountable to every Tom Dick and Harry who do not know what we do or stand for.

RELATED​

• Consistent attacks on Ugandan NGOs are anti-democracy​

  Commentary Nov 02
  

• NGOs cry foul as shutdown by govt reaches 120 days​

  National Dec 06, 2021
  

Under the law known as the NGO Act and many other laws we are also accountable to the NGO Bureau, the URSB, the FIA and many other regulatory bodies, however cumbersome. Andrew further poses how do NGOs claim to represent affected persons on EACOP? NGOs working on the environment in the Albertine or outside need not to be people or persons directly affected by the EACOP project, they act on behalf of the victims or projected affected persons who have no understanding of their rights and responsibilities.
They are powerless and voiceless and therefore need support from NGOs to speak truth to power and that’s why national , regional and international mechanisms give them an audience. This audience is what Mwenda interprets conveniently as hypocrisy 101 by fifth columnists.
NGOs are accountable to donors who give them money to do their work but not push a negative narrative against their own governments. NGOs do defend the government when there lies being peddled about the government. No donor has ever come to the NGO I represent to tell me what stand or position I should take on EACOP and neither has the Government ever interfered with our work to say stop writing or commenting about this human rights issue.
Last but not least, if NGOs were what Mwenda portrays them to be, we would not be having them recognised in our Constitution nor other subsidiary legislation. NGOs contribute to national development through different pillars of the NDP 3 that define a country’s national priorities and the different SDGs.
We are the second formal employer after the Government! As a senior journalist, this should be common knowledge to Andrew and any other likeminded.
The author, Bob R. Kirenga, Executive Director -National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders -Uganda

 

[eliakeem]

Safii sana...
Ngoja nikamkaribishe Tony254 aje achangie!
Maana alikuwa anapinga hii thread kuanzishwa!

Huyu jamaa Tony254 siku hizi haonekani. Sijui amekutwa na nini! Isije ikawa njaa imemuua!?

 

[Magonjwa Mtambuka]

Huyu jamaa Tony254 siku hizi haonekani. Sijui amekutwa na nini! Isije ikawa njaa imemuua!?

Labda ni mjaluo aliyekata tamaa.

 

[eliakeem]

Labda ni mjaluo aliyekata tamaa.

Lakini si huyu Tony254 aende kwa wenzake kukinga chakula??
Kwa hao hapo chini??

 

[eliakeem]

Eala criticises oil pipeline opponents

The $4 billion Hoima-Tanga pipeline project would yield about 250,000 barrels of crude oil a day to be sold in the markets within the region and abroad

www.monitor.co.ug

Eala criticises oil pipeline opponents​

Sunday, November 06, 2022

The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) is a 1,443km pipeline that once completed will run through 10 districts in Uganda, stretching from Hoima in Uganda to the Indian Ocean at the Tanga Port, west of Tanzania. PHOTO | FILE
By The Citizen
The East African Legislative Assembly (Eala) has strongly castigated opponents of the Hoima-Tanga crude oil pipeline.

The civil society groups, in particular ,came under fire for agitating against the project expected to bring much goodies to the region.
Lawmakers from Tanzania and Uganda led to fray, playing down claims of environmental hazards the pipeline 1,443 km would allegedly pose.

RELATED​

• ACP - EU Parliament okays pipeline project​

  National Nov 03
  

• Total boss slams Europe MPs on pipeline stance​

  National Oct 14
  

“Has the project passed the environmental test? The answer is yes. Have we planned mitigation measures put in place just in case? The answer is yes.
“Then what is the fuss all about?” Asked George Odongo from Uganda, saying the project could not have been approved without the requisite environmental tests.
He wondered as to why the project opponents based in Europe have raised the pollution fears whereas the EA region emitted a mere fraction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) globally.
The pollution claims, he opined, were baseless in that the entire Europe and other industrialized countries generated millions of tonnes of GHGs daily.
“Or this could be a ploy to make use continue to be poor,” he told the House which unanimously expressed dismay at the critics of the pipeline.
The $4 billion Hoima-Tanga pipeline project would yield about 250,000 barrels of crude oil a day to be sold in the markets within the region and abroad.
According to Mr Odongo, the project would also generate 1,000 km of paved roads and substantial revenues “to plant trees and fight poverty”.
He asserted that the CSO groups based in Europe and their collaborators in the region have “ no moral authority” to oppose construction of the pipeline. Habid Mohamed Mnyaa (Tanzania) expressed his dismay on why some activists linked the planned pipeline and associated structures under the project with human rights violations.

