FAQs

Trafigura & the slops

• Is Trafigura a toxic waste company?

  No. Trafigura is the world's third largest independent oil trader and the second largest trader in the non-ferrous concentrates market. It has access to over US$30billion in credit facilities from the world's leading banks, and has billions invested in a variety of mining, downstream oil and logistics assets.

  Trafigura is involved in every element of sourcing, storing and transporting crude oil, petroleum products, renewable energies, metals, metal ores and concentrates for industrial consumers. It handles over two million barrels of crude oil and oil products every day and over nine million tonnes of concentrates annually.

  Trafigura employs staff in 44 countries around the world, with its principal corporate offices in Geneva and Lucerne.
  

• Where had the cargo on the Probo Koala come from?

  Three cargoes (totalling 84,989 metric tonnes) were delivered to the Probo Koala by ship-to-ship transfer in the Mediterranean.  These cargoes consisted of coker naphtha, a gasoline blendstock which had been transported from Brownsville in the United States.

• Why did Trafigura need to mix cargoes?

  Gasoline that is produced by refineries rarely meets the specifications required by individual purchasers. These fuel specifications vary enormously around the world – ‘Super Unleaded’ gasoline in one country, for example, will be very different from that in another country. Refineries, terminals, traders and oil companies are always blending fuels and fuel stocks to get the exact specification set by the customer. It is a safe, everyday practice.

• Were Trafigura’s trading procedures deficient at the time of the incident?

  No.  As mentioned in his independent inquiry into the Probo Koala incident, Lord Fraser said: ‘I am not aware of any substantial departure by Trafigura from what is good trading practice [i.e. comparable to other ‘oil majors’] and no ‘whistleblower’ has contacted me to suggest the contrary.’

  Trafigura follows international laws, standards, rules and regulations for the management of its trading and shipping operations and did so for the voyages of the Probo Koala. Sadly, a contractor decided to dump the slops illegally despite Trafigura following these practices.

The slops & caustic washing

• What are slops?

  A form of ships’ wastes generated during cargo operations; including tank drainings, cargo residues, tank washings and other oily mixtures.

• What was the composition of the slops of the Probo Koala and how were they produced?

  The cargoes of the Probo Koala contained higher than normal quantities of mercaptans. These substances, which exist in nearly all oils to some degree, emitted an unpleasant sulphurous smell. Cleaning, by using the caustic washing/Merox process, reduces the smell of the coker naphtha but does not actually remove the mercaptans themselves. Instead, they are converted into less smelly compounds called disulphides. It may seem a crude process but it is, in fact, simple chemistry that can be conducted using bulk quantities of fuel, caustic soda and a catalyst.

  After this process, the cargo separates due to differences in relative densities into two layers with ‘cleaned’ coker naphtha at the top of the tank and slops or a mixture of water and spent caustic soda at the bottom.

• Is the caustic washing/Merox process unusual?

  No. It’s a well-known, legal and effective way of reducing impurities in gasoline blendstocks and has been used in the refining industry for 50 years. In 2006, there were 1,600 Merox units licensed for operation worldwide.

• So how does it work?

  The caustic wash is achieved by adding caustic soda solution (sodium hydroxide) in one tank and circulating the contents around to ‘wash’ the coker naphtha and chemically extract the mercaptans from the hydrocarbons.
  The Merox process requires an alkaline environment, which is provided by the caustic soda solution. In the presence of the alkaline water, mercaptans in the cargo are converted into mercaptides and they dissolve into the water. Here they interact with a catalyst, which aids the conversion from mercaptides to the much less strong smelling disulphides. The disulphides dissolve back into the cargo, while some mercaptides remain in the caustic water, which sinks to the bottom of the tank and is then pumped to the slops tanks.

• What are mercaptans – and why were they treated anyway?

