Fuel for apartheid: oil supplies to South Africa

http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nizap1046

Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka’s Terms and Conditions, available athttp://www.aluka.org/page/about/termsConditions.jsp. By using Aluka, you agree that you have read andwill abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that thecontent in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka inconnection with research, scholarship, and education.

The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmentalworks and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must besought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distributionof these materials where required by applicable law.

Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials aboutand from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see http://www.aluka.org

Fuel for apartheid: oil supplies to South Africa

Author/Creator Shipping Research Bureau (SRB)

Publisher Shipping Research Bureau (SRB)

Date 1990-00-00

Resource type Reports

Language English

Subject

Coverage (spatial) South Africa, Netherlands

Coverage (temporal) 1987 - 1990

Source NIZA

Rights By kind permission of the Shipping Research Bureau (SRB).

Description Biannual main report with research findings on violations ofthe oil embargo and review of recent policy and campaigndevelopments.

Format extent(length/size)

105

http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.nizap1046

http://www.aluka.org

FUEL FOR APARTHEIDOIL SUPPLIES TO SOUTH AFRICAShipping Research Bureau AmsterdamSeptember 1990The Shipping Research Bureau is a non-profit researchorganisation established in 1980 bythe Holland Committee on Southern Africa and the Working Group KairosShipping Research Bureau P.O. Box 11898 1001 GW Amsterdam telephone (020)251300 / 266073 telex 10236 sanam ni fax (020) 220130

AcknowledgementsThe Shipping Research Bureau wishes to thank the many individualsandorganisations which have provided information or responded to queries during thepreparation of this report. None of these individuals and organisations bears anyresponsibility for the report's final wording.The Shipping Research Bureau continues to welcome all relevant informationconcerning oil deliveries or suspected oil deliveries to South Africa,whether thisis provided openly or on a confidential basis.© September 1990 by Shipping Research Bureau, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsAll rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced in anyform withoutwritten permission of the publisher.ISBN 90 70331 24 1

Contents iiiContentsSummary vIntroduction viiResearch Findings 1987-1988 1193 calls at South African ports identified - 1 66 apparent oil deliveries - 1Further details regarding some of the 66 tankers - 1 15.8 million tons of oil - 1The oil companies involved - 1 The identity of the shipping companies - 2 Thenationalities of the oil and shipping companies - 2BERGE ENTERPRISE: Misleading information and documentation to cover up asecret oil delivery The countries from which the tankers sailed to South Africa - 4LICORNE OCEANE: Idle attempts to conceal a breach of the oil embargoPreliminary Findings on Oil Deliveries to South Africa in 1989-1990728 crude oil deliveries - 6.3 million tons of oil - 7 The identity of the shippingcompanies and the countries in which these companies are based - 7 The oil

companies involved - 7 The countries from which the 28 tankers sailed toSouthAfrica - 8Refined Petroleum Products to South Africa 9Refined product imports increasing - 9 Once again major role Norway - 11Preventing further oilproduct transports- 11DAG LI: Soviet oil diverted to South AfricaHOEGH FOUNTAIN: 'Wholly Within the Framework of the Law'Changing Patterns in Oil Supplies to South Africa 14Oil-exporting countries - 14 Refined products from Europe - 14 Companiesinvolved - 14The Main Oil and Shipping Companies Involved 17Marc Rich - 17Marimpex- 18African Middle East Petroleum Company - 19 Bergesen d.y. A S - 20World-Wide Shipping Group - The major oil transporter to South Africa - 20 London-based Greek shipping companies - 21G.P. Livanos/Carras GroupC.M. LemosHadjipateras GroupKulukundis GroupEmbiricos ShippingLeif Hoegh & Co. A/S - 22Effects of the Oil Embargo on South Africa 25South Africa's strategy to counter the oil embargo - 25South Africa's quest for oilMossel Bay fuel-from-gas projectThe Namibian Kudu gasfieldSASOLOther sythetic fuel projects The strategic stockpile of oilSouth Africa's counterstrategy under attack

iv ContentsOfficial secrecy and draconian legislation - 31Costs of the oil embargo - 32Oil companies in South Africa - 33The withdrawal of MobilGencor forms energy giantRemaining companiesClosing the Loopholes 37Recent developments: Countries - 37Norway: Successful crude oil ban underminedSingapore adopts oil banU.S. Congress: New Bill discussedRecent developments: International organisations - 38The United Nations The CommonwealthThe European Community

The importance of discharge control - 39Campaigns against the presence of oil companies in South Africa -42 Publicityand Action Are Effective - 43Annex: U.N. oil embargo resolutions 1979-1990 44Appendix I: The Principal Working Tables 45An explanation of technical terms - 45Appendix I1: Methodology 95Appendix II: Countries from which Tankers Sailed to South Africa, 1979-199096Appendix IV: Background Information Regarding the Shipping Research Bureauand its Founding Organisations 98Appendix V: List of Main Publications of the Shipping Research Bureau99List of TablesTable 1 The oil companies apparently owning the oil cargoes on board the 66tankers 1Table 2 The shipping companies which were the apparent beneficial owners of the66 tankers 2 Table 3 The countries/regions from which the 66 tankers sailed toSouth Africa 4Table 4 28 tankers which apparently delivered crude oil to South Africa in 1989-1990 7Table 5 The region/countries from which the 28 tankers sailed to South Africa in1989-1990 8 Table 6 Some refined petroleum shipments to South Africa since1987 10Table 7 Crude oil deliveries to South Africa by Greek shipping companiesidentified since 1979 21 Table 8 Leif Hoegh vessels in South Africa 1979-199023Table 9 Oil storage locations in South Africa 30Table 10 Costs of the oil embargo 33Table 11 South Africa's refining capacity 34Table A The ships which called at South Africa in 1987-1988, and whichapparentlydelivered oil cargoes during their visits to South Africa 47Table B The oil companies apparently owning the presumed oil cargoes aboardthe 66 ships - 1987-1988 65 Table C The shipping companies which were themanagers and apparent beneficial owners ofthe 66 ships - 1987-1988 66Table D The countries in which the companies are based, and the countrieswhose flagswere used by the 66 ships - 1987-1988 70Table E The countries from which the 66 ships sailed to South Africa - 1987-1988 75Table F The 193 ships of 50,000 tons dwt and over analysed by the ShippingResearch Bureauwhich called at South Africa 1987-1988 78

Table G Some preliminary findings on apparent crude oil deliveriesto SouthAfrica in 1989 and early 1990 81 Table H Some refined petroleum shipments toSouth Africa 1987-1990 (listed in chronological order) 89 Table in Appendix IIl:The countries from which tankers of 50,000 tons dwt and over sailed to SouthAfrica, apparently to deliver oil cargoes - January 1979-April 199097MapsRegions from which the 441 tankers of 50,000 tons dwt and over sailed to SouthAfrica, January 1979-April 1990 - 15 Mossel Bay offshore gas and oil exploration- 25South African oil/fuel infrastructure - 29

Summary vSummary1987-19881. The Shipping Research Bureau identified 193 tankers each capable of carryinga cargo of over 50,000 tons of crude oil, which called at South African portsduring 1987 and 1988. 66 of these tankers apparently delivered oilto SouthAfrica. The total cargo capacity of the 66 tankers is about 15.8 million tons,equivalent to nearly 60 per cent of South Africa's estimated crude oil import needsover the two-year period.2. The oil-trading companies most deeply involved in the secret oil trade withSouth Africa during 1987-1988 appear to be:MARC RICH (Switzerland)AFRICAN MIDDLE EASTPETROLEUM COMPANY (Monaco/Switzerland)Featuring prominently among the shipping companies are:Eight tankers sailed from the Red Sea:- 8from Egypt- 1 from Saudi Arabia(Figures include multi-porting in different countries.)The other three tankers sailed to South Africa from France, Malaysiaand theU.S.S.R.1989-19905. Preliminary research revealed 28 crude oil deliveries to South Africa in 1989and early 1990. The cargo capacity of the tankers, 6.3 million tons, representssome 36 per cent of South Africa's estimated import needs during the period.6. The oil-trading companies included:WORLD-WIDE SHIPPING C.M. LEMOS BERGESENLIVANOS/CARRAS GROUP HADJIPATERAS GROUP SEAARLANDSHIPPING MANAGEMENT(Hong Kong) (Greece/U.K) (Norway) (Greece/U.K.) (Greece/U.K.)27 deliveries 8 deliveries 6 deliveries 6 deliveries 4 deliveries(Austria) 4 deliveries

3. Norwegian shipping companies have ceased transporting crude oil to SouthAfrica since 20 July 1987 when the Norwegian law prohibiting crude oiltransports to South Africa came into effect.Shipping companies based in Greece, the United Kingdom and, in particular, theHong Kong-based World-Wide Shipping Group have filled the gap leftby theNorwegian tankers.Among the other nations whose companies and flags are extensivelyinvolved inoil deliveries to South Africa are Liberia, Switzerland, Monaco and Cyprus.4. In 63 of the 66 cases, a tanker sailed to South Africa from the MiddleEast. Ofthese deliveries, 55 were from the Persian Gulf, namely:-30 from the United Arab Emirates- 9 from Qatar- 8from Oman- 7 from Iran- 6 from Saudi ArabiaAFRICAN MIDDLE EAST PETROLEUM COMPANY MARIMPEX(Monaco/Switzerland) (F.R. Germany)Among the shipping companies, the Hong Kong-based World-Wide ShippingGroup (12 deliveries) and a number of shipping groups in Greece/U.K. (10deliveries) and Austria (4 deliveries) continued their involvement.7. All 28 tankers sailed to South Africa from the Middle East, namely:-12 from the United Arab Emirates- 7 from Egypt-3 from Oman(Figures include multi-porting in different countries.)Refined Petroleum Products to South Africa 8. Since mid-1989, a relatively largenumber of vessels havebeen identified as suppliers of refined oil products toSouth Africa. Fires at the South African SASOL oil-from-coal plants, whichconsiderably reduced the indigenous production of synthetic fuel,may partlyexplain the increase in imports.9. The trans-shipment port of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, hasemerged as amajor channel for petroleum product deliveries to South Africa. Theshipmentsare mainly by combined carriers of 70,000 tons deadweight and over. Ninevessels have sailed to South Africa from Amsterdam since May 1989.

vi Summary10. The main supplier of petroleum products to South Africa is the oil-tradingcompany Marc Rich (Switzerland).Leif Heegh & Co. and other Norwegian shipping companies play a majorrole inthis recent surge in shipments of refined products. The Norwegian ban of July1987 does not cover the transport of refined products.Secrecy, False Destinations and Forged Documents11. Oil and shipping companies are prepared to go to great lengths to conceal oildeliveries to South Africa. Deliveries are obscured by confidential charter-parties,false destinations and forged documents.

Since 1987, virtually all calls of vessels delivering oil to South Africa have beenkept secret. In the few remaining cases there were only vague reports indicatingthat a call had been made. None of the tankers reported their actual destination ondeparture from the oil-exporting countries.In a number of cases, the Shipping Research Bureau has evidence of forgeddocuments being used to conceal an oil delivery.Costs of the Oil Embargo12. The present voluntary oil embargo has had severe financial effects on SouthAfrica. The 'pariah cost' which the country has to payfor its crude oil imports isconsiderable. Between January 1979 and January 1990, overandabove its crudeoil bill of about US $ 29,000 million, South Africa has had to spend at least US $25,000 million to overcome the direct and indirect effects of the oil embargo.Recent Trends in Oil Supplies to South Africa13. Since Norwegian companies ended their involvement in crude oil transports toSouth Africa in 1987, shipping companies based in Greece, the United Kingdom,Austria, and, in particular, Hong Kong have taken over these transports.Norwegian shipping companies are increasingly active in deliveries of refinedpetroleum products to South Africa.14. The oil-trading companies Marc Rich and Marimpex have continued theirinvolvement in oil supplies to South Africa. Since 1988, the company AfricanMiddle East emerged as thelast-known owner of at least 15 oil cargoes delivered to South Africa from Egypt.15. The number of oil-exporting countries from which tankers sailed to SouthAfrica remained fairly stable. No ships have been identified as sailing to SouthAfrica from Bruneisince late 1986. On the other hand, a considerable number oftankers were identified as sailing to South Africa from Egypt since1988.Increasing numbers of tankerswere found to be sailing from the United ArabEmirates, which now tops the list with 90 shipments identified since January1979. With 79 deliveries, Saudi Arabia now ranks second after the United ArabEmirates. Thenumberof tankerssailing to South Africa from Oman,Iran, andQatar remained fairly high.Allthe above mentioned countries have repeatedly endorsed the oilembargoagainst South Africa. However, the massive violations of their embargo policiessuggest serious deficiencies in their proceduresfor monitoring possible oildeliveries to South Africa.Making the Oil Embargo More Effective16. A further tightening of the oil embargo is feasible. The crude oil shipped toSouth Africa originates in a limited number of countries. If oil-exporting countrieslike the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iran, Qatar andEgypt wereto observe and enforce their embargo policies, and penalise companies whichviolate them, the flow of oil to South Africa could be significantly curtailed. Oilembargo legislation by shipping nations like Hong Kong, Greece, the UnitedKingdom, Austria and Liberia, could considerably limit the transportcapacityavailable for crude oil deliveries to South Africa.The Norwegian transport ban should be extended to apply to refinedproducts.

Embargo legislation by countries in which oil traders are based, likeSwitzerland,the Federal Republic of Germany and Monaco, could disrupt the oilprocurementsystems which the South African government has set up with a number of thesetraders. The monitoring of oil deliveries to South Africa has provedfeasibledespite the secrecy surrounding such deliveries.17. In various reports, the United Nations Intergovernmental Groupto Monitorthe Supplyand Shipping of Oiland Petroleum Products to South Africa has made anumber of important suggestions to improve the embargo.

Introduction viiIntroductionSince early 1990, there have been some unprecedented developments towardseventual dismantling the apartheid system and the creation of democraticinstitutions in South Africa.Mr EW. de Klerk's statement on 2 February 1990 and the longawaited release ofMr Nelson Mandela have removed some abiding impediments to negotiationsbetween the minority government and the majority of South Africans.The combined pressure from within and outside South Africa has beenanimportant stimulus to these developments.Sanctions applied by the international community continue to play animportantrole. The effect of economic sanctions has been to increasethecostof maintainingapartheid. Thefinancial burden placed upon the South African economy by the oilembargo alone is estimated at some US $ 2,300 million on average annually."To lift sanctions now would be to run the risk of aborting the processtowards thecomplete eradication of apartheid", as was pointed out by Mr Mandela in his firstpublic speech since his release from prison.In the same vein, the Chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Group toMonitor the Supply and Shipping of Oiland Petroleum Productsto South Africa,H.E. MrAnthony Nyakyi, has called the oil embargo "one of the factors whichhave propelled Mr. de Klerk to the negotiating table. Therefore, if theinternational community can maintain the same level of effective pressure onPretoria, there is a good chance of keeping him there until a democratic and justsettlement is achieved".2At the moment of writing this sixth main report of the Shipping Research Bureauon violations of the oil embargo, apartheid is still a reality. Until definitive stepshave been taken to safeguard an irreversible change in South Africa, a strictlyenforced and properly monitored international oil embargo will continue to have afunction.

Research Findings 1987-1988 1Research Findings 1987-1988193 calls at South African ports identifiedThe Shipping Research Bureau has identifieda total of 193ships, each capable ofcarrying an oil cargo of 50,000 tons or more, which called at SouthAfrican portsin 1987 and 1988.2 All ships are listed in Appendix I, Table F.66 apparent oil deliveries

Based on the evidence at the Bureau's disposal, 66 of the ships apparentlydelivered oil to South Africa (for full details, see Appendix I, TableA). Withregard tothe remaining 127ships, the Shipping Research Bureau either haspositiveevidence thatthey did not deliver oil to South Africa, or hasinsufficientevidence to warrant an allegation. This chapter focusses on further analysis of the66 ships which apparently delivered oil to South Africa. For detailsregarding theBureau's research methodology, see Appendix II.Further details regarding some of the 66 tankersSeveral tankers appear to have been engaged in a 'shuttle' tradeto South Africaduring the period under consideration. The prime example is the tanker WorldProgress, accounting for seven ofthedeliveriesidentified. In fact, 27 deliveriesweremade by just six different tankers:WORLD PROGRESS (World-Wide -Hong Kong) 7deliveriesWORLD RENOWN ETHNIC PATRIOTIC ALKILOUISIANA(World-Wide- Hong Kong) 4deliveries (C.M. Lemos Greece/U.K.)4deliveries(C.M. Lemos Greece/U.K.) 4deliveries (Seaarland - Austria) 4deliveries(Hadjipateras- Greece/U. K.) 4 deliveries15.8 million tons of oilThe total capacity of the 66 tankers which apparently delivered crude oil to SouthAfrica was about 15.8 million tons. The cargo capacity of the 36 tankers whichdelivered oil in 1987 was about9.0million tons. The cargo capacity ofthe 30tankers which delivered oil in 1988 was about 6.9 million tons.South Africa has to import an estimated 14 million tons of crude oil per year. Onthe basis of this estimate, the volume identified would constitute some 56per centof the country's crude oil imports in 1987-1988.3The oil companies involved In almost all cases (65 out of 66), oil companies usedtankers chartered from independent tanker owners. They usuallydemanded that aconfidentiality-clause be included in theTable 1 The oil companies apparently owning the oil cargoes on board the 66tankersprincipal country or countries in which the oil company is basednumberofdeliveriesAFRICAN MIDDLE EAST Monaco/Switzerland 81.9MARC RICH Switzerland 7 1.6MARIMPEX Fed. Rep. Germany 2 0.6INTERCONTINENTAL TRANSPORTATION CORP. Cayman Islands2 0.5TRANSWORLD OIL Netherlands/Bermuda 10.3EURAVIA Switzerland V 0.2MARK WOLMAN United Kingdom 1. 0.2KUO INTERNATIONAL Hong Kong 1 0.1

unknown companies 45 10.9TOTAL 66 15.8* These companies were involved in a chain of owners together with Marc Rich.1, This number does not include ships which were only serviced off coastby launch or helicopter while passing South Africa.2. Two calls at South Africa in November/December 1986, which haverecently been identified, have been included.3. Estimates of South Africa's crude import needs tend to range between10 and 15 million tons per year. Depending on the assumed level ofimports, the volume identified could either constitute a considerablyhigher percentage (nearly 80% at a level of 10m tons per yearl, ora somewhatlower proportion (about 53% at an import level of 15m tons). In all calculations,we assume that the stockpile ofoil is kept at a constant level. In fact,of course,South Africa's oil imports may vary considerably from year to year, depending onthe use of the strategic stockpile lcf. Shipping Research Bureau, Oil to SouthAfrica. Apartheid's Friends and Partners, Amsterdam 1988, pp.1 and 4).oil companyvolume of cargo (million tons)

2 Research Findings 1987-1988charter-party to protect their identity. In 21 cases, the Shipping Research Bureauhas been ableto identify the owner (orowners) of the oilcargo delivered to SouthAfrica. The oil companies are listed in Table 1 (for details, see Appendix I, TableB).The identity of the shipping companies Table 2 lists the shipping companieswhich were the apparent beneficial owners of the 66 tankers which delivered oilto South Africa (for a complete overview, see Appendix I, Table C).The nationalities of the oil and shipping companies Table D, Appendix I, gives adetailed overview of all countries in which oil and shipping companies involvedin the66oil deliveries are based, as well as the countries whose flags the 66tankers flew when calling at South African ports. In the beginning ofthe two-yearperiod 1987-1988, tankers owned and managed by Norwegian shippingcompanies, which for many years topped the list of oil transporters to SouthAfrica, still accounted fora major part of South Africa's crude oil imports. Eightdeliveries made by Norwegian tankers between March and June 1987may havecovered as much as44 per centof these imports during that period. This massive involvement came to an end inJuly 1987 when the Norwegian ban on transports of crude oil to SouthAfricacame into effect.4Shipping companies based in the United Kingdom and Greece, and especially onecompany in Hong Kong, appear to have filled the gap created by thediscontinuation of crude oil transports to South Africa by Norwegian tankers.These companies are thus profiting from the legal bans on such transportsimposed by shipping nations whose companies used to be heavily involved in oiltransports to South Africa.5

Countries whose companies and/or flags were linked with a considerable numberof deliveries are:6LIBERIA HONG KONG UNITED KINGDOM GREECE SWITZERLANDNORWAY MONACO33 cases 30 cases 24 cases 20 cases 14 cases 11 cases 8 casesTable 2 The shipping companies which were the apparent beneficial owners of the66 tankersshipping companyWORLD-WIDE SHIPPING GROUP C.M. LEMOSBERGESEN D.Y. A/S Et GENERAL ORE INTERNATIONAL CORP.G.P. LIVANOS/CARRAS GROUP HADJIPATERAS GROUP SEAARLANDSHIPPING MANAGEMENT CANADIAN PACIFIC KULUKUNDIS GROUPCOMPAGNIE GENERALE MARITIME ET FINANCIERE JOHNFREDRIKSEN GROUP SIGURD HERLOFSON &f B.Ef H. SHIPPINGASSOCIATES MARIMPEXMOSVOLD SHIPPING CO. A/S OCEAN ANDREAS UGLANDprincipal country/countries in which the company is basedHong Kong Greece/United Kingdom Norway/Liechtenstein Greece/UnitedKingdom Greece/United Kingdom AustriaCanadaGreece/United Kingdom FranceNorway/Cyprus Norway/Bahamas/U.S.A. Fed. Rep. Germany NorwayNorwayNorwayTOTAL4. The Norwegian ban does not cover the transport of refined petroleumproducts to South Africa. Several Norwegian companies make ampleuse of this loophole (see pp. 1tff).5 In 1986, Danish tankers were banned from carrying crude oil and refinedproducts to South Africa, See Shipping Research Bureau, SouthAfrica's Lifeline. Violations of the Oil Embargo, Amsterdam 1986, p. 42. 6. Thecases in which only the registered owner of a tanker was based in aparticular country are not included here. The total of the cases shown is greaterthan 66 because for a given tanker the country of the owner, ofthe manager and of the flag may all be different.number of cases278

Research Findings 1987-1988 3BERGE ENTERPRISE:Misleading information and documentation to cover up a secret oil delivery7In April 1987, the Berge Enterprise -a Norwegianflagged 'ultra large crude carrier'of 360,700 tons deadweight - collected part cargoes of crude oilin Saudi Arabia,Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The vessel, owned and managedby theNorwegian shipping company Bergesen, sailed from the Persian Gulf with as

purported destination 'Singapore'. In fact, however, the German oil tradingcompany Marimpex which owned the cargo, ordered the vessel to sailstraight toSouth Africa.When in 1988 the Government of Saudi Arabia set out to investigate where theiroil had gone, it was first presented with information apparently confirming thatthe cargo of Arabian Medium Crude had indeed been delivered to Singapore.There were no independent reports corroborating the alleged call of the BergeEnterprise at Singapore. The Government of Saudi Arabia was later provided witha return copy of the 'Oil Export Declaration' issued by its own CustomsDepartment, from which it appeared that the cargo had not been discharged atSingapore, but at Ain Sukhna (Egypt- Red Sea) from where it was transferred to the Mediterranean via the ArabPetroleum Pipeline. According to the document, the cargo had beenreloaded onthe Japanese tanker Elbe Maru on 30 April 1987, and had been discharged at Fos-sur-Mer (France). Stamps and signatures, apparently in use bythe Arab PetroleumPipeline and the French Customs, were used to authenticate the document.It was a rather clever cover-up at first sight. The Japanese oil tanker Elbe Maruhad indeed discharged an oil cargo of approximately the same volume as theBerge Enterprise cargo at Fos, on 3 May 1987. However, not only was the exactquantity of the cargo different from the original cargo, it also contained a mixtureof Iranian and Arabian heavy crude rather than Arabian Medium Crude.Another factor helped to expose this attempted coverup. According to thedocument, the Elbe Maru collected the cargo allegedly discharged bythe BergeEnterprise at the Arab Petroleum Pipeline, on April 30th. However, even at fullspeed, the Elbe Maru could never have covered the distance between theMediterranean outlet of the pipeline at Sidi Kerir lEgypt) to Fos (France) in thetime indicated.A final touch of implausibility was added when the Government of Qatar waspresented with a certificate of discharge 'proving' that the Berge Enterprise haddischarged her part cargo of Qatar crude in Singapore-on exactly the same days when the ship was purportedly in the RedSeadelivering her cargo of Saudi crude...S-,di Ar.b.02Evo"CwflA-.. .-as,, o,,,-- ,A3,,,"..3k .... .... .... . .. ,t . .. _ . .. . ... ........ ., . .. . , . .. ......- I - _ _- - I..... --VC -N3 * i-frN ./e.!kX-0-,41P67. For more details on this delivery, see Shipping Research Bureau, Oil to SouthAfrica, op.cit., pp. 10-11.6)

4 Research Findings 1987-1988The countries from which the tankers sailed to South Africa

Table 3 lists the countries and regions from which the 66 tankers sailedto SouthAfrica. The calls at individual countries in the various regions do not always addup to the total number of tankerswhich sailed from each region; mosttankerscalled at two or more countries prior to sailing to South Africa. This practice ofmulti-porting is one of the factors making it difficult to assess howmuch of thecrude oil originated in each country. A second factor is the continualincorrect andnon-reporting of movements by tankers and by shipping companies.No less than 55 of the 66 tankers sailed to South Africa from the PersianGulf,with most of them returning immediately. More than half of the vessels called atthe United Arab Emirates before sailing to South Africa. All countries inthis areahave an embargo on oil shipments to South Africa. Oil and shipping companiesgo to great lengths to conceal violations of the embargo policies of the oil-exporting countries. None of the 55 tankers reported their actualdestination ondeparture from the Persian Gulf area.The total cargo capacity of the 55 tankers which sailed to South Africa from thePersian Gulf was about 13.7 million tons, or almost 87 per cent of the totalvolume identified of 15.8 million tons.Eight tankers sailed to South Africa from the Red Sea area. Sevenof these tankerssailed straight to South Africa from Egypt; one tanker collected partcargoes inboth Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The cargo capacity of these eight tankers was about1.9 million tons, or almost 12 per cent of the total volume identified of 15.8million tons.Table 3 The countries/regions from which the 66tankers sailed to South Africacountry/region Persian Gulfof which from:United Arab Emirates QatarOmanIranSaudi Arabia unknown countries Red Sea areaof which from:EgyptSaudi ArabiaOther countries of which from:France Malaysia U.S.S.R.number of cases5530* 9.8' 7* 6'6883 1"31TOTAL* Including multi-porting.

The combined cargo capacity of the 63 tankers which sailed to South Africa fromthe Middle East (Persian Gulf and Red Sea area) was about 15.6 million tons.This represents almost 99per cent of the total volume of 15.8 million tons. Theremaining one per cent was covered by three tankers sailing from France,Malaysia and the U.S.S.R.

Research Findings 1987-1988 5LICORNE OCEANE: Idle attempts to conceal a breach of the oil embargoThe French supertanker Licorne Oceane, 290,767 tons dwt, Liberian flag, had laidimmobile in the Far East for nearly three years, when she finally re-entered thevoyage market.However, the ship's first job after her departure on 16 January 1987 fromSingapore, where she had anchored for one month, was one which her ownersdeemed advisable that it should be carefully kept from the outside world. It wasreported that the Licorne Oceane sailed from Singapore 'for Japan'; then the shipdisappeared, to surface again only after more than seven weeks, at the anchorageof Fujairah IU.A.E.) previous port: 'not reported'.In fact, from Singapore the Licorne Oceane had sailed directly to the PersianGulf, because a confidential contract concluded between the ship's managers anda charterer whose identity was deliberately kept concealed, provided for adelivery of Iranian crude oil to be made to South Africa. On 30 January 1987, twoweeks after her departure from Singapore, the Licorne Ocbane loaded a cargo ofIranian oil at Hormuz Terminal. That is, a cargo of oil was transferred into theLicorne Ocbane from a giant British tanker, the Burmah Endeavour, currently inuse by the National Iranian Oil Co. as a floating storage depot outside thedangerous Persian Gulf war zone.The vessel's owners, French state-controlled Compagnie Gen6rale Maritime etFinancibre, has placed commercial management of the vessel in the hands of acompany called Seatramp (U.K.) Ltd. which, although situated in London, is half-owned by another French shipping company, the Societ6 Francaise de TransportsMaritimes (a subsidiary of the -private- Worms Group). Seatramp arranged for theoil to be shipped to South Africa, nevertheless seeing to it that on paper'Singapore' was mentioned as the port of discharge.However, before the cargo could indeed be unloaded at the SouthAfrican port ofDurban, some additional precautions were taken. Detailed directions weretransmitted to the Licorne Oceane while she steamed off East Africaon her wayto her final destination:"It is most important that the vessel's name is notdisplayed at the disichargeI port. (... I If it is possiblethe vessel's name must be covered with canvassecurely fitted in place on the bow, the stern and thebridge. The owners'identification on the funnel should also be removed. Onleaving the disl charge I port thereshould be nothing on board the vessel which wouldindicate where the vessel has actually been. This must include the disposal of allnewspapers or magazines or

calendars from the disichargeI port. If any stores aretaken then any packages or documents relating tothem which would show where they were purchasedmust also be disposed of."A last measure was introduced as the ship approached her destination: her ownname disappeared from all external communications. As is usualwith tankersemployed in breaches of the oil embargo against South Africa, she had beenawarded a code name to be used instead, in order to diminish the chance of beingdetected. Mid-February 1987, about two weeks after the departure of the LicorneOcane from the Persian Gulf, tanker 'M 49' arrived at Durban to discharge hervaluable cargo into the offshore oil buoy.Assuming that the crew of a ship not normally engaged in trading surroundedwith the same secretiveness would be a little taken aback by the outlinedprocedure, Seatramp had reassuringly added to their instructions:"We understand that the above requests may seemunusual but rest assured it is in the best interests of thevessel and her owners."From: Shipping Research Bureau, Oil to South Africa. Apartheid's Friends andPartners, Amsterdam 1988, p. 9.

1989-1990 7Preliminary Findings on Oil Deliveries to South Africa in 1989-1990A preliminary investigation of the periods 1989 and early 1990 hasenabledtheShipping Research Bureau to identify28tankers of over 50,000tonsdeadweightwhich have apparently delivered crude oil to South Africa.Besides, ten tankers were found to have delivered refined petroleum products inthe same period. Seven of those tankers have a deadweight tonnageof more than50,000 (see pp. 9ff).Table 4 28 tankers which apparently delivered crude oilto South Africa in 1989-1990ship's nameAlki Alki Alki Alki Anax Batis Batis Batis Batis Brittany Cali Cali EasternCourage Eastern Promise Ethnic Pacificos Pacificos Pacificos Pacificos RafioRafio World Champion World Hitachi Zosen World Hitachi Zosen WorldRenown World Renown World Summit World XanaduTOTALdwt tonnage month inSouth Africa232,600 May 89232,600 Jly89232,600 Aug 89232,600 Sep 89259,449 Apr 89155,089 Apr 89155,089 Jly 89

155,089 Dec 89155,089 Mar 90233,348 Dec 89236,425 May 89236,425 Jne/Jly89267,807 May 89268,038 Apr 89274,629 Mar89268,467 Jan 89268,467 Apr 89268,467 Jne 89268,467 Mar 90290,271 Apr 89290,271 Dec 89/Jan 90273,117 May 89268,904 Feb 89268,904 Mar 89262,267 Jly 89262,267 Nov/Dec 89260,064 Mar 89264,170 May 896,840,98028 crude oil deliveries - 6.3 million tons of oil1 The total cargo capacity of the 28tankers which have to date been found delivering crude oil to South Africa in1989-1990 amounts to about6.3 million tons of crude oil. These 6.3 million tonsrepresent some 36 per cent of South Africa's estimated crude oil import needsduring the period. The 28 tankers are listed in Table 4.Severalof the tankers appear to have been engaged in a 'shuttle' trade to SouthAfrica: twelve deliveries were made by just three vessels, Alki, Batis andPacificos.2The identity of the shipping companies and the countries in which thesecompanies are based In 1987-1988 a trend was observed that shipping companiesbased in Hong Kong, Greece and the United Kingdom filled the gap created bythe discontinuation of crude oil transports by Norwegian tankers. This trendseems to be continuing in 19891990 as well. The Hong Kong-based World-WideShipping Group again tops the list, with 12 deliveries identified. Greekshippingcompanies, their commercial operations often based in the United Kingdom, wereinvolved in 10 of the 28 deliveries. The Austrian shipping company SeaarandShipping Management GmbH which came to the fore as an oil transporter toSouth Africa in 1988, continued its involvement in 1989 (more details inAppendix I, Table G): Hong Kong- World-Wide Shipping Group: 12 casesGreece/United Kingdom- Embiricos Shipping/Buenamar: 4 cases- Kulukundis Group/Saipan Steamship: 4 cases-C.M. Lemos/Nereus Shipping: 1 case

- Pegasus Ocean Services/Pleiades: 1 case Austria- Seaarland Shipping Management: 4 cases F.R. Germany- Marimpex: 2 casesThe oil companies involved In nine of the 28 cases the Shipping Research Bureauhas been able to identify the owner of the cargo (more details in Appendix I,Table G).The oil company African Middle East which came to the fore rather prominentlyin 1988 as the last-known owner of eight cargoes delivered to South Africa fromEgypt, has continued its1. These findings are provisional and not comprehensive.2. Earlier deliveries by the Afki (four) and the Pacificos (two) havealreadybeen identified since July 1988; see Appendix I, Table A.