“What actually is the real argument? Is the East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project (EACOP) really going to grab farming and grazing land from the communities?, he asked. Abdullah Makame (Tanzania) argued that the human rights violation claims were “unacceptable” because 70 percent of people whose land would be taken by the project have already been compensated. He said oil was an abundant resource that East Africa was endowed with and that time has come to exploit it to improve “our regional economies.” Ms Suzan Nakauki and Paul Musamali (both from Uganda) said activists fighting the project from abroad owed the East African people an apology.
“We should also identify their local collaborators and crush them”, they said, noting that exploitation of any petroleum product “must have a carbon footprint.”
Ms Mary Mugyenyi (Uganda) said her country and Tanzania were united against the critics of EACOP and would go ahead with its implementation.
The project has been subjected to mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA). “Should we abandon it and continue to be beggars?” she asked.
The heated debate in the House following a Motion on EACOP tabled in the Assembly by the Ugandan MP James Kakooza and seconded by Mr. Makame from Tanzania. The Ugandan MP rubbished fears of GHG emission from the project, noting that Africa generated only 1.5 percent of carbon gases compared to 25 percent by the European Union.
Tanzania and Uganda emitted only 0.2 and 0.1 percent metric tonnes of GHG emissions per capita respectively “far behind every single member of the EU”.

Eala’s hard stance on the project followed a Joint Resolution of the European Parliament in September this year, alleging human rights violation should EACOP execution go ahead. According to the Motion adopted by the House late on Thursday, a total of 13,161 people affected by the project in both countries have been identified.
“The compensation process is still ongoing,” Mr Kazooza said, adding that out of 13,161 Project Affected Persons (PAPs), 9,513 were in Tanzania and 3,638 in Uganda.
The commitment is that EACOP will not access land until compensation has been paid out followed by livelihood restoration programmes to eligible PAPs.

 

[eliakeem]

Should development happen at the expense of environment?

The western world is pushing the developing countries to avoid use of fossil fuels as a source of energy something that contradicts with their own actions

www.monitor.co.ug

​

​

​

Should development happen at the expense of environment?​

Monday, November 14, 2022

Thomas Malunda
By Guest Writer

What you need to know:​

• The western world is pushing the developing countries to avoid use of fossil fuels as a source of energy something that contradicts with their own actions.

Over the past weeks, several activists have come up to decampaign the implementation of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, which is expected to originate from Lake Albert in Uganda up to Tanzania.

Several negative outcomes have been predicted such as the pollution of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Also spillage of oil is expected, which is likely to end up in water bodies, thereby adversely affecting the aquatic life.
This project is estimated to produce 34 million tonnes of carbon emissions, which will have a great contribution to the percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to global warming and eventually climate change.

RELATED​

• 
  

• What the youth expect of govt during COP27​

  Commentary Nov 10
  

These climatic effects are already being experienced, especially by the rural small holder farmers whose source of livelihood is entirely based on agriculture.
Since the backbone of Uganda’s economy is agriculture, which employs more than 70 percent of the population and contributes to half of the country’s export earnings, according to the World bank, an increase in the effect of climate change would be detrimental to the country’s economy.
The same project is, however, estimated to earn Uganda between $1.5b (Shs5.6 trillion) and $3.5b (Shs13.2 trillion) a year, 30 percent to 75 percent of its annual tax revenue, according to an article by BBC titled “Cop 27: Uganda-Tanzania oil pipeline sparks climate row,” which many economists highlight as very positive to the nation.
In a tweet on November 9, President Museveni referred to the western world as hypocrites, who discourage the use of energy from fossil fuels yet themselves are using it, highlighting a case scenario in Europe where a vast windfarm is being demolished to make way for a new open pit coal mine.

It is reported that this is meant to be a temporary move until the political instability in Russia and Ukraine stabilises. However, this will still have a huge impact on the green house gases accumulation and hence climate change.
However, the current climate change effects being experienced mainly by the developing countries have mostly been contributed by the anthropogenic activities of the developed countries. Also, important to note is that one of the goals set from COP 26 was to phase out the use of fossil fuels as an energy source and move into the renewables but this only remained on paper since financing of fossil fuels is still three times higher than that of the renewables, with the fossil fuels having $30b whereas renewable energy has only $9b according to a BBC report.
Regardless of this, the western world is pushing the developing countries to avoid use of fossil fuels as a source of energy something that contradicts with their own actions.
The question remains, who should really make the trade-off for development to save the environment? There are currently interventions such as carbon crediting which are aimed at mitigating climate change but they haven’t done much to reduce it.
Do developing countries such Uganda have to forego projects like the EACOP or must the western world phase out the use of fossil fuels? As the COP 27 convention goes on in Egypt where world leaders have gathered to discuss important issues, including climate change, it will be great if the numerous interventions that came out of the COP 26 are recommitted to, which will then guarantee that economic development doesn’t happen at the expense of the environment.