  Mercaptans are a commonly occurring substance found in nature and are a class of molecules containing sulphur, carbon and hydrogen. Mercaptans are commonly present in crude oil and also in refined oil products. They are, for example, produced in the human body during the digestion of foodstuffs such as beer and garlic.
  Although gasoline containing higher levels of mercaptans is still perfectly usable, it would be unpopular with customers – so it must literally pass a ‘smell test’ before being accepted.

• I’ve heard people say the process you used was illegal. Was it?

  No. It is not illegal or banned. It wasn’t illegal or banned then. It isn’t now.

The slops, their disposal & relevant regulations

• What regulations govern ship waste and what are the responsibilities of various parties involved?

  The handling of ship generated waste, including slops, is regulated by the international convention MARPOL 73/78, which is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978. (‘MARPOL’ is short for ‘marine pollution’ and 73/78 short for the years 1973 and 1978).

  MARPOL 73/78 is one of the most important international marine environmental conventions and it was designed to minimise pollution of the seas, including dumping of oil and exhaust pollution.  Its stated object is: ‘to preserve the marine environment through the complete elimination of pollution by oil and other harmful substances and the minimisation of accidental discharge of such substances’.

  The original MARPOL Convention was signed on 17th February 1973, but did not come into force. The current Convention is a combination of the 1973 Convention and the 1978 Protocol.  It entered into force on 2nd October 1983.   As of 30th September 2007, 145 countries, representing an estimated 98.34% of the world's shipping tonnage, were parties to MARPOL 73/78 (Annex I/II). These countries include The Netherlands and the Ivory Coast. In 2011 this figure had reached 150 countries and more than 99% of the world’s shipping tonnage.

  Under the MARPOL Convention, each state has the obligation to ensure that it has the necessary facilities to handle ships’ waste efficiently and safely and each vessel has to maintain an oil log book detailing movements in its oil cargoes.

The Probo Koala in Amsterdam

• What volume of slops was removed by Amsterdam Port Services (APS)?

  About 350 cubic metres were discharged to an APS barge between 8pm and 12am on Sunday 2nd July 2006.

• Why did the slops removal company APS hike up its price to such an extent?

  APS revised its charges on 3rd July 2006. No credible explanation was ever given. APS’s claim about the increased Chemical Oxygen Demand of the slops was irrelevant, and besides it was not substantiated by any test results and was therefore considered completely unreasonable. Fees charged by licensed operators who receive, and in some cases pay for, slops vary from port to port and negotiations often take place.

The slops, toxicity & allegations of their harmful nature

• Were the slops toxic?

  Toxicity is a matter of concentration and location. Lots of everyday things could be defined as toxic, such as after-shave. Even milk is considered toxic if released into an inappropriate environment.

  The real issue here is: were the slops onboard the Probo Koala dangerous? No, they weren’t, they were no more or less dangerous than any other petroleum product. If they had been, the first individuals to be affected would have been the Probo Koala’s crew, those present at the discharge of the slops (the port authorities, tanker drivers and customs staff) and those directly involved in handling the slops during discharge operations. No ill effects were reported by any of these people.

• It’s said that the slops contained two tonnes of the ‘toxic gas’ hydrogen sulphide?

  That is incorrect. The hydrogen sulphide allegations came from a misinterpretation by the BBC of a report carried out on samples of the slops out by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). The NFI Report found that the slops were highly alkaline which means that they could simply not have contained hydrogen sulphide in its molecular form.  As stated by the NFI witness (FJM Bakker) in the Amsterdam criminal proceedings of 11th May 2010 the slops have ‘to be diluted millions of times before hydrogen sulphide is released, or you must add acid’.
  The BBC, one of a number of media outlets that misunderstood the NFI data, has publicly acknowledged this fact and apologised for its error.

• So where did this idea of hydrogen sulphide come from?

  The hydrogen sulphide allegations came in large part from a misinterpretation by the BBC and other media entities of a report carried out on samples of the slops out by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI).

  In the course of testing for composition, the NFI acidified a part of the sample to a pH of 1. Under those extremely acidic conditions, conversion of the sulphides and bisulphides can occur, thereby creating and releasing hydrogen sulphide.