Table 5 The region/countries from which the 28 tankerssailed to South Africa in 1989-1990countryUnited Arab Emirates 12 Egypt 7Oman 3unknown countries in the Persian Gulf/Middle East 9TOTALnumber of cases dwt tonnage2,919,519 1,616,281 763,334 2,305,180 6,840,980* Including multi-porting.trade in 1989-1990 (seven cargoes identified - 1.5 million tons). Asin1988, allcargoesof which thecompanywasthelast-known owner have been collected inEgypt.The countries from which the 28 tankers sailed to South AfricaAll 28 tankers sailed to South Africa from the Middle East (Persian Gulf and RedSea area). The trend that the United Arab Emirates account for the vast majorityof the cases identified by the Shipping Research Bureau, seems to continue in1989. Twelve tankers sailed to South Africa after having called at one or more oilterminals in the United Arab Emirates. The countries are listed in Table 5.8 1989-1990

Refined Products 9Refined Petroleum Products to South AfricaMost crude oil transports to South Africa are made by large tankers and combinedcarriers in sizes ranging up to 200,000300,000 tons and over. Buta considerablenumber of smaller product tankers and chemical tankers under 50,000 deadweighttons also call regularly at South African ports.' The calls of thesevessels aresometimes madeforloading bunker fuel, collecting spare parts or crew changes.Sometimes cargoes ranging from edible oils, molasses or chemical products to drybulk goods (in the case of ore/bulk/oil carriers) are discharged orloaded.However, in some cases, these vessels are engaged in transports ofpetroleumderivates to or from South Africa.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Group estimates that about 80 per cent ofSouth Africa's imported oil is delivered in crude form on large tankers. Accordingto the Group's 1989 report, the remaining 20 per cent comes to South Africa eitheras crude oil on medium size tankers or combination carriers, or inthe form ofrefined petroleum products on ships of considerably smaller tonnage.2An effective oil embargo against South Africa should cover all products derivedfrom crude petroleum.3 These range from 'dirty' products such asheavy fuel oil to'clean' jet fuel and specialised petrochemical products. With its domestic refiningcapacity and synthetic-fuel installations, South Africa is able to produce manypetroleum products itself. Nevertheless, it appears to be economicalor evennecessary for South Africa to import certain types and quantities of these productsfrom abroad.The volume and value of refined petroleum products reaching South Africa arepartly reflected in the export statistics of several countries (as opposed to theimport statistics of South Africa itself which omit all figures relatedto oil). Thereason for this is that a number of countries which have made crude oilexports toSouth Africa illegal, have failed to do so with regard to exports of oil products.However, probably more and more refined product transports remain hidden as isillustrated by the developments which have taken place since 1989.1, In its interim report of 12 June 1990, the United NationsIntergovernmental Group (see below) mentions a number of 474 tankers andcombined carriers of all sizes of which calls at SouthAfrican ports have been reported between early 1986 and early 1989.2. United Nations, Report of the Intergovernmental Group to Monitor theSupply and Shipping of Oil and Petroleum Products to South Africa,October 1989, p. 3.3. The resolutions on the Oil Embargo against South Africa adoptedannually by the United Nations General Assembly urge the Security Council "totake action without further delay to impose a mandatory embargo on the supplyand shipping of oil and petroleum products to South Africa". All measuresproposed to strengthen the oil embargoShipowner refuses oil product shipmentsto South AfricaMid-1989, Almare, the owner of a number of bulk/oilcarriers, was requested by the Norwegian timecharterers of three of its vessels, ifthe clause in the charter-party reading "Vessel not to be employed in illegaltrading such as oil to South Africa" could be amended to apply to crude oiltransports only. TheItalian owner refused both this request and that of anumber of brokers asking them to accept charters on three other vessels for oilproduct shipments toSouth Africa from the Netherlands.[Letter from Almare di Navigazione S.p.A., Italy, tothe Shipping Research Bureau of 7 September 1989.The Norwegian company was Arcade Shipping Co.,Oslo.]

Refined product imports increasing Refined petroleum products are occasionallytransported by large tankers. As early as 1985 as well as later, vessels of 50,000tons deadweight and over were found by the Shipping Research Bureau to delivercargoes of petroleum products (mainly fuel oil and diesel) to South Africa.4However, since 1989 a striking number of larger vessels have been identified assuppliers of refined products to South Africa.In the first half of 1989, word got round in the chartering market thatvessels inthe range of 60-110,000 tons deadweight were sought for petroleum producttransports from various places to South Africa. A possible explanation for thesurge in refined product shipmentsidentified since mid-1989maybefound in theproblems encountered by South Africa in its domestic production of certainpetroleum products. Fires at the oil-fromcoal factories SASOL Three and Two inJanuary and May 1989 respectively, have reduced the productionof syntheticfuel.5refer to refined products as well as to crude oil. See p. 38.4. In 1985-1986, seven shipments of refined petroleum products (fuel oilfrom Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, diesel from Bahrain) to SouthAfrica, made by oil tankers and combined carriers in the range of55,000-104,000 tons dwt were identified. These deliveries have been described in:Shipping Research Bureau, Oil to South Africa, op.cit.,Appendix I, Table A, cases 8, 10, 22, 34, 56, 57 and 61. On the casesofthe Beatrice, the Biscaya, the Gentle Breeze and the Singa Star, seealso this report, p. 40. A few cases in 1987-1988 are included in Table6. 5,SASOIs Managing Director said that output had dropped by some 1015 per centafter the two fires, the first of which killed 12 persons. SRBNewsletter No. 17, October 1989, p. 2; No. 19, 1st quarter 1990, p.2.

10 Refined ProductsThe shortfall must have been considerable, bearing in mind that recent importincreases are found mainly for gasoline, a product which due to theproductioncharacteristics of the indigenous synfuel industry and the structure of domesticdemand is normally in relative oversupply in South Africa.6Some shipments of refined petroleum products to South Africa identified bytheShipping Research Bureau since 1987 are listed in Table 6.7Countries of origin of recent shipments were located in the Mediterranean,Eastern Europe, Southwest Europe, East Africa and especially Northwest Europe.The Dutch trans-shipment port of Amsterdam has emerged as a major source foroil products for South Africa, mainly transported by combined carriers of 70,000tons dwt and over. In none of the cases, the vessels in question reported their realdestination on departure from Amsterdam (most reported 'Gibraltar for orders'instead). Consequently, none of theTable 6 Some refined petroleum shipments to South Africa since 1987ship's nameUGLAND OBO-ONETENACITYLUCERNA

WHITE EXCELSIOR DAGLIBRALI QUEBECGRIPARION OBO VEGA PROBO GULLJARAMA FAITH IHOEGH FOUNTAIN HOEGH FOAM AMBIA FAIR HOEGH FOAMGRIPARION HOEGH FALCONdwt tonnage54,500 46,69339,865 38,598 57,372 48,581 39,728 70,247 97,947 48,26377,67337,797 78,488 78,571 78,434 78,571 70,247 81,158month in productSouth Africa loadedApr 87 Jne 87gasolinecountry of sailingFrancecarbon black U.S.A.Jan/Feb 88 gasolineFeb88 Oct88 Feb89 Jne89gasoline fuel oil fuel oil gasolineJne/Jly 89 gasolineJly 89gasolineAug 89 gasolinegasolineAug/Sep 89 gasoil jet fuelSep/Oct 89 gasoline Sep/Oct89 gasoilS gasoline Oct89 oil produOct89 oil produNov/ Dec 89 gasolineJan 90 Apr90gasoline gasolineGreece Netherlands U.S.S.R.KenyaNetherlands Netherlands Netherlands Romania Netherlands Netherlands PortugalNetherlands Sweden Netherlands Romaniactscts GreeceNetherlands Netherlands Netherlands6. "Of all the fractions of the crude oil barrel, diesel fuel is in manywaysthe most strategically important to South Africa. ( ...) The commercial,industrial and transport sectors of the economy rely heavily on diesel fuel ( ...)."The side-effects of South Africa's strategy of reducing its relianceon importedcrude oil by building coal-based synfuel plants have included "the production of

far larger quantities of petrol than diesel fuel, leading to the problemof matchingthe petrol and dieselfuel demand within the country" In the past, the imbalance "reached suchproportions that it became necessary to export surplus petrol toensure that sufficient crude oil was processed to meet diesel fuelrequirements."K.F Bennett, 'Matching petrol and diesel fuel demand in South Africa' in EnergyPolicy, South Africa, April 1990 lemphasis added SRBI.Among the vessels investigated were also a few of less than 50,000 tons dwtAl.B.: Refined product shipments have not been researched comprehensively, theBureau's main focus is still on the monitoring of crude oil shipments to SouthAfrica. Details on the shipments listed can be found in Appendix I,Table H.

Refined Products 11shipments are reflected in Dutch foreign trade and transit statistics.Oil-trading companies involved in the product shipments, as far as known, areMarc Rich (Switzerland) with at least four to six8 shipments, and Inter-Mediterranean (United Kingdom) with one shipment.A recent investigation shows that, in spite of a section in the United StatesComprehensiveAnti-Apartheid Act of 1986which says "No crude oil or refinedpetroleum product (...) may be exported to South Africa", companiesin theUnited States were able to ship almost 19 million gallons labout 72,000m3) ofpetroleum-based products to South Africa since 1986, worth perhaps as much asUS $ 760 million. While Congressional sponsors of the law say they intended abroad ban on such exports, the Commerce Department has determined that thesanctions law applies to just 49 of the hundreds of variations of petroleumproducts. The products shipped are largely vital lubricant additives. The primeU.S. exporter of these petroleumbased products is Lubrizol, followed by Caltex.Another big exporter, Mobil Corp., said it had stopped because of the passage ofthe law in 1986.Once again major role Norway A striking feature of the recent shipmentsofrefined products is the major role played by Norwegian shipping companies. Itappears that several Norwegian companies are taking advantageof a loophole inthe Norwegian boycott law. The law banstransports of crudeoil but is currentlybeing undermined by an increasing number of vessels carrying refined oilproducts instead.Norwegian companies involved in refined product shipments to South Africainclude:- A/S Ocean/JPP Shipping and Iver Bugge, as owners and operators respectivelyof the Dagli which delivered fuel oilfrom the Soviet Union to South Africa in 1988;l°- the Bulkhandling pool and its partners L. Gill-Johannesen and HavtorManagement, with two shipments in 1989 (Braliand Probo Gull);- VShips Norwayas the technical manager of the Brali;- Andreas Ugland/Ugland Management with one gasolinecargo in 1987;

- AndersJahreasthe ownerof theJarama, oneof the vesselsoperated by:- Leif Hoegh & Co., the company which ranks first andforemost with at least six shipments since August 1989,mostly from Amsterdam.1"8. On the connection between Marc Rich (four cases listed) and a groupof companies involved in two additional cases, see p. 17.9. The Philadelphia Inquirer, United States, 13 May 1990. 10. A/S Ocean and JPPShipping A/S were also involved in an oilproducts shipment from South Africa to the Far East in February 1989by the tanker Dagrun, which led to parliamentary questions on theloopholes in the Norwegian law (see below). For the case of the Dagli,see pp. 12 and 17.Amsterdam, 8 November 1989: The Heegh Foam Ir.) loading gasoline for SouthAfrica at the Amerikahaven jetty - Photo: SRBPreventing further oil product transports Some of the shipments of petroleumproducts described in this report have led to developments on a political levelafter having been disclosed in the media, especially in Norway. In February 1989,questions were asked in the Norwegian Parliament as a result from the disclosureof the involvement of the tanker Dagrun. On 22 January 1989, this tanker of39,728 tons dwt sailed for the Far East after a secret call at Durban, South Africa,where she had collected a cargo of about 30,000 tons of diesel oil.12 At the time,the Norwegian Government said this did not necessitate an extension of the legalban on crude oil transports to and from South Africa to refined products as well.1"When in April 1989 a well-documented Norwegian television programmerevealed the extensive means by which the operatorandthechartereroftheDagliwillinglymet South Africa'swishes tokeep a delivery offuel oil from the Soviet Union to Cape Town a secret, the Norwegian Minister ofTrade and Shipping called the delivery "painful for Norwegian shipping", andsaid that Norway ought to consider extending the legal ban if the UnitedNationswould issue such a call. The national anti-apartheid coalition Norwegian Councilfor Southern Africa repeated its call for such an extension. Already during thedebate on the boycott law in 1986, the Council claimed that the law could notpossibly be effective if refined oil product transports were notcovered as well.The United Nations Intergovernmental Group reported the case of the Dagli backto the Soviet authorities, and conveyed therewith that it expected them to punishthose found to have violated the Soviet embargo regulations.t411. See pp. 22-23 of this report.12. The Norwegian-flagged oil tanker Dagrun (ex-Lucerna) is owned byA/S Ocean, and operated by JPP Shipping A/S, both on the sameaddress in Oslo. The ship sailed under time-charter to a Liberian company,Salcom, represented by its London agent Silver Line.Klassekampen, Norway, 9 and 10 February 1989.13. Parliamentary Reports, Norwegian Parliament, 22 February1989. 14. NRKTV, Norway, 22, 23 and 24 April 1989; see also SRB Newsletter

12 Refined ProductsDAGLI: Soviet oil diverted to South AfricaOn 21 September 1988, the Norwegian-flagged tankerDaglisailed from the Black Sea port of Odessa, U.S.S.R.The vessel was loaded with nearly 50,000 tons of fuel oilowned by the oil trader Marc Rich. The 57,372deadweight-tons oil tanker belonging to the Osloshipping company A/S Ocean, at the time represented by JPP Shipping,wasoperated by another Norwegianshipping company, Iver Bugge of Larvik.On the Bill of Lading, the destination of the cargo wasspecified as 'Italy'. South Africa was explicitely excludedas a destination in the oil sale contract. After the Daglihad left Odessa, the first buyer of the oil, a Greekcompany, informed the Soviet authorities of the requestof its client to change the destination into 'East Coast U.S.'. In fact, the ship wasnever intended to go to theUnited States. Still in the Mediterranean, the ship'scaptain received orders not to go to Italy, but to changecourse to Cape Town.After a short stop at Gibraltar in order to collect somespare parts on 29 September 1988 the ship headedSouth. An extensive camouflage operation was set up bythe charterer's South African agent. On 5 October 1988, the ship's captain wasrequested to contact the agent via Cape Town radio solely using the South Africanassignedsecret code 'MFI', instead of the ship's name or herofficial call sign LAIF2.Two days later, a message was received from the charterer and passed on tocaptain Arvid Hansenrequesting that "vessel proceed relevant terminal at CapeTown (...) identifying at all times exclusively by call signMF. Any communications are to refer only to bunkeringoperation with no reference whatsoever to cargodischarge, vessel's name or loading port. (...) Vessel at all times only use call signMFI and under no circumstancesIn October 1989, the Congress of the Norwegian Federation of Trade Unionsadopted a resolution calling for the extension of the Norwegian law to oilproducts as well. The Federation has urged the Foreign Minister tointroduce achange in the law. The Federation's campaign was given added impetus when inNovember 1989 four recent shipments by vessels operated by LeifHoegh Et Co.were disclosed on Norwegian television.'"No. 15/16, July 1989, pp. 4-5; Report of the IntergovernmentalGroup.... October1989, op. cit., p. 41. The Daglicase is described in detail on pp. 12 and 17.In its report of October 1989, the U.N. Intergovernmental Group considered "thata global approach to its task requires that it also pay attention to the

should vessel use usual call sign." Moreover, the master was asked to paint overhis ship's name, but he refused replying on 12 October that "under nocircumstances will the name be painted over under my command stopbut I willcover the name with canvas if the weather permits. Regards MF1."The next day,Iver Bugge cabled that the company agreed, though adding: "But also remembernot to show the flag of nationality."On 15 October 1988, the Dagli, her name covered by tarpaulins, discharged hercargo of fuel oil from the Soviet Union in Cape Town. After two days, sheproceeded to the Persian Gulf for orders. On arrival, the authorities were told thatthe tanker's last port of call had been 'Gibraltar'...The delivery constitutes a clear infringement of the Soviet oil embargo. Althoughthe Norwegian ban in force since mid-1987 prohibiting crude oil transports toSouth Africa by Norwegian tankers does not cover refined oil products such asfuel oil, the Norwegian Minister of Trade and Shipping Jan BalstadtoldNorwegian TV that the Dagli case was "painful for Norwegian shipping".According to the Norwegian Maritime Directorate, hiding a ship's identity andnationality is clearly against the law, and the Inspector for Shipping in Oslo wasasked to investigate the matter.Mr Jan A. Bugge, chairman of Iver Bugge, the operator of the Dagli,admitted thathis company had 'sailed close to the wind' by meeting the South African agent'srequest to hide the ship's identity. He said his company had no regulartrade withSouth Africa and had followed local instructions over what was an isolated cargo.He regretted that the oil had ended up in South Africa, since it originated from acountry which has a total trade embargo. However, "it is not up to us to beconcerned with the Russian policies in this respect".The disclosure caused a commotion in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands aswell."In the Netherlands, two anti-apartheid organisations, the Holland Committee onSouthernAfrica and Kairos, have asked the City Council of Amsterdam, a self-declared 'anti-apartheid city', for an investigation into and action against oilproduct shipments to South Africa via the port of Amsterdam.17question of petroleum products" (op. cit., p. 2).15. NRK TV, Norway, 11 November 1989. See SRB Newsletter No. 18,1stquarter 1990, pp. 1-2.16. See the story on the Haegh Fountain on p. 13. 17. SRB Newsletter No. 20, 3rdquarter 1990, pp. 1-2.

Refined Products 13HOEGH FOUNTAIN: 'Wholly Within the Framework of the Law'After having delivered a cargo of coal from the U.S.A. to Rotterdam in August1989, the Norwegian vessel Hoegh Fountain was ordered to interrupt her normalroutine of voyages across the Atlantic, taking oil one way and returning to Europewith dry cargoes. Her owners had found a new lucrative opportunity for their fleetof bulk/oil carriers: transporting refined petroleum products toSouth Africa, andtaking South African coal to Europe. Before the carriage to South Africaof crude

oil by Norwegian-owned and managed vessels was banned by law in 1987,vessels of Leif Heegh Et Co. in Oslo- among them the Hoegh Fountain in May 1982 - had shipped several cargoes ofoil to South Africa. This time, a mix of refined petroleum products from differentorigins was to be shipped to Durban in South Africa.First, the vessel was directed to Sweden. On 3 September 1989 she arrived at theSwedish/Norwegianowned Scanraff refinery in Lysekil/Brofjordenand sailed thenext day after having collected 25,000 m3 or 19,197 metric tons ofgasoil. The oilhad been refined for the Danish state-owned oil company Dansk OlieforsyningA/SI DOFAS), which purchases crude oil from the Danish sector of theNorthSea. The refining was done under an agreement of the Danish company with theowners of the Swedish refinery for the processing of DOFAS-supplied crude.DOFAS had sold the cargo loaded on the Hoegh Fountain to the Swiss companyAstra Oil Trading (AOT) for delivery to the Canary Islands. AOT afterwardsclaimed to have sold it on to a company called InterMediterranean Petroleum Co.(U.K.) Ltd., which according to some reports is closely linked to AOT itself.Inter-Mediterranean realises about three-quarters of its turnover and profits fromthe oil trade with South Africa.On her way South, the partially loaded vessel made a second call, at the Dutchport of Amsterdam. Early in the morning of September 6th she arrived at theUsselincxhaven oil jetty. However, the gasoline cargo she was to loadwas not yetavailable, so the loading operation started on the 7th at 7.15 a.m. TheHoeghFountain sailed from Amsterdam two days later at 5.55 a.m., purportedly 'forGibraltar for orders'.She, in fact, sailed directly to South Africa, without stops at the Canary Islands orGibraltar, and discharged hercargoes of gasoil and gasoline there. Afterwards, the vessel was cleaned up anddirected to the coal-exporting port Richards Bay, where she stayed from 9 to 11October 1989 collecting a cargo of South African coal for Spain.Apparently, no official embargo regulations were broken by loading gasoline forSouth Africa in the Netherlands, as there is only a limited Dutch embargoonexports of crude oil. However, none of the parties involved was willing todisclose the actual country of origin of the cargo loaded in Amsterdam.Amsterdam is simply a storage and trans-shipment port without refining capacity.The main sources of gasoline trans-shipped via Amsterdam are the Soviet Unionand the United Kingdom, the first of which embargoes all supplies to SouthAfrica. Both Sweden and Denmark have a full embargo on exports to SouthAfrica.The Swedish Board of Customs have started an investigation into thematter inNovember 1989 and their Danish colleagues have been requested to follow theirexample. At the very time the delivery was revealed by the Norwegian statetelevision, the Foreign Affairs Committee of Swedish Parliament met to evaluatethe Swedish boycott law. The Swedish anti-apartheid movement has urged theCommittee, in view of the Heegh Fountain case, to propose a sharpening of thelaw to Parliament.

In Amsterdam, anti-apartheid organisations have asked the City Council toinvestigate the use of the local port in shipping oil products to South Africa, citingthe delivery by the Heegh Fountain as an example.The Swiss buyer AOT has failed to produce a discharge certificate as required bythe Danish supplier of the gasoil cargo. When the irregularities became apparentafter an initial investigation by the Shipping Research Bureau, DOFAS told aSwedish radio reporter that the company would preclude the Swiss company fromany further deliveries and that it had decided to include clauses demandingdischarge certificates in all future contracts. The Swedish refinerof the HeeghFountain cargo, OK Petroleum, has decided to take similar precautions,incorporating clauses prohibiting the resale of cargoes to countries embargoed bythe United Nations or the Swedish Government into all its sale contracts and itsGeneral Conditions of Sale.

14 Update 1979-1990Changing Patterns in Oil Supplies to South AfricaOil-exporting countriesA review of the Shipping Research Bureau's research findings from thelastfewyears indicates that the number of oil-exporting countries from which tankerssailed to South Africa to deliver crude oil has remained fairly stable. On the onehand, no tankers have been identified as sailing to South Africa from Bruneisincelate 1986. On the other hand, a considerable number of tankers were identified assailing to South Africa from Egypt (15 deliveries) since 1988. Increasing numbersof tankers were found to be sailing from the United Arab Emirates, which nowtops the list with 90 shipments identified since January 1979.The map provides a summary of oil deliveries by tankers of 50,000 tonsdeadweight upwards identified by the Shipping Research Bureaufor the period1979-1990.1 Appendix III provides further information on the 441 deliveries.Since 1987, only a few tanker sailings from Saudi Arabia have beenidentified.With 79 deliveries, the country now ranks second after the United Arab Emirates.The number of sailings to South Africa from other countries in thePersian Gulfarea, Oman (60 tankers), Iran (38 cargoes) and Qatar (21 tankers) remained fairlyhigh.Refined products from EuropeSince 1989, a striking number of tankers over 50,000 tons deadweight have beenidentified as carrying refined petroleum products to South Africa.In particular, the trans-shipment port of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, hasemerged as a major source of refined product supplies to South Africa.Companies involvedChanges can be observed in the nationalities of the shipping companiestransporting oil to South Africa. Since Norwegian shipping companies ended theirinvolvement in crude oil transports in 1987, shipping companies based in Greece,the United Kingdom, Austria and, in particular, the Hong Kongbased companyWorld-Wide Shipping, have taken over these transports.Norwegian shipping companies have been prominently involved in supplyingrefined products since 1988.

The oil-trading companies Marimpex and, in particular, Marc Rich havecontinued their involvement in oil supplies to South Africa. Since 1988, thecompanyAfrican Middle East emerged as the last-known owner of atleast 15 oilcargoes delivered to South Africa from Egypt.1 1989 and early 1990: preliminary findings

0A U)AA.4- C6 =C .2 0 0C

16

Main Companies 17The Main Oil and Shipping Companies Involved Marc RichThe international commodities trader Marc Rich is responsible for ten ofthedeliveries to South Africa identified in this report-and most likely for a far greater number now hidden under the heading 'oilcompany unknown' or under the names of other companies.Marc Rich is a Belgian-born former U.S. and now Spanish citizen, wanted onlegal charges in the U.S.A. and therefore unable to enter that country or any othercountry where tax evasion is an extraditable offence.1 He is now living andworking in Zug, one of the choice Swiss locations of companies activein world-wide trading including supplies to South Africa. To hide his involvement from theoutside world, Marc Rich uses a whole series of, often short-lived, companiesbased in different countries for his South African business. The first names to bedisclosed were those of Minoil Inc. (Switzerland) and LiquinWhen the Dagli sailed from Odessa in the Black Sea on 21 September 1988, theoil aboard the tanker wassupposedly destined for Italy. As a matter ofstandard procedure, delivery or resale to SouthAfrica was explicitly excluded in the sale contract.However, the Greek company purchasing the Sovietoil had sold it on to a Swiss company calledManpbtrole, which company had resold it to aBritish firm called Falcrest Commodities. The Britishfirm resold the oil once more to another Swissregistered company,BalticChartering. Only after the ship had left port, the authorities in the SovietUnion were asked permission for the oil to beredirected to the U.S.A. In fact, the wholemasquerade had been set up by the real buyer, Marc Rich, who madeuse of acompany which soon afterceased operating (Manp~trole) and to which therefore no official questions couldbe asked, and

another company belonging to his empire (BalticChartering) of which no traces are left at all.1 As from 1981, the company Marc Rich became the subject of largescaleinvestigations by the U.S. authorities into "the largest tax evasion scheme everprosecuted" (U.S. District Attorney Mr Rudolph Giuliani) and other chargesincluding "racketeering, fraud, (,.) and trading withthe enemy". While the charges against the company were settled athuge cost when it pleaded guilty on a number of counts in 1984, thoseagainst Mr Rich personally have not been withdrawn. See ShippingResearch Bureau, Oil to South Africa, Amsterdam 1988, p. 16; A. CraigCopetas, Metal Men: Marc Rich and the 10-Billion-Dollar Scam,Putnam & Sons, New York/London 1985; Financial Times, U.K., 1September 1988.During the decade from 1979 to 1988, the Shipping Research Bureau was able toidentify 64 shipments of crude oil to South Africa which were apparentlyowned by Marc Rich or one of the company'ssubsidiaries. Of these 64 shipments, involving over 8million tons of crude oil, at least 61 do not coincidewith any of the 17 cargoes of the Minoil contract revealed in a confidential SouthAfrican report of1984 (see note 2). Thus, the total number of crudeoil deliveries to South Africa by Marc Rich since1979 is at least 78. The volume of crude oil involvedin these shipments is 11-11.5 million tons. Thismeans that between early 1979 and late 1988, MarcRich delivered at least some 8 per cent of SouthAfrica's crude oil import needs. If all identifieddeliveries in which companies in theEastco/Hollywell group were involved were made in connection with Marc Richsales, the number of crude oil deliveries would still be higher: at least 82.Marc Rich not only supplies crude oil but alsorefined petroleum products to South Africa. Of anumber of, mostly recent, deliveries of gasoline and other products identified bythe Bureau, at least fivewere made by Marc Rich, and another three bycompanies associated with Eastco/Hollywell.Resources Corp. (Panama).2 The case of the tanker Dag/i3 provides a recentillustration. This case involved a group of companies centered around the Britishfirms Eastco and Hollywell. Although these firms may not all be formally ownedby Marc Rich or work exclusively for him, they are working closely together withRich in oil supplies to South Africa. The companies include the East Coast GroupLtd. (U.K.), Holywell Shipping Ltd. (U.K.), Rainbow Line Ltd. (Hong Kong),Intercontinental Transportation Corporation Ltd. (Grand Cayman).'2. A contract between Rich and the state oil procurement agency SFF to

supply 6,500,000 tons of crude oil annually to South Africa through hiscompanies Minoil and Liquin Resources was disclosed by a confidential report ofthe South African Advocate-General, presented to the SouthAfrican Parliament in June 1984 on behalf of President PW. Botha inan attempt to counter allegations that SFF had spent excessiveamounts of state money on Rich and other traders. Advocate-General, Report interms of section 51) of the Advocate-GeneralAct, 1979 (Act118 of 1979), No. 7, 27 June 1984, pp. 33-35. 3. Appendix I, Table A, case 13;see also p. 12.4. Oil deliveries identified by the Shipping Research Bureau in which one

18 Main CompaniesOil and oil products are only one branch of trade in which Marc Rich is active. Heis also big in the trading of metal as well as a range of other commodities. Whenhis former employer Phibro stopped trading with South Africa in 1985 underpressure from the anti-apartheid movement in the U.S.A., Rich stepped in,"Marc never once reflected on the moral implications of adeal. Doing business with corrupt societies was exactlythe same as doing business with anyone else. I don'tknow if that's right or wrong. What I am sure of is thatit's business"Time and again, Marc Rich is the subject of controversy when commodity dealsare discussed in parliaments and elsewhere, all around the world. In 1989, a stormblew upin Jamaica regarding a government alumina contract with Rich. The new ManleyGovernment was severelycriticised for not breaking its ties with the notorious oilsanctions breaker. InMexico, Rich was named as one of the chief collaborators with an official of aMexican stateowned company in his efforts to control copper outputfrom the country's biggest mine in 1989. Late 1989,protests were raised when Algeria, itself represented inthe United Nations oil embargo monitoring group,replacing Phibro as the exclusive sales agent for a giant South African lead mine.5Recently, Rich has become increasingly active in selling South African coaltocountriessuch as Chileand the Peoples Republic of China as well, inspite of thelatter country's nominal embargo on South African imports.6planned an alumina processing deal with Rich. Early 1987, anotheroil-exportingcountry, Brunei, strengthened the application of its oil embargo regulations afterrevelations in the press and in a Shipping Research Bureau report of a large seriesof oil deliveries to South Africa from Brunei by Marc Rich. Even Rich's culturaland social sponsoring activities are inevitably viewed in the lightof his supposedinterest in "cleaning up his tarnished image" as was speculated whenRichdonated The Marc Rich Collection of photographs to the Zurich Kunsthaus(Switzerland). When his company contributed 100 million Swiss Francs to thebuilding of the International Red Cross Museum, the beneficiaries were asked ifthey did not have scruples accepting a donation from a man supplying oil to South

Africa, a country refusing the International Red Cross permission to visit most ofits political detainees?8MarimpexLate 1988, the West German weekly Der Spiegel was the first to publish aphotograph of a man who had always eschewed publicity: GertLutter, the head ofthe Hamburg-based company Marimpex. Having become an independent oiltrader in 1974, "Lutter's big break came towards the end of the 1970swhen theShahof Iran fell. Untilthen, the Iranianshadsupplied oil to South Africa which wasboycotted byall major oil-exporting countries. However, the Mullahscut the linkswith this fishyclient. Like several other oil traders, Lutter now rendered hisservices to the South Africans'9To facilitate this, a number of South Africans rendered their services toMarimpex. Until 1988, the main Swiss branch office Marimpex Mineralbl-Handels AG in Rapperswil was led by a South African, Mr J~irgen Hasse. Aformer top official of the South African oil companySASOL was employed in theLondonor more of these companies were involved include those by theThorsholm in February 1984, Almare Settima in December1985/January 1986, Almare Terza in April 1986, Fidius in March andJuly 1987, Freedomship L. in November 1987, Dagi in October 1988,Brai in February 1989 and Probo Gull in August 1989.5. Fortune, U.S.A., 1 August 1988.6. Coal Monitor Nos. 2 and 3, in SRB Newsletter Nos. 18 and 19, 1990.7. A senior executive of one of the companies of Marc Rich, quotedin: A.Craig Copetas, op.cit., p. 120.branch, Marimpex International Ltd. The London employee, Mr JohnBredenkamp, has an extensive record of 'sanctions busting' activies dating back tothe 1970s when there was still a mandatory United Nations embargo againstRhodesia."Mr Lutter, based in the head office in Hamburg, is the pivot around which thewhole Marimpex Group of companies revolves. Some of his companies maintainsome measure of public profile, including the German head office and the Britishand Swiss main branch offices. From time to time, less visible firms are set up incountries like Bermuda and Panama, and especially in Switzerland where thecompanies Corylus Trading GmbH and Ecos AG (Zug) have been repeatedly usedfor the financial settlement of oil deliveries to South Africa." InJanuary 1989, MrHasse has moved to a newly set-up company, MexxoilAG in Pf5ffikonnearRapperswil.8. SRB Newsletter No. 14, January 1989, p. 14; No. 17, October 1989, p.11; Financial Times, U.K., 6 September 1989; ARTnews, U.S.A.,September 1989; L'Hebdo, Switzerland, 28 July 1988.9. DerSpiegel, F.R.G., 14 November 1988. 10. It has been suggested that MrBredenkamp has since worked forMarimpex in South Africa itself.11. It has been confirmed by an executive of Marimpex that CorylusTrading (now wound up) was a subsidiary of his company. See

Shipping Research Bureau, Oil to South Africa, op. cit., p. 17 note 16.

Main Companies 19At the end of 1988, Marimpex was in severe financial troubles caused by a seriesof faulty speculations. Mr Lutter narrowly escaped bankruptcy when in December1988, its main creditor Credit Lyonnais and two German banks succeeded insecuring the creditors' interests by finding a buyer for Marimpex inSucden KerryInternational, a company in which the giant French commodity house CompagnieFinanci~re Sucres et Denrees has a controlling interest. Sucden initially took a17.5 per cent stake in Marimpex, and has subsequently expandedits share to66.66 per cent.3For its oil transports to South Africa, Marimpex has always employedboth shipschartered from other owners and tankers owned by the company itself.4 A primeexample is the tanker Rafio lformerlyMirafiori). Ninetripsto South Africamadeby this tanker have been identified since late 1984 -a 'shuttle' service showingmany unexplained gaps which together may account for some 20 additionaldeliveries during the period. TechnicalOn 25 July 1984, the Nigerian National PetroleumCorporation informed Marimpex that the companydid not qualify to purchase crude oil from Nigeria.The Corporation has blacklisted all vessels owned orchartered by Marimpex and any companyassociated with or subsidiary to it. All agents ofMarimpex or its subsidiary companies are alsoforbidden from discharging or loading crude oil fromNigeria.[Letter of the Embassy of Nigeria to the Netherlands to the Shipping ResearchBureau, 14 February 1989.1During the period between late 1980 (when the firstMarimpex shipment was discovered) and the beginning of 1990, research by theShippingResearch Bureau shows that Marimpex has suppliedSouth Africa with at least 33 oil cargoes.Even leaving aside unidentified Marimpex shipments by tankers chartered fromother shipowners, periods of faulty reporting with regard to the movements oftankers owned by the company itself may accountfor more than a tripling of the number of oildeliveries by Marimpex during the period 1983-early1990. The total volume of oil delivered may be asmuch as 9.5-10.5million tons, which means that atleast 10-11 per cent of South Africa's estimatedcrude oil import needs during that period may havebeen covered by supplies made by this singlecompany.management of a number of Marimpex-owned tankers was placed with theNorwegian shipping company Fearnley& Eger A/S until this arrangement had to

be terminated when Norwegian law prohibited the further involvement of thatcompany in oil transports to South Africa.5An oil-exporting country which is one of the most outspoken proponents of astrict oil embargoagainst South Africa, Nigeria, boycotted Marimpex in 1984.Another oil-exporting country, which has close links with Marimpex, Iran, has todate failed to take the same step.16African Middle East Petroleum CompanyFor the period from early 1988 to early 1990, the Shipping Research Bureau hasidentified 15 oil deliveries to South Africa from Egypt. The companyAfricanMiddle East Petroleum Company Ltd. Inc. wasthe last-known owner oftheshipments. These 15 oil deliveries amounted to some 3.4 million tons ofoil,equivalent to 11 per cent of South Africa's need for imported crudeoil.12. A minority interest of 30 per cent of Sucden is held by the KuokGroup(Hong Kong).13. Lloyd's List, U.K., 7 November 1989. 14. See also: Marimpev -A German OilSupplier to South Africa. ShippingResearch Bureau survey, updated edition, Amsterdam 1989 (the 1985 edition hasbeen translated into German as: Marimpex liefert 01, epdEntwicklungspolitik:Materialien IV/86, Frankiurt/M, FRG, 1986), pp.15ff; Shipping Research Bureau, South Africa's Lifeline, Amsterdam1986, p. 76.15. 'As a result of Norwegian legislation prohibiting relationship withvessels/companies trading to South Africa after 20th July 1987, ourAfrican Middle East is a private and limited company, incorporated inPanama in1987. The company is owned by two Egyptian nationals, living in Cairo, MrFakhry Abdelnour and his brother Mr Mounir Abdelnour. Mr Fakhry Abdelnouris apparently the company's senior principal and major shareholder. Theregistration of the company in Panama is a formality. Day-to-day business isconducted from theconsulrtancy agreements were terminated, and we have not beeninvolved with these vessels I Rafio, Dorian] since." Letter from FearnleyEt Eger A/S to Shipping Research Bureau, 31 January 1990. During1987 1989, the movements of the Marimpex-owned tankers Dorian andAzuro showed a similar pattern as that of the Ratio mentioned above.16. WhenMarimpex in 1989, under the aegis of Sucden and CrhditLyonnais, concluded the largest ever contract to lift Iranian oil (300,000barrels a day over a period of 18 months, representing one-seventhof Iran's totalcrude sales), it was rumoured in the international oil marketthat part of the oil was destined for South Africa. The Independent,U. K, 8 December 1989.