Thomas Malunda
Agroecologist

 

[eliakeem]

EACOP not first pipeline in East Africa​

Saturday, November 19, 2022

Elison Karuhanga

By Elison Karuhanga
Columnist

What you need to know:​

Those opposed to this project need to stop with their doomsday claims and made up facts
This has been an interesting month for those following the story of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). The Pan-African Parliament declared its support for the project in a strongly worded resolution targeting the colonial resolution of the EU Parliament. The motion was moved by Mr Felix Okot Ogong. Prior to that, the ACP (African Caribbean and Pacific States) EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly rejected a motion calling for “no new fossil fuel projects” and instead adopted a compromise position moved by Tanzania and Barbados.

Ugandan MPs from both the government and Opposition parties were instrumental in defending the country. Kudos especially go to Mr Thomas Tayebwa, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, for leading our team and also to the Members of Parliament who stood tall and proud in defence of Uganda.
The activists will obviously continue to make their case in the corridors of Western power. They will continue to say EACOP is the “longest pipeline” in the World; they shall say it is a “climate bomb” that will pollute the water of “40 million pipeline” and “tear through villages” leaving “hundreds of thousands” of people “homeless”. These claims have all been thoroughly discredited.

RELATED​

• Eala criticises oil pipeline opponents​

  National Nov 06

• The future of Africa’s energy security​

  Commentary Oct 29
  

This week I had the opportunity to discuss the project with the amiable Abdulsamad Abdulrahim, the visionary and charismatic chairperson of the Association of Tanzania Oil and Gas Services (ATOGS), and the very eloquent and intelligent Tanzanian High Commissioner to Uganda, Aziz Mlima. I learnt a number of incredible things about the upstream oil industry in Tanzania and the incredible opportunities that exist in this region. Tanzania already has another pipeline, the Tazama pipeline. The Tazama is a 1,710km pipeline from Tanzania to Zambia. It is a pipeline with an interesting story. It starts in African revolutionary and liberation movements.
In 1964, Zambia became independent. In 1965, the White settler community in Zimbabwe led by Ian Smith issued the universal declaration of independence where they decided that Zimbabwe would be ruled by the White settler community and denied political and economic rights to the Black citizens of Zimbabwe. The Black political leaders resorted to armed struggle and mobilised support from African countries. One of the biggest supporters of the liberation of Southern Africa in general, and Zimbabwe in particular, was the Kenneth Kaunda-led government of Zambia.

However, Zambia is landlocked and got 90 percent of its oil imports from Zimbabwe. Zambia was also home to the copper belt and at that time supplied 30 percent of all copper on the global market. The copper belts needed oil to run effectively. After Ian Smith took power in Zimbabwe, there were sanctions imposed on that government which in turn blocked all the oil going to Zambia, choking Zambia and the global copper market.
At the same time, the USA urgently needed copper supplies to help support the war effort in Vietnam and so they began airlifting fuel into Zambia’s copper mines. President Kaunda and President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania then resolved to build a pipeline from the port of Dar es Salaam to Ndola in Zambia. This pipeline would carry crude oil. It was named the Tazama Pipeline. (Tanzania Zambia “mafuta” (Oil).) It is a 1,710km oil pipeline. It has seven pump stations that rely on crude oil to power the stations. It passes through the Mikumi National Park in Tanzania, a park that is home to cheetahs, elephants, buffalos and rhinos. The pipeline does pass near some rivers. There have been some oil spills during its time owing to the old nature of the technology but they have not signified the end of Tanzania or Zambia.
The EACOP pipeline will be shorter and built with the latest technology. The six pump stations will either be powered by hydro or solar power, and will have the latest technology in terms of fibre optic cables to monitor the pipeline, safety valves to mention a few.

Those opposed to this project need to stop with their doomsday claims and made up facts. EACOP will not even be the longest pipeline in East Africa.
The writer is an advocate and partner at Kampala Associated Advocates
elisonk@kaa.co.ug

EACOP not first pipeline in East Africa

Kudos especially go to Mr Thomas Tayebwa, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, for leading our team and also to the Members of Parliament who stood tall and proud in defence of Uganda

www.monitor.co.ug