  The NFI Report stated that the slops registered a pH of 14, a reading that was extremely alkaline.  Crucially, there is no evidence to suggest that conditions at any of the Abidjan dump sites were sufficiently acidic to effect a change in the slops that would mean that the slops would generate hydrogen sulphide to such an extent that they could have caused harm to human health as alleged.

• Did your slops kill people?

  No. Scientific analyses of the slops by totally independent agencies, specialists, scientists and doctors have shown that the slops could only, at worst, have caused a range of short term low-level flu like symptoms and anxiety.

• So the slops couldn’t have caused deaths, miscarriages and serious illnesses. Didn’t they did contain chemicals that caused a range of skin diseases?

  There is no truth in that either. Dermatological conditions such as psoriasis, eczema and vitiligo could not have been caused or made worse by any alleged exposure to the slops.

• How does that leave the issue of all the people who undoubtedly did seek medical aid at the time?

  Whatever health issues they had, the slops could not have caused anything worse than short-term flu like symptoms and anxiety. Crucially, those closest to the slops – the people handling the cargo and the slops on the ship and in the various ports – did not suffer any illness or injury.

  There was, at the time, a large degree of misinformation from the local Ivorian press that led to unnecessary health concerns (indeed, at one point it was suggested, ludicrously, that the slops were ‘radioactive’) and that some people in Abidjan apparently misattributed unrelated symptoms to the dumping of the slops. The smell of the slops too could have given a false sense of toxicity, as UNDAC specifically recognised.

  It is understood that in response to heightened concerns among the public, a number of hospitals in Abidjan offered local inhabitants free medical care. While undoubtedly this decision would have aided and reassured members of the public it is also believed that the move led to hospitals being flooded by those seeking medical care for a range of pre-existing illnesses that were completely unrelated to the slops.

• But wasn’t one of the people convicted of manslaughter in Ivory Coast?

  Salomon Ugborugbo, the owner of Compagnie Tommy, was indeed convicted of manslaughter in connection with the Probo Koala incident. However, Trafigura does not know the basis upon which the court reached its decision. The company was not a party to the case and therefore had no access to the evidence.

  Trafigura maintains that there is no basis to support any allegation that the slops could have caused anything other than short term low-level flu-like symptoms and anxiety, and this is supported by the work of the 20 independent experts who submitted evidence to the English group action case.

• Are the Probo Koala’s slops still causing health problems in the Ivory Coast?

  No.

  Burgeap, a leading environmental consultancy, appointed by both Trafigura and the Ivorian Government to undertake an audit of the reported dump sites noted that,no further remediation was required by EU standards.  Burgeap could not at the time rule out the potential for some odour issues in future.

  While satisfied by Burgeap’s conclusion, Trafigura commissioned WSP Environment & Energy, a leading global environmental consultancy, to consider whether further, later, rumours of residual contaminants associated with the slops remained at alleged disposal sites. During the course of its investigations, WSP confirmed that at the dump sites investigated they did not find any compounds that could have originated from the slops and concluded that there was no current related risk to human health from the slops. These findings, together with those reached by Burgeap, the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) mission and other independent parties clearly disprove any suggestion that the slops from the Probo Koala continue to pose a threat to the health of the local population in and around Abidjan.  As reported by UNDAC:

  ‘It is believed that three weeks after the dumping of the waste the concentrations of the concerned compounds in the air are low and no further adverse health effects are to be expected. However the chemicals, especially mercaptans have strong smells at low concentrations [and are] detectable by the human nose at concentrations far below danger levels. This may give a false impression of toxicity.’

The Probo Koala in Abidjan

• There was an allegation that Trafigura met Abidjan port personnel in Paris in May 2006, before the Probo Koala went to the Ivory Coast.  Is that true?

  The allegation was one of impropriety and it is absurd.

