Redro, thank you, excellent. It is refreshing to see someone putting forward a constructive and thoughtful reply.
I have no idea about the actual legality of the situation other than an opinion formed by many press reports, that should be regulated enough to be reporting factually. That is why I have made it quite clear that the reports are not my words but research from the internet. I would have thought that if the statements made in the reports were not truthful then SLE would have publicly denounced them to the extent of having them removed and/or taking legal action.
There does seem to be an ethical question. But more importantly the problem could be solved more quickly and more cheaply if an ethical approach was taken, in my opinion.
Would it not be more fruitful to offer the current residents some form of compensation, cash, or in kind, such as putting in or helping with the schooling infrastructure or similar?
This approach may resolve the problem far quicker and at less cost than the legal route. Whether the Sahawari have a legal right or not, it would appear that they will fight SLE and any others they feel are exploiting them. They do appear to have the backing of many and would probably not be alone in their fight.
Not only would helping the Saharawi be considerably quicker and cheaper it would be excellent publicity, fighting the sahawi is going to make the company look bad.
In the mean time, in my opinion, monies saved on what could be a long dispute, could be spent more effectively elsewhere.
I can't see anything in that interview that will prevent SLE from recovering O&G in their license area, as in agreement with the occupying power of Morocco. It's nothing more than politically motivated negative sentiment ...
The key line in that interview is:
"In order to be legal, any extraction of natural resources must benefit local people". This is:
a) subjective, and; b) Morocco's responsibility
SLE's license is with Morocco - Morocco are the occupying power NOT SLE.
It will take some serious diplomatic or military threat to get Morocco to withdraw.
Sorry, I just can't see the political will to make this happen. The international community has dragged it's feet for the last 45 years, and diplomatically, do the West REALLY want to be dragged into a territorial dispute with everything else that's going on in the world.
I'd be surprised if there's a resolution in another 45 years time; because without the political motivation, Morocco are going nowhere. Too many European and North American companies making money from Western Saharan resources - rightly or wrongly, the world has chosen to turn a blind eye.
It is worth mentioning that Australia is making $1.7 million a day from a temporary deal granting access to oilfields that belong to East Timor. Also, will the EU ratify an agreement that permits its fishing vessels to work in Saharan waters again but this time under an agreement that makes specific reference to the Western Sahara? If it does do so – under Spanish and French pressure – its action will be seen as a green light for other industries and act as a backdoor legitimation of Moroccan rule, undermining this 45 year old (apparently unenforceable) UN process that has already run into the sand.
This is not going to be resolved on a bulletin board.
But like most things; I disagree strongly with you.
Legally speaking, Morocco is an occupying power with regard to Western Sahara. This means that Morocco has all of the rights and obligations of an occupying power. The basic principles are: the occupying power may not change the legal and political framework; it should proceed from the premise that the occupation is temporary and that the occupying power has no right to introduce permanent changes into the occupied territory, in this case Western Sahara.
The right of a people to permanent sovereignty over its natural resources points in the same direction. So, Morocco’s obligations as an occupying power is the responsibility to uphold order as well as the “vie publique”, public life and welfare (as is provided in the Hague Convention IV). This means that Morocco must offer basic public goods to the population of Western Sahara. Consequently, Morocco may make arrangements with regard to the resources of Western Sahara, provided that it somehow displays benefit to the Western Sahara people.
You’re confusing, in my opinion, and deliberately or not, the question of legality, with the question of ethics.
Sorry, forgot to put the link in to the quote, just so as to be clear the words are from the international press and not directly from me. I can only assume that what is stated is correct but please do your own research as the legal position may have changed since the quote was made.
That this will not effect operations, that this will not cost money, that this will not take time to resolve, that this is not a thorn in the side for SLE.
"San Leon Energy is operating in Western Sahara in VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW and the opinion of the legal department of the UN. ACCORDING TO THE UN, THE IRISH GOVERNMENT AND THE REST OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY."
I honestly cant believe that any GENUINE shareholder thinks this is not important to our Marocco operation, that any GENUINE shareholder would not be concerned about the effect on their investment and that it does not matter that SLE appear to be going against the UN, the Irish Government and the people who live on the land that SLE is wanting to exploit for its shareholders without letting the indigenous population have a say or any payment or compensation.
Is that not like an unknown chap from a town hundreds of miles away setting up a business in your house without your permission?
Come on who honestly thinks this is going to be a walk over and cause no problems for SLE?
If we have such a fine portfolio of potential assents would it not be better to concentrate on them and bring them into production? Why take on all the hassle and extra cost of Morocco when there are supposed to be better, low hanging fruit to be easily plucked?
Some people like to dream about the future, plucking figures from the air, eagerly await events that may never happen or are a long long way off, choosing timescales that are unobtainable, ignoring costs and where finance may come from, not anticipating events that burn cash flow and divert money from realising the dream they have.
There is strong psychological reason for this obvious folly, this ignorance of facts laid down by history or written in international law.
"Where do your beliefs and opinions come from? If you are like most people, you probably like to believe that your beliefs are the result of years of experience and objective analysis of the information you have available. The reality is that all of us are susceptible to a tricky problem known as a confirmation bias. While we like to imagine that our beliefs are rational, logical, and objective, the fact is that our ideas are often based on paying attention to the information that upholds our ideas and ignoring the information that challenges our existing beliefs."
You just can't help some people so Google it to understand yourself more.
There have been many stories over the years of the way SLE does not communicate with its shareholders. Many I know just gave up eventually, there questions never answered as the SP went down and down.
Seems they are trying to take the same approach with the Saharawis, thing is it may work with the likes of the private investor but not with the indigenous people of the Western Sahara who are backed by the UN.
"when confronted by Ireland’s most watched current affairs programme "Primetime" on public service broadcaster RTE, 4 August 2011, a representative of the firm stated it would not consult with the people of Western Sahara since it is “not representative”.
This was the first time San Leon has given statements on the matter. WSRW sent a letter to the firm on 21 July, and awaits reply. San Leon has received numerous requests on the matter over the last years, from both concerned Irish and Saharawi people, but has never replied.
The reason why the firm does not want to take into account the wishes of the people of the territory, is that the Saharawis “would not speak to us”, since the people “very much take side”. The point is interesting, taking into account that the Saharawis have sent numerous letters to San Leon, none of which have been answered by the firm"
"it's going to take more than a £200 drone and a handful of paid extras" Dandeman100
There is considerable INTERNATIONAL disgust at what SLE are doing, this goes beyond your naive view of it being a handful of protesters. I would guess that The United Nations are a little more powerful and have a tad more money and legal resources to stop San Leon. San Leon can not afford to fight this in court, they can hardly afford to fight Avobone.
THE FACTS from the UN (not from some hopfull small time private investor suffering from confirmation bias.)
"The Irish oil company San Leon Energy is operating in Western Sahara in violation of international law, and the opinion of the legal departement of the UN. According to the UN, the Irish government and the rest of the international community, no oil research in Western Sahara can take place without consulting with the people of the territory."
Looks like all the money invested here will be used up in extremely high cost international legal fees. Will there be anything left to further the company afterwards? Will the company even exist after trying to take on the UN
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.