20 Main Companiescompany's offices in Monaco and Geneva (Switzerland). African MiddleEastspecialises in marketing surplus Egyptian oil and oil from Qatar on the spotmarket. The marketing of surplus Egyptian oil is based on a contract the companyseems to have with the Egyptian national oil company EGPC. Various sources

within the international oil industry have described the role of AfricanMiddleEast as the major channel through which theEgyptian national oil company discreetly sells its surplus production of crude oilat market prices. Indeed, African Middle East has been describedas 'a sort ofmarketing arm for the Egyptian Government, but on an arm's-lengthbasis'.Apparently, quitea fewof thesespot cargoesof surplus Egyptiancrude oil havefound their way to South Africa, despite the official Egyptian embargoon oildeliveries to South Africa.Bergesen d.y. A/S'An essential aspect of our South Africa trade was that we could keepour shipsemployed. Thus we could avoid waiting longer periods fornew cargoes. Income tothe company in this connection probably amounted to some 100 million Crownsover a four-year period". 7As from 20 July 1987 Norwegian law prohibits crude oil transports to SouthAfrica by Norwegian tankers. Deliveries by tankers of the Norwegian shippingcompany Bergesen -once the main oil transporter to South Africa18- had alreadybeen decreasing for some time. However, during the lastfour months before theban was introduced, Bergesen tankers showed asudden upsurge in activity in this respect: six deliveries supplied South Africawith more than a third of its need for imported oil. Sincethe Norwegianban oncrude oil transports to South Africa came into effect, no crude oildeliveries byBergesen tankers have been identified by the Shipping Research Bureau.Bergesen combined carriers continue to call at South Africa in connection withdry bulk trade.Between January 1979 and July 1987, Bergesen vessels made at least 37 oildeliveries to South Africa. The total cargo capacity of the 37 tankers was about7.7 million tons.World-Wide Shipping Group - The major oil transporter to South Africa"Decidedly the greatest weakness of the Norwegian IntemationalShipsRegisteristhe prohibition against sailing to South Africa. Today foreigners - not in the leastChinese have taken over that part of the trade in which we used to be involved" "In the above statement, the chairman of Bergesen, the main oil transporter toSouth Africa over a prolonged period, points out that Hong Kong tankers havefilled the gap created by the discontinuation of oil transport by Norwegiantankers. The World-Wide Shipping Group is paramount among thosecompaniesprofiting from the bans imposed by law by shipping nations whose companiesused to be heavily involved in oil transports to South Africa.Based on the number of oil deliveries identified and the volume of oiltransportedto South Africa, the World-Wide Shipping17. Petter C.G Sundt, Chairman of the Board of Bergesen d.y. A/S,in:Dagens Naeringsliv, Norway, 2 November 1987 1100m NorwegianCrowns: appr, US $ 15,5m).18. Shipping Research Bureau, Oil shipments to South Africa by tankersowned and managed by Sig. Bergesen d.y. & Co. of Norway (Jan.1979-Jan. 1985), survey, Amsterdam July 1985; Oil to South Africa,op. cit., p. 18,

Group has now become the major oil transporter to South Africa. Between April1979 and December 1989, at least 46 deliveries were made by World-Widetankers. If all tankers delivered a full cargo of oil, they have delivered some 10.7million tons of oil to South Africa.Whileonlya few, occasional, deliverieswere identified until mid1986, theinvolvement of World-Wide tankers shows a sudden increase from October 1986onwards. At that time, it became clear that in future South Africa could no longerrely on Norwegian tankers for the country's crude oil imports. Of the 46 deliveriesidentified, 41 have been made since October 1986. These 41 deliveries involvedapproximately9.9million tons of oil. This volume represents about22percent ofSouth Africa's estimated need for imported crude oil between October 1986 andDecember 1989.2019. Petter C.G. Sundt in Skip & Sje, Norway, February 1988. 20. Various World-Wide tankers show a number of voyages that are eitherwrongly reported or not reported at all for which a final destination in South Afiica cannot be positively ruled out. These voyages may verywell push up secret oil deliveries to South Africa by the World-WideShipping group to a volume representing almost a quarter of thecountry's import needs during the period.

Main Companies 21Reaction by the company"Oil deliveries by World-Wide tankers to South Africa are nothing secret andform part of the company's international business. (...) Any ship that is fixed tocharter can take goods toanywherein the world. There is nothingunderhandaboutus shipping oil to South Africa".2In the past world-Wide Shipping used to respond to thepreliminary research findings and queries submitted to them by the ShippingResearch Bureau prior to the publication of reports. Since it has become clear thatthe company has involved itself heavily in transporting embargoed oil to SouthAfrica after October 1986, no reponses have been received. On theoccasion ofthe release of the Shipping Research Bureau's survey on the company in April1989,2' executives in Hong Kong and the U.S.A. acknowledged their company'sinvolvement in oil transports to South Africa to the press.2-London-based Greek shipping companiesDuring the period from 1979 to early 1990, Greek companies were involved in noless than 77 oil shipments to South Africa identified by the Shipping ResearchBureau.24 Until the mid-1980s, a relatively large number of Greek shippingcompanies were involved, most of them accounting for a single cargo. In contrast,in 1986 these transports became almost entirely concentrated in thehands of afew Greek shipping groups, all of which conduct much of their commercialbusiness from offices in London in the United Kingdom. As is shownin Table 7,five companies account for 38 of the 40 deliveries so far identified for the period1986-1990. Three of these companies had already delivered at least nine cargoesbefore 1986, two others have become active only since 1987 and 1989,respectively.

Since the London- based Greek shipping groups came to the fore prominently in1986 and 1987 - the years in which laws banning crude oil transports on Danishand Norwegian tankers came into force - the role of Greek tankers in oil deliveriesto South Africa has increased considerably. While 32 Greek ships delivered some3.9 million tons of crude oil during the seven-year period 1979-1985,40 Greekships delivered some9.6million tons during the four yearssince 1986. After theWorld-Wide Shipping Group of Hong Kong, these London-based Greek shippingcompanies are now the major oil transporters to South Africa.G.R Livanos/Carras GroupThe G.P. Livanos/Carras Group were the owners and operators of the tankersCaptain John G.P. Livanos, Faroship L., Fellowship L., Flagship L., FortuneshipL., Freedomship L. and21. Mr R.J. Allen of World-Wide Shipping in South China Morning Post,Hong Kong, 2 April 1989.22. World-Wide Shipping Group. A Hong Kong Oil Shipper Comes toSouth Africa's Rescue, Shipping Research Bureau survey, AmsterdamApril 1989.23. For Hong Kong: South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, 2 and 5 April1989. In Platt's Week, U.S.A., No. 16, 24 April 1989, Mr T. Liu ofWorld-Wide's U.S. office acknowledged that "some ofhis company'stankers deliver to South Africa, but lhe said] this is a matter for thecharterers".24. In all but a few cases, tankers owned and/or managed by Greekshipping companies (two-thirds of them also sailing under the Greek flag)transported a cargo of crude oil to South Africa In one case, aTable 7: Crude oil deliveries to South Africa by Greekshipping companies identified since 1979company total 1979- volume 1986ff volume1985 (m/n t (m/n tLivanos/Carras 16 4 0.5 12 3.0C.M. Lemos 14 2 0.2 12 3.0Hadjipateras 7 3 0.4 4 1.2Kulukundis 6 - 6 1.5Embiricos 4 4 0.6subtotal 47 9 1.1 38 9.315 other Greek shipping companies TOTAL25 23 2.92 0.372 32 3.9 40 9.6Friendship L. which together made at least twelve oil deliveries to South Africabetween May 1986 and January 1988. The quantity of oil involved was about 3million tons. Before that period, the vessels Captain John G. P Livanos andFilikon L. had made four deliveries. This brings the total number ofidentifiedcrude oil deliveries by Livanos/Carras vessels since 1979 to 16."

The three main companies around which the Livanos/Carras conglomerate is builtare: Unisea Ltd. in London, and Carras (Hellas) Ltd. and Ceres Hellenic ShippingEnterprises Ltd., bothGreek oil company was the owner of an oil cargo delivered to SouthAfrica; two vessels sailed to South Africa carrying petroleum products refined bya Greek refining company (Appendix I, Table H cases 3 and15). In two recent cases, a Greek-owned tanker delivered gasoline toSouth Africa (Table H, cases 8 and 17).The published reports on the movements of many Greek tankers aremarkedly deficient. A South African destination could not be positivelyruled out for at least 60 other voyages by Greek tankers which wereinvestigatedby the Shipping Research Bureau since 1982 but whichare not listed in the Bureau's reports.25. Furthermore, the Livanos/Carras Group accounts for about 25 of the60 possible additional crude oil deliveries by Greek tankers referred to innote 24.

22 Main Companiesbased in Piraeus. Ceres Hellenic Shipping Enterprises Ltd. is the managingcompany of the tankers delivering crude oil to South Africa.C.M. LemosC.M. Lemos Ltd. and its Piraeus-based operating company NereusShipping S.A.own and manage the tankers Ethnic and Patriotic. Thesetankers made 8 and 4 oildeliveries, respectively, to South Africa between May/June 1986 and March 1989,amounting to some 3 million tons of oil.26Hadjipateras GroupMrJohn Hadjipateras of the Hadjipateras Group is the Chairman of the London-based Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, in which Greek shipownersoperating from London meet to discusstheirmutual concerns. The HadjipaterasGroupoperates from the offices of its agent in the United Kingdom, PeninsularMaritime Ltd. In Piraeus, the Group's main operating company is Dorian (Hellas)S.A.The total number of oil deliveries to South Africa since mid-1981 by tankers ofthe Group is at least seven, involving some 1.6 million tons of oil.27Kulukundis GroupThe Kulukundis Group is a conglomerate of companies consisting of Rethymnis& Kulukundis Ltd., London & Overseas Freighters Ltd. and Off Shore OilServices (U.K.) Ltd., all based in London, and a number of companies based inPiraeus, Kassos Maritime Enterprises Ltd., Saipan Steamship Corp.and PegasusMaritime Enterprises Ltd. The Group's supertanker Pacificos is involved in a'shuttle' to South Africa, delivering crude oil from the Persian Gulf and the RedSea area. After one oil delivery to South Africa in 1987, the vessel deliveredatleast four more oil cargoes to South Africa in the relatively short period betweenNovember 1988 and JulyIn October 1989, the Pacificos suddenly acquired agaping hole, 22 metres long and 11 metres wide,

while sailing off South Africa. Ostensibly, she wason a voyage from Saudi Arabia to Brazil. Some 8,000 tons of crude oilleaked intothe sea. Theowners took elaborate precautions not to call at anySouth African port for transfer of the cargo.Eventually, the cargo was lightered into the tankerHenrique Dias in the Mozambique Channel. The Henrique Dias then delivered thecargo to Brazil.After provisional repairs in Durban (South Africa),the Pacificos headed for Dubai U.A.E.) fordrydocking. After completion of the repair work, she resumed her oil transports toSouth Africa. In March1990, the Pacificos secretly discharged another cargo of oil into the Single PointMooring Buoyabout five kilometres off Durban.291989.28 After an interruption forced by problems which the ship encountered offthe South African coast in October 1989, the Pacificos resumed herSouth Africanshuttle in March 1990. The six deliveries by the Pacificos identifiedso far amountto about1.5 million tons of oil.Embiricos ShippingIn 1989-1990 the shipping company Embiricos Shipping (London)/BuenamarCompania Naviera (Piraeus) came to the fore with four oil deliveriesto SouthAfrica by the combined carrier Batis. After delivering each oil cargo, the shipcollected a cargo of South African iron ore for the Far East. Combined carriersbelonging to the company had also occasionally called at South Africanports inearlier years.Leif Hoegh E Co. A/SOnce again, Norwegian shipping companies figure prominently in theShippingResearch Bureau's lists of companies breaking the oil embargo against SouthAfrica. First among these is the company of Leif Hoegh & Co. fromOslo. InNovember 1989, a surge in shipments of refined products by vessels owned andoperated by Leif Heegh was disclosed on Norwegian state television.Fortheveryfirsttime, a TV crew had been able to catch a vessel in the actof loadingoil for South Africa. The bulk/oil carrier Hoegh Foam was filmed early Novemberin the Dutch port of Amsterdam while loading 65,00026 In the same period, the two tankers made seven additional voyagesforwhich a South African destination could not be positively ruled out icfnote 24)27 During 1986 1988, the Shipping Research Bureau found ten additionalvoyages by Hadlipateras tankers for which a South African destinationcould not be positively ruled out icf note 24)tonnes of gasoline, to be delivered in South Africa. One day after the departure ofthe Hoegh Foam, the chief executive officer of Leif Hoegh, Mr Ragnar Belck-Olsen, confirmed on TV that a number of his ships had been in South Africa inthe past few months. "Transporting refinedproducts to South Africa is not against

the Norwegian law. We live up to the Norwegian regulations. If the authorities aregoing to require a different position from Norwegian shipowners, we will as amatter of course also comply with that".3"Even if no Norwegian law was broken by these transports, this28. In fact, the total number of deliveries in 1987-1989 may be as high as 12(cf. note 24).29 Lloyd's List, U.K., 6,7,9 and 30 October 1990; South African ShippingNews andFishing Industry Review, South Africa, October andDecember 1989.30. NRK T\V News, Norway, 11 November 1989.

Main Companies 23was not necessarily true for the embargo regulations of other countries. Hoeghvessels have shipped cargoes of petroleum products to South AfricafromScandinavian and other countries which do have a full embargo on tradewithSouth Africa."1 Vessels owned or managed by Leif Hoegh may haveshippedrefined petroleum products totalling at least some 440,000 tonsto South Africaovera period of just 7 monthssince August 1989. The products delivered includegasoline, gasoil and jet fuel. On the return trips these combined carriers werealways used to transport South African coal from Richards Bay to variousEuropean destinations.Heegh vessels were identified as transporters of crude oil to South Africa severaltimes in the early 1980s. After a rather lengthy period during which thecompanyhad apparently withdrawn from the South African trade, its involvement sharplyexpanded in the second half of 1989. The Heegh fleet of ore/bulk/ore carriers isprimarily involved in the carriage of petroleum products from the Mediterraneanto the U.S. Gulf, and of coal orgrain to Europe on the return voyage. But they hadalready resumed calling at South African ports in 1988, mostly in order to collectcargoes of coal and iron ore. "'However," the company's director wrote to theShipping Research Bureau, "we can confirm that some of the vessels operated byour company have been in South Africa during 1988 and 1989, deliveringpetroleum products".32 The Shipping Research Bureau has identified oilshipments to Durban by Hoeghcontrolled vessels from August 1989 onwards.After having gone through a difficult period, Leif Heegh was relieved to reportbuoyant results over 1989. Reviewing the fourth quarter, Heegh announced thatvessel operations had produced a higher profit than expected. "The positive trendfor its Panamax OBO vessels (...) continued".33Table 8 Leif Hoegh vessels in South Africa 1979-1990 Crude oil deliveries:HOEGH ROVER KONKAR DINOS HOEGH HILL HOEGH FOUNTAINMOBIL WESER HOEGH FOAM HOEGH FORTUNAApr May 80 Dec 80 Jan 81 Sep81 May 82 Dec82 Jne,Jly 1983 Nov Dec 83Brunei The Netherlands The Netherlands Brunei The Netherlands Brunei BruneiCalls by combined carriers at South African ports mainly for dry bulktrade (listedsince Jan 84):HOEGH HILL HOEGH FULMAR HOEGH FULMAR HOEGH FORUMHOEGH FOUNTAIN HOEGH FAVOUR HOEGH FORUM

Feb 84 Apr 84 Aug 84 Apr 88 Apr 88 Oct 88 Mar 89Some recent petroleum products deliveries:JARAMA *HOEGH FOUNTAINHOEGH FOAM AMBIA FAIR HOEGH FOAM HOEGH FALCON Timecharterto Leif Heegh.Aug/Sep 89 The Netherlandsand PortugalOct 89 Denmark/Swedenand the Netherlands Oct 89 RomaniaOct 89 GreeceNov89 The NetherlandsApr 90 The Netherlands31. Seep. 1112,32. Letter Leif Heegh t Co. A;S to Shipping Research Bureau, 7 February1990.33. Lloyd's List, U.K., 9 January 1990.

24

Effects of the Embargo 25Effects of the Oil Embargo on South AfricaOil is without doubt South Africa'sAchilles'heelfrom the point ofview of itsdependence on the international community. Oil is the only strategic raw materialnot found in exploitable quantities, yet it is vital for the South African economyand for its military and police forces.South Africa has to import at least 75 per cent of its needs for liquid fuel - onaverage about 14 million tons of crude oil yearly- from overseas by means of large oil tankers. The greater part of the oil isdischarged at the Single Point Mooring Buoy about five kilometres off Durban onthe east coast. Oil is also discharged at Cape Town and Saldanha Bayon thesouthwest coast of South Africa.The remaining 20-25 percent of the country's fuel needs iscovered by thesynthetic fuel production of the SASOL plants, in whichindigenouscoal isconverted bya costly process into liquid fuels. In1992, the firstfuel is expected to flow from the Mossel Bay fuel-from-gas project,which ispresently under construction. It will reduce South Africa's requirement forimported oil by ten per cent at the most. The country has spent large sums ofmoney on oil exploration, mainly offshore, without making any economicallyexploitable oil finds. The South African government has also tried to reduce itsdependence on crude oil imports by reorganising its total energy consumption.Where possible, oil has been replaced by coal and nuclear energy. The use of oilhas been confined to those areas where it cannot be replaced by any other fuel.South Africa's strategy to counter the oil embargoSouth Africa's quest for oil South Africa has searched extensively for oil, onshoreas well as offshore, through its state-controlled exploration company Southern Oil

Exploration Corporation (SOEKOR). Since SOEKOR was founded in 1965, it hasdrilled at more than 150 sites. Although these searches have had little success, thecompany has always remained extremely optimistic about its oil search activities,reportedly moving from one'promising'drilling site to the next. However, only afew of the sites have yielded any oil at all and none, so far, in economicallyexploitable quantities. SOEKOR has spent at least R 900 million on theseactivities.SOEKOR's latest 'promising' sites are three offshore oil wells in the BredasdorpBasin, southeast of Cape Town, 120 kilometres off the coast of Mossel Bay. TheSouth African mining house Gencor has a twenty per cent interest inthis project.The combined flow of oil from these wells could be some 22,000 barrels per day,equivalent to seven to eight per cent of South Africa's total oil imports. However,a major exploitation problem forSOEKOR isthatthe wells are not economicallyviable ontheir own. To obtain the oil from the wells, which are separated from oneanother bysometen kilometres, SOEKORwould havetouse a floating productionplatform or deploy small tankers. As always, the company is extremelyconfidentthat the results are "themostpromising(.. . )achievedsofar"and optimistic reportscontinue to appear.1In 1989, it took from early July to September for a tanker1. Lloyd's List, U.K., 7 November 1988.2. Cape Times, South Africa, 7 July 1989; Sunday Times, South Africa,chartered by SOEKOR to pump up a mere 40,000 tons of oil from one ofthewells,beforethefirst authentic South African oil could be brought ashore to be processedby one of the refineries at Durban or Cape Town.2 On a visit in September 1989to the rig Omega, which drilled the wells together with the rigActinia, the thenMinister of Mining and Energy Affairs Mr Danie Steyn stated that hopesto strikea viable oil source were increasing.3 Similar optimistic noteswerestruck by MrSteyn'ssuccessor, Mr Dawie de Villiers, who in March 1990 announced thatSOEKOR had drilled at three more sites in the Bredasdorp Basin whichshowed"goodsigns"of oil and gas. In all, twelve boreholes have been drilled by SOEKORin the area. According to Minister De Villiers three of them could be "classified aspotentially27 August 1989; The Citizen, South Africa, 15 September 1989.3. The Citizen, South Africa, 15 September 1989.

26 Effects of the EmbargoWells drilled by the SOEKOR -owned rigs Actinia and Omega in the BredasdorpBasin1. Well E-AA! discovered March 1987 3,000-5,000 b ddrilled by Actinia2. Well E-ADI discovered March 1988 6,000-7,000 bddrilled by Actinta3. Well E-ARt discovered November 1988 10,000 bddrilled by Omega4. location5. not yet

6. made publicTOTALreservesdiscovered 1989/1990not yet made public19,000-22,000 b/dcommercial oil strikes, while good signs of oiland gas were to be found in threeother boreholes" He furthermore announced that SOEKOR is aiming atdiscovering more oil wells, with the intention to produce oil by 1992.'SOEKOR is the ultimate owner of the rigs Actinia and Omega, drilling in theBredasdorp Basin, and the Nymphea which drilled off the South African coastuntil 1988 (seediagram on page27).Mossel Bay fuel-from-gas projectAnother project aiming to reduce the country's crude oil imports isthe Mossel Bayfuel-from -gas project. It is the country'slargest industrial project and has beenunder construction since 1987, when the government approved of the project afteryears of deliberation and evaluation. The approval was not based on economicgrounds but on strategic considerations only, its purpose beingto make thecountry less dependent on the import of oil. The cost of the project, initiallycalculated at R 5,500 million, hasalreadysoaredto at least R8,500million. Itwouldnot be surprising if the total cost will reach R 10,000 million by the time theproject is completed.Itwasclear fromthestart that expertiseand technology provided byforeign firmswould be indispensable for this first giant offshore operation. Quitea numberofEuropean companies, mainly from the United Kingdom and West Germany, havebeen involved in the project. These companies participate in joint ventures withSouth African firms or have been subcontracted by them. Apparently, allcontracts awarded to foreign suppliers include clauses which require thesecompanies to seek countertrade opportunities with South Africa as a means of4 The Star, South Africa, 20 March 19905 Shipping Research Bureau, Oil to South Africa, 1988, pp 23ff, irem.Kudu South African development of Namibia's gas deposits torepayment. The countertrade scheme is being orchestrated by MARCOSA, anindependent body set up by Mossgas atd Gencor.The offshore part of the project consists of the platform which willextract the gasfrom the wells. Two pipelines of 85 kilometres will carry gas and condensatefrom the platform to the onshore refinery. Here the gas will be converted intoliquid fuel. The Fischer-Tropsch process, which is also used at theSASOLsynthetic fuel plants, will be used for the conversion. This process was originallydeveloped in the 1930s in Nazi Germany by the chemical firm IG Farben. Theexpected 25,000 barrels per day will be produced at a ratio of 53 per cent petroland 47 per cent diesel The planned capacity of the refinery is 50,000 barrels aday.The Namibian Kudu gasfieldUntil Namibia's independence, South Africa had hopes that it wouldbe able toreduce its dependence on crude oil imports by obtaining fuel from the Kudu

gasfield. The reserves of this field, which is situated about 120 kilometres off theNamibian coast, have been estimated to be between three andeight times the gasreserves of Mossel Bay. Since the end of 1987 the SOEKORcontrolled Namibianexploration company SWAKOR conducted drilling activities in the offshorefield. 'SASOLTo date, only one project has succeeded in reducing the country's dependence onoil imports to a certain extent: the production of synthetic fuel at the SASOLplants near Johannesburg. SASOL One, Two and Three were built tocurcumuvent thie oil ernhariqo, paper, 1988 Since its independenc'eNamibia is iinv stlgatinl furlher exploiiation possl) ilities

Effects of the Embargo 27FIRSTNATIONAL NEDBANK BANK(Barclays)100% loan to 100% loan toacquire rigs acquire rigs100% SOEKOR 10000Nymphea \\ Actinia Omegas1982) ubs(1982) (1987)NYMP.EA CORP. ACTNA CORP.(Liberian reg.) (\_Lib_erian re.)S100%sold subsidiary s~'VGLAC BAYWOOLF ROCK GLAIEPIAY SOEKOR INFANTASHIPPINGNRP. A (Pty) Ltd. CORP.CR.(Rep. South Africa) (Liberian reg.)(Liberian reg.) sub-contract sub-contractday to day day to daymanagement managementsub-contractsome/all worktechnologicalknow-how<= Financial links= Business links FORAMER= Company links (France)The companies Glace BayShipping Corporation and Woolf and their subsidiariesagainst any potential loss. Rock Shipping Corporation are financing organisationsThe oil rig Omega was purchased by SOEKOR (Actinia which were set upspecifically to acquire the oil rigs Corp.) in 1987. The Nymphea andthe Actinia

were built by Nymphea and Actinia on behalf of SOEKOR at the HitachiZosen, Ariaki Works in Japan in 1982. The Omegabeginning of the 1980s, Apparently the loans provided at was boughtfrom theNorwegian firm Dyvi Offshore Ltd. in the time by Barclays and Nedbank, werereplaced by loans 1987. Theconstruction of the rig wasby C.N.IM. inFranceprovided by SOEKOR. SOEKOR has indemnified the banks in 1983.

28 Effects of the Embargoconvert coal to liquid fuel by the Fischer-Tropsch process. Theproduction ofsynthetic fuel is presently performed by SASOL Two and Three. SASOL One,constructed in 1955, started running down its output of synthetic fuel at the end of1988 and ceased production of it in April 1990.No official data are available on SASOL's output capacity, as all South Africanenergy figures are considered a state secret under the Petroleum Products Act.Estimates range from 55,000 to 78,000 barrels per day. An operational estimate ofsome 70,000Foreign firms involved in the Mossel Bay project:Davy Corporation U.K.Crawford Et Russell / John Brown Group U.K.Brown E Root UK. / Halliburton Co. U.S.A.Northern Engineering Industries (NEI) U.K.Howden Group U.K.ICI U.K.Humphries E Glasgow U.K. / Enserch CorporationU.S.A.Kleinwort Benson U.K.Lurgi / Metallgesellschaft FR.G.Hoechst FR.G.Linde FR.G.Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft FR.G.Offshore Supply Association (OSA) U.K. / PreussagFR.G.VTG / Preussag FR.G.Entreprise Travaux P6troliers Maritimes FranceAllseas Engineering The NetherlandsPhilips The NetherlandsVan Leeuwen Buizen The NetherlandsSmit-Lloyd The NetherlandsKahn Scheepvaart The NetherlandsJumbo Shipping Co. Switzerland Dietsmann International BelgiumOil rigs controlled by the following companies have been involvedinthe searchforoiloff theSouthAfrican coast for SOEKOR (and, in the past, in gas drilling offthe Namibian coast for South African-controlledSWAKOR):Foramer / Forasol France - jointly owned by:Soletanche France

Ackermans Et Van Haaren BelgiumIndustrieele Handels Combinatie (IHC) The Netherlands (sold its share to itspartners in 1989)6. The methanol project, the larger of the two, was a joint venturebetween AECI, South Africa's largest diversified chemical group,and the AngloAmerican Coal Corporation (AMCOAL). The methanol wasbarrels per day seems justified. This amount could reduce the country's imports byat most 20-25 per cent. The cessation of synfuel production by SASOL One doesnot seem to have affected SASOL's total output. SASOLs oldest plant has hardlyproduced any synthetic fuel in recent years. Instead, production has been focussedon other chemical products. However, the total synfuel output was affected bytwo fires which occurred at SASOL Three and Two in January and May1989respectively. The fires caused severe personal and material damage. Both plantswere out of action for several months. By mid-1990 their production was stillbelow capacity.The process applied at the SASOL plants to convert coal into liquid fuel is a verycostly one. The price at which SASOL produces liquid fuel is estimated at US $75 per barrel of oil equivalent, which is far above current world market prices.Furthermore, high investments would be necessary to maintain the productioncapacity which has been declining considerably over the years owing to fallingthermal efficiency of the plants. Therefore it is not likely that SASOL couldreduce South Africa's need for imported liquid fuel any further.Plans to buildanother SASOL plant have been shelved.Other synthetic fuel projects For a time, Mossgas and SASOL seemed toremainthe only government-backed synthetic fuel projects. In November 1989 thegovernment announced that it had dropped two other projects thathad beenwaiting for approval since 1987. One was based on producing methanol fromcoal, the other on the recovery of oil from torbanite. The government's reason fordropping the projects was scarcity of capital and low oil prices.6However, thisdid not herald a change in South Africa's policyon synthetic fuel.On the eve of South Africa's parliamentary elections in September1989, thegovernment approved in principle a third project. This project aims at theproduction of ethanol from sugar. Since, at mid-1990, no furtherprogress hasbeen made towards the realisation of the project it would not be surprising if itended up on the same shelf as the two other synfuel projects.The strategic stockpile of oilTo counter the devastating effects of a possible total oil cut-off, theSouth Africangovernment has built up a stockpile of oil which could cover the country's totalfuel consumption for several months. The exact size of the stockpile is not knownbut it is now assumed that it could meet a loss of imports of about 6 months. At amaximum, South Africa's reserve could be somewhere between fifty and sixtymillion barrels, or 7 to 8 million tonnes.The stockpile of oil is stored in huge underground bunkers,to have been converted for use in vehicle engines using specialadditives developed by AECl The torbanite project was backed by theGencor Mining Group.

Effects of the Embargo 29SOUTH AFRICAN OIL/FUEL INFRASTRUCTURENamibia-JRefineryStorage unit Conversion plant Planned conversion plantP. 1 1 1 1 \Oil-intake harbour Product pipeline . Saldanha BayCrude oil pipeline Cape International boundary Town National capitalmostly converted mines. The bulk of the oil can be found in the industrial anddemographical heartland of the country, in Transvaal and Natal. In addition, oil isstored in large steel tanks near South Africa's major towns and refineries iseeTable 9).There seemsto be no significant storage of dieseloil. The SASOL plants producemore petrol than diesel. However, it is precisely diesel that SouthAfricantransport, agriculture, industry, and the military and police forces need more.7........i o~......... . .wt',,.0 WitbarrkJan & ilOeJOHANNESBURGi ,S11nuts Kii O . /Langlaagte Alrode A. . M.b.p" 0 MaaneO H N N_ U R /rPotchefstroom rn.. .Heidelberg SWAZILANDKlerksdorp - a r " S rton SWA ZIANS6 _ " " Vred, Volksrust _J .WVEtKOM Newcastle cheepersnrekMagdala Bethlehem /V.dl I/ Lidysith Mahlab ...eVan Reenen / ISdslh\Empanrgenrt R.ich,BLOEMFONTEIN / , ^/oMaseru .LESOTHO b r,BOTSWANAGabor30"0SOUTH AFRICA

30 Effects of the EmbargoMossel Bay fuel-from-gas project - Facts and figures+ Location: F A gasfield, 85 kilornetres off MosselBay on the south coast of South Africa (about100 kis from Bredasdorp Basin)

* First gas deposits discovered by SOEKOR in 1980 + Government approval oftihe project February 1987 + Project planned to be completed by end1991 beginning 1992+ Reserves: 28,000-34,000 million in gas* Production: 25,000 b d (53 per cent petrol, 47 percent diesel) during 30 years + Costs: R 8,500-10,000 million+ Owner and developer Mossgas (Pty) Ltd.:Central Energy Fund (government-controlled):50 per centGencor (private enterprise): 30 per centIndustrial Development Corporation: 20 per cent+ Financers of the project:Mossgas IPty) Ltd.: 40 per centCentral Energy Fund: 40 percent (soft loans)exports credits: 20 per cent+ General project manager: Engen (Gencor)+ Offshore part (Mossgas) -Project managers:Engineering Management Services Offshore (EMSO), a consortium of the SouthAfricancompany Murray Et Roberts (60 per cent) andthe British company Crawford Et Russell, anoffshoot of the John Brown Group (part ofTrafalgar House): 40 per cent+ Detailed design for Mossgas supplied by:Offshore Design Services (ODS), a joint venture of the South African companiesEdward L. Bateman and LBD Engineering and the British firm Brown EtRoot, asubsidiary ofthe U.S. engineering firm Halliburton Company* Onshore part (Mossref) -Projectmanagement:Edward L. Bateman (South Africa)Dave McKee S.A., part of the British DavyCorporationSouth Africa's counterstrategy under attack South Afr a's energypolicyparticularly the Mossgasprojecthas to endurc a lot of internal critic sm from the press, fiom the parliamentaryopposition and from synthetic fuel incustry experts.As early as March 1987, the business weekly Financial Mail called theMossgasproject a "bubble of euphoria". In May 1988 the same weekly said "The overallconclusion is simple. it is not too late to put the Mossgas prolect on ice". 'A yearlater the project was even more vehemently crintcised, when press reports quotedenergy experts according to whoni it was a giant economic disaster and 'a rip-off"from beginning to end. The South African newspaper The Star reported "ThewholeprolectTable 9 Oil storage locations in South Africalocations

Transvaal:Kendal Ogles (3-5 converted coal mines)Ferrobank (one converted coal mine)Orange Free State.near Vrede(probably a blasted out underground chamber)Cape Province:near Saldanha Bay (underground storage)estimated amount18 million barrels (2 2.5 mln tons) of crude oil and products10-12 million barrels (1-1.5 mln toils) of oil products (presumablypetrol)10-12 million barrels (appr. 1.5 rnln tons) of oil products4 million barrels (0,5 mln tons) of crude oilAll provinces:steel tank farms near towns and refineries TOTAL12.5 million barrels (1.5-2 mln tons)54.5-58.5 million barrels (7-8 mln tons)Source Dr Paul Conl1i11 See also SRB Newsletter Nos 10, Jaiuary 1988. iand 19,u n mlurir 19909 Fin, .... il jii Souh Afilu i 13 May 19887 Sran not 6 Soinipii, 108 Fwaf,mc if Wd, South Afc, 5 W, 198/

Effects of the Embargo 31looks economically speaking sick, producing an estimated 25,000 barrels of fuel aday for R 5,500 million, when overseas they can construct one thatproduces100,000 barrels a day for less than R 100 million". "In March 1990, the former head of Research and Development of SASOL, Mr JanHoogendoorn, suggested that the Mossgas project, which he called "shooting amidge with a cannon", should be scrapped. This would save the country R 3,500million."Another former SASOL employee, presently a senior lecturer at theWitwatersrand University, described the project as "a disgraceful and deplorabledisaster" which would never show a profit. He said that the savings in foreignexchange, which he estimated to be some R 14,000 million, would barelyoutweigh the rands spent on the project. Officially, foreign exchange savings dueto Mossgas have been calculated at R 120,000 million.12In Parliament, the opposition Democratic Party called the projectthe "biggesteconomic liability left over from the PW Botha era." According to the party'sspokesperson for energy affairs, Mr Roger Hulley, Mossgas wasa great expenseat a time when the country could least afford it. On an earlier occasion, Mr Hulleyhad said that the project made sense "only as a siege decision. If wewere anormal society we wouldn't be taking these steps".3SASOL is also criticised. In March 1990, the South African WeeklyMailsaid thatif the oil embargo against South Africawas lifted, the country wouldbe left withtwo enormous white elephants: SASOL and Mossgas. SASOL could never havesucceeded without government protection.4

"Might the elimination of apartheid not have openedup word oil supplies at a far lower price, allowng the country to develop moreviable resources? It isno accident that the huge SASOL plants haven'tbeen matched in other countries. They had no needto tie up huge sums of development capital in such projects when cheaper fuelsources were available.Mossel Bay's degree of viability is related to thecountry's isolation"[The Star, South Africa, 20 February 1987.1The millions of rands "squandered on building up the country's strategic reservesof oil"'5 have also aroused questions. Oil worth hundreds of millions of dollars istied up in the stockpile, the only purpose of which is to counter a possible oil cut-off."A recurring topic in South Africa's energy discussion is the amount of moneyspent on the country's oil purchases. In 1989, Mr Malcomess of the ProgressiveFederal Party (now part of the Democratic Party) stated in Parliament "When thefull story of South Africa's oil purchases is known, we willfind that enormousfortunes have been made"."The continual increases in petrol prices have also been under fire. In Parliamentthe Democratic Party claimed that the South Africans were paying a politicalprice for the high cost of petrol and that the petrol price would continue to rise aslong as there was no majority government." The government has also beenpressed to reveal petrol price investigations.9Official secrecy and draconian legislationThe oil industry is well protected in South Africa by numerous laws. They make itillegal for anyone to disclose information on oil-related matters. People infringingthese laws face heavy fines and possible jail-terms. Oil companies are strictlyregulated. South African law prescribes the manner in which they may produce,transport, distribute and price their products. Regulations govern everything, fromthe number of service stations a company is permitted to open, to whether acompany must maintainitsown securityforcesto protect itfrom sabotage.10. The Star, South Africa, 15 April 1989. 11. The Star, South Africa, 7 March1990. 12. Mr Mike Smith in The Star, South Africa, 7 March 1990. 13.The Star,South Africa, 24 August 1989; The Sunday Times, SouthAfrica, 11 February 1990.14. Weekly Mail, South Africa, 2 March 1990. 15. South Africa's FinanceMinister Barend du Plessis, Natal Mercury,South Africa, 12 November 1987.16. The South African weekly Finance Week (1 March 1990) calculatedthat the stockpile could be worth somewhere between US $ 4,000 andCompaniesface heavy penaltiesif they revealwhetherthe South Africangovernment has compelled them tosell their productsto controversial buyers suchas the police or the army. The companiesarealso forced to contributetothestrategic stockpile of oil.