  First, Trafigura and its subsidiaries are major investors in Abidjan and the port. It is inevitable that there are business meetings with the relevant authorities.

  Second, if – as was implied – Trafigura had been planning in May to discharge the slops in Abidjan then why would the company have gone to the substantial cost and effort of sending the Probo Koala into Amsterdam in July?

• Why was the vessel then sent to Abidjan to discharge slops?

  It wasn’t. You don’t send a 37,000-tonne / 51,610 cubic meter capacity vessel halfway round the world just to discharge around 528 cubic meters of slops (1.02% of the Probo Koala’s total capacity). The Probo Koala went to Paldiski, Estonia to load gasoline for a commercial delivery to Lagos, Nigeria. While in Lagos, Trafigura looked to see if the slops could be discharged but offers made by two local operators to do the work were rejected by Trafigura as the disposal methods were not considered appropriate. So the vessel departed en route back to Paldiski to collect another cargo. On the way it was decided to take the vessel into Abidjan to discharge the slops.

• Was Abidjan equipped to treat such slops?

  Yes. Under Regulation 38 of the MARPOL Convention, to which Ivory Coast was a signatory, slops handling would be standard practice at a major oil port like Abidjan. Indeed, Abidjan is one of the largest and most sophisticated ports in west Africa: in 2006, the port handled a total of 18 million tonnes of goods.  It has handled oil-related cargoes since 1965; in addition to the SIR oil refinery (which has an operating capacity of approximately 22 million barrels of crude oil per annum), there is a separate bitumen plant run by SMB. The Ivory Coast is also a crude oil exporting country.  Trafigura, as well as other major oil companies, such as Shell and Total, have been operating in the Ivory Coast for decades. Consequently, the port was experienced in dealing with slops from oil tankers and vessels, and in 2006 more than 30,000 tonnes of slops were safely unloaded at Abidjan.

Compagnie Tommy

• How was Compagnie Tommy selected as operator responsible for handling the slops?

  As is standard industry practice, a reputable and established local shipping agent was used to identify a suitable licensed operator to offload the slops. The shipping agent, WAIBS, had acted for oil traders for 11 years in a responsible and reliable manner and had previously acted on behalf of Trafigura for over four years.  The shipping agent recommended Compagnie Tommy.

  Furthermore, as part of its due diligence, Trafigura ensured that Compagnie Tommy provided to Trafigura copies of its appropriate governmental and port licences to handle the slops as well as sought confirmation from the port authorities that such licences were valid.

• Is it true that Compagnie Tommy was set up to deal with the Probo Koala’s slops after Amsterdam?

  No. Trafigura had no links whatsoever with Compagnie Tommy. Compagnie Tommy had been incorporated and had applied for its legal permits months before Trafigura decided to discharge the slops in Abidjan (and indeed before the Probo Koala had even called at Amsterdam). Compagnie Tommy was recommended by WAIBS, a long-established and reputable shipping agent. Trafigura then carried out its own independent checks on Compagnie Tommy and with the port authority and everything seemed to be in order.

• It was reported that Compagnie Tommy said it wasn’t aware of what the slops contained.

  That is wrong. Prior to the arrival of the Probo Koala, Trafigura notified Compagnie Tommy and the relevant authorities in Abidjan as to the nature of the slops.

• What did Compagnie Tommy do with the Probo Koala’s slops?

  Compagnie Tommy dumped the untreated slops at sites in and around Abidjan. Its conduct was utterly reprehensible and illegal.  Furthermore, it was a flagrant breach of Compagnie Tommy’s licence.

Trafigura’s immediate response to the incident

• What did Trafigura do upon becoming aware of the incident?

  On 14th September, Trafigura sent its own team to Abidjan to offer technical, medical and financial assistance to the investigation. While Trafigura could not have foreseen the disgraceful actions of Compagnie Tommy, it was deeply concerned on hearing the reports coming out of Abidjan.

  The Trafigura delegation went to Abidjan in good faith to help deal with the emergency. It included two executives, Claude Dauphin (Trafigura’s Chairman) and Jean-Pierre Valentini (a senior manager of the company), Captain N’Zi Kablan (Trafigura’s local manager of Puma Energy CI, Trafigura’s subsidiary company in Abidjan), a team of doctors, a geologist and a refining engineer.

• What steps did Trafigura take to secure the release of its executives?

  Trafigura immediately began discussions to secure the release of its executives, including direct discussions with the Ivorian Government as well as diplomatic proceedings.  The executives were released in February 2007.

The Draft Minton report

• What was the draft Minton report?

  On 7th September 2006, Trafigura commissioned Minton, Treharne & Davies Ltd (Minton) to prepare a document, based on purely theoretical information, on what may have happened in Abidjan.  This was later to become known as the ‘Minton Report’.

  In fact, the Minton Report was never finalised as its contents were importantly superseded within a matter of days by comprehensive analyses of the actual slops. This analysis was carried out by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI), based on the samples taken by the District Environmental Police (DEP) in Amsterdam.

• Why did the draft Minton Report later attract so much attention?

  Principally because a question was asked in the UK’s parliament about the injunction granted to Trafigura to prevent publication of the draft Minton Report.  The question led to elements of the media falsely suggesting that Trafigura had improperly attempted to prevent the media reporting on the Parliamentary Question. Some media even made the equally ludicrous suggestion that Trafigura had attempted to prevent Parliament even debating the matter, and it also led to the content and significance of the draft Minton Report itself being misinterpreted and wildly misrepresented.

• So why did Trafigura use Minton then if its report was not of use?

  It’s not that the report was ‘not of use’. Trafigura asked Minton for an informed preliminary idea of what the slops might have contained – and that’s exactly what it provided. The hypotheses became redundant when the real samples were analysed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) and the facts became known a matter of days after the draft Minton Report was submitted. Minton was, and remains, a world-class scientific consultancy, with which Trafigura and numerous others in the industry continue to consult.

• Didn’t the draft Minton Report show that Trafigura had covered up the toxic waste problem?

  No it did not. The illegal disposal of the slops by Compagnie Tommy in Abidjan was public knowledge around the world within weeks of the original incident.  Similarly, it was also public knowledge that Compagnie Tommy had been contracted by Trafigura.  Trafigura has never attempted to cover this up.

  The draft Minton Report was commissioned because Trafigura wanted to know what might have happened in Abidjan as a result of the slops being dumped in open areas.

  It was a report based on hypotheses alone.

• Why did you try to keep the draft Minton Report secret?

  The report was a confidential and legally privileged draft, it was based on hypothetical data and furthermore it incorporated statements that could have been potentially misleading to an uninformed reader.

  Trafigura was concerned that the information would be misreported, misinterpreted and consequently misunderstood. Indeed, media reporting of this particular issue has done exactly that. Regrettably, the majority of the media coverage mentioning the draft Minton Report has been inaccurate and in many cases, far from the truth.

  As it quickly transpired, the draft Minton Report (and the need for it) was superseded by the publication of the NFI report which was independent and based on analysis of the actual slops.

The NFI report

• Why is the NFI Report so significant?

  First, it is significant because the Netherlands Forensic Institute is independent. It is a part of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security.

  Second, the analysis was performed on samples from the actual slops themselves.

  Third, it was acknowledged in the English court proceedings as the best evidence available as to the composition of the slops..

The Fraser report

• If Trafigura paid Lord Fraser to write the report how could the report be described as independent?

  Lord Fraser was highly qualified for such a task and furthermore accepted without reservation the original terms of reference which were weighted heavily by Trafigura in favour of promoting independence.  Lord Fraser replied to the request for assistance with the following:

  ‘…I only add that as one who has conducted inquiries on behalf of Government in the UK and others that I am much impressed with both the transparency and the independence allowed to me. Had Trafigura sought to constrain me, I would have