The main laws regulating South Africa's procurement apparatus, thestrategicstockpile, security, secrecy, and its system of financing oil purchases are brieflydiscussed below.6,000 million. Although this amount seems to be exaggerated, as itisbased on a stockpile that could cover some two-and-half to three yearsof oil consumption, the real amount based on a reserve of some sixmonths is still considerable.17. Debates of the South African House of Assembly, Hansard, 14February 1989.18. The Star, South Africa, 15 July 1989. 19. House of Assembly Debates,Hansard, 13 February 1990; The Citizen,South Africa, 9 May 1990.

32 Effects of the EmbargoDefence Act:Under the Defence Act (195720), petroleum products are defined as'classified'.Any statement by an oil company relating to the supply or even non-supply of oneof the products to the military is a punishable offence under this Act.National Supplies Procurement Act: Under the National Supplies ProcurementAct (197021) foreignowned companies can be forced to produce strategic oilproducts for the country. They are required to set aside a certain portion of theirrefined oil for government purchase.National Key Points Act:This Act, dating from 1980, allows the government to take over companyfacilities and to place military personnel on the premisesduring emergencies. Theact empowersthe Minister of Defence to declare any place or area which is ofstrategic importancetothefunctioningof the South Africanstatea National KeyPoint. Refineries and some of their main depots have been declared National KeyPoints in terms of the act.Petroleum Products Act:This Act (1977; further tightened in 1979 and 1985) specificallyregulatesallaspects of the oil industry. It prohibits the disclosure of information on oil mattersIsee sections of the law above).State Oil Fund Act:This Act (11977 allowed the creation of funds through which the South Africangovernment can control the domestic oil market. Three funds have beenestablished: the Central Energy Fund (CEF); the Strategic Fuel Fund (SFF); andthe Equalisation Fund. The funds are financed by various levies onthe petrolprice.The Central Energy Fund (1985; formerly the State Oil Fund, 1977)covers thecosts of research, development and construction of all energy projects in SouthAfrica, including all expenses for the oil exploration corporation SOEKOR. TheCEF is one of the three partners in the Mossel Bay gas-from-fuel project andprovides more than a half of its finance. The Central Energy Fund alsocontrolscrude oil purchases and all connected transactions.

The Strategic Fuel Fund (1977) was originally founded to purchaseoil forstrategic purposes. Since 1979 the state has used the SFF to control practically allSouth African oil purchases from abroad.The Equalisation Fund (1977) was established to compensate the subsidiaries ofWestern oil companies refining oil in South Africa for the abnormal cost of theircrude oil purchases.Costs of the oil embargoSouth Africa's efforts to circumvent the oil embargo and to reduce its dependenceon crude oil imports have cost the government dearly. A very heavy burden isplaced on the South African economy. On top of its annual oil bill which variedbetween US $1,300 and US $ 3,800 million per year over the past eleven years,the country has had to pay a 'pariah cost' in order to overcome the direct andindirect effects of the oil embargo. This additional cost has variedbetween US $2,000 and US $ 2,460 million at a conservative estimate (see Table 10).20 And later amendments. Most South African laws involved areamended regularly.Regular increases in fuel prices at the pump can be partly explained as an effect ofthe oil embargo. Between September 1988 and mid-1990, crude oil prices have onthe whole been falling, whilefuel prices have risen by some forty percent. Atthesame time, increases in fuel consumption make it hard for the country to attain itsdesired level of self-sufficiency. Growing oil import needs, together with adeteriorating rand/US dollar exchange rate, place a heavy burden on the nationalbudget. "This country's petrol consumption is growing by about 8per21. And later amendments."'The Minister may... regulate in such manner as he may deem businesstransaction in connection with any such petroleum fit, or prohibit, thepublication,releasing, announcement, product. disclosure or conveyance to any person ofinformation or themaking of comment regarding (a) the source, manufacture, Any person[contravening such prohibition or regulationI shall be transportation, destination,storage, consumption, quantity or guilty of an offence and liable on convictiontoa fine not exceeding stock level of any petroleum product I incl. crude oil Iacquired or seven thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period notexceedmanufactured or being acquired or manufactured for or in the ing sevenyears or to both such fine and such imprisonment." Republic, (bV the taking placeand particulars of negotiations inrespect of the acquisition of petroleum products for the Republic [ From SouthAfrican Petroleum Products Act 1977 as amended and the transportation orconsumption thereof, or of any other in 1979 and 19851

Effects of the Embargo 33Table 10 Costs of the oil embargoyear estimated cost of estimated additionalcrude oil cost of embargo *(US$ mln) (US$ mln)1979 3,800 2,360

1980 3,800 2,3601981 3,000 2,0001982 3,000 2,0001983 3,000 2,3001984 3,000 2,3001985 3,000 2,3001986 1,300 2,2001987 1,730 2,4601988 1,400 2,4101989 1,600 2,410TOTAL 28,630 25,100* Estimated expenditure for: the search for crude oil and gas sources onshore andoffshore; premiums paid to middlemen and traders on imported oil; thedevelopment and construction of the SASOL plants, and subsidieson their outputand on the subsequent under-utilisation of the crude-oil refineries; the Mossel Bayproject; facilities and opportunity cost for the strategic oil stockpile. For a detailedaccount, listing additional costs not included here, see Shipping Research Bureau,South Africa's Lifeline. Violations of the Oil Embargo, 1986, pp. 37-40.cent in terms of volume each year. People have to realisewe are in a country thatis under boycotts and we have balance of payment problems".22 RisingEqualisation Fund levies on petrol and diesel are another factor in increasingpump prices which is directlylinked tothe oil embargo. Compensationpaymentstooil companies at the current levels of the levies caused the Fund to runat a loss.23Petrol Price : 118 Cents Per Litre93 OCTANE PWV AREA (ZONE 14A) 15 JULY 1989CURRENT LANDED COST 52431LANDED COST REFLECTED IN PRICE STRUCTURE 45 942 REMAININGUNDERRECOVERY 6 489 EXCHANGE RATE USE $1 = R2 7875PWVArea: SA's industrial heartland; Landed Cost: fictitious landedcosts ofimported petrol, based on weighted average prices at three refineries in Singaporeand one in Bahrain, plus shipping costs to SA etc.: MVA: motor vehicle accidentfund; Equalisation Fund: see p. 32 From: SA Leadership, South Africa, November1989.Oil companies in South AfricaThe withdrawal of MobilOn 28 April 1989 it was announced that the U.S. oil company Mobil Corporationhad agreed to sell its business operations in Southern Africa to General MiningUnion Corporation Ltd. (Gencor). The price agreed for Mobil's assets, believed tobe worth at least US $ 400 million, was US$150 million. The assets included theWentworth refinery near Durban, pipelines, a distribution networkand twelvesubsidiaries. The company employed nearly 3,000 workers in South Africa andoperated over 1,100 petrol stations. Mobil was the biggest U.S. investor; it hadbeen in the country for 92 years. The withdrawal of Mobil Oil was widelyregarded as rendering the position of the remaining foreign oil companies, Shell,British Petroleum, Caltex and Total, more vulnerable.24 Mobil saidits decision todisinvest had been brought about by the legislation enacted and proposed in the U.

S.A. which made itmoreand moredifficultforthe companyto befully competitive inSouth Africa. The Rangel amendment of January 1988 eliminated write-offs byU.S. companies of taxes paid in South Africa. This raised the effective tax rate forMobil from 57.5to7222. South Africa's Minister of Finance Barend du Plessis, quoted in TheStar, South Africa, 7 December 1988.23. See SRB Newsletter No. 17, October 1989, pp. 3-4. 24. Shortly before thewithdrawal, the chairman of Mobil Corp., Alanper cent, costing the company US $ 5 million - or one third of its South Africanprofits. Mobil also referred to the Dellums Bill which proposed a total ban oneconomic links between the U.S.A. and South Africa. If the Bill was adoptedMobil would be forced by law to withdraw, making its South African assetsvirtually worthless. Furthermore, the company had been under continual pressurefrom anti-apartheid organisations to withdraw from South Africa.From the start, the South African Chemical Workers Industrial Union (CWIU)was highly critical of the withdrawal: although Mobil's disinvestment was "avictory for all anti-apartheid forces", it was nonetheless "Corporate Camouflage"."We demand thatMobil negotiate the terms of its withdrawal with us and discloseto us the details of the deal it has made with Gencor".25 CWIU and MobilOilreached an agreement partially meeting the union's demandsand safeguardingworkers' rights only after strikes and weeks of negotiations. Mobil is the secondU.S. oil company to withdraw from South Africa. In 1986, the American oilcompany Exxon sold its SouthMurray, said "if Shell or BP went, we'd all have to go" (SALeadership, South Africa, 1988/5).25. Statement CWlU National Executive Committee, 30 April 1989.

34 Effects of the EmbargoI Formerly Trek Beieqgings t The Engen refinery (formerly the Mobil refinery)Source: Sunday Times, South Africa, 25 February 1990.African subsidiaries to a trust which had been especially established to continueits operations. Since then its 160 petrol stations and bulk distribution haveoperated under the name Zenex.Gencor forms energy giant In February 1990 Gencor announcedthe formation ofa new energy group, Engen, in which Mobil's former assets wereintegrated.Mobil Oil's former chairman Mr Bob Angel became the company's first managingdirector. The new group consists of three divisions: marketing (Mobil, TrekPetroleum, Sonap, together 1500 petrol stations); production (Genref, the formerMobil Wentworth refinery, and Mossgas); and exploration (Soekor).Engen is now South Africa's largest petrol group.Remaining companiesShell South Africa (Pty) Ltd.The Royal Dutch/Shell Group (the Netherlands/United Kingdom) is the largestforeign investor in South Africa. Together with British Petroleum, Shell S.A.owns and operates the SAPREF refinery (1963) near Durban. Therefinery is

South Africa's largest, with a capacity of 200,000 b/d. Shell S.A.also has about850 petrol stations.Shell S.A. hasa 50percentshare in the South African Rietspruit coal mine and a12.5 per cent share in the Richards Bay coal terminal. Among its numerous otherinterests are the lubricants producers Cera Oil and Veetech Oil, Spectracare (alubricants research laboratory), CADAC, Easigas, Pering Zinc Mine, ReefChemicals and Price's Candles. Together with BP Southern Africa,Shell is partowner and operator of the Single Point Mooring Buoy off Durban, where most ofSouth Africa's imported oil is discharged.In November 1989, Shell announced that it had sold its shares in theSouthAfrican companies Chemico and Trek, to Trek and Gencor respectively. Shell hadfrequently been criticised for its sharein Chemico, as this company openlyadvertised its supplies to the South African police force. At its annualshareholders' meetings Shell always categorically denied supplying the SouthTable 11 South Africa's refining capacitySAPREF (1963) Durban ShellBPCaltex Oil (early 1960s) Milnerton, Cape Town CaltexNATREF (1970) Sasolburg TotaliSASOL/NIOC?Wentworth/GENREF (1953) Durban EngenTOTAL200,000 b/d 90,000 b/d 78,500 b/d 65,000100,000 b/d 433,500468,500 b/dIn April 1990 Gencor announced that between 1990-1995 GENREF will beexpanded by 75 per cent.Sources: PennWell Worldwide Refining & Gas Processing Directory1990, TulsaOK, September 1989; Drewry Shipping Consultants, Refined Petroleum Products,London, December 1989, p. 63.

Effects of the Embargo 35WrTH COMPUMENTS MET KOMPUMENTErAL CHEMICO ACHEMICO (PTY) UMITED/(EDMS) BEPERKThe Lubraaos Sa Oe0. Sm-es,anr~kaWsgf Suoowe - of Lunartn Odand GeasetoteS A Pare Vemafesan Smeero,,eeo Chnes - ae S A PotaeSource: The SA Defence Force Yearbook, 1989African defence force through Chemico. However, Chemico's openadvertisementswere becoming increasingly embarrassing. InthesamedealSAPREF, fully-owned by Shell and BP, obtained Trek's fifty per cent share inSAMCO (South Africa Lubricants Manufacturing Company).BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd.BP Southern Africa is a fully-owned subsidiary of the British company BritishPetroleum. Besides its 50 per cent share in SAPREF, the company has some 900petrol stations. Like Shell, BP has sold its shares in Trek and Chemico. InNovember 1989, BP sold its South African mining division. Thecompany is now concentrating on refining and marketing oil products.Caltex Oil (S.A.) (Pty) Ltd.

Caltex is jointly-owned by Texaco and Socal (Chevron). Since Mobil withdrewfrom South Africa, Caltex is the only subsidiary of a U.S. company to remain.The company owns the only refinery in the Cape Province. The refinery atMilnerton near Cape Town has a capacity of 90,000 b/d. Caltex S.A.has some950 petrol stations.Total South Africa (Pty) Ltd.Total S.A. is 57.6 per cent owned by the French company Total CFP(CompagnieFrancaise des Petroles). The remaining shares are held by South Africaninvestors: Rembrandt Group (34.4 per cent) and Old Mutual (8 percent). TotalS.A. co-owns (30 per cent) and operatestheNATREFref inery at Sasolburg,Transvaal. SASOL owns 52.5 per cent of the shares in NATREF. The last knownowner of the remaining 17.5 per cent was the National Iranian Oil Company; in1989 Iran announced that it had been able to dissolve all its South African assets.No information was given as to who took over NIOC's share in NATREF Totalhas some 700 petrol stations in South Africa.

36

Closing the Loopholes 37Closing the LoopholesMany governments and intergovernmental organisations have adopted oilembargo policies. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the existing embargo isseriously hampered by deficiencies in themeasures taken. Efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the oil embargo shouldtherefore also entail the closing of loopholes in the existing measures.Recent developments: Countries* Norway: Successful crude oil ban underminedThe transport capacity available for oil destined for South Africa wasconsiderably curtailed when a ban on crude oiltransports by Norwegian tankersand companies came into force on 20 July 1987. Until mid-1987 Norwegiantankers had been the main transporters of crude oil to South Africa, butinvestigations by the Shipping Research Bureau have identified no furthershipments since that date.There are certain conditions under which deliveries of crude oil arenotpunishable' but no advantage has been taken of these loopholes, asfar as weknow.However, the effectiveness of the law is currently undermined by Norwegiantankers delivering refined oil products instead. A campaign is under way inNorway to close this loophole in the boycott law.2* Singapore adopts oil banIn September 1989 the Government of Singapore adopted an administrative banon the export and transport of oil and petroleum products to SouthAfrica bySingapore tankers and companies. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced in apress release: "In compliance with U.N. GeneralAssemblyresolutions calling forthe complete cessation of thesupply of petroleum and petroleum products toSouth Africa, and with the Commonwealth Accord on Southern Africacalling for

an oil embargo against South Africa, the Singapore Government is banning thecarriage of oil to South Africa by Singapore- flagged ships with effect from 15September 1989. Shipping companies owned by the Singapore Government willinclude 'end-user' clauses and other conditions in their charter agreements toensure compliance with the embargo. Singapore-registered shipsviolating thisban are liable to have their registrations cancelled, An administrative ban on theexport of oil and petroleum products to South Africa willalso comeinto effect on15 September 1989'3This announcement followed only a few weeks after a1. See Shipping Research Bureau, Oilto South Africa Apartheid'sFriends and Partners, 1988. p. 27.2. Seepp. 1112.3. Press statement Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Singapore's policy on oilSingapore- registered tanker, the Probo Gull, had delivered a cargo of gasoline toSouth Africa.4A loophole in the ban isthat itdoes not prohibit Singapore-based companies fromusing foreign- flagged ships for oil transports to South Africa. Nor does it apply toSingapore companies trading oil from third countries. The embargo wouldcertainly be more comprehensive if provisions were included to close theseloopholes.* U.S. Congress: New Bill discussedIn the United States of America the Anti-Apartheid Sanctions Bill proposes a totalcut of all economic ties with South Africa. Under this Bill foreign companies withinvestments in South Africa would have to withdraw from the country. TheBillwasintroduced by the Democratic Congressman Ronald Dellums of Californiaand adopted in the House of Representatives in 1988,5 but failed to get throughthe Senate before Congress dissolved in October 1988. After the presidentialelections, the Bill was reintroduced in the new House of Representatives inJanuary 1989. In March 1989 the identical Anti-Apartheid SanctionsBill wasintroduced before the Senate by the Democratic Senator Paul Simon from Illinois.The Bill includes clauses penalising oil and mining subsidiariesof internationalcompanies with investments in South Africa.Three amendments to the existing Comprehensive AntiApartheid Act of 1986would affect the oil industry. No United States company would be allowed to holdany investment in South Africa. This would force the last U.S. oil company withinvestments in South Africa, Caltex, to withdraw. Secondly, foreign-owned oilcompanies with investments in South Africa would not beableto obtainanynewoil, coal andgasleases in the U.S.A. In the third place no U.S. person would beallowed to provide transportation of crude oil orrefined petroleum products toSouth Africa, directly or through an affiliate.trade with South Africa, 15 September 1989,4. Appendix I, Table H, case 10.5. See Shipping Research Bureau, Oil to South Africa, op. cit., pp. 27ft.

38 Closing the LoopholesRecent developments: International organisations

* The United NationsThe General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on the oilembargo against South Africa by the largest majority ever on22 November 1989.There were 139 votes for the resolution, two against and 14 abstentions. Amongthose abstaining were Belgium, Canada, France, the Federal Republic ofGermany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal. TheUnited Kingdom and the United States of America persevered in their negativevotes. (See annex on page 44.)Intergovernmental Group to Monitor the Supply and Shipping of Oil andPetroleum Products to South AfricaThe United Nations Intergovernmental Group was established by the GeneralAssembly in 1986. The Group, in which both oilshipping and oil-exportingnations are represented, issued its first report in 1987.6In its second report in November 1988, the Group dealt with a greatnumberofindividual cases of violationsof theoil embargo. It emphasised the need for a strictimplementation of the oil embargo. Despite universally declared policies that nooil or petroleum productsshould reach South Africa, implementation ofthesepolicies fell short, the report concluded.The third report (November 1989) stated that it was now more importantthaneverthatthe international communitycontinued to put pressure onSouth Africa andthat existing measures should be strengthened. According to the Group, SouthAfrica wasfacing increasing difficultiesin evading the oil embargo. The reportemphasised the role of the transnational oil companies in assistingSouth Africa inits attempts to satisfy its energy requirements.The Group announced that itwas planning toformulate a model law, on the basisof existing laws, regulations and comparable measures already taken by MemberStates. This model law will be presented to governments for their consideration.In April 1989, the Intergovernmental Group and the United NationsSpecialCommittee against Apartheid organised Hearings on the Oil Embargo. TheShipping Research Bureau was one of the thirteen witnesses heard by aPanel. Inits final conclusions the Panel emphasised the importance of a comprehensiveapproach to the embargo which should comprise the supply, shipping andhandling of oil destined for South Africa, and the financing of and investment inthe petroleum industry. The role of transnational companies in the continuingsupply of oil to South Africa was underscored.6 Ibid , p 29 The eleven members of the Group are Algeria, Cuba, theGerman Democratic Republic, Indonesia, Kuwait (vice-chairman),NewZealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Tanzania (chairman as of May1990), and the Ukranian S S. R7 Statement of H.E Mr A B. Nyakyi, upon his election as Chairman ofIn May 1990, Ambassador Anthony B. Nyakyi of Tanzania succeeded the formerNorwegian Ambassador Mr Tom Erik Vraalsen as Chairman of the Group. At hisappointment the Ambassador emphasised that there was an obvious link betweenthe work of the Group and the present political developments in SouthAfrica,which he described as the "first tentative steps on a long and arduous road" Hesaid: "Even the Pretoria authorities admit that the heavy toll of economic

sanctions, including the oilembargo, couldnot have been borne in the long run.There is no doubt this is one of the factors which have propelled Mr. deKlerk tothe negotiating table. Therefore, if the international community canmaintain thesame level of effective pressure on Pretoria, there is a good chance of keepinghim there until a democratic and just settlementisachieved. Thus thelntergovernmentalGroup has an important role to play in support of such a justsettlement. 7Referring to the direct effects of the embargo for South Africa, the Chairmanexplained that the country has to buy its oil halfway around the world instead ofin the nearest market. 'A rough, though by no means unrealistic, calculationsuggests that for every thousand dollars spent by the international community inenforcing the oil embargo, Pretoria must spend one million dollarsto readapt itslogistics to offset the effect." He said that the Group was going to focus more onshipping states that register the tankers transporting oil and petroleum products toSouth Africa. The oil exporting countries should also use certificates of dischargemore effectively.8In June 1990 the Intergovernmental Group released an interim report which dealswith 415 unclarified port calls made by potential petroleum carriers to SouthAfrica over the period 1986-early 1989. According to the Group these ships calledat South African ports so often that there was probably a serious loophole in theembargo. The cooperation of flag states would be vital in closing sucha loopholebecause ships are bound at all times by the laws of the flag state. Unfortunately,the majority of the states contacted did not provide the Group with anyexplanations for the port calls.* The CommonwealthThe Commonwealth Heads of Governments called for a tightening up of theexisting sanctions against South Africa, at their biennial meeting in Kuala Lumpur(Malaysia) in October 1989. They concluded that it was not the time "toconsiderany relaxation ofexistingsanctionsandpressure. That wouldhave to awaitevidence of clear and irreversible chan.'f" 9the Intergovernmental Group, United Nations, New York 7 May 1990.8. Ibidem.9 Southern Africa. The Way Ahead, Final statement, Kuala Lumpur,October 1989. The United Kingdom dissented, repeating its oppositionto further sanctions.

Closing the Loopho/s 39The Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on Southern Africa made acall at their meeting in Abuja (Nigeria) in May 1990 not to lift any of the existingsanctions.The Commonwealth first adopted sanctions against South Africa, includinganembargoonoil, atitsHeadsof Governments meeting in Nassau (Bahamas) in1985. South Africa has been on the agenda of Commonwealth meetingsfor thelast thirty years.* The European Community At thesummitof the European Communityheld inDublin on2526 June 1990, it was decided that all sanctions againstSouth Africa,

including the oil embargo, would remain in force. In 1985 the E.C. MemberStates adopted a limited oil embargo which restricted exports only of crude oilproduced or brought into free circulation in E.C. countries. Exports of petroleumproducts and deliveries of oil held in bonded storage are not included in this ban.The importance of discharge control"The oil-exporting States have adopted measures and procedures toenforce the oilembargo such as the certificateof-discharge practice which have not been aseffective as we wouldhaveliked, but which dorepresenta basis forfurthercoordination efforts. (...) TheIntergovernmentallGroup willpress for morerigorous standards and procedures in the matter of discharge certification in orderto increase the impact of this method of preventing oil shipments to SouthAfrica"10With these words Ambassador Nyakyi of Tanzania, the new Chairmanof theUnited Nations Intergovernmental Group to Monitor the Supply andShipping ofOil and Petroleum Products to South Africa, pinpointed one of the main issues tobe addressed by the Group in 1990.'Certificates of discharge', 'end-user certificates' and similardocuments enable the authorities of oil-exporting countries to control thedestination of their oil, and in particular, to verify that none of their oil reachesdestinations which are subject to an embargo, such as South Africa. Each cargosold is accompanie4 by a document which the purchasers of oil have toreturn tothe oil-exporting country after having been duly certified by the competentCustoms or Port Authorities in the country wherethe cargo in questionhas beendelivered. Alternatively, the purchasers are requested to produce any otherdocument certified by the competent authorities in the receiving country provingthe discharge in that particular country.An efficient system of discharge certificates is indispensible forattaining a strictlyenforced oil embargo against South Africa. However, there are a number ofproblems. Not every oilexporting country has instituted a strict system ofdestinationFalse French customs documents were submitted to the Norwegian Ministry ofOil and Energy in order tomake it appear that the embargo on North Sea oil to South Africa had beendulyobserved. French portand customs authorities have confirmed that the tankers in questionhave notcalled at the port indicated by the falsified certificates of discharge.An officialinvestigation is in progress.(See also- John Deuss/Transworld Oil, SRB survey, January 1985.)From: Shipping Research Bureau, South Africa's Lifeline. Violations of tile OilEmbargo, 1986, p. 13.10. Statement H.E. A. Nyakyi, op. cit.- ~ - -. -,- -, ~.~ -9M.lot=

Closing the Loopholes 40control. Often a system exists but no penalties are applied when dischargedocuments are not received. And when documents are submitted,they are notalways thoroughly scrutinised. During the United Nations Hearings on the OilEmbargo against South Africa in April 1989, "testimony indicated a generalfeeling that the monitoring and verification of such destination controlinstruments was lax". " All 'discharge certificates' with regard to cargoes which infact have been secretly delivered to South Africa are forged, showing fakedestinations in countries not subject to an embargo.Monitoring institutions attach much weight to an efficient system of dischargecertificates. The United Nations Intergovernmental Group, submitting cases ofsuspected oil deliveriesto South Africa toGovernmentsconcerned,"believes thatonly a certificate of discharge orcomparableproof couldbe accepted as conclusiveeyidence that the oil shipment in question didnottakeplace."The Group hasalways"emphasized the need to receive I from Governments I documentation on thedestination of the oil shipments in question, including certificates ofdischarge ofthe oil cargoes. (...) It is hoped that, byrequestingsuch documentationandsubjecting it to thorough scrutiny, the Governments concerned will be moreconscientious in ensuring that oil and shipping companies do not falsify thedocuments".12A striking example of a forged discharge document, used to conceal a secretdelivery to South Africa of crude oil from Saudi Arabia by thetankerBergeEnterprise in April1987, is reproduced in this report on page 3. Below, we willshow a few other clear examples of the way in which discharge certificates areforged in order to mislead oil-exporting countries. The deliveries in question havebeen identified some time ago and have been described in earlier ShippingResearch Bureau reports.3 The falsified 'certificates', used to conceal deliveries toSouth Africa of crude oil, fuel oil and gasoil from different countries in theMiddle East and Far East, have only recently come to the Bureau's attention.Crude oil from Brunei to South Africa On 17 February 1984, the tanker Ohiosailed from Brunei loaded with two types of crude oil. Destination on departure'U.S. West Coast', the destination usually reported to the seller in Bruneiin thosecases when the trader at the end of the chain, Marc Rich, had in fact destined theoil for South Africa. After 42 days, during which the cargo was discharged inSouth Africa, the Ohio surfaced at one of the anchorage ports in thePersian Gulfarea.Afterwards, the Brunei companyselling thecrudewas presentedwith the'certificate' reproduced herewith, showing the purported discharge at Genoa, Italy,shortly before the date the Ohio arrived at Fujairah Anchorage on30 April 1984.11 Report of the Intergovernmental Group 1989, pp 8 9 12 Report oftheIntergovernmental Group 1988, pp 10 and 42 13 Shipping ResearchBureau,South Africa's Lifeine, Violations of the Oi0z.'A DI ," G'A - M-f~"'~'Vst' L'Xrt.375 4*11etoDenlJ 's~na ioe i.- n.TOXA.'ELLt per crn, d.11a Spe-lc.iCneRC, gi- o .. on iooa one dell. r.o Z ..

811o gotti oao. l ALro erutifiaoc.aZSERIA, R I .---iel.fu - StuLA LIGHT CRUDE O- K. 80,1,0,000 (0trant.fluntn~oqoranoowti)-- , * nq'Lt HPIUN AxRcD OIL KG 21,7 7,00 (ven oc,0i0on0ilor .... r --figpeo; ne'11le$ge con h'aevernn ohe il preent. ar. .ut1oprivo di opi ferto .. prodo-no L. giodiato ai daoide'.M I ...iIrao. F.inan.a ris . at oof-ioeonarl, ne vale per do-o~entar richtesce diLCOM IATE I1 crec eiA voyage to Genoa in the period indicated would have been possible, via theSuezCanal. Needless to say that no passages through the Canal had been reported, andbesides, no voyage Genoa-Persian Gulf could have been made within the shorttime interval of between the dates mentioned in the document and the date ofarrival in the Persian Gulf. A voyage to Genoa and back round the Capewhichwould have explained why no passagesthrough the Suez Canal werereported isabsolutely impossible within the space of 42 days.Gasoil from Bahrain to South AfricaThe'certificates'reproduced here were presented to the Bahrain National OilCompany by Totallnternational (France), the purchaser of a number of gasoilcargoes which ended up in South Africa. The 'certificates' offer some additionalexamples which show that often even a cursory investigation of such documentsinevitably leads to the conclusion that they are a fake.The Gentle Breeze, a bulk/oil carrier and not a 'motor tanker' as she is called inthe document, loaded part cargoes in Bahrain and Kuwait purportedly for deliveryin Rotterdam, the Netherlands. She dischargedrEmbargo, 1986, Appendix I, Table A, case 61 (Ohio); idem, Oii to South Africa,op.cit., Appendix I, Table A, cases 10 (Beatrice), 22(Biscaya), 34 (Gentle Breeze) and 61 (Singa Star).

Cong te Loophe 418.... 17 M.. 1986 during theperiodin questionnomovementswerereportedetl. AswasC 8aTFICAT z0to be expected, nocall at Triestewasreported, neitherwale pasagesthrough the guez Canal.Port of Loading details z... of original vessel : ./t * GE UL SAMELoDlog port Sit- 9 According to the nem ocumentte Ub) -a a bulk/oll carrierDoat. of lon lo a ebrary 1.. 6CaresG (grse)/Notrlo o* ..9.897.o4 -would have dischargedher cargo not in South Africa but, again, InCr04. o rgo loaded GoSaoflTrieste and again on a date, 27 May 1986, which would not he allowed,rt of di-harg. det.l. :theshiptoarriveatthePersianGulfon6June1966, evenifehehadsaed

of Port t Triest. atmaximumspeed. Ofcourse,nopassagesthroughtheSuezCanalweisoOf I.00. st - MItLE SAME -16I 0t ossel g/8. 1 Koth 1986 reported.ao n(gross /erid Ton 29.99 640of S.1.0. TAL -TRiSThe document shown for the Singe Star is peculiar indeed. This vessel Dog.. diTrle.to / Ssio. So Sass.sailedfromBahrain(aplacethe'cartifcateasituatesinSaudAtsb.)andSi Ottests on doh . lptrollers Gentl , . Kuwait mid-September 1986, againpurportedly 'for Rotterdam'. On 20tttt.soso¢toot to qocoto p00. 00 ~t~tot di atllo di Xg. 29.991-84000 '"dIdi taol.. dt r.. In ,o October 1986, after having discreetlydischarged her cargo in SouthSAfrica, she surfaced again in the Persian Gulf. However, according to theMORIZZAZIONZ DELLA D1EZIO8 CIRCOSCRIZI0AL DELL& DOAXA DITlEtST.Trieste. 13 October 1986Cnt!1?lCdtZ OP 01IS848810Port of Loading details t" a of orihinat yeses. 1/t SIROA STAN Loading port : Bahrain (Saudi Arbla) ,teof loodiog a 11th Sopte.at l§So fargo On (:ro..)/Netrio Ton. a1.795,S9 trode ofonogo loaded niese.1goto Trsnthiltentoessl: a /t " 1RCOJ80flISA6TIGO hercargo in South Africa instead and subsequently collected a cargo ofDt, oftra.nipfiet t N0t S.pt..ber 196South African coal in Richards Bay for delivery in the Far East. ThePort ofdi..horf. dtailsdocument submitted to Bahrain would make believe that the Gentle , .: ofport - ArRittO 100Sof .1 01.Breeze discharged her cargo in Trieste, Italy, on a date which is Da. ofdisch.rf.,I 11I)r, Scrbe" 1986Cargo '" (g~os A Me 5eTn 1.795.99:1- ofcon=tg.. a S.!.C.T.,/ 7AL - TaItF?8 incompatible with a voyage Trieste-Richards Bay-Far East. In fact,Do5n0 di Trieste l eions Sa SbbSi attests oh. dlla petraliert sinsg star gOnO stt oate t ott t rho too rtit.....100......t.... 5f*1 ij 4. 51.799,9027 11.000. 1906 1ri-A do2 0 dCERT IPICATE OF DISCHARGEAUTORIZZZIONE 1 11ONE CIROOSRIZIZOAi Z3 001 DOASA III METS,Port of Loading detail. aTrieore,Nlo of original vessel hit * BISCAYALoadln port a St"Date of loading . 4th May 1986

Cooo 1. (gros)/Metrie Tons i 37.o82,850Grad, of corso loaded : Go..1Port of discharge details IONe of port : TriesteN0.. of essel : BISCAYOto of" dooclhar.. 27th May 1986Dareo I (oroooOI /etrao Toooa ... 2.8.0 document submitted toBahrain, the cargo had been transferred on 20ONe of osignee S .I.O.T. / TAL - TRIESTESeptember, at a non-specified place, into theArchondsa Kngo. ThisDogan, do Trieste / Seolone So Salo 'motor tanker' was supposed tohave discharged the oili Tieste on 11October 1986. Atthepurported dateof trans-shipment, novesselexistedStlatt.ts ohe dell. petroliera B0.0."0:o t: :aiaateit qoesto oroo ns patito ern d ukol "ta. . .. a a98 tto bearing the nameArchontissa Katingo. A bulk/oil carrierbearing thatSli Crato0 do MMA a.0 go 01 at del£ Cname hadbeen rnamedAfchontissaandreflagedinAugust 1986atthe latest, that is,quite some time before the date mentioned in the1ORI N DLA8 o . document. Even so, theArchontsu was nowhere nearte PersianGulfTr ist., or ltalyon20 September 1986, butin Sakai,Japan. Fromthere, shecouldnever have reached Italy by the date indicated on the document.Fuel oil from Aden to South AfricaA document regarding the tanker Beatrice presents another interesting14. On departure from the Persian Gulf, as wel/as on returning there, the the 33days between her departure from and her retum to the PersianBiscaya maintained that she would go, respectively, had sailed to Gulf.Rotterdam.. Again a voyage which she could never have made within

42 Closing the Loopholescase. This vessel sailed from Aden in Yemen on 16 May 1986, loaded with ..o...30 00616 1966 fuel oil for the National Iranian OilCompany INIOC . The oil had beenC 2 R T I D 1 0A T V 0 T 1 C. A R 0 Z refined at the Aden RefineryCompany, which was informed that theftrt of Ioding4.1A61 . t cargo was destined for Genoa, Italy.On 20 June 1986, after havingOn.. of r~I-0 ... I0006 ./t ~A? - 11BAIdelivered her cargo in SouthAfrica, theBeatrice arrived at Jeddah in the Vaoo. , 1 1 16 96 RedSea, reporting'Singapore' as her last port of call. No calls have beencare* in (sro 0)/metrio ?mel , 49.681,96

Grade oa leaded : Staight un Fuel Oil reported at Genoa or Singapore,and no passages through the SuezCanal. Genoa was chosen as the purported discharge port in the P0art .0h.. de.ai.document which the Government of Iran received and consequentlyr.e of Io.. n/ - ..... 0 submitted to the Shipping ResearchBureau. However while adaptingG,- of disahnr 30 th May 1986;carso Jr Crofm/ric -no : A981.96 the document to thisparticular case, the producers of the forged.7 T. ono&nee o Ord..document which is in all aspects similar to the three Trieste 'certificates'0gma d G.... / So o. San Sbba reproduced above, forgot that Section SanSabba is the oil terminal areain the port of Trieste, and has nothing to do with Genoa.S1 attsta Oh. ptroliOae 11-trico0o001*. ooa,%,m 00 I.n. 0o 0,1o me p.411. The wording of the 'Italian'documents also gives rise to considerabled, 0110 0obutjble ditillazionprinarO.41 Kg: 49.01.96 pro0001110:1*IOU .. 3 G. ./f del 30 doubtsconcerningtheirproducers'masteryof theItalian language. E.g.,d .1theBeatrice document'testifes'something to the effectthat "in thisport,., 10 03600100o 006009'R1110110o, ..- \ ,9Q91~. ~ 1011000.a cargo aredischarged tanker Beatrce"..The Italian Government hasinformed the Shipping Research Bureauthat none ofthe ships mentioned have discharged any oil in Genoa or Trieste in 1986, which"could indeed substantiate the conclusion that the documents in question werefalsified".15Campaigns against the presence of oil companies in South AfricaDuring recent years the Western oil companies with subsidiaries in South Africahave been under pressure to disinvest from the country.In particular, the Dutch/British Royal Dutch/Shell Group has beenunder fireworld-wide from anti-apartheid organisations, solidaritygroups, churches,municipalities, trade unionsetc. for its activities in South Africa.Besidesinternational organisations such as the World Council of Churches and the WorldHealth Organisation (WHO), organisations in at least fifteen countries have joinedin the boycott."sWithin South Africa, the company prides itself on its outspoken anti-apartheidstance. However, Shell has never violated any apartheid law. The ChemicalWorkers' Industrial Union, which regards Shell S.A. as "the worst employer in thepetrol industry", expressed its views on the company and its 'antiapartheid'advertisements as follows:"Shell's presence in South Africa is not primarily to provide employment, upliftthe economy, support freedom of the press or, even less, to ensuredemocraticparticipation of all South Africans in the political life of the country.15. Letter to the Shipping Research Bureau from the Permanent Mission of

Italy to the United Nations, 28 August 1989. See also SRO NewsletterNo. 18,1st quarter 1990, p. 7.16. Austrlia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic ofGermany, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Shell's objectivesare tosecurea goodreturn on its investments in South Africa onthe basis of exploiting South African workers and assisting the upholding of thestatus quo, and consequently the apartheid regime "'In reaction to Mobil's decision to withdraw, Shell's managing directorJohn Kilroesaid that thewithdrawal had "notinanyway affectedShell'sdetermination tocontinueinitsfighttomaintain its South African operations" 1Mobil Oil has been under sustained pressure from organisations inthe UnitedStates to withdraw from South Africa. These activities definitely contdbuted tothe company's decision to sell its South African assets in April 1989.Since the withdrawal of Mobil, attention in the U.S.A. has focussedon the onlyU.S. oil company to remain in South Africa, Caltex. According to the formerchairman of Mobil S.A. and present managing director of Engen, Bob Angel,Caltex's position is vulnerable: "Theyare caught by double taxation and theycannot bring in new technology or investment" " At the time, reacting to Mobil'swithdrawal, the managing director ofNorway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the U.S.A.17. CWIU petrol coordinator Martin Jansen, quoted in New Nation, SouthAfrica, 10 October 1989.18. The Citizen, South Africa, 9 May 1989. 19. Cape Times, South Africa, 6Apr11990.

Closing the Loopholes 43Caltex itself, Mr Jock McKenzie said that his company had "no intention ofleaving SA unless legislation forces us to", a position which the company hasmaintained since.2'When the newsof Mobil's planned disinvestment leaked out, the chief executiveof Total S.A., Mr Bernhard Lafitte, said he was "extremely disconcerted" by theprospect: "If one pulls out,there will be increasing pressure on the rest of us to do the same".21In 1986, the anti-apartheid movement, trade unions and others in France started acampaign against the continued South African activities of Frenchparentcompany Total, of which the French Government is the principal shareholder.Publicity and Action Are EffectivePublicity breaks secrecy. Oil deliveries to South Africa cannot bear thelight ofday. Secrecy, misinformation, fraud and deception are basic ingredients of thetrade. Publicising information and public and political debate on the involvementof companies in oil supplies to South Africa have a deterring effect inthemselves;publicity, action and legislation appear to be effective in tightening the oilembargo:+ In theearly 1980s, majoroil companiessuch as BP, Mobiland, especially, Shell were still defying the oil embargo and kept sending theirown tankers to South Africa. In shareholders' meetings and elsewhere, the

companies came under persistent fire for their activities. Under pressure ofadverse publicity these companies were forced to bring their direct and visibleinvolvement in transports to South Africa to an end in early 1981.This has forced South Africa toturn to oil traders such as Marc Rich,John Deuss(Transworld Oil), Marimpex and other middlemen. These have askeda price fortheir willingness to go on supplying South Africa, thusaggravating the financial strains on the country.+ In 1987, South Africa's main supplier of oil for manyyears, Transworld Oil, felt compelled to issue a statement to the effect that thecompany had stopped selling oil to South Africa. A major reason for this step wasthe sharpening of Commonwealthsanctions policies.+ Nation-wide actions by anti-apartheid organisations,trade-unions, church bodies and other organisations havein 1986and 1987respectively, ledthe Parliamentsof Denmark and Norwaytoadopt legislationprohibiting further involvement of companies in oil transports to South Africa.South Africa was effectively cut off from a major section of the world's tankerfleetwhich it had relied upon for many years.+ In late 1986 details were revealed of a largeseriesof secretoil transports to South Africa from Brunei. The ensuing publicity induced theBrunei Government to keep a closer watch on the application of its embargoregulations. No oil transported by tankers sailing from Brunei has reached SouthAfrica anymore since then. Thus, another source of oil for South Africa hasdried up.+ In 1988 the Italian state-owned shipping companyAlmare decided to stop oil transports to South Africa and to include in allcontracts a clause excluding landings in South Africa. The decision followedinvestigations by the United Nations and the Shipping Research Bureau on anillegal delivery of British NorthSea oil to South Africa by an Almare tanker.In 1989, when South Africa increasingly needed supplies of refined petroleumproducts, the company decided to apply this clause to transports of such refinedproducts as well.+ United States anti-apartheid legislation, increasingthe tax burden on companies with South African activities, attained amajorsuccess when in April 1989, the biggest U.S. investor in South Africa,Mobil Oil,announced its withdrawal from South Africa.+ In the period 1979-1989, at least27 tankers linked in someway to Singapore have delivered oil cargoes to South Africa, the lastone beingthe Probo Gull in August 1989. One of the successes attained by increasingpressure on governments of oil-exporting and shipping nations from the UnitedNations, through its Intergovernmental Group to Monitor the Supply andShipping of Oil and Petroleum Products to South Africa, was the issuing by

Singapore of a ban on exports and transports of oil by its tankers as from 15September1989.20. Financial Mail, South Africa, 24 February 1989; Business Day, SouthAfrica, 29 September 1989: Argus, South Africa, 5 April 1990.21. The Citizen, South Africa, 26 April 1989.

44 Closing the LoopholesANNEX: U.N. oil embargo resolutions 1979-1989Not indicated are those States which by their absence in some cases accounted forsmall variations in the numbers of recorded votes.date of adoption and number of resolution1979 (24 January) 33/183 E1979 (12 December) 34/93 F1980 (16 December) 35/206D1981 (17 December) 36/172 G1982 (9 December) 37/69 Jin favour against abstained105 6 16against: Belgium, France, FRG, Luxembourg, UK, USA abst.: Australia, Austria,Bolivia, Botswana, Canada, El Salvador, Greece, Guatamala, Italy, Japan,Lesotho, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Portugal, Spain, Swaziland124 7 13qganst: Belgium, Canada, France, FRG, Luxembourg, UK, USA abst.: Australia,Austria, Botswana, Greece, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, New Zealand,Portugal, Spain, Swaziland123 7 13against: Belgium, Canada, France, FRG, Luxembourg, UK, USA abst.: Australia,Austria, Botswana, Greece, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Malawi, New Zealand,Portugal, Spain, Swaziland, Zimbabwe126 7 12against: Belgium, Canada, France, FRG, Luxembourg, UK, USA abst.: Australia,Austria, Botswana, Chile, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, NewZealand, Portugal, Swaziland125 6 13against. Belgium, France, FRG, Luxembourg, UK, USA abst.: Australia, Austria,Botswana, Canada, Greece, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho,Malawi, NewZealand, Portugal, Swazilanddate of adoption in favour against abstained and number of resolution1983 (5 December) 38/39 J130 6 14against: Belgium, France, FRG, Luxembourg, UK, USA abst.: Australia, Austria,Botswana, Canada, Greece, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lesotho,Malawi, NewZealand, Norway, Portugal, SwazilandIn 1984 and 1985, the General Assembly did not adopt any separate oil embargoresolutions.

1986 (10 November) 41/35 F1987 (20 November) 42/23 F1988 (5 December) 43/50 J1989 (22 november) 44/27 H136 5 15against: France, FRG, Israel, UK, USA abst.: Belgium, Botswana, Canada,Greece, Ivory Coast, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Liberia, Malawi,Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Swaziland138 4 12against: France, FRG, UK, USA abst.: Belgium, Canada, Greece,Israel, IvoryCoast, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Portugal, Swaziland138 2 14against: UK, USA abst.: Belgium, Botswana, Canada, France, FRG, Greece,Israel, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Portugal, Swaziland139 2 14against: UK, USA abst.: Belgium, Botswana, Canada, France, FRG, Greece,Israel, Japan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, Portugal, Swaziland

Appendix I: Technical terms 45Appendix I The Principal Working TablesAn explanation of technical termsA number of technical terms are used in the text of this report and in the followingtables. Their meanings are as follows:Crude oil: principally (a) mineral oil that has not yet been refined, or a mixture ofsuch unrefined mineral oils. Incidentally (bi a mixture of unrefined mineral oilwith heavy and lighter oil products that has to be refined; these mixtures may bemade for tax reasons or to disguise the origin of the refined oil, butthey mayalsoserve to upgrade the unrefined oil or to dispose of a relatively low-priced by-product. In some cases (c) dirty oil products, in as far as they are not distinguishedfrom unrefined oil by the shipping industry.Petroleum products: gasoline (or petrol), gasoil, lubricating oil,fuel oil, carbonblack and all other products obtained from crude oil.Ship's name: self-explanatory. Subsequent name (*): if a ship was renamed sometime after the date she called at South Africa, the new name is mentioned.Date the ship was scrapped I +): the month the ship was reported as beingdelivered to a scrapyard for breaking up.Deadweight fdwt): the weight (in metric tons) that the ship can carry. 90-95 percent of this is the actual cargo capacity. The remaining 5-15 per cent is accountedfor by bunker fuel, stores, water, etc.Tons, tonnes: metric tons.Oil tanker: a ship designed to carry only oil cargoes.Combined carrier: a ship capable of carrying two types of cargo (though not bothat the same time): la) oil cargoes, (b) bulk solid cargoes (dry cargoes) such as coaland iron ore.OBO: ore/bulk/oil carrier.P.c.: part cargo.

Flag: a ship flies the flag of the country in which the ship herself is registered,which is often not the country in which the managing or owning companies arebased. Many ships (particularly tankers) which are owned and managed bycompanies based in Western countries are registered in countrieswhich have an'open registry'. These ships are then said to fly 'flags of convenience'. There is nogenuine link between these vessels and the flag of registry. A well-known open-registry fleet is that of Liberia.Some Western countries have instituted open registers of their own,known as'offshore' or 'international' registers, in addition to their normalshipping registers.In the tables, no distinction is made between vessels registered in such'international' registers and those sailing under the normal flags of the samecountry.Changed flag I*): if a ship has been reflagged since the delivery, though withoutbeing renamed, this is indicated in the table.Manager: the company that truly manages the ship, technically and/orcommercially. The manager may be different from the owner, although certainowners do manage their own ships. In some cases, a timechartererwho isresponsible for the trading of a ship (or for reletting her to other companies) isgiven here as the manager.Registered owner: the company which is at least the nominal ownerof the ship.The problem here is that a ship often has a registered owner whose total assetsconsist only of the ship in question. The company may well be ownedby anothercompany which also owns a number of other 'single-ship companies'. Thatcompany may in turn be owned by yet another company. It is easy enough toobtain the name and address of the company which is the registered owner of theship. It is often much more difficult to obtain details on the 'beneficial owner', i.e.the company which is at the end of a chain of owners. Such hidden ownership isparticularly prevalent with ships using 'flags of convenience'.Apparent beneficial owner: the company which, to the best of the ShippingResearch Bureau's knowledge, is the genuine and ultimate owner ofthe ship.Charterer: a company that reaches an agreement with the managerorowner/manager of a ship for the use of that ship. Contracts (or charter parties) canbe concluded for five main types of charter: time-charter, voyage charter,consecutive voyage charter, bare-boat charter, and contractof affreightment. Themeanings of these are as follows: a. a time-charter is an arrangement whereby theship's manager makes the ship available to the charterer for a specified period oftime. This leaves the charterer free to specify the cargo and destination or to reletthe ship to another company, subject to any constraints applied in the charter-party. The manager provides the crew; b. under a voyage charter,the ship'smanager agrees to transport a cargo from a specified port to one or more otherspecified ports; c. under a consecutive voyage charter, the ship ischartered tomake a number of consecutive voyages over the same route; d. a bare-boat charteris an arrangement under which the 'bare' ship is made available to the charterer fora specified period of time. Unlike a time-charter, the charterer has to provide hisown crew; e. in a contract ofaffreightment the shipowner agreesto make availablea specific tonnage capacity over a specified period to transport a fixed quantity of

cargo from a specified port or ports to one or more other specified ports.However, continued employment of a specified vessel is not necessarily part ofthe agreement; it is up to the shipowner to schedule suitable vessels tomeet theloading commitments.If a ship sails to South Africa and makes a delivery of oil, the companiesprimarily responsible are the charterer and manager. The manager

46 Appendix I: Technical termsprovides the officers and crew, and passes the charterer's instructions to thecaptain. When there is no charterer, the manager is fully responsible for theinstructions. If there is a chartering company, then it is the latter thatdecides thatthe ship will go to South Africa, but those instructions will in many casesberelayed to the captain via the managing company which is then a party to thedecision. The owner, however, may in certain cases be unawareof where his shipwent.If the owner of a tanker is an oil company, then normally the ship willonly carryoil owned by the oil company in question. If the company owning the tanker is ashipping company, and the tanker carries an oil cargo, it is becausethe ship hasbeen chartered by an oil company to carry such a cargo. Occasionally, a tanker ischartered on a time-charter or bare-boat basis by a shipping company, and is thensub-chartered to an oil company to carry that company's oil.Sometimes, a shipping company which owns or manages a tanker that has beenchartered by an oil company to carry oil, claims that it is not able to prevent thecharterer from using the ship to take oil to South Africa. This is not a validargument. There is nothing to prevent theowner or manager of a ship from specifying in the charter-party that the ship shallnot be used for taking oil to South Africa. Such contractual restrictions are indeedoften made.Multi-porting: see page 4.Month the ship called at South Africa: self explanatory.Secret call: the standard shipping industry publications, which report nearly allports of call by the world's commercial shipping fleet, do not mention the ship'scall at South Africa in the course of a particular voyage.Reported call: the standard shipping industry publications mentionthe ship's callat South Africa in the course of a particular voyage. N.B.: only the call isreported, not that the ship delivered oil. In most cases, calls at South African portsturn up (sometimes rather vaguely, e.g , 'Cape florl olrdersl', without a specifieddate) and are thus classified as 'reported calls' here only because the ship reporteda port in South Africa as her previous port of call on arrival elsewhere.

Appendix I: Table A 47Table AThe ships which called at South Africa in 1987-1888,and which apparently delivered oil cargoes during their visits to SouthAfrica

48 Appendix I: Table A

ship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIES. subsequent name tonnage *changed managing company countryapparent beneficial INVOLVED+ date the ship type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerwas scrapped registered of the ship'soilowner is based cargo1 ACTOR 274,938 Liberia Mosvold Shipping Liberia MosvoldShipping unknown* Jarabella oil tanker CoAlS1 Co. A/S1(Norway) (Norway)2 ALKI 232,600 Cyprus Seaarland Shipping Cyprus SeaarlandShipping unknownoil tanker Management GmbH2 Management GmbH3(Austria) lAustria)3 ALKI 232,600 Cyprus Seaarland Shipping Cyprus SeaarlandShipping unknownoil tanker Management GmbH2 Management GmbH3(Austria) (Austria)4 ALKI 232,600 Cyprus Seaarland Shipping Cyprus SeaarlandShipping African Middleoil tanker Management GmbH2 Management GmbH3 EastPetroleum(Austria) (Austria) C(Monaco/Switzerland)5 ALKI 232,600 Cyprus Seaarland Shipping Cyprus SeaarlandShipping unknownoil tanker Management GmbH2 Management GmbH3(Austria) (Austria)6 BERGE CHIEF 289,981 Norway Bergesen NorwayBergesen Transworld Oil 2oil tanker d.y A/S5 d.y. A/S5 (Netherlands/(Norway) (Norway) Bermuda)7 BERGE 360,700 Norway Bergesen Norway BergesenMarimpex6ENTERPRISE oil tanker d.y. A/S5 d.y. A/S5(F.R. Germany)(Norway) (Norway)8 BERGE 360,700 Norway Bergesen Norway BergesenunknownENTERPRISE oil tanker d.y. A/S5 d.y. A/S5(Norway) (Norway)

9 BERGE PRINCE 284,522 Liberia Bergesen LiechtensteinGeneral Ore unknownoil tanker d.y. A/S5 International Corp.7lLiechtenstein)(Norway)&Bergesen d.y. A/S5(Norway)

Appendix I: Table A 49,egion or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s: from which thecalled at South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call AfricaPersian Gulf May/Jne 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The shipI lrani secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area.See also: Verdens Gang, Norway, 17 August 1987.Persian Gulf Jly 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination wasI U.A.E.1 secret call 'Singapore'. A call there has not beenreported. Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she mayhave called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to the sameoil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Sep 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination wasIU.A.E.I secret call 'Singapore': A call there has not been reported.Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she mayhave called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to the sameoil-exporting area.Red Sea Nov 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vessel'disappeared' for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingEgyptl secret ca/I that she may have called at South Africa todeliver an oil cargo. She then sailedon to another oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Dec 88/Jan 89 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned toIU.A.E.l secret call the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Apr 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tol0mani secret call the same oil-exporting area.

See also: Verdens Gang, Norway, 17 August 1987.Persian Gulf Apr 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.On this delivery, see also page 3.Qatar; U.A.E. I See also: Verdens Gang, Norway, 17 August1987.Persian Gulf Jne 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned toU.A.E.; Omani secret call the same oil-exporting area.See also: Verdens Gang, Norway, 17 August 1987.Persian Gulf Apr 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tolrani secret call the same oil-exporting area.NB: The Government of the oil-exporting country was informed that the ship'scargo had been discharged at the port of Wilhelmshaven (F. R.G.).

50 Appendix h Table Aship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIES. subsequent name tonnage 'changed managing company countryapparent beneficial INVOLVED+ date the ship type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerwas scrapped registered of the ship'soilowner is based cargo10 BERGE PRINCE 284,522 Liberia Bergesen LiechtensteinGeneral Ore unknownoil tanker d.y. A/S5 International Corp.7(Norway)(Liechtenstein)(Norway) 8Bergesen d.y. A/S5(Norway)11 BERGE 284,507 Liberia Bergesen Liechtenstein GeneralOre unknownPRINCESS oil tanker d.y. A/S5 International Corp.7company" Lux Princess (Norway) (Liechtenstein)(reported voyage"Oslo Princess & catrBergesen d.y. A/S5 charter)(Norway)12 CAPTAIN JOHN 259,657 Greece Ceres Hellenic Liberia G.P.Livanos/Carras African Middle

G.P. LIVANOS oi/tanker Shipping Enterprises2 GroupEast PetroleumChoyo Maru o(Greece) (Greece/U.K.) Co.4c/o Unisea Ltd.2 (Monaco/(United Kingdom) Switzerland)unknown13 DAGLI 57,372 Norway Iver Bugge8 Liberia A/SOcean2 Marc Rich9Iver Lundina oil tanker (Norway) (Norway)(Switzerland)(time-charter)14 EASTERN 268,038 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping Euravia A.G.2PROMISE oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Switzerland)(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) Marc Rich2(Switzerland)15 EASTERN 267,577 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownSTRENGTH oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)16 EASTERN 267,577 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownSTRENGTH oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)17 ETHNIC 274,629 Greece Nereus Shipping Panama C.M.Lemos2 unknownoil tanker S.A.2 (Greece/United Kingdom)(Greece)18 ETHNIC 274,629 Greece Nereus Shipping Panama C.M.Lemos2 unknownoil tanker S.A.2 (Greece/United Kingdom) company(Greece) (reported voyagecharter)

Appendix /: Table A 51region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s from which the calledat South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call ArcAfricaPersian Gulf Jne 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.SSaudi Arabia, secret calPersian Gulf]

Persian Gulf Mar 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Press reports confirm this oil delivery: Faedrelandsvennen, Norway, 10 April1987.Red Sea Jan 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination after loadingcrude oil in two different countries. The vessel 'disappeared' fora prolongediEgypt; secret call period, under circumstances stronglysuggesting that she may have called atSaudi Arabia lSouth Africa to deliver her oil cargo there. She then immediately sailed on toanother oil-exporting area.Black Sea Oct 88 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof fuel oil.On this delivery, see also pages 12 and 17.I U. S.S.R.l] secret callPersian Gulf Dec 88/Jan 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vessel 'disappeared' for several weeks,under circumstances strongly suggesting that she may have called at South Africato deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Aug/Sep 88 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from anoil-exporting area; then immediately returned toIU.A.E.I secret call the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Oct 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'France'. A call there has not been reported. Instead, the ship 'disappeared' for [UUA.E.l secret call several weeks, under circumstances stronglysuggesting that she may have calledat South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to the sameoilexportingarea.Persian Gulf Mar 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Rotterdam'. A call there has not been reported. Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'for several weeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Aug 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Singapore'. A call there has not been reported. Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'SU.A.E.I secret call for several weeks, under circumstancesstrongly suggesting that she may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.

52 Appendix I: Table A

ship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIES. subsequent name tonnage changed managing company countryapparent beneficial INVOLVED+ date the ship type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerwas scrapped registered of the ship'soilowner is based cargo19 ETHNIC 274,629 Greece Nereus Shipping Panama C.M.Lemos2 unknownoil tanker S.A.2 (Greece/United Kingdom)(Greece)20 ETHNIC 274,629 Greece Nereus Shipping Panama C.M.Lemos2 Marc Rich2oil tanker S(Greece/United Kingdom) (Switzerland)(Greece)21 FELLOWSHIP L. 268,255 Liberia Ceres Hellenic Liberia G.P.Livanos/Carras unknownoil tanker Shipping Enterprises2 Group(Greece) (Greece/U.K.)c/o Unisea Ltd.2(United Kingdom)22 FIDIUS 254,691 United Barber Ship United KingdomCanadian Pacific Intercontinental" Happy Master oil tanker Kingdom Management Ltd.11 Ltd.2Transportation" Nor Master (Hong Kong) (Canada)Corp.12(Cayman Islands)23 FIDIUS 254,691 United Barber Ship United KingdomCanadian Pacific Intercontinental" Happy Master oil tanker Kingdom Management Ltd.11 Ltd.2Transportation* Nor Master (Hong Kong) (Canada)Corp.12(Cayman Islands)24 FORTUNESHIP 268,081 Greece Ceres Hellenic Liberia G.P.Livanos/Carras unknownL. oil tanker Shipping Enterprises2 Group(Greece) (Greece/U.K.)c/o Unisea Ltd.2(United Kingdom)25 FORTUNESHIP 268,081 Greece Ceres Hellenic Liberia G.P.Livanos/Carras unknownL. oil tanker Shipping Enterprises2 Group

(Greece) (Greece/U.K.)c/o Unisea Ltd.2(United Kingdom)26 FREEDOMSHIP 283,271 Greece Ceres Hellenic Liberia G.P.Livanos/Carras Marc Rich9oil tanker Shipping Enterprises2 Group (Switzerland)(Greece) (Greece/U.K.)c/o Unisea Ltd.2(United Kingdom)27 FRIENDSHIP L. 267,590 Greece Ceres Hellenic Liberia G.P.Livanos/Carras unknownoil tanker Shipping Enterprises2 Group(Greece) (Greece/U.K.)c/o Unisea Ltd.2(United Kingdom)28 LICORNE 290,767 Liberia Seatramp (U.K.) LiberiaCompagnie G6n~rale unknownOCEANE Ltd.13 Maritime etoil tanker Fnnir1Illinois (United Kingdom) Financibrel4* Lake Progress (France)

Appendix I: Table A 53region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s from which thecalled at South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call AfricaPersian Gulf Sep 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vesselIU.A.E.I secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver ar .;; -3rgo. She then immediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Oct 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vesselIU. A.E.; Qatar] secretcall 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Sep 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was[U.A.E.I secret call 'Singapore'. A call there has not been reported.Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she mayhave called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to the sameoil-exporting area.

Persian Gulf Mar 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned toPersian Gulf I secret call the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Jly 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned to1iranI secret call the same oil-exporting area.NB: The Government of the oil-exporting country was informed that the ship'scargo had been discharged at the port of Rotterdam INetherlands)on 16 August1987.Persian Gulf Apr 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vessell~atarl secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Jne/Jly 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vesselIQatarl secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Nov 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vesselI Persian GulfI secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Jan/Feb 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exportingarea. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Singapore'. A call there has not been reported. Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'[Persian Gulf; Omani secret call for several weeks, under circumstancesstrongly suggesting that she may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Feb 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned toilranl secret call the same oil-exporting area.On this delivery, see also page 5.NB: The Government of the oil-exporting country was informed that the ship'scargo had been discharged at the port of Singapore.

54 Appendix I: Table Aship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIES. subsequent name tonnage *changed managing company countryapparent beneficial INVOLVED

+ date the ship type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerwas scrapped registered of the ship'soilowner is based cargo29 LOUISIANA 315,713 Bahamas Dorian (Hellas) PanamaHadjipateras Group unknownS.A.2 (Greece)Berge Boss oil tanker C/O Peninsular(Greece) Maritime Ltd.15(United Kingdom)30 LOUISIANA 315,713 Bahamas Dorian (Hellas) PanamaHadjipateras Group unknownS.A.2 (Greece)Berge Boss oil tanker c/o Peninsular(Greece) Maritime Ltd.16(United Kingdom)31 LOUISIANA 315,713 Bahamas Dorian (HellasI PanamaHadjipateras Group unknownS.A.2 (Greece)Barge Boss oil tanker c/o Peninsular(Greece) Maritime Ltd.16(United Kingdom)32 LOUISIANA 315,713 Bahamas Dorian (Hellas) PanamaHadjipateras Group unknownBerge Boss oil tanker S.A.2 (Greece)(Grgeece c/o Peninsular (Greece) Maritime Ltd.15(United Kingdom)33 OBO BARON 103,320 Bahamas Sigurd Herlofson U.S.A.Sigurd Herlofson2 unknownTheotokos combined E Co A/S2 (Norway/Bahamas)companyEt B. & H. Shippingcarrier (Norway) Associates2 (reported voyagecharter)(U.S.A.)34 OCEAN 123,999 Cyprus Seatankers Cyprus JohnFredriksen KUO InternationalCARRIER combined Management Co. Ltd.2 Group2Oil Ltd.2carrie ((Norway/Cyprus)carrier (Cyprus) c/o Seatankers (Hong Kong)Management Co. Ltd.(Cyprus)35 PACIFICOS 268,467 Liberia Saipan Steamship CyprusKulukundis Group unknown

Corp.(Greece/U.K.) oil tanker *Cyprus Corp. rec/.)c/o Kassos Maritime c/o Off Shore CilEnterprises Ltd.18 Services (U.K.) Ltd.19(Greece) (United Kingdom)36 PACIFICOS 268,467 Cyprus Saipan Steamship CyprusKulukundis Group African MiddleCorp. (Greece/U.K.) East Petroleumoil tanker c/o Kassos Maritime c/o Off Shore Oil Co.4Enterprises Ltd.18 Services (U.K.) Ltd.19 (Monaco/(Greece) (United Kingdom) Switzerland)37 PATRIOTIC 269,500 Greece Nereus Shipping PanamaC.M. Lemos2 unknownoil tanker S.A.2 (Greece/United Kingdom) company(Greece) (reported voyagecharter)

Appendix I: Table A 55region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s from which the calledat South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call AfricaPersian Gulf Nov/Dec 86 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exportingarea. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Ain Sukhna' (Egypt). A call there has not been reported. Instead, the vessel'disappeared' for several weeks, under circumstances stronglysuggesting that shemay have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to thesame oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Feb/Mar 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exportingareawithout disclosing her destination. The vesselISaudi Arabial secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Jly 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then returned to the same oilIU.A.E. I secret callexporting area.Persian Gulf Aug 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned to1U.A.E.I secret call the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Mar/Apr 87 North West Sailed from an oil-exporting area toSouth Africa, apparently to deliver an oilEurope cargo. Then collected a cargo of South African coal for North WestEurope.Qatar; Saudi reported call NB: The Government of Saudi Arabiainformed the United Nations that the ship carried oil

Arabia; Persian Gulfi on 7 March 1987 and that no certificate ofdischarge was available.17Far East Dec 88/Jan 89 Medi- Sailed from an oil-exporting area toSouthAfrica, apparently to deliver an oilIMalaysial reported call terranean cargo. Then collected a cargoof SouthAfrican iron ore for the Mediterranean.Persian Gulf Jly/Aug 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination wasIQata r; U.A.E.I secret call 'Singapore'. A call there has not beenreported. Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she mayhave called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.Red Sea Nov 88 Middle East Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination. The vessel[Egyptl secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.Persian Gulf Jan 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination, while onsecret call voyage charter to an unknown company. The ship'disappeared' for severalIU.A.E.; Qatar seweeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting that she mayhave called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returnedto the same oil-exporting area.

56 Appendix I: Table Aship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIES. subsequent name tonnage *changed managing company countryapparent beneficial INVOLVED+ date the ship type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerwas scrapped registered of the ship'soilowner is based cargo38 PATRIOTIC 269,500 Greece Nereus Shipping PanamaC.M. Lemos2 unknownoil tanker S(Greece/United Kingdom)(Greece)39 PATRIOTIC 269,500 Greece Nereus Shipping PanamaC.M. Lemos2 Marc Rich2oil tanker (Greece/United Kingdom) (Switzerland)(Greece)40 PATRIOTIC 269,500 Greece Nereus Shipping PanamaC.M. Lemos2 unknownoil tanker S (Greece/United Kingdom)

(Greece)41 RAFIO 290,271 Liberia Marimpex21 LiberiaMarimpex21 Marimpex21oil tanker (F.R. Germany) (F.R. Germany) (F.R.Germany)42 UGLAND 54,500 Panama Ugland Management PanamaAndreas unknownOBO-ONE combined Co. A/S22 Ugland22*Nor-Obo 1"bo Buzzard carrier (Norway) (Norway)" Obo Buzzard * Obo Victory43 WORLD 237,474 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping African MiddleAMBASSADOR oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10East Petroleumoi/ tnkerCo.4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) Monaco/Switzerland)44 WORLD 271,580 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownBERMUDA oi/ tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10company(reported voyage(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) charter)45 WORLD 283,761 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownBRASILIA oil tanker Agency Ltd.23 Group23(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)46 WORLD 261,729 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownEMINENCE oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)

Appendix I: Table A 57region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s: from which thecalled at South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call AfricaPersian Gulf Mar 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The shipI Persian GulfI secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area. On returning, 'Singapore' was reported asthe vessel's previous port of call. However, no call there has beenrecorded duringthe period under consideration.

Persian Gulf Apr/May 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exportingareawithout disclosing her destination. The shipIU.A.E.I secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area. Press reports confirm thiscall: AfricaAnalysis, U.K., 21 August 1987.NB: The Government of Greece informed the United Nations that the cargo hadbeen discharged at Singapore on 11 May 1987, which "is proved by theshipdocuments which were certified by the competent port authorities ofSingapore".20 However, there are no records of a call of the vessel at the port ofSingapore during the whole of 1987. According to a spokesman of BP, an oilcargo originally belonging to them was loaded in the U.A.E. "We sold theoil to atrader and it was then their responsibility. I..) This particular cargo was not to besold in South Africa" (Africa Analysis, 21 August 1987).Persian Gulf Aug 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The ship(U.A.E.; Qatarl secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She thenimmediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Nov/Dec 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exportingareawithout disclosing her destination. The shipI Persian Gulf] secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned tothe same oil-exporting area.North West Apr 87 Black Sea Sailed to South Africa to deliver acargo of gasoline.Europe reported callI FrancelRed Sea Mar 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'U.S.A.'. A call there has not been reported. Instead, after a short call at Jeddah,Saudi Arabia, the ship 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstancesstrongly suggesting that she may have called at South Africa to deliver her oilcargo there. She then immediately sailed on to another oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Apr/May 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exportingareawhile on voyage charter to an unknownI Persian GulfI secret call company and 'disappeared' for severalweeks, under circumstances suggestingthat she may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. Shethen returnedto the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Jan 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned toSaudi ArabiaI secret call the same oil-exporting area.

Persian Gulf Dec 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned toI U.E1 secret call the same oil-exporting area.

58 Appendix I: Table Aship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIES. subsequent name tonnage *changed managing company countryapparent beneficial INVOLVED+date the ship type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerwas scrapped registered of the ship's oilowner is based cargo47 WORLD 261,729 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownEMINENCE oi/tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)48 WORLD 259,596 Panama World-Wide Shipping PanamaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownHARMONY oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)49 WORLD 259,596 Panama World-Wide Shipping PanamaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownHARMONY oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)50 WORLD 268,904 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping African MiddleHITACHI ZOSEN oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10East PetroleumCo.4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (Monaco!Switzerland)51 WORLD 237,285 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownPROGRESS oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)52 WORLD 237,285 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownPROGRESS oiltanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)53 WORLD 237,285 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownPROGRESS oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)54 WORLD 237,285 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknown

PROGRESS oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group'0(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)55 WORLD 237,285 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping African MiddlePROGRESS 0,/tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10East Petroleum(Hong Kon) (Co.4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (Monaco/Switzerland)56 WORLD 237,285 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping African MiddlePROGRESS oi) tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10East Petroleumoil tnkerCo.4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (Monaco!Switzerland)

Appendix 1: Table A 59region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s from which the calledat South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call ArcAfricaPersian Gulf Apr 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Port de Bouc' (France). A call there has not been reported. Instead, the shipIQatar; Oman! secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.Persian Gulf May 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Port de Bouc' (France). A call there has not been reported. Instead, the shipIOman! secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Sep 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Singapore'. A call there has not been reported. Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'IOman! secret call for several weeks, under circumstances stronglysuggesting that she may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Red Sea Jly 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination. The ship

Egypt! secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelysailed on to another oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Dec 86 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.I U.A.E. I secret callPersian Gulf Jan 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.I U.A. E. secret callPersian Gulf Jly 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.IU.A E. ! secret calPersian Gulf Dec 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.IU.A.E.I secret callRed Sea Jne 88 Red Sea Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exportingarea; then returned to the same oil[Egypt] secret call exportingarea.Red Sea Aug 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination. The vesselI EgyptIsecret call'disappeared' for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver her oil cargo. She thenimmediately sailed on to another oil-exporting area.

60 Appendix I: Table Aship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIES* subsequent name tonnage changed managing company countryapparent beneficial INVOLVED+ date the ship type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerwas scrapped registered of the ship'soilowner is based cargo57 WORLD 237,285 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownPROGRESS oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)

58 WORLD 262,267 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownRENOWN oil tanker Agency L.td.23 Group23company(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (reported voyagecharter)59 WORLD 262,267 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownRENOWN oil tanker Agency Ltd.23 Group23company(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (reported voyagecharter)60 WORLD 262,267 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownRENOWN oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)61 WORLD 262,267 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping African MiddleRENOWN Agency Ltd.10 Group'0 EastPetroleumoil tanker KCo.4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (Monaco/Switzerland)62 WORLD 260,064 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownSUMMIT oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)63 WORLD 356,324 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping Marc Rich2SYMPHONY oil tanker Agency Ltd.23 Group23(Switzerland)(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)64 WORLD TRUTH 249,223 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownTrade Fortitude combined Agency Ltd.10 Group10carrier (Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)

Appendix I: Table A 61region or country month the ship region to c o ni m e n t s from which thecalledat South which the ship sailed to Africa ship saileoSouth Africa from Souti,type of call AfricaPersian Gulf Dec 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination wasWU.A.E.1 secret call 'Singapore'. A call there has not been reported.Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'

for several weeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Apr 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination, while on[Saudi Arabial secret call voyage charter to an unknown company. Theship then 'disappeared' for severalweeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting that she may have called atSouth Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returnedto the sameoil-exporting area.Persian Gulf May/Jne 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exportingareawithout disclosing her destination, while onIPersian Gulf I secret call voyage charter to an unknown company. Theship then 'disappeared' for severalweeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting that she may have called at SouthAfrica to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Feb/Mar 88 East Africa Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination wasMUA.E.; OmanI secretcall 'Singapore'. A call there has not beenconfirmed. Instead, the ship 'disappeared'for several weeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.Red Sea May 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination. The vessel'disappeared' for several weeks, under circumstances stronglysuggesting thatlEgypti secret call she may have called at South Africa to deliverher oil cargo. She then sailed on toanother oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Oct 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vesselIlranl secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver her oil cargo. She thenimmediately returned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Mar 87 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area,reportedly on voyage charter to Marc Rich, awell-known oil supplier to South Africa. The vessel's destination was 'Options'.The ship 'disappeared' for several weeks, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she may have called at South Africa to deliver her oil cargo. She thenreturned to the same oil-exporting area.NB: The Government of Iran was informed that the cargo had beendischarged atRotterdam (Netherlands).Persian Gulf Jly 87 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned toIU.A.E.1 secret call the same oil-exporting area.

62 Appendix I: Table Aship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIES* subsequent name tonnage changed managing company countryapparent beneficial INVOLVED+ date the ship type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerwas scrapped registered of the ship'soilowner is based cargo65 WORLD 264,170 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping Marc Rich2XANADU oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Switzerland)(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) Mark Wolman24(United Kingdom)66 WORLD 264,170 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownXANADU oil tanker Agency Ltd.10 Group10(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)1. Referring to the private and confidential nature of all its charter-contracts,this company declined to confirm whether or not the tanker discharged oil at aSouth African port. With reference to preliminary findings regarding aseries of possible oil deliveries to South Africa by the Actor (formerlysailing under the name Moscliff, the company stated that the Bureau's"information is not correct, as f. inst. every time the above mentionedvessel has discharged crude oil at Ain Sukhna [Red Sea, Egypt -SRBI,you have believed that the vessel's destinations have been South Africanports". However, during the period under consideration, it was neverreported that the vessel was destined for, or called at Ain Sukhna.Only in one of the other cases submitted (SRB, Oil to South Africa, 1988, pp. 34-35, case No. 3; month in South Africa: April 1986), it was reported totheshipping press that the vessel sailed for, respectively returnedfromAin Sukhna. However, the shipowner publicly admitted afterwards that hisship in April 1986 in fact discharged a cargo of oil at a South African port(ibidem, p. 50, note 3).2. This company has not replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau. 3. This company hasnot replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau.The Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Shipping Research Bureauthat, according to a spokesman of the company, its "involvementin the shipping business only concerns administrative matters such asmaintenance, repairs and personnel. (...) The spokesman (...) also

maintained that the nature and the destination of the freights can onlybedetermined by the owner or the charterer of the ship whereas his companyhas no influence thereupon. Furthermore, he declared that the owner ofthe oil tanker 'Alki' told him that the allegations of oil transports to South Africaare not true" (letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vienna, to theShipping Research Bureau of 7 May 1990). In various shipping industrypublications, the vessel in question is listed as belonging to the Seaarland fleetexclusively. No reply was received as to the identity of the 'owner ofthe oil tanker Alki' mentioned above.4. This company denies "categorically (...) any involvement by ourcompany,or any associated company, in such alleged supplies Ito South Africal. Wefurthermore confirm that we have no knowledge of any of the vesselsmentioned (...) nor, in consequence, have we had any involvementwithsame".However, information obtained by the Shipping Research Bureau confirms thatthis company, or one belonging to this Group, was in fact involved inthe sale of the cargo of Egyptian crude oil on board this vessel.In a second letter the Shipping Research Bureau asked the company if it couldprovide the Bureau with the name(s) of the company lies) to which they hadpossibly resold the cargo. It restated that "... since we were notinvolved in anyway with the shipments you have mentioned, we have nopossibility to assist you in discovering the identity lies) of the eventualownerls) of such cargoes".5. This company confirmed that the vessel has "traded as stated" by theShipping Research Bureau.6. This company states that it has never chartered this vessel forjourneys toSouth African ports. However, standard international shippingpublications list this vessel as chartered by Marimpex for this voyage.7. This company states that the vessel was "bare-boat charteredto aNorwegian shipping firm and (...) [the shipl did in fact call at portsinSouth Africa in connection with oil trade. Such calls were pursuant toauthority contained in the bare-boat charter agreement permitting them toengage in 'lawful trade'."8. This company wrote to the Shipping Research Bureau: "We can assureyou that during the period we had above mentioned ship on time charterthe vesseltraded only with lawful merchandise according both to CharterParty and Norwegian Law".On Norwegian state television, Mr Jan A. Bugge, chairman of thecompany, confirmed that his ship had delivered fuel oil from theSovietUnion to South Africa during this voyage (NRK TV, Norway, 22 April1989; cf. page 12 of this report).9. Neither this company, nor the company Hollywell Shipping Ltd. (UnitedKingdom) that acted on behalf of Marc Rich in this case, have replied torequests sent by registered mail or telefax, nor to one or more telex ortelefax messages, in which they were asked to comment on the findingsof the Shipping Research Bureau.

10. This company has not replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau.Mr R.J. Allen of World-Wide has informed the press that oil deliveries by World-Wide tankers to South Africa are nothing secret and form part of the company'sinternational business (South China Morning Post, HongKong, 2 April 1989; see also page 21 of this report).11. This company states that "the vessel was on charter and we are notaware of orders given by the charterers".12. This company has not replied to several requests sent by registered mail,in which it was asked to comment on the findings of the ShippingResearch Bureau.In a letter to the Shipping Research Bureau, the managing directorof theEast Coast Group Ltd. (Eastco; United Kingdom), Mr D.H. Cavendish-

Appendix I: Table A 63region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s from which the calledat South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call ArcAfricaPersian Gulf Dec 87/Jan 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was 'Ain Sukhna' (Egypt). A call there hasnot been confirmed. Instead, the vessel 'disappeared' for a prolonged period, undercircumstances strongly suggesting that she may have called at SouthAfrica todeliver an oil cargo. She then returned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Nov 88 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was[U.A.E.1 secret call 'Singapore'. A call there has not been reported.Instead, the vessel 'disappeared'for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she mayhave called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to the sameoil-exporting area.Pell, confirmed that Eastco had chartered this vessel on behalfofIntercontinental Transportation Corporation. He stated that "we have noreason to suspect that the vessel I...) discharged in South Africa."Initially, Eastco mentioned an address on Grand Cayman, BritishWestIndies, as the office address of Intercontinental TransportationCorporation. However, when a registered letter from the ShippingResearch Bureau was 'returned to sender', Eastco gave an alternative address inNassau, Bahamas. No reply was received to a letter sent tothat address either.The Government of the Cayman Islands confirmed to the Bureau that"the company is registered here. We have no means, however, ofverifying the ownership of the cargo or taking any action in Cayman lawagainst the company, or exerting pressure on it even if it lowned the

cargo, I even while sympathizing with your general aims" (letter to theShipping Research Bureau, 21 June 1988).On the companies Intercontinental Transportation Corporation andEastco, see also page 17 of this report.13. This company declined to confirm whether or not the ship delivered crudeoil to South Africa.In a letter to the Shipping Research Bureau, the company wrote that it"isa totally non-political, purely commercial operation and reservesthe right to tradewith respectable principals, as owners or charterers in any tradethat is consistent with International Maritime Law. (.. . Seatramp (UK)Ltd are merely managing agents for a number of owners and companiesand are not invariably involved in all the chartering activities of theirprincipals, and we would suggest that some of the data you accredittoSeatramp may be inaccurate. Finally, in a competitive world and thehistorically depressed market, the company must preserve theconfidentiality of a high proportion of its business, and so as to a matterof principle is not willing to disclose information to disinterested thirdparties."14. This company states that the information gathered by the ShippingResearch Bureau "is erroneous: on the dates mentioned, the LicorneOceane has to our knowledge made a voyage to the Far East".However, sources within the shipping industry confirm that a secret oildelivery to South Africa was made; a Far Eastern destination (Singapore)was used to conceal the true destination of the cargo (see also page5).The company further states that "the commercial management of thevessel is conducted by Seatramp (UK) Limited 1...1, London", andtherefore refers to that company "for a more detailed reply". (See alsonote 13.)15. An answer on behalf of the owners was received from PeninsularMaritime Ltd., "As Agents Only". The company does not revealwho owns the vessel; it states, however, that it has no knowledge ofacompany or entity entitled the Hadjipateras Group. With regard tovoyages to South Africa of two vessels, possibly involved in oil deliveriesto the country, the company states: "The contracts in question containconfidentiality clauses which preclude the release of any informationpertaining to the Charter Parties." Nevertheless, the company has "beenauthorised to confirm to you that neither vessel has ever discharged oiland or its products at or off South Africa". However, sources withintheshipping industry confirm that the tanker sailed to South Africa todischarge oil. See also note 16.16. An answer on behalf of the owners was received from PeninsularMaritime Ltd., "As Agents Only". The company does not reveal whoowns the vessel; it states, however, that it has no knowledge of a company orentity entitled the Hadjipateras Group. With regard tovoyages to South Africa of two vessels, possibly involved in oil deliveriesto the country, the company states: "The contracts in question contain

confidentiality clauses which preclude the release of any informationpertaining to the Charter Parties." Nevertheless, the company has "beenauthorised to confirm to you that neither vessel has ever discharged oiland or its products at or off South Africa". In a second letter, thecompany states that it has checked the trading record of a number ofvessels among which the Louisiana and "can confirm that none of themhas delivered oil to South Africa".However, sources within the shipping industry confirm that the tankersailed to South Africa to discharge oil.17. Report of the Intergovernmental Group to Monitor the SupplyandShipping of Oil and Petroleum Products to South Africa, United Nations,October 1988, p. 54.18. The company Kassos Maritime Enterprises Ltd. denies any involvementwith the vessel Pacificos and with the Kulukundis Group. The companyinformedthe Shipping Research Bureau that another company, SaipanSteamship Corporation, had "from time to time undertaken technicaladvice and supervision" and was "the responsible party for maintenanceand repairs".The company Saipan Steamship Corporation is located at the sameaddress as Kassos Maritime Enterprises Ltd. A registered letter from the ShippingResearch Bureau was, however, returned marked 'unknown'.In numerous articles in the international shipping press and in variousshipping industry publications, the company Kassos Maritime EnterprisesLtd. is referred to as owner or manager of the vessel Pacificos and asbelonging to the Kulukundis Group. See also note 19.19. The company Off Shore Oil Services (U.K.) Ltd. stated that theKulukundis Group neither are or have ever been the vessel's apparent

64 Appendix I: Table Abeneficial owners. In a second telex message, Off Shore Oil Servicesrepeated that "our principals have no association with the I ...) vessel".However, various shipping industry publications list the vessel asbelonging to the Kulukundis fleet at the time of delivery. The company refrainedfrom commenting on the Bureau's queries about the apparentoil deliveries to South Africa. See also note 18.20. Report of the Intergovernmental Group..., United Nations, November1987/January 1988, pp. 54-55.21. This company states that it has never chartered this vessel for calls atSouth African ports. However, this statement is rather irrelevant as thecompanywas the vessel's apparent beneficial owner during the periodconcerned.22. In a letter to the Shipping Research Bureau, the Ugland Group hasconfirmed the findings of the Bureau.23. This company has not replied to a request sent by telefax, nor to tworeminding messages by registered mail and fax, in which it was askedtocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau. See also

note 10.The company's London agents, Marine Navigation Co. Ltd., whichrequested a copy of the Bureau's letter to World-Wide Shipping, has notresponded to that letter, nor to an additional letter and telex message 24. In a letterto the Shipping Research Bureau from one of his companies,Tiger Petroleum Corporation N.V. (Netherlands Antilles), Mr MarkWolman (London, U.K.) states: "In respect to your enquiry abouttheC..) World Xanadu we must inform you that we have not been involvedin any purchase or movement on [this[ vessel..I whatsoever. Wesuspect that we are being connected to these reports as this companyused to trade on occasions with Marc Rich r Co. until it was involved in a disputeinvolving shipping with them in 1987. Because of their alleged involvement withbusiness in South Africa, our name has been tangled with theirs and consequentlyspeculation has led to a belief that we are some type of 'co-conspirator',"However,various sources within the oil and shipping industry confirm that MrWolman/Tiger Petroleum acted as an intermediary in the supply of this oil cargoby Marc Rich to South Africa. The same sources state that the disputebetweenMarc Rich andMark Wolman/Tiger Petroleum to which Mr Wolman refers involves a conflictbetween both parties about the financial settlement of one or more oildeliveries toSouth Africa (see also below, Table H, pp. 90 91, case No. 3; on MarkWolman,see also SR B, Oil to South Africa, 1988,pp. 34-35, case No. 9).

Appendix /: Table B 65Table B: The oil companies apparently owning the presumed oil cargoes aboardthe 66 ships - 1987-1988 The information in this table is extracted from Table A,which also provides details regarding responses by companies named. A summaryversion of this table is provided in Table 1.oil companyAFRICAN MIDDLE EAST PETROLEUM CO. LTD. INC.principal country or countries in which the company is basedMonaco/Switzerlandtotal: 8 casesEURAVIA A.G.Switzerlandships' namesAlkiCapt. John G.P. Livanos Pacificos World Ambassador World HitachiZosenWorld Progress World Progress World RenownEastern Promisetotal: 1 caseINTERCONTINENTAL TRANSPORTATION CORP. total: 2 casesKUO INTERNATIONAL OIL LTD.total: 1 caseMARIMPEX total: 2 cases

MARC RICH total: 7 casesCayman Islands Hong Kong F.R. GermanySwitzerlandFidius FidiusOcean CarrierBerge Enterprise RafioDagliEastern Promise EthnicFreedomship L. Patriotic World Symphony World XanaduTRANSWORLD OILNetherlands/ Bermudatotal: 1 caseMARK WOLMAN United Kingdom WorldXanadu 65total: 1 caseunknown companies 45 shipscase No. in Table ABerge Chief

66 Appendix I: Table CTable C: The shipping companies which were the managers and apparentbeneficial owners of the66 ships - 1987-1988The information in this table is extracted from Table A, which also providesdetails regarding responses by companies named. A summary version of this tableis provided in Table 2.principal country ship's names or countries in which company is basedcase No. in Table Aduring the voyage to South Africa, the company was involved as: managingapparentcompany beneficialownerB. & H. SHIPPING ASSOCIATES BARBER SHIP MANAGEMENT LTD.total: 2 casesBERGESEN D.Y. A/SU.S.A.Hong KongNorwaytotal: 6 casesObo Baron Fidius FidiusBerge Chief Berge Enterprise Berge Enterprise Berge Prince Berge Prince BergePrincessIVER BUGGE Norway Dagli 13 xCANADIAN PACIFIC LTD. Canada Fidius 22xFidius 23 x

total: 2 casesCERES HELLENIC SHIPPING ENTERPRISES Greece CaptainJohnG.P. Livanos 12 xtotal: 6 cases Fellowship L. 21 xFortuneship L. 24 xFortuneship L. 25 xFreedomship L. 26 xFriendship L. 27 xCOMPAGNIE GENERALE France Licorne Octane 28xMARITIME ET FINANCIEREDORIAN (HELLAS) S.A. Greece Louisiana 29xLouisiana 30 xtotal: 4 cases Louisiana 31 xLouisiana 32 xJOHN FREDRIKSEN GROUP Norway / Cyprus Ocean Carrier34 xc/o Seatankers Management Co. Ltd. (Cyprus) GENERAL OREINTERNATIONAL CORP. Liechtenstein Berge Prince 9xBerge Prince 10 xtotal: 3 cases Berge Princess 11xshipping company

shipping companyHADJIPATERAS GROUP c/o Peninsular Maritime Ltd. (U.K.)principal country or countries in which company is basedGreece / United Kingdomship's namesLouisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisianacase No. in Table AAppendix I: Table C 67during the voyage to South Africa, the company was involved as: managingapparentcompany beneficialownerxxxxtotal: 4 casesSIGURD HERLOFSON

c/o S. Herlofson & Co. A/S (Norway) KASSOS MARITIME ENTERPRISESLTD.- see Saipan Steamship Corp. KULUKUNDIS GROUP c/o Off Shore OilServices (U.K.) Ltd.Norway / BahamasGreece / United Kingdomtotak 2 casesCM. LEMOS c/o C.M. Lemos Ltd. (U.K.)Greece / United Kingdomtotal: 8 casesG.P. LIVANOS/CARRAS GROUP c/o Unisea Ltd. (U.K.)Greece / United Kingdomtotal: 6 casesMARIMPEX MOSVOLD SHIPPING CO. A/S NEREUS SHIPPING S.A. total:8 casesFR. Germany Norway GreeceEthnic Ethnic Ethnic Ethnic Patriotic Patriotic Patriotic PatrioticCaptain John G.P. Livanos Fellowship L. Fortuneship L. Fortuneship L.Freedomship L. Friendship L.Ethnic Ethnic Ethnic Ethnic Patriotic Patriotic PatrioticPatriotic 4U xA/S OCEAN Norway Dagli 13xOFF SHORE OIL SERVICES (U.K.) LTD.-see Kulukundis GroupObo BaronPacificos Pacificos

68 Appendix I: Table C shipping companyprincipal country ship's names or countries in which company is basedcase No. in Table Aduring the voyage to South Africa, the company was involved as: managingapparentcompany beneficialownerPENINSULAR MARITIME LTD.-see Hadjipateras Group SAIPAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION c/o KassosMaritime Enterprises (Greece) total: 2 casesSEAARLAND SHIPPING MANAGEMENT GMBH total: 4 casesSEATANKERS MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.SEATRAMP (U.K.) LTD. ANDREAS UGLANDUGLAND MANAGEMENT CO. A/S UNISEA LTD.-see G.P. Livanos/Carras GroupGreecePacificos PacificosAustria

Cyprus United Kingdom Norway NorwayAlkiAlkiAlkiAlkiOcean Carrier Licorne Octane Ugland Obo-One Ugland Obo-OneWORLD-WIDE SHIPPING AGENCY LTD. Hong Kong EasternPromiseEastern Strength total: 27 cases Eastern StrengthWorld Ambassador World Bermuda World Brasilia World Eminence WorldEminence World Harmony World Harmony World Hitachi Zosen WorldProgressWorld Progress World Progress World Progress World Progress World ProgressWorld Progress World Renown World Renown World Renown World RenownWorld Summit World Symphony World Truth World Xanadu World Xanadu2345 34XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Appendix : Table C 69principal country ship's names or countries in which company is basedcase during the voyage toNo. in South Africa, the company Table A was involved as:managing apparentcompany beneficialownerWORLD-WIDE SHIPPING GROUPHong Kongtotal: 27 casesEastern Promise 14 Eastern Strength 15 Eastern Strength 16 WorldAmbassador 43 World Bermuda 44World Brasilia 45World Eminence 46World Eminence 47World Harmony 48World Harmony 49World Hitachi Zosen 50 World Progress 51World Progress 52World Progress 53World Progress 54World Progress 55World Progress 56World Progress 57World Renown 58World Renown 59World Renown 60World Renown 61World Summit 62World Symphony 63World Truth 64World Xanadu 65World Xanadu 66shipping company

70 Appendix I: Table DTable D: The countries in which the companies are based, and the countrieswhose flags were usedby the 66 ships - 1987-1988The information in this table is extracted from Table A, which also providesdetails regarding responses by companies named.COUNTRY ships' names caseNo. in TableAOIL COMPANY based in this country, which was apparently the ownerof ship'scargo

AUSTRIA AlkiAlkitotal: 4 cases AlkiAlkiBAHAMAS LouisianaLouisiana total: 5 cases LouisianaLouisianaSHIPPING COMPANY based in this country, which was involved as the ship'smanaging apparentcompany beneficialownerSeaarland Seaarland Seaarland Seaarlandregisteredowner of shipSeaarland Seaarland Seaarland SeaarlandUOO Baron . rienoison/0. cr f. xBERMUDA Berge Chief 6 Transworld OilCANADA Fidius 22 Canadian PacificFidius 23 Canadian Pacifictotal: 2 casesCAYMAN Fidius 22 Intercont. Tr. C. Canadian PacificISLANDS Fidius 23 Intercont. Tr. C. Canadian Pacifictotal: 2 casesCYPRUS Alki 2 x xAlki 3 x xtotal: 7 cases Alki 4 x xAlki 5 x xOcean Carrier 34 Seatankers Man. Fredriksen Group x xPacificos 35 xPacificos 36 x xFRANCE Licorne Oc6ane 28 Cie G~n. M. et F.F.R. GERMANY Berge Enterprise 7 MarimoexRafiototal: 2 casesGREECE Captain JohnG.P. Livanos total: 20 cases EthnicEthnic Ethnic EthnicFellowship L.Fortuneship L.Fortuneship L.Freedomship L.Friendship L.Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana ./. LouisianaMarimpexMarimpex

Ceres Hellenic Nereus Shipping Nereus Shipping Nereus Shipping NereusShipping Ceres Hellenic Ceres Hellenic Ceres Hellenic Ceres HellenicCeresHellenic Dorian (Hellas) Dorian (Hellas) Dorian (Hellas) Dorian (Hellas)MarimpexLivanos/Carras C.M. Lemos C.M. Lemos C.M. Lemos C.M. LemosLivanos/Carras Livanos/Carras Livanos/Carras Livanos/CarrasLivanos/CarrasHadjipateras Gr. Hadjipateras Gr. Hadjipateras Gr. Hadjipateras Gr.ship used flagof this country

Appendix I: Table D 71COUNTRY ships' names caseNo. inTableAGREECE Pacificos 35Pacificos 36continued Patriotic 37Patriotic 38Patriotic 39Patriotic 40HONG KONG Eastern Promise 14Eastern Strength 15 total: 30 cases Eastern Strength 16Fidius 22Fidius 23Ocean Carrier 34 World Ambassador 43 World Bermuda 44 World Brasilia45 World Eminence 46 World Eminence 47 World Harmony 48 WorldHarmony 49 World Hitachi Zosen 50 World Progress 51 World Progress 52World Progress 53 World Progress 54 World Progress 55 World Progress 56World Progress 57 World Renown 58World Renown 59World Renown 60World Renown 61World Summit 62World Symphony 63 World Truth 64World Xanadu 65World Xanadu 66OIL COMPANY based in this country, which was apparently the ownerof ship'scargoKuo InternationalSHIPPING COMPANY based in this country, which was involved as the ship'smanaging apparentcompany beneficialowner

Saipan S.S. Saipan S.S. Nereus Shipping Nereus Shipping Nereus ShippingNereus Shipping World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag.Barber Ship M. Barber Ship M.World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide ShAg. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-WideSh.Ag.World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-WideSh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag.World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-WideSh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag, World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag. World-Wide Sh.Ag.registered ship owner of used ship flagofthiscountryKulukundis Group Kulukundis Group C.M. Lemos C.M. Lemos C.M. LemosC.M. Lemos World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr.World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr.World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr.World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr.World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr.World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr.World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr. World-Wide Sh.Gr.LIBERIA Actor 1 xBerge Prince 9total: 39 cases Berge Prince 10Berge Princess 11Captain JohnG.P. Livanos 12 xDagli 13 xEastern Promise 14 XEastern Promise 15 XEastern Strength 16 XFellowship L. 21 XFortuneship L. 24 XFortuneship L. 25 X./. Freedomship L. 26 x

72 Appendix I: Table DCOUNTRY ships' names caseNo. in TableAOIL COMPANY based in this country, which was apparently the ownerof ship'scargoSHIPPING COMPANY based in this country, which was involved as the ship'smanaging apparentcompany beneficial

ownerLIBERIA Friendship L.Licorne Octane continued PacificosRafioWorld AmbassadorWorld BermudaWorld BrasiliaWorld Eminence World EminenceWorld Hitachi ZosenWorld Progress World Progress World Progress World Progress World ProgressWorld Progress World Progress World Renown World Renown World RenownWorld Renown World SummitWorld SymphonyWorld TruthWorld Xanadu World Xanadu LIECHTENSTEIN Berge PrinceBerge Prince total: 3 cases Berge PrincessMONACO AlkiCaptain John total: 8 cases G.P. LivanosPacificosWorld AmbassadorWorld Hitachi ZosenWorld Progress World Progress World RenownGen. Ore/Bergesen Gen. Ore/Bergesen Gen. Ore/Bergesen4 African Middle EastAfrican Middle East African Middle East African Middle East African MiddleEast African Middle East African Middle East African Middle East6 Transworld OilNORWAY ActorBerge Chieftotal: 11 cases Berge EnterpriseBerge EnterpriseBerge Prince Berge PrinceBerge PrincessDagli./. Obo BaronMosvold Shipping Bergesen Bergesen Bergesen Bergesen Bergesen BergesenIver Bugge S. HerlofsonMosvold Shipping Bergesen xBergesen xBergesen xBergesen/Gen. Ore Bergesen/Gen. Ore Bergesen/Gen. Ore A/S OceanHerlofson/B. & H.registered owner of shipship used flagof this countryTHE

NETHERLANDSBerge Chief

Appendix I: Table D 73COUNTRY ships' names caseNo. in TableAOIL COMPANY based in this country, which was apparently the ownerof ship'scargoSHIPPING COMPANY based in this country, which was involved as the ship'smanaging apparentcompany beneficialownerNORWAY Ocean CarrierUgland Obo-One continuedPANAMA EthnicEthnictotal: 15 cases EthnicEthnicLouisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Patriotic Patriotic Patriotic PatrioticUgland Obo-One World Harmony World Harmony SWITZERLAND AlkiCaptain John total: 14 cases G.P. LivanosDagliEastern PromiseEthnicFreedomship L.PacificosWorld AmbassadorWorld Hitachi ZosenWorld Progress World Progress World RenownWorld SymphonyWorld Xanadu UNITED Captain JohnKINGDOM G.P. LivanosEthnictotal: 24 cases EthnicEthnic EthnicFellowship L.Fidius FidiusFortuneship L.Fortuneship L.Freedomship L.Friendship L.Licorne OctaneLouisiana .3. LouisianaUgland Man.4 African Middle East

African Middle East Marc Rich Euravia/Marc Rich Marc Rich Marc Rich AfricanMiddle East African Middle East African Middle East African MiddleEastAfrican Middle East African Middle East Marc Rich M. Rich/M. WolmanSeatrampFredriksen Group Andreas Uglandregistered owner of shipship used flagof this countryLivanos/Carras CM. Lemos C.M. Lemos C.M. Lemos C.M. LemosLivanos/CarrasLivanos/Carras Livanos/Carras Livanos/Carras Livanos/CarrasHadjipateras Gr. Hadjipateras Gr.

74 Appendix I: Table DCOUNTRY ships' names caseNo. in TableAOIL COMPANY based in this country, which was apparently the ownerof ship'scargoSHIPPING COMPANY based in this country, which was involved as the ship'smanaging apparentcompany beneficialownerUNITED LouisianaKINGDOM LouisianaPacificos continued PacificosPatriotic Patriotic Patriotic PatrioticWorld XanaduU.S.A.M. Wolman/M. Rich -Obo BaronHadjipateras Gr. Hadjipateras Gr. Kulukundis Group Kulukundis Group C.M.Lemos C.M. Lemos C.M. Lemos C.M. LemosB. Et H./Herlofson xregistered owner of shipship used flagofthis country

Appendix k Table E 75Table E: The countries from which the 66 ships sailed to South Africa -1987-1988 The information in this table is extracted from Table A. A summary versionof this table is provided in Table 3.*: 'multi-porting'COUNTRY/REGIONship's names

case No.inTable AdeadweightALL COUNTRIES grand total: 66 cases - 17,102,603 tons dwtPERSIAN GULF grand total: 55 cases - 14,862,793 tons dwtIRAN6 cases - 1,649,489 tons dwt plus1 case multi-porting -356,324 tons dwtOMAN4 cases - 1,083,802 tons dwt plus4 cases multi-porting - 1, 152,286 tons dwtQATAR2 cases - 536,162 tons dwt plus7 cases multi-porting - 1,807,755 tons dwtSAUDI ARABIA fincl. Red Sea ports)3 cases -861,741 tons dwt plus4 cases multi-porting - 1,008, 109 tons dwtActorBerge Prince Berge Princess FidiusLicorne Oc6ane World Summit World Symphony* Berge Chief BergeEnterprise* EthnicFriendship L.* World Eminence* World Harmony World Harmony WorldRenown* Berge Enterprise* Ethnic*Fortuneship L. Fortuneship L. Obo Baron* Pacificos* Patriotic* Patriotic* WorldEminence*Berge Enterprise* Berge Prince* Captain John G.P. Livanos* Louisiana OboBaron* World Brasilia World Renown274,938 284,522 284,507254,691290,767 260,064356,324* 289,981 360,700* 274,629 267,590* 261,729' 259,596 259,596262,267' 360,700* 274,629* 268,081 268,081 103,230* 268,467*269,500* 269,500'261,729* 360,700* 284,522* 259,657* 315,713 103,230' 283,761 262,267

76 Appendix I: Table ECOUNTRY/REGIONUNITED ARAB EMIRATES22 cases - 5,760,861 tons dwt plus8 cases multi-porting - 2,422,087 tons dwtPERSIAN GULF: unknown countries6 cases - 1,631,580 tons dwtAlkiAlkiAlki

Berge Enterprise* Berge Enterprise* Eastern Promise Eastern Strength EasternStrength EthnicEthnicEthnic* Fellowship L. Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Pacificos* Patriotic*Patriotic Patriotic* World Eminence World Progress World ProgressWorldProgress World Progress World Progress World Renown* World Symphony*World Truth World Xanadu World XanaduFidiusFreedomship L. Patriotic RafioWorld Bermuda World RenownRED SEAgrand total: 8 cases - 2,003,939 tons dwtEGYPT7 cases - 1,744,282 tons dwt plus1 case multi-porting -259,657 tons dwtAlkiCaptain John G.P. Livanos* Pacificos World Ambassador World Hitachi ZosenWorld Progress World Progress World Renowncase No.inTable Adeadweight232,600232,600 232,600 360,700'360,700' 268,038 267,577 267,577 274,629 274,629 274,629*268,255 315,713315,713 315,713 268,467* 269,500* 269,500 269,500' 261,729 237,285 237,285237,285 237,285 237,285 262,267* 356,324*249,223 264,170 264,170254,691 283,271 269,500 290,271 271,580 262,267232,600 259,657* 268,467 237,474 268,904 237,285 237,285 262,267ship's names

COUNTRY/REGIONSAUDI ARABIA1 case multi-porting Saudi Arabian Red Sea port see aboveEUROPEgrand total: 2 cases - 111,872 tons dwtFRANCE1 case - 54,500 tons dwtU.S.S.R.1 case - 57,372 tons dwtFAR EAST MALAYSIA I case - 123,999 tons dwtship's namesUgland Obo-One DagliOcean CarrierAppendix I: Table E 77

case No. deadweightinTable A54,500 57,372 123,999

78 Appendix /: Table FTable F: The 193 ships of 50,000 tons dwt and over analysed by the ShippingResearch Bureaus whichcalled at South Africa 1987-1988The 66 ships which - based on the evidence at the Bureau's disposal - apparentlydelivered oil cargoes during their visits to South Africa, are shownin CAPITALLETTERS.ship's nameAbant Abant Abant ACTOR Aegean SeaAegean Sea ALKIALKIALKIALKIAlster Ore Alster StarAmber Andros Aries Andros Atlas Arapaho Arapaho Arapaho ArapahoAstranor BanakBenyon One Benyon OneBenyon Three BERGE CHIEF BERGE ENTERPRISE BERGE ENTERPRISEBerge Odel Berge Odel Berge Odel Berge Odel BERGE PRINCE BERGEPRINCE BERGE PRINCESS Bergebonde Bergebonde Capo Emma CAPTAINJOHN G.P. LIVANOS Chamois Champion Choctaw DAGLI East StarEastern Plum EASTERN PROMISE EASTERN STRENGTH EASTERNSTRENGTH Elbe Maru Elbe Ore Eldora Eleni P. ETHNIC ETHNIC ETHNICETHNICdwt tonnage103,887 103,887 103,887 274,938114,036 114,036 232,600232,600 232,600 232,600 305,863 217,257164,811 233,805224,074 123,170 123,170 123,170 123,170 85,150 123,999103,231 103,231 103,332 289,981360,700 360,700 155,048 155,048 155,048 155,048 284,522 284,522 284,507155,048 155,048 89,284259,657 73,253 112,109 152,259 57,372 169,317 70,743 268,038 267,577267,577 158,570 160,565 59,847 164,545 274,629 274,629 274,629 274,629type of ship monthin South Africacombined carrier combined carrier combined carrier oil tanker combined carriercombined carrier oil tanker oil tanker oil tanker oil tanker combinedcarriercombined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combinedcarrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier

combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier oil tankeroil tanker oil tanker combined carrier combined carrier combined carriercombined carrier oil tanker oil tanker oil tanker combined carrier combinedcarrier oil tankeroil tanker combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier oil tankercombined carrier combined carrier oil tanker oil tanker oil tankercombinedcarrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier oiltanker oil tankeroil tanker oil tankerJly/Aug 88 Sep/Oct 88 Nov/Dec 88 May/Jne 87 Feb 88 Mar/Apr 88 Jly 88 Sep 88Nov 88 Dec 88/Jan 89Jne/JIy 88 Aug 88 Dec 88 Mar/Apr 87 Jan 88 May 87 Sep/Oct 87 Feb 88Nov 88May 87 Jly/Aug 87 Sep 87 Feb 88 Apr 88 Apr 87 Apr 87 Jne 87 Feb 87Apr 87 Sep 87 Sep 88 Apr 87 Jne 87 Mar 87 Sep 87 May 88 Jly 87Jan 88 Jly 88 Mar 88 May/Jne 88 Oct 88 May 88 Aug 88 Dec 88/Jan 89 Aug/Sep88 Oct 88 Sep/Oct 88 Aug/Sep 88 May 87 Jne 87 Mar 88 Aug 88 Sep 88 Oct88ship's nameFELLOWSHIP L. Fernteam Fernteam FIDIUS FIDIUS FORTUNESHIP L.FORTUNESHIP L. FREEDOMSHIP L. FRIENDSHIP L. Goldstar GoldstarGrand Phoenix Hoegh FavourHoegh Forum Hoegh Fountain Hudson Bay 1 Hudson Bay 1 Hudson Bay1Hydrus Hydrus Inci S. Irenes Destiny Jahre Pearl Jahre Rose Kildare KildareKimizuru KitionKonkar Theodoros Lady Sky LICORNE OCEANE Long Star LOUISIANALOUISIANA LOUISIANA LOUISIANA LyraMandanMarika P. Marikit Marikit Musashi Spirit New Phase Norman Hunter OBOBARON Obo Prince Obo Vega Ocean Carrier Ocean Carrier OCEAN CARRIEROcean Commander Ocean Regent Ocean Regent Ocean Trader Ocean VoyagerOder Marudwt type of ship monthtonnage in South Africa268,255 123,043 123,043 254,691 254,691 268,081 268,081 283,271 267,590145,057 145,057 290,793 82,460 78,585 78,488 152,396 152,396 152,396160,787 160,787 161,798 145,092 78,075 127,050 155,450 155,450 172,165158,909 225,162 154,900 290,767 183,526 315,713 315,713 315,713 315,713152,305 123,043 78,010 117,893 117,893 258,268 155,450 145,015 103,230127,050 97,947 123,999 123,999 123,999 122,050 114,058 114,058 104,850123,767 172,278oil tanker combined carrier combined carrier oil tanker oil tanker oil tanker oiltanker oil tanker oil tanker combined carrier combined carrier combined carriercombined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combinedcarrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carriercombined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combinedcarrier combined carrier oil tanker combined carrier combined carrier oil tankercombined carrier oil tanker oil tanker oil tanker oil tanker combinedcarriercombined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined

carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carriercombined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combinedcarrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carrier combined carriercombined carrierSep 87 Oct 87 Feb 88 Mar 87 Jly 87 Apr 87 Jne/Jly 87 Nov 87 Jan/Feb 87 Apr 87Jly/Aug 87 Jan 87 Oct 88 Apr 88 Apr 88 Sep/Oct 87 Mar 88 Aug 88 Feb 87 Dec87/Jan 88 Jly 88Sep/Oct 88Mar 88 Oct 88 Jly 87 May 88 Jly 88 Oct 88/Feb 89 Jne 87 Jan 88 Feb 87Jne 88Nov/Dec 86 Feb/Mar 87Jly 87 Aug 87 Jne 87 Oct 88 Oct 87 Jly 87 Jan 88 Dec 87 Dec 88 Sep 88 Mar/Apr87 May/Jne 88 Dec 87/Jan 88Mar 88 Oct/Nov 88 Dec 88/Jan 89 Nov 88 May 88 Oct/Nov 88 Apr 88 Oct 88Oct 87

Appendix I: Table F 79ship's name dwt type of ship month ship's name dwttype of ship monthtonnage in South Africa tonnage in SouthAfricaOder Maru 172,278 combined carrier Dec 87 Tassia120,250 oil tanker Sep/Oct 87Oslo 123,768 combined carrier Mar 87 Tavistock163,035 oil tanker Jan 88Oslo 123,768 combined carrier Jne 87 Theogennitor116,978 combined carrier May/Jne 88Oslo 123,768 combined carrier AugSep 87 Theotokos103,230 combined carrier Jne 88Oslo 123,768 combined carrier Nov 87 UGLAND OBO ONE54,500 combined carrier Apr 87Oslo 123,768 combined carrier Jly/Aug 88 Waasland147,327 combined carrier Nov 87Oslo 123,768 combined carrier Oct 88 Waasland147,327 combined carrier Jne/Jly 88PACIFICOS 268,467 oil tanker Jly/Aug 87 WORLDAMBASSADOR 237,474 oil tanker Mar 88PACIFICOS 268,467 oil tanker Nov 88 WORLDBERMUDA 271,580 oil tanker Apr/May 88Panthir 85,414 combined carrier Oct 88 WORLD BRASILIA283,761 oil tanker Jan 87Pasithea 155,407 combined carrier Jan 88 World Duality114,144 combined carrier Mar/Apr 87Pasithea 155,407 combined carrier Mar/Apr 88 World Duality114,144 combined carrier Jan 88PATRIOTIC 269,500 oil tanker Jan 87 World Duality114,144 combined carrier May 88

PATRIOTIC 269,500 oil tanker Mar 87 World Duality114,144 combined carrier Jly/Aug 88PATRIOTIC 269,500 oil tanker Apr/May 87 World Duality114,144 combined carrier Nov/Dec 88PATRIOTIC 269,500 oil tanker Aug 88 World Duet114,092 combined carrier Apr 87Pawnee 122,272 combined carrier Oct/Nov 87 World Duet114,092 combined carrier Jan 88Pawnee 122,272 combined carrier Feb 88 World Duet114,092 combined carrier May 88Pawnee 122,272 combined carrier Aug 88 World Duet114,092 combined carrier Nov 88Penteli 114,014 combined carrier Jne 88 World Duet114,092 combined carrier Dec 88RAFIO 290,271 oil tanker Nov/Dec 88 WORLDEMINENCE 261,729 oil tanker Dec 87Rhine Ore 264,999 combined carrier Jly 87 WORLDEMINENCE 261,729 oil tanker Apr 88Rhine Ore 264,999 combined carrier Mar 88 WORLDHARMONY 259,596 oil tanker May 88Ruhr Ore 305,863 combined carrier Aug 87 WORLDHARMONY 259,596 oil tanker Sep 88Ruhr Ore 305,863 combined carrier Sep 88 WORLD HITACHIZOSEN 268,904 oil tanker Jly 88St. John 156,109 combined carrier Oct 88 WORLD PROGRESS237,285 oil tanker Dec 86Sauda 123,767 combined carrier Mar/Apr 87 WORLDPROGRESS 237,285 oil tanker Jan 87Sauda 123,767 combined carrier Aug 87 WORLDPROGRESS 237,285 oil tanker Jly 87Sauda 123,767 combined carrier Nov 87 WORLDPROGRESS 237,285 oil tanker Dec 87Sauda 123,767 combined carrier Jan 88 WORLD PROGRESS237,285 oil tanker Jne 88Sauda 123,767 combined carrier Apr 88 WORLDPROGRESS 237,285 oil tanker Aug 88Sauda 123,767 combined carrier Jne 88 WORLD PROGRESS237,285 oil tanker Dec 88Sea Victory 85,989 combined carrier Mar 88 WORLDRENOWN 262,267 oil tanker Apr 87Sea Victory 85,989 combined carrier Nov 88 WORLDRENOWN 262,267 oil tanker May/Jne 87Seiko Maru 247,867 combined carrier Sep 88 WORLDRENOWN 262,267 oil tanker Feb/Mar 88Shawnee 122,171 combined carrier Oct 87 WORLD RENOWN262,267 oil tanker May 88

Shawnee 122,171 combined carrier Jly 88 WORLD SUMMIT260,064 oil tanker Oct 88Sioux 66,234 combined carrier Aug 88 WORLDSYMPHONY 356,324 oil tanker Mar 87Sioux 66,234 combined carrier Sep 88 WORLD TRUTH249,223 combined carrier Jly 87Skaubo 132,409 combined carrier Sep 88 WORLD XANADU264,170 oil tanker Dec 87/Jan 88South Star 77,988 combined carrier Nov/Dec 88 WORLDXANADU 264,170 oil tanker Nov 88

80

Appendix I: Table G 81Table GSome preliminary findings on apparentcrude oil deliveries to South Africa in 1989 and early 1990

82 Appendix I: Table Gship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIEStonnage changed managing company country apparent beneficialowner INVOLVEDtype of ship flag in which of ship apparent owner ofregistered the ship's crude oilowner is based cargo1 ALKI 232,600 Cyprus Seaarland Shipping Cyprus SeaarlandShipping unknownoi/tanker Management GmbH1 Management GmbH2(Austria) (Austria)2 ALKI 232,600 Cyprus Seaarland Shipping Cyprus SeaarlandShipping unknownoi/tanker Management GmbH1 Management GmbH2(Austria) (Austria)3 ALKI 232,600 Cyprus Seaarland Shipping Cyprus SeaarlandShipping unknownoil tanker Management GmbH1 Management GmbH2(Austria) (Austria)4 ALKI 232,600 Cyprus Seaarland Shipping Cyprus SeaarlandShipping unknownoi/tanker Management GmbH1 Management GmbH2(Austria) (Austria)5 ANAX 259,449 Cyprus Pegasus Ocean Cyprus unknowncompany unknownoil tanker Liberia Services Ltd.1 c/o Pleiades Shipping(United Kingdom) Agents Ltd.1

(Greece)6 BATIS 155,089 Greece Buenamar Compania LiberiaEmbiricos African Middlecombined Naviera S.A.1 Shipping1 East Petroleumcarrier (Greece) (Greece/United Kingdom) Con(Monaco/Switzerland)7 BATIS 155,089 Greece Buenamar Compania LiberiaEmbiricos unknowncombined Naviera S.A.I Shipping1carrier (Greece) (Greece/United Kingdom)8 BATIS 155,089 Greece Buenamar Compania LiberiaEmbiricos unknowncombined Naviera S.A.1 Shipping1carrier (Greece) (Greece/United Kingdom)9 BATIS 155,089 Greece Buenamar Compania LiberiaEmbiricos African Middlecombined Naviera S.A.1 Shipping1 East Petroleumcarrier (Greece) (Greece/United Kingdom) Co.(Monaco/Switzerland)10 BRITTANY 233,348 Panama World-Wide Shipping PanamaWorld-Wide Shipping African Middleoil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4 East PetroleumCo.3(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (Monaco!Switzerland)

Appendix I: Table G 83region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s from which the shipcalled at South which the sailed to South Africa ship sailedAfrica from Southtype of call AfricaPersian Gulf May 89 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then returned to the same oilIU.A.E.l secret callexporting area.Persian Gulf Jly 89 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulfl secret callPersian Gulf Aug 89 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then immediately returned toIU.A.E.1 secret call the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Sep 89 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area; then returned to the same oilIU.A.E.; Oman] secret callexporting area.

Persian Gulf Apr 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Ain Sukhna' (Egypt). However, a call there was never reported. The vessel'disappeared' for several weeks, under circumstances stronglysuggesting that shemay have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area.Red Sea Apr89 Far East Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area, apparently to deliver an oillEgyptl secret call cargo. Then collected a cargo of South Africaniron ore for the Far East.Persian Gulf Jly 89 Far East Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area, apparently to deliver an oillPersian Gulf) secret call cargo. Then collected a cargo of SouthAfrican iron ore for the Far East.Persian Gulf Dec 89 Far East Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area, apparently to deliver an oilIU.A.E.1 reported call cargo. Then collected a cargo of SouthAfrican iron ore for the Far East.Red Sea Mar 90 Far East Sailed from Egypt loaded with crude oil,purportedly destined for 'Singapore'.After a short call of less than one day at Djibouti, the ship sailed on,againreporting 'Singapore' as her destination. Instead, she sailed to South Africa,apparently to deliver her oil cargo. She then collected a cargo of South Africaniron ore for the Far East.Red Sea Dec 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Far East'. However, no calls there were reported. The vessel 'disappeared' forseveral weeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting that she may have calledat South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately sailed on to anotheroil-exporting area.

84 Appendix I: Table Gship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIEStonnage managing company country apparent beneficialINVOLVEDtype of ship in which owner of ship apparent ownerregistered of the ship'sowner is based crude oil cargo11 CALl 236,425 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownoil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)12 CALl 236,425 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownoil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4

(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)13 EASTERN 267,807 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownCOURAGE oil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)14 EASTERN 268,038 Liberia World-Wide Shipping LiberiaWorld-Wide Shipping unknownPROMISE oil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)15 ETHNIC 274,629 Greece Nereus Shipping Panama C.M.Lemos1 unknownrS.A.1 (Greece/United Kingdom)(Greece)16 PACIFICOS 268,467 Cyprus Saipan Steamship CyprusKulukundis Group unknownoi tanker Corp. (Greece/U.K.)c/o Kassos Maritime c/o Off Shore OilEnterprises Ltd.5 Services (U.K.) Ltd.6(Greece) (United Kingdom)17 PACIFICOS 268,467 Cyprus Saipan Steamship CyprusKulukundis Group unknownoil tanker Corp. (Greece/U.K.)c/o Kassos Maritime c/o Off Shore OilEnterprises Ltd.5 Services (U.K.) Ltd.6(Greece) (United Kingdom)18 PACIFICOS 268,467 Cyprus Saipan Steamship CyprusKulukundis Group African Middleoil tanker Corp. (Greece/U.K.) East Petroleumc/o Kassos Maritime c/o Off Shore Oil Co.7Enterprises Ltd.5 Services (U.K.) Ltd.6 (Monaco/(Greece) (United Kingdom) Switzerland)19 PACIFICOS 268,467 Cyprus Saipan Steamship CyprusKulukundis Group unknownoil tanker Corp. (Greece/U.K.)c/o Kassos Maritime c/o Off Shore OilEnterprises Ltd.5 Services (U.K.) Ltd.6(Greece) (United Kingdom)

Appendix I: Table G 85region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s: from which thecalled at South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call AfricaPersian Gulf May 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was

[U.A.E.1 secret call 'Singapore'. However, a call there was neverreported. The vessel 'disappeared'for several weeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.Persian Gulf Jne/Jly 89 Persian Gulf After sailing from an oil-exporting area,the vessel 'disappeared' for severalIU.A.E.I secret call weeks, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she may have called atSouth Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returnedto the sameoil-exporting area.Persian Gulf May 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vesselIPersian Gulf I secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks,undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelyreturned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Apr 89 Persian Gulf After sailing from an oil-exporting area,the vessel 'disappeared' for severalweeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting that she may have called at SouthAfrica to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returned to the same oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Mar 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was[U.A.E.l secret call 'Singapore'. However, a call there was neverreported. The vessel 'disappeared'for several weeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to thesameoilexporting area.Middle East Jan 89 unknown Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination. The vessel[Middle Eastl secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.Middle East Apr 89 Middle East Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vessel[Middle East] secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks undercircumstances strongly suggesting that shemay have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then returned to thesame oil-exporting area.Red Sea Jne 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination. The vesselEgyptl secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks undercircumstances strongly suggesting that shemay have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then sailed on toanother oil-exporting area.

Persian Gulf Mar 90 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination wasIU.A.E.; Oman] secret call 'Singapore'. However, a call there was neverreported. The vessel 'disappeared'for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she mayhave called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.

86 Appendix I: Table Gship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIEStonnage managing company country apparent beneficialINVOLVEDtype of ship in which owner of ship apparent ownerregistered of the ship'sowner is based crude oil cargo20 RAFIO 290,271 Liberia Marimpex1 Liberia Marimpex1Marimpex1oil tanker (FR. Germany) (F.R. Germany) (F.R. Germany)21 RAFIO 290,271 Liberia Marimpex8 Liberia Marimpex8Marimpex8oil tanker (F.R. Germany) (F.R. Germany) (F.R. Germany)22 WORLD 273,117 Panama World-Wide Shipping PanamaWorld-Wide Shipping African MiddleCHAMPION Agency Ltd.4 Group4 EastPetroleumoil tnkerCo. 7 (Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (Monaco/Switzerland)23 WORLD 268,904 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping African MiddleHITACHI ZOSEN oil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4East PetroleumCO.7(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (Monaco!Switzerland)24 WORLD 268,904 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownHITACHI ZOSEN oil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)25 WORLD 262,267 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownRENOWN oil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)26 WORLD 262,267 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping African MiddleRENOWN Agency Ltd.4 Group4 EastPetroleum

oil tnkerCo.7(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong) (Monaco!Switzerland)27 WORLD 260,064 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownSUMMIT oil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)28 WORLD 264,170 Liberia World-Wide Shipping Liberia World-Wide Shipping unknownXANADU oil tanker Agency Ltd.4 Group4(Hong Kong) (Hong Kong)

Appendix I: Table G 87region or country month the ship region to c o m m e n t s: from which thecalled at South which the ship sailed to Africa ship sailedSouth Africa from Southtype of call AfricaPersian Gulf Apr 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vesselI Persian GulfI secret call 'disappeared' for a prolonged period, undercircumstances strongly suggestingthat she may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.Persian Gulf Dec 89/Jan 90 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting areawithout disclosing her destination. The vessel IPersian Gulfl secret call'disappeared' for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. Shethen returnedto the same oil-exporting area.Red Sea May 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was'Singapore'. Instead, the vessel sailed to South Africa to deliver heroil cargo.[EgyptlI secret call She happened to be at the buoy off Durban atthe same time as another WorldWide tanker, the World Xanadu (case No. 28).Red Sea Feb 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area withoutdisclosing her destination. The vesselIEgypt I secret call 'disappeared' for several weeks, undercircumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may have called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediatelysailed on to another oil-exporting area.Persian Gulf Mar 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination wasJU.A.E.I secret call 'Singapore'. However, a call there was neverreported. The vessel 'disappeared'for several weeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting thatshe may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.

Persian Gulf Jly 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area.Ondeparture, the purported destination wasIU.A.E.; Omanl secret call 'Singapore'. However, a call therewas neverreported. The vessel 'disappeared'for several weeks, under circumstances strongly suggesting that she may havecalled at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She then immediately returned tothe same oil-exporting area.Red Sea Nov/Dec 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Thevessel 'disappeared' for a prolongedperiod, under circumstances strongly suggesting that she may have called at[Egypti secret call South Africa to deliver an oil cargo. She thensailed on to another oil-exportingarea.Persian Gulf Mar 89 Persian Gulf Sailed from an oil-exporting area. Ondeparture, the purported destination was[U.A.E.1 secret call 'Singapore'. However, a call there was neverreported. The vessel 'disappeared'for a prolonged period, under circumstances strongly suggestingthat she mayhave called at South Africa to deliver an oil cargo.Persian Gulf May 89 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa from an oil-exporting area. As 'B51' the vessel discharged[ Persian Gulf I secret call her oil cargo at the buoy off Durban, whereshe happened to be at the same timeas another World-Wide tanker, the World Champion (case No. 22).

88 Appendix 1: Table G1. This company has not replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau. 2. This company hasnot replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau.The Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Shipping ResearchBureau that, according to a spokesman of the company, its"involvement in the shipping business only concerns administrativematters such as maintenance, repairs and personnel. I...) Thespokesman I.. .) also maintained that the nature and the destination ofthe freights can only be determined by the owner or the charterer of the shipwhereas his company has no influence thereupon. Furthermore, hedeclared that the owner of the oil tanker 'Alki' told him that theallegations of oil transports to South Africa are not true" (letter fromMinistry of Foreign Affairs, Vienna, to the Shipping Research Bureau of7 May 1990). In various shipping industry publications, the vessel in question islisted as belonging to the Seaarland fleet exclusively. Noreply was received as to the identity of the 'owner of the oil tanker Alki'mentioned above.

3. This company has not replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, in which it was asked to comment on the findings of theShipping Research Bureau. Cf. note 7.4. This company has not replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau.Mr R.J. Allen of World-Wide has informed the press that oil deliveries by World-Wide tankers to South Africa are nothing secret and form part of the company'sinternational business (South China Morning Post, HongKong, 2 April 1989; see also page 21 of this report).5. The company Kassos Maritime Enterprises Ltd. denies any involvementwith the vessel Pacificos and with the Kulukundis Group. The company informedthe Shipping Research Bureau that another company, SaipanSteamship Corporation, had "from time to time undertaken technicaladvice and supervision" and was "the responsible party formaintenance and repairs".The company Saipan Steamship Corporation is located at the sameaddress as Kassos Maritime Enterprises Ltd, A registered letter from theShipping Research Bureau was, however, returned marked 'unknown'.In numerous articles in the international shipping press and in variousshipping industry publications, the company Kassos MaritimeEnterprises Ltd. is referred to as owner or manager of the vesselPacificos and as belonging to the Kulukundis Group. See also note 6.6. The company Off Shore Oil Services (U.K.I Ltd. stated that theKulukundis Group neither are or have ever been the vessel's apparent beneficialowners. In a second telex message, Off Shore Oil Servicesrepeated that "our principals have no association with the )...) vessel".However, various shipping industry publications list the vessel asbelonging to the Kulukundis fleet at the time of delivery. The company refrainedfrom commenting on the Bureau's queries about the apparentoil deliveries to South Africa. See also note 5.7. This company denies "categorically (...) any involvement by ourcompany, or any associated company, in such alleged supplies [toSouth Africa: We furthermore confirm that we have no knowledge ofany of the vessels mentioned I...) nor, in consequence, have we had anyinvolvement with same".However, information obtained by the Shipping Research Bureauconfirms that this company, or one belonging to this Group, was in factinvolved in the sale of the cargo of Egyptian crude oil on board this vessel.In a second letter the Shipping Research Bureau asked the company if itcould provide the Bureau with the name(s) of the company lies) towhich they had possibly resold the cargo. The company restated that"... since we were not involved in any way with the shipments you havementioned, we have no possibility to assist you in discovering theidentity lies) of the eventual owner(s) of such cargoes".8. This company has only recently been contacted by the Shipping

Research Bureau concerning this particular voyage. To date, no replyhas been received.

Appendix I: Table H 89Table HSome refined petroleum shipmentsto South Africa 1987-1990 (listed in chronological order)

90 Appendix I: Table Hship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIESsubsequent tonnage managing company country apparentbeneficial INVOLVEDname type of ship in which owner of shipapparent ownerregistered of the ship's oilowner is based cargo1 UGLAND 54,500 Panama Ugland Management PanamaAndreas unknownOBO-ONE combined Co. A.S.1 Ugland1" Nor-Obo 1 carrier (Norway) (Norway)" Obo Buzzard " Obo Victory2 TENACITY 46,693 Singapore Wallem Ship- SingaporeTranspetrol Services unknownoil tanker management Ltd.2 N.V.4(Hong Kong) (Belgium)Canadian Pacific Ltd.3(Canada)(time-charter)3 LUCERNA 39,865 Liberia Cunard Shipping United Kingdom TheCunard Steam- Marc Rich6Dakila oil tanker Services Ltd.2 Ship Co. P.L.C.5(Switzerland)" Dagrun (United Kingdom) (United Kingdom)Mark Wolman6" Quebec (United Kingdom)4 WHITE 38,598 Liberia Beta Maritime Liberia YasudaShintaku unknownEXCELSIOR tanker Services Ltd.7 Ginko K.K.2* Iver Expert (United Kingdom) (Japan)5 DAGLI 57,372 Norway Iver Bugge8 Liberia A/S Ocean2Marc Rich9Iver Lundina oil tanker (Norway) (Norway)(Switzerland)(time-charter)

6 BRALI 48,581 Norway A/S Bulkhandling10 Norway L. Gill-Johannesen Rainbow Lineoil tanker (Norway) A/S12 Ltd.13V.Ships Norway AS11 (Norway) (Hong Kong)(Norway)7 QUEBEC 39,728 Bahamas V. Ships2 Gibraltar VlasovGroup unknownoil tanker (Monaco) c S 2V. Ships2(Monaco)8 GRIPARION 70,247 Cyprus Thalassic Steamship CyprusThalassic Steamship Marc Rich2combined Agency Inc.2 Agency Inc.2 (Switzerland)carrier (Greece) (Greece)9 080 VEGA 97,947 Turkey Marti Shipping and Turkey MartiShipping and unknowncombined Trading Co. Inc.14 Trading Co. Inc.14carrier (Turkey) (Turkey)

Appendix I: Table H 91country from month the ship region to c o m m e n t s which the ship calledat South which the sailed to South Africa ship sailedAfrica from Southtype of ca/I AfricaFrance Apr 87 Black Sea Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargo ofover 32,000 tons of gasoline fromPort Jerome, France.reported calIU.S.A. Jne 87 South Sailed to South Africa from New Orleans,U.S.A., to deliver a combined cargo ofsecret call America petroleum and chemical products, viz. carbon black andcaustic.Greece Jan/Feb 88 Middle East Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof 30,000 tons of gasoline from Agioisecret call Theodoroi, Greece.The Netherlands Feb 88 West Africa Sailed from Amsterdam, theNetherlands, loaded with gasoline. On departure,secret call the purported destination was 'Gibraltar'. After apparentlyhaving delivered herpetroleum product cargo in South Africa, the ship arrived in Ghana,reportingMaputo (Mozambique) as her previous port of call. No calls at Gibraltar orMozambique have been confirmed.U.S.S.R. Oct 88 Persian Gulf Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof nearly 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oilsecret call from Odessa, U.S.S.R.On this delivery, see also pp. 12 and 17.

Kenya Feb 89 Far East Sailed to Cape Town, South Africa, todeliver a cargo of over 40,000 tons of fueloil loaded at the Kenya Petroleum Refineries and sold by the Kenyan oil companyKobil. Next, the ship sailed on to the South African port of Durban, reportedly topick up another load for Indonesia.Press reports confirm this delivery: The Guardian, U.K., 27 November 1989;Dagbladet, Norway, 28 November 1989; Africa Analysis, U.K., 8 December1989; Seatrade Week, U.S.A., 8-14 December 1989.The Netherlands Jne 89 Far East Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof gasoline collected in Amsterdam, thesecret call Netherlands.The Netherlands Jne/Jly 89 Far East Sailed to South Africa to deliveracargo of gasoline collected in Amsterdam, thesecret call Netherlands; next collected a cargo of South African coal forHong Kong.The Netherlands Jly 89 Medi- Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof gasoline collected in Amsterdam, theterranean Netherlands; next collected a cargo of South African ironore forTurkey.The ship's secret call at South Africa was only brought to light after she had sailedladen from the South African port of Saldanha Bay, because an explosion tookplace in one of her tanks off Namibia, which took the lives of two crew members.

92 Appendix I: Table Hship's name dwt flag SHIPPING COMPANIES INVOLVEDOIL COMPANIESsubsequent tonnage changed managing company country apparentbeneficial INVOLVEDname type of ship flag in which owner of shipapparent ownerregistered of the ship's oilowner is based cargo10 PROBO GULL 48,263 Singapore A/S Bulkhandting10 SingaporeA/S Havtor Rainbow Linecombined (Norway) Management 15 Ltd.13carrier (Norway) (Hong Kong)11 JARAMA 77,673 Norway Leif Heegh a Co. LiberiaAnders Jahre unknowncombined A/S16 A/S2carrier (Norway) (Norway)(time-charter)12 FAITH I 37,797 Panama Wallem Ship- U.S.A. PLMInvestment unknownoil tanker Bahamas management Ltd.2 Management Inc.2(Hong Kong) (U.S.A.)

13 HOEGH 78,488 Bahamas Leif Heegh E Co. Norway LeifHeegh Et Co. InterFOUNTAIN combined A/Sf',A/S16 MediterraneanPetroleum Co.carrier (Norway) (Norway) (U.K.) Ltd.17(United Kingdom)14 HOEGH FOAM 78,571 Bahamas Leif Hoegh Et Co. NorwayLeif Hoegh & Co. unknowncombined A/S16 A/S16carrier (Norway) (Norway)15 AMBIA FAIR 78,434 Bahamas Leif Heegh (U.K.) BahamasLeif Heegh Et Co. unknowncombined Ltd.18 A/S16carrier (United Kingdom) (Norway)16 HOEGH FOAM 78,571 Bahamas Leif Heegh & Co. NorwayLeif Heegh & Co. Marc Rich2A/S16 A/S16combined (Switzerland)carrier (Norway) (Norway)17 GRIPARION 70,247 Cyprus Thalassic Steamship CyprusThalassic Steamship Marc Rich2combined Agency Inc.2 Agency Inc.2 (Switzerland)carrier (Greece) (Greece)18 HOEGH 81,158 Bahamas Leif Heegh Et Co. Norway LeifHeegh Et Co. unknownFALCON combined A/S16 A/S16carrier (Norway) (Norway)

Appendix I: Table H 93country from month the ship region to c o m m e n t s: which the ship calledat South which the sailed to South Africa ship sailedAfrica from Southtype of call AfricaRomania Aug 89 Caribbean Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof gasoline from Constantza, Romania.Press reports confirm this delivery: The Guardian, U.K., 27 November 1989;Dagbladet, Norway, reported call 28 November 1989; Africa Analysis,U.K., 8 December 1989; Seatrade Week, U.S.A., 8-14December 1989.The Netherlands; Aug/Sep 89 North West Sailed to South Africa after loadingcargoes of gasoil (nearly 27,000 tons) andPortugal Europe gasoline (nearly 26,000 tons) in Amsterdam,the Netherlands, and jet fuel (overreported call 8,000 tons) in Sines, Portugal. After delivering her cargo ofpetroleum productsto South Africa, the ship collected a cargo of South African coal for France.

The Netherlands Sep/Oct 89 South Africa Sailed from Amsterdam, theNetherlands, loaded with gasoline. On departure,the purported destination was 'Gibraltar'. After apparently having delivered herpetroleum product cargo in South Africa, the ship arrived in Argentina, reportinga Mozambican port as her previous port of call. No calls at GibraltarorMozambique have been confirmed.Sweden; The Sep/Oct 89 Medi- Sailed to South Africa after loadingacargo of over 19,000 tons of gasoil whichNetherlands terranean had been refined for the Danish state-ownedoil company DOFAS by thereported call Scanraff refinery in Lysekil, Sweden, and a cargoofgasoline in Amsterdam, theNetherlands. The Danish/Swedish cargo had been sold by DOFAS to theSwissoil-trading company AOT Ltd. which had sold it on to Inter-MediterraneanPetroleum Co. After delivering her cargo of petroleum products to South Africa,the ship collected a cargo of South African coal for the Netherlands.After a series of radio programs in which details regarding this delivery weredisclosed, DOFAS has precluded AOT from further deliveries and has decided toinclude clauses demanding discharge certificates into all futurespot contracts. OKPetroleum, the Swedish owner of the Scanraff refinery, has taken similarprecautions by incorporating in each contract and in their General Conditions ofSale clauses prohibiting the resale of cargoes to countries embargoed by the U.N.or Sweden19. See also p. 13.Romania Oct 89 North West Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof petroleum products from Constantza,reported call Europe Romania; next collected a cargo of South African coalfor Belgium.Greece Oct 89 North West Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof petroleum products from AgioiEurope Theodoroi, Greece; next collected a cargo of South African coal forthereported call Netherlands.The Netherlands Nov/Dec 89 Norht West After delivering petroleumproducts from Romania to South Africa and carryingEurope South African coal to Belgium (see case No. 14 above), the ship sailedtoreported call Amsterdam to collect another cargo of 60-65,000 tons ofgasoline for delivery toSouth Africa. The ship next collected a cargo of South African coalfor France.See picture on p. 11.The Netherlands Jan 90 Far East Sailed to South Africa to deliver a cargoof 40-50,000 tons of gasoline collectedin Amsterdam, the Netherlands; next collected a cargo of South African coal forreported call Hong Kong.The Netherlands Apr 90 North West Sailed to South Africa to deliver acargo of gasoline collected in Amsterdam, the

reported call Europe Netherlands; next collected a cargo of SouthAfricancoal for Belgium.

94 Appendix : Table H1. In a letter to the Shipping Research Bureau, the Ugland Group hasconfirmed the findings of the Bureau.2, This company has not replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau. 3. This company hasnot replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau.The Government of Canada informed the Bureau that the ship was "possiblychartered by a Bermuda-based company. I...) CanadianPacific possessed equity interest in the above Bermuda-based affiliatewhich in turn managed CP oil charter business until June, 1989. I.)The tanker 'Tenacity' may in fact have been subchartered to yet anotherfirm when the alleged 'secret call at South Africa' took place" (letter to theShipping Research Bureau from the Permanent Mission of Canadato the United Nations of 1 May 1990).4. This company confirmed that the vessel called at South Africa to deliverher cargo there while on time-charter to Canadian Pacific. According tothe company, the vessel carried cargoes of Caustic and Carbon Blackwhich had been loaded in the U.S. Gulf. The company added that it "would feelthat neither of these cargoes would come under the oilembargo restrictions."5. On behalf of this company, the company Cunard Ellerman Ltd. wrote tothe Bureau that "it is not our practice to discuss with others thebusiness undertaken by our vessels when they are chartered to thirdparties. This clearly has to be a matter for the charterer. The vessel hassince been sold by our company."6. This company has only recently been contacted by the ShippingResearch Bureau concerning this particular voyage. To date, no replyhas been received.Contracts related to the cargo of 30,000 tons motor gasoline carried bythe Lucerna were concluded late December 1987 between companiesowned by Marc Rich and companies owned by Mark Wolman. Problemswith regard to the financial settlement of these contracts wereapparently among the causes for the dispute between Marc Rich andMark Wolman referred to in a letter of Mr Wolman to the Shipping ResearchBureau quoted in note 24 on p. 64. See also Table A, pp.62-63, Case No. 65.7. This company has probably changed address or was dissolved.8. This company wrote to the Shipping Research Bureau: "We can assureyou that during the period we had above mentioned ship on time charterthe vessel traded only with lawful merchandise according both to

Charter Party and Norwegian Law".On Norwegian state television, Mr Jan A. Bugge, chairman of thecompany, confirmed that his ship had delivered fuel oil from theSovietUnion to South Africa during this voyage (NRK TV, Norway, 22 April1989; cf. page 12 of this report). Mr Bugge said to the press that hiscompany knew about the cargo and had done nothing illegal, because the cargowas not included in the boycott rules, which applied to crudeoil (Lloyd's List, U.K., 25 April 1989).9. Neither this company, nor the company Hollywell Shipping Ltd. (UnitedKingdom) that acted on behalf of Marc Rich, have replied to requestssent by registered mail or telefax, nor to one or more telex or telefaxmessages, in which they were asked to comment on the findings of theShipping Research Bureau.10. This company has not replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau.Mr Gunnar Forsberg, managing director of Bulkhandling, has saidto the pressthat his ship was on charter to international charterers andthat he could not give details, although he added: "I know that wehave had these links with South Africa". He stressed that his company did notbreak any law by carrying refined oil products to South Africa.If it were to be made illegal, his company "would comply" lObserverNews Service, U.K., 28 November 1989; Dagbadet, Norway, 28 November 1989;Seatrade Week, U.S.A., 8-14 December 1989), 11. V.Ships Norway AS act astechnical ship managers for L. GillJohannessen A/S. See the reply received fromthe latter in note 12. 12. This company confirmed that it is the disponentowner ofthe vessel,the commercial manager of which is A/S Bulkhandling and thetechnical manager V.Ships Norway AS. The company confirmed thatthe vessel delivered fuel oil to South Africa.13. The Shipping Research Bureau has not been able to contact thiscompany because no address could be found.According to sources within the oil and shipping industry, the companywhich always acts on behalf of Rainbow Line is the East Coast GroupLtd. lUnited Kingdom). The latter company has only recently beencontacted by the Shipping Research Bureau concerning this particularvoyage; to date, no reply has been received.On the East Coast Group and Rainbow Line Ltd., see p. 17.14. This company declines to confirm whether or not the ship delivered oilto South Africa. It adds that "for many occasions related charterparties order us not to release information about the business." Inaletter of 4 May 1990 to the Turkish Ministry of Transportation, thecompany only confirmed that the ship called at the South African portof Saldanha Bay from 18-22 June 1989 to load iron ore.15. This company confirmed that the vessel discharged a petroleumproduct cargo in South Africa during this voyage. It added that the

vessel was on timecharter to A/S Bulkhandling and that inquirieswould, accordingly, be best answered by them.16. This company states that for contractual reasons, it cannotspecificallyrespond to queries about calls at and deliveries to South Africa by thisvessel. It adds: "However, we can confirm that some of the vesselsoperated by our company have been in South Africa during [therelevant period] delivering petroleum products. We underline that thishas always been done within the framework of existing Norwegianlaws and regulations."17. This company has not replied to a request sent by registered mail ortelefax, nor to one or more telex or telefax messages, in which it was asked tocomment on the findings of the Shipping Research Bureau.The company has said to a Swedish radio reporter that it could not make anycomment on its involvement in the delivery of gasoil fromSweden to South Africa because all its business was of a confidentialnature (Radio Vist, Sweden, 15 November 1989).18. This company has not been contacted by the Shipping ResearchBureau concerning this voyage.19. Press release of the parent company of DOFAS, Dansk Olies NaturgasA/S, of 14 November 1989; letter OK Petroleum AB to the SwedishMinistry of Foreign Affairs of 9 April 1990; Radio VAst, Sweden, 14and15 November 1989.

Appendix I1: Methodology 95Appendix IIMethodologyStages in the Preparation of this Report1. The initial gathering of dataThis report is the sixth major report published by the Shipping Research Bureau.It covers the period between January 1987 and December 1988. Some preliminaryfindings relating to 1989-1990 are included.There are no publicly available statistical sources on the supply of crude oil toSouth Africa. The principal research method used by the Shipping ResearchBureau has been an extensive analysis of the movements of the world's tankerfleet.The Bureau's main sources of data regarding these ships have been specialisedshipping industry publicationsand computerised data bases. These sources recordthe identities of the companies that own, operate and charter individual ships,including the movements of these ships in and outmostof the world's ports asreported byagents in those portsand by the companies operating theships. (TheShipping Research Bureau cannot be held liable for the reproduction of any errorswhich these publications may contain.) The Bureau has extensively checked andsupplemented this information by a variety of means.The initial gathering of data wascompleted in January 1990. Bythen, the ShippingResearch Bureau had identified over 200 vessels capable of carrying crude oilwhich had called at South African ports. A few smaller product tankers were

added to the list of vessels under investigation; basically, the procedure outlinedbelow has also been followed for these vessels.2. Findings submitted to companies for correctionsAfter preliminary selection of the cases, registered letters were sent to some 80companieswhich had been identified asthe ownerand/or manager ofthe vessels,and/or the last known owner of the oil cargo.Each company was provided with the Bureau's preliminary research findings onthe vessels linked with that company, and was asked to correct or amplify thedata. The Bureau explicitly asked the company to confirm or deny that the vesselsin question had delivered crude oil or petroleum products to South Africa duringtheir calls there. Companies which had not responded within one month were senta reminder by telex orfax. Replies were received from, oron behalf of, some two-thirds of the companies. The replies were all taken into considerationin thepreparation of this report.3. Findings submitted to governments for investigationIn March 1990, the Shipping Research Bureau contacted the governments of some35 countries in which the above mentioned oil and shipping companieswerebased, where the vessels were registered or from where the vessels had sailed toSouth Africa. These governments received detailed data about the vesselssuspected of delivering crude oil or petroleum products to South Africa, and aboutvessels for which the companies had given the Bureau at best an inconclusivereply. The governments were requested to investigate the casesand - if possible- to inform the Shipping Research Bureau of any inaccuracies in the data. Again,the replies received were all taken into consideration.4. The final analysis and decisions about the findingsFurther analyses were conducted until the finalisation of this report towards theend of July 1990.The data to which the Shipping Research Bureau has access normally does notspecify why a vessel called at a particular port. Such a call mightbe to load cargo,to discharge cargo, or to carry out other tasks such as bunkering (loading fuel forthe vessel herself), taking in food and water supplies, or changing crew.In several cases, sufficient information was obtained to decide thatthe vesselunder consideration had not made a crude oil delivery when she called at a SouthAfrican port.Analysis of the trade pattern of the other ships investigated made it clear thatsome of them were much more likely than others to have delivered oilto SouthAfrica. Reasons for suspecting that a particular vessel probably delivered oil whenshe called at a South African port include the following:- the companyowning, managing orchartering the vessel has informed theShipping Research Bureau that the vessel's call at South Africa involved adelivery of oil;- thevessel sailed from an oil-exporting countryorarea straight to South Africa,and then immediately returned to the same oil-exporting area;-the vessel's reported movements show a gap between calls at oilexporting areas,under circumstances which suggest that a secret oil delivery to South Africa wasmade, especially when misleading or incorrect reports on destinations and/or

actual routes were issued, and/or methods were used to shun publicity regardingthe voyage;- press or other published reports, for instance based on the testimony of crewmembers, confirm that when the vessel called at a South African port,shedelivered oil.In a few instances, investigations have borne out that the cargo delivered to SouthAfrica by a tanker, capable of carrying a crude oil load of 50,000tons or more,may have consisted of refined petroleum products. These cases areindicated inAppendix I, Table A. However, for the sake of convenience, throughout thisreport these casesare subsumed under the aggregate figures fordeliveries of crudeoil. Special attention is given to deliveries of refined products to South Africa onpages 9ff and in Appendix I, Table H.The main part of this report includes only those cases in which the ShippingResearch Bureau has concluded, after careful research and correspondence, thatthe vessels clearly delivered crude oil to South Africa. The principal reasons forinclusion of each case are summarised in the comment section of the tables inAppendix I. Investigations continue regarding several of the ships listed inAppendix 1, Table F.The Shipping Research Bureau continues to welcome all relevant informationconcerning oil deliveries or suspected oil deliveries to South Africa,whether thisis provided openly oron a confidential basis.

96 Appendix II1: Update 1979-1990Appendix IIICountries from which Tankers Sailed to South Africa, 1979-1990The table in this Appendix lists a complete overview of the research findings ofthe Shipping Research Bureau over the period 1979-1990.' Of eachcountry orarea, the number of tankers which sailed from there to South Africa and their totaldeadweight tonnage are presented.441 oil deliveries - 86 million tons of oilOver the period January 1979-April 1990, the Shipping Research Bureauidentified 441 oil deliveries. The total cargo capacity of the 441 tankers was about86million tons. During the period of a little more than eleven years covered by thetable, South Africa's estimated crude oil import needs amounted to about 160milliow tons. If each of the 441 tankers delivered a full cargo of crude oil to SouthAfrica, the volume delivered covered about 53 per cent, or more than half ofSouth Africa's crude oil import needs.'309 tankers sailed from the Middle East Over the whole period 1979-1990, 309 ofthe 441 tankers identified sailed to South Africa from the Middle East.Of these,at least 287 sailed from the Persian Gulf. The cargo capacity of the 309 tankerswas about 68 million tons, or, 79per cent of the total volume identified.If each ofthe 309 tankers delivered afull cargo of crude oil, the volume delivered wouldamount to about 42 per cent of South Africa's crude oil import needs during theperiod under consideration.

The 309 tankers often called at more than one country in the Middle East prior tosailing to South Africa. Therefore, the calls at the different countriesinthisareaaddupto morethan 309. Boththis practice of'multiporting' and the number of cases inwhich a tanker sailed to South Africa from an unidentifiedcountryin the MiddleEast, makeit impossible to give an accurate assessment of how much of the oildelivered to South Africa originated in each individual oil-exportingcountry inthis area. Nevertheless, it is obvious that oil originating in the United ArabEmirates lat least90 tankers sailed to South Africa from the United ArabEmirates), in Saudi Arabia (79 tankers), in Oman (60 tankers), inIran(38cargoes), in Qatar(21 tankers)andin Egypt (17tankers), hasreached1 1989 and early 1990: preliminary findings.2 In a few cases, investigations have borne out that the cargo deliveredto South Africa by a tanker, capable of carrying a crude oil cargo of50,000 tons or more, may have consisted of petroleum products. Forthe sake of convenience, these cases are subsumed under theSouth Africa in rather large quantities during the period under investigation.All the above mentioned countries have repeatedly endorsed the oil embargoagainst South Africa. However, the massive violations of these countries'embargo policies suggest serious deficiencies in their monitoring proceduresregarding possible oil deliveries to South Africa. The governments of thesecountries have always been duly informed of preliminary researchfindingsof theShipping Research Bureau, and have been asked, prior to publication of reports bythe Bureau, to investigate these possible cases. The governments concerned,therefore, have been aware that trading with specific oil and shippingcompaniescould mean that at least part of the oil involved could end up in South Africa.Apparently, the governments did not prevent companies from delivering their oilto South Africa.Recent trends in oil supplies to South Africa3Over the years, the number of oil-exporting countriesfrom where tankers sailed toSouth Africa remained fairly stable. Since late 1986, no shipments from Bruneihave been found anymore. On the other hand, a considerable numberof tankerssailing from Egypt have been identified since 1988. During recent years, moreand more tankers were found sailing from the United Arab Emirateswhich nowtop the list with 90 shipments identified.Since 1989, a striking number of tankersof over 50,000 tonsdeadweight have beenidentified as suppliers to South Africa of refined petroleum productsfrom Europe.In particular, the trans-shipment port of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, hasemerged as a major source of oil product supplies to South Africa with sevenshipments since mid-1989. These shipments do not come under the limited Dutchembargo on crude oil exports. However, the products trans-shipped in Amsterdammay well originatein countrieswhich havea more comprehensiveembargoincluding one on refined products.aggregate figures. A number of known refined product deliveries areindicated by notes 5, 8 and 11 of the table.3. For a more detailed account of changing patterns in oil suppliestoSouth Africa during the period 1979-1988, see Shipping Research

Bureau, Oil to South Africa, Amsterdam 1988, pp. 12ff.Notes to Table on next page:1. Including one smaller tanker which delivered crude oil from Indonesia.2. Including cases 29 and 51 in Table A, Appendix I of this report.3. Including one tanker which had loaded crude oil in Egypt and a SaudiArabian Red Sea port.4. Including trans-shipment of Iranian crude oil through the NetherlandsI1) and Egypt (I).5. Refined petroleum product shipmentls).6. Subsumed under the figure for Saudi Arabia under the heading'Persian Gulf'.7. At least 12 tankers delivered Norwegian crude oil to South Africaduring the period 1979-1981. Cargoes had been loaded and/or transshipped, a.o.,in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Not allthese tankers have been identified by the Shipping Research Bureau.8. All oil cargoes identified until 1985 consisted of crude oil originating inother countries, that had been stored in Rotterdam. All cargoes identified as from1989 consisted of refined petroleum productsshipped to South Africa from storage in Amsterdam.9, Including trans-shipment of British North Sea oil through theNetherlands (1) and Spain ().10. Ship-to-ship transfer of crude oil originating in Western Europe and theMediterranean.11. One vessel delivered a part cargo of a petroleum product derived fromDanish crude oil refined in Sweden.12. All oil cargoes delivered to South Africa consisted of crude oiloriginating in other countries, that had been stored in the NetherlandsAntilles.

Appendix II1: Update 1979-1990 97The countries from which tankers of 50,000 tons dwt and over' sailed to SouthAfrica, apparently to deliver oil cargoes -January 1979-April 1990region/countryPERSIAN GULFof which from:United Arab Emirates Saudi Arabia OmanIranQatarBahrain Kuwait unknown countries in the Persian GulfRED SEAof which from:EgyptSouth Yemen Saudi Arabiatotalnumber dwt of tonnagecases

287 69,156,98990* 23,322,205*79*3 19,097,322'360* 14,969,649'38*4 9,918,109*421" 5,228,532*9* 1,978,320*5* 935,344*51 12,426,93420 4,207,14817*4 4,043,522*43 163,6261*6 -1979-1986 1987-1988 1989-1990number dwt number dwt number dwtof tonnage of tonnage of tonnagecases cases cases2152 50,159,429 53 14,309,795 19 4,687,76550' 12,772,736' 28* 7,629,950' 12" 2,919,519*72* 17,227,472" 7*3 1,869,850's49' 11,970,227* 8' 2,236,088* 3* 763,334'31.4 7,912,296"4 7- 2,005,813'12* 2,884,615' 9* 2,343,917'9' 1,978,320*5* 935,344*38 9,027,108 6 1,631,580 7 1,768,24654 586,928' 8 2,003,939' 7 1,616,2812' 423,302' 8' 2,003,939' 7 1,616,28135 163,6261.6MIDDLE EASTunknown countries 2FAR EAST 73of which from:Brunei 68Malaysia 2Indonesia 1unknown countriesin the Far East 2WESTERN EUROPE 414,7of which from:The Netherlands 34*4United Kingdom 6*9Spain 1Sweden 1VGreece 1

Portugal 1"France 2EASTERN EUROPE 2of which from:Romania 1U.S.S.R. 1LATIN AMERICA/CARIBBEAN 11of which from:Netherlands Antilles 10Ecuador 1NORTH AMERICA 3of which from:Canada 2U.S.A. 1AFRICA 1of which from:Gabon 1UNKNOWN COUNTRIES 1TOTAL 441* Including multi-porting.536,9348,860,073 8,222,263199,496 44,066 394,275 7,316,610' 6,223,522*4991,844"'254,73578,488* 78,434 77,673* 316,229 135,94378,571 57,3722,645,599 2,390,388155,211 170,267 119,300 50,967215,205 215,205 274,938 93,419,7092 536,93472 8,736,074 168 8,222,2631 75,470 11 44,0662 394,275324,7 6,550,7744 1527*4,8 5,669,191*4 6*9 991,844.9110 254,7351 261,729 15- - 15123,999 123,99954,500 857*854,50057,372 15

15P15 57,37211 2,545,5991012 2,390,3881 155,2113 170,2672 119,3001 50,9671 215,2051 215,2051 274,938340 69,239,214 64 16,549,605 37711,336 554,331'78,488*78,434 77,673-78,571 78,5717,630,887

98 Appendix IV." Shipping Research BureauAppendix IVBackground Information Regarding the Shipping Research Bureau and itsFounding OrganisationsIn the past, several calls have been made at an international level for theestablishment of an effective monitoring mechanism forthe oil embargo againstSouth Africa. In July 1979, the Council of Ministers of the Organisation ofAfrican Unity (O.A.U.) passed a resolution that welcomed "proposals for methodsof monitoring and cutting down the shipments of oil to South Africa". The finaldeclaration of the International Seminar on the Oil Embargo againstSouth Africain March 1980, sponsored by the United Nations Special Committee againstApartheid and two Dutch anti-apartheid organisations, stated that"an essentialcomponent of an effective oil embargo against South Africa is the creation of amachinery to monitor all shipments of oil to South Africa".Similar calls for such a monitoring mechanism were made by the O.A.U.Sanctions Committee (Arusha, March 1981), by the Nairobi summit of Heads ofState of the O.A.U. (June 1981), and in the May 1981 Paris DeclarationonSanctions against South Africa (which was endorsed by 124 governments).The Shipping Research Bureau was established in March 1980 by twoNetherlands-based non-governmental organisations which cosponsored the March1980 conference on oil sanctions: the Working Group Kairos(ChristiansagainstApartheid) and the Holland Committee onSouthernAfrica, bothof which havea long historyofaction in support of the struggle for freedom inSouthern Africa. The Bureau was established after a process of consultation withthe United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid, the Southern Africanliberation movements and other concerned public bodies.The Holland Committee on Southern Africa was founded in 1961 as the AngolaCommittee. It has disseminated information on and has mobilised support for the

liberation struggles in Southern Africa. The Committee'sactivitiesfocussed on thePortuguese African colonies until their independence. Sincethen, the Committeehas concentrated on the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe and Namibia (prior totheir independence) and South Africa.The national stature of the Holland Committee on Southern Africa is illustrated bythe fact that it raises several million US dollars every year, most of it frommembers of the public. Most of the funds are raised for direct humanitarianassistance to the liberation movement in South Africa. The Committeealso playsa prominent role in distributing Dutch Government and E.C. funds todevelopment projects in the region as a whole.The three main objectives of the Holland Committee are to promote economic andother sanctions against South Africa, to disseminate information aboutthesituation in Southern Africa and to mobilise support for the liberation movementand the Front Line States.Since 1970, the Working Group Kairos (ChristiansagainstApartheid) has beenworking to increase Dutch public awareness of the apartheid system and theresulting violations of human rights in South Africa. Kairos primarily operateswithin the churches and the Christian community in the Netherlands. Itwasfounded in support of the now prohibited Christian Institute in South Africa,headed by Dr C.F. Beyers Naud6. But Kairos also directs its activities towardsChristian and non-Christian organisationssuchaspolitical parties, trade unionsetc.'Kairos' means'now is the time of truth - the time for change'.In 1973, Kairos started a debate with Shell about the company's policy inSouthern Africa. This resulted in Kairos asking Shell to end its ties with the whiteminority governments in Rhodesia, Namibia and South Africa. PriortoZimbabwe's independence, Kairos urged the Government of theNetherlands toadopt effective legislation regarding the mandatory oil embargoagainst Rhodesia.Presently, Kairos is engaged in a campaign for a boycott of importsof SouthAfrican coal, especially in the Netherlands and the European Community. Pensionfunds, churches, trade unions and other organisations are asked to sell their sharesin companies which have business interests in South Africa. A campaignunderthe title'Does your money support apartheid?' focussed the attention of churchcongregations on their church's investments in companies with South Africansubsidiaries. The violation of human rights in South Africa is invariably a themeof Kairos' programme of activities.In 1977, the Holland Committee on Southern Africa and the Working GroupKairos joined forces in opposing the oil link between the Netherlandsand SouthAfrica. Since March 1979, the two organisations have been engaged in a nation-wide campaignforthe Netherlands to join the oil embargo and for the terminationof all links between the Dutch/ British oil major Shellwith South Africa. Thiscampaign has also been waged on an international scale since early1986.Organisations in at least fifteen countries have pledged their support to theinternational campaign against Shell.

The Board of the Shipping Research Bureau consists of representatives of bothfounding organisations. The chairperson of the Bureau, Mr Cor Groenendijk, isalso chairperson of the Working Group Kairos.The Shipping Research Bureau's main activities in the area of the oil embargo areresearching and reporting circumventions of the embargo. Other activities areresearch on legislative and other means of enforcing the embargo moreeffectively, and maintaining contact with government, intergovernmental andnon-governmental bodies which could make use of the research results. SinceMarch 1989, the Bureau has also been monitoring coal exports from South Africa.The actual research and writing takes place in Amsterdam. The staff of theShipping Research Bureau is assisted by a number of volunteer associates invarious countries.Addresses:Working Group Kairos Kromme Nieuwegracht 10 3512 HG Utrecht Netherlandsphone +31 30319714 telex 40701 wgk nI fax +31 30316518Holland Committee on Southern Africa OudezijdsAchterburgwal 173 1012 DJAmsterdam Netherlands phone +3120270801 telex 17125 comsa n] fax+3120270441

Appendix V: SRB Publications 99Appendix VList of Main Publications of the Shipping Research BureauOilTankersto South Africa 1980-198112nd SRB main report I, Amster dam, June1982, ISBN 90 70331 055 (currently out of printISecret Oil Deliveries to South Africa 1981-1982 !3rd SRB main reporti,Amsterdam, June 1984; ISBN 90 70331 152South Africa's Lifeline. Violations of the Oil Embargo 14th SRB main report,covering the period January 1983 first months of 1985; special section onshipments from Rotterdam 1979-19851, Amsterdam, September 1986; ISBN 9070331 13 6Oil to South Africa. Apartheid's Friends and Partners 15th SRB main report,covering the period January 1985 - first half of 1987; special section on thecountries from which tankers sailed to South Africa 19791987; maps,illustrationsl, Amsterdam, September 1988; ISBN 9070331 195Fuel for Apartheid. Oil Supplies to South Africa 16th SRB main report,coveringthe period January 1987 - early 1990; special section on shipments of refinedpetroleum products; maps, illustrationsl, Amster dam, September1990; ISBN 9070331 24 1Oil and Tanker Interests that Facilitate the Exploitation of Namibia'sNaturalResources Isurveyl, Amsterdam, April/August 1984The Oil Embargo against South Africa: West European involvement and possibleactions, United Nations Centre against Apartheid, Information Note No. 57/84,New York, November 1984 [paper, prepared for the founding conference of theAssociation of West European Parliamentarians for Action against ApartheidIAWEPAA), Copenhagen, 2-3 November 19841

Oil Shipments to South Africa by the Tankers Thorsaga, Thorshavet andThorsholm [survey on the role of the Norwegian shipping company A/SThorDahl, 1981-19841, Amsterdam/Oslo, December 1984John Deuss - Transworld Oil. Zuid-Afrika's belangrijkste olieleverancier (JohnDeuss - TWO. South Africa's main oil supplier; survey in Dutch with anEnglishsummary], Amsterdam, January 1985Oil Shipments to South Africa on MaerskTankers: TheRoleofA.P Moller ofDenmark Isurvey, based on research conducted jointly with the Danish Seamen'sUnion, Copenhageni, Amsterdam, June 1985Oil Shipmentsto South Africa byTankers Owned and Managed by Sig. Bergesend.y. and Co. of Norway (1979-1985) [surveyl, Amsterdam/Oslo, August 1985West European Companies Breaking the Oil Embargo against South Africa.Possibilities for a West European Response [paper for International Conference'Apartheid and Southern Africa: the West European Response', 12 14 September1985 at Amsterdam; French version availablel, Amsterdam, September 19851currently out of printlCompanies Breaking the Oil Embargo against South Africa [paper, prepared forthe International Conference on Oil Supplies to South Africa by seafarers' anddockers' unions in London, 30-31 October 1985, sponsored by theUnited NationsSpecial Committee against Apartheid I, Amsterdam/London, October 1985Shell, Marubeni, Rich. Crude Oil Deliveries to South Africa from Brunei (Jan.1979 -Oct. 1986) Isurveyl, Amsterdam, January 1987Oil Embargo against South Africa. How to close the loopholes in current WestEuropean measures I paper, prepared for the European Seminaron Support toSADCC and Action against Apartheid, organised by the Associationof WestEuropean Parliamentarians for Action against Apartheid (AWEPAA) atStrasbourg, 13-15 May 19871, Amsterdam/Strasbourg, May 1987The Commonwealth and the Oil Embargo against South Africa [paperl,Amsterdam, September 1987The Oil Embargo against South Africa: Effects and Loopholes (paper, preparedfor the conference 'Sanctions and South Africa', organised bythe African StudiesEt Research Program of the Graduate School of Howard University, Washington,DC, 30-31 October 19871, Amsterdam/Washington, October 1987 (alsoincorporated in: Robert E. Edgar led,), Sanctioning Apartheid, Africa WorldPress, Trenton NJ, 1990, pp. 165-180; ISBN 0-86543-162-0 & 0-86543-163-9)The European Community and the Oil Embargo against South Africa[paperl,Amsterdam, November 1987; 2nd revised and updated edition [prepared for theConsultative Meeting of Anti Apartheid movements from the E.C. Countries,Bonn, 13-14 February 19881, Amsterdam/Bonn, February 1988Closing the Loopholes in the Oil Embargo against South Africa (paper, preparedfor the International Conference 'The World United Against Apartheid for aDemocratic South Africa', organised by the African National Congress of SouthAfrica in Arusha, 1-4 December 19871, Amsterdam/Arusha, December 1987Kudu: South African Development of Namibia's Gas Deposits to Circumvent theOil Embargo? [paper, prepared fortheSeminaron the International Responsibility

for Namibia's Independence, organised by the United Nations Council forNamibia, Istanbul, 21-25 March 19881, Amsterdam/Istanbul, March 1988

100 Appendix V SRB PublicationsLegislation, Monitoring, Enforcement: Tightening the Oil Embargo against SouthAfrica Ipaper, prepared for AWEPAA Twin Conference on 'Southern Africa'sFuture - Europe's Role', organised by the Association of West EuropeanParliamentarians for Action against Apartheid in Lusaka/Harare, 23-30 March19881, Amsterdam/Lusaka, March 1988Oil: South Africa's Lifeline Ipaper, prepared for the International Conference onAnti-Apartheid, organised by the Nigerian National Committee against Apartheid(NACAP), Lagos, Nigeria, 7-9 November 1988, and the International Conferenceof the Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organisation (AAPSO), NewDelhi, India,24-28 November 19881, Amsterdam/Lagos resp. New Delhi, November 1988Marimpex. A German Oil Supplier to South Africa [surveyl, updated ed.,Amsterdam, February 1989 Ist ed. translated into German as 'Marimpex liefert 01.Umgehung des'Olembargos gegen Sidafrika', epd-Entwicklungspoitik MaterialienIV/86; ISSN 0177-5510; P.O. Box 170361, Frankfurt/Main, FRG)World-Wide Shipping Group. A Hong Kong Oil Supplier Comes to SouthAfrica's Rescue Isurveyl, Amsterdam, April 1989'Some successes of the oil embargo' and 'Technology transfer to circumvent theoil embargo', in: Joseph Hanlon led.), South Africa. The Sanctions Report.Documents and Statistics. A report from the Independent Expert Study Group onthe Evaluation of the Application and Impact of Sanctions Against South Africaprepared for the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on SouthernAfrica,The Commonwealth Secretariat/James Currey, London/ Heinemann,PortsmouthNH, 1990, pp. 175-179and 222-225; ISBN 0-85255-338-2 0-435-08049-0Shipping Research Bureau Newsletter In addition to its main reports on the oilembargo against South Africa, company surveys and other occasional topicalreports, and reports on the export of coal from South Africa, the ShippingResearch Bureau publishes a quarterly Newsletter. The SRB Newsletter includesthe Newsletter on the Oil Embargo against South Africa and the Coal Monitor.Since 1985, the SRB Newsletter has been providing a regular flow of informationon the oil embargo and the boycott of South African coal. It contains recentfindings of the Shipping Research Bureau, and information obtained from othersources on South Africa's oil and coal situation. It reports actions by governmentsand international bodies and campaigns by antiapartheid organisations throughoutthe world.The SRB Newsletter is distributed quarterly free of charge to some 2,200subscribers all over the world. Another 800 copies are distributed through anti-apartheid organisations and other interested organisations. It is theBureau'sexperience that the SR B Newsletter is closely read by the media, byrepresentatives of companies and governments, and by non-governmental groupsconcerned with economic sanctions against South Africa.

For subscriptions and back issues: The Circulation Manager, P.O.Box 11898, NL-1001 GW Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ISSN 0169-3956

1 0 I 1 I Z i 10 Ii' IM2 InC0aa I)S IID I 'l ImD-b lb'l -Ina -- a-Z a In m 3)l E m a ID1 a2 D IDalb W ID* lb:' oo22 kA-IasI DmnIam I 10I0 IIDoI IIDWI lblaloI l lb n WII I '1-1 ol 0I E Iv I I :I ZI n 51 I M 1 I ID5n iau iQ m I - LIID ' 1It-nl ca-DZalbO~ID '-U.-I MD IDIDIIDIn n DIDIlb wI wIpa0 JUM Ia v 0a I

ma ID- I:mC-5 t -I I In ) M - D -n a I 1Io a~a~ I~ID lbWI W ID n '< D a- - DC ) 0 0 '0 0 ID Cn'ID a- a MWac 0 1":Ifl'S'10I R -a '-'<aDlDlbI ' D a - Or I OD <'l I b b a I lbn~ m laolm aa-110lblb 2in I22 lb) -ba- a 4 22"mC0 Ina lb laInI an l -IC 10 P11W In IXno IDO -l 'lID In 'I II' IDlb-J '1 ID LIa'lbc~- I1~CIDWX lb lb rI -l'l-'-InlbaOnC.-'ID I In En :lb -ID IC0 .' a0 I 1 0 ID I Vt0 n Em al m a aam mmI n I aaI a IlblbinIa IIDIZ-50 a : wa I I lb ID 'm m 10 aaI nr M lbnm I mm n1-, 1f 0ID (DO' I lb MS Z cmona, a

m m--fl7ta

ICI0In1Won.-.3, 033 i-i, '3 0-'*(~13333-' '3 33 r~'Q-s-.3.333 3, ii -I'3333n-U0-m31 a a 03 mm m3.am a-I0,3 a O3 3) 13IP333 310 I030 (C-I'333~ IC '3~33 ~ '3 3,C-' I33:'< rC33 'C1333'33'II 3,13310 .,-a I -p'il 3, I3l~1) I03'33 3,33330 Cl 33W 33 I aID .,3, 33.-i I 3,'3333333 I33 ,-P.-'3plIl 33 330"- Ia '3~ WInap-'

3,330 z I33333,3 I 33 3 3' C I '3-p'3 I.330 I0033 I -t - a r I33~ ~'o Ici'0'3,OI- 33r13 33'3 I~) I3' 33 33 0 '3 33,33 In 33 33' 1-i *,.a Ii33 ci3333331'3flW33 a-pip-p in 3, a '3 0-' 33 .-' 33 0 ' I-a.- £33 I CPC3333 333,' aa3, '30 03333' '30it 1)3, IPZ "Z p,~~330'3 '-.33 .~ WV iTno ao 3,30,.i 33-3,33'is '-33It IDI.-- a03333a33E3( n a i-' a o3 cu 33oID a n33I~3 ' '333 0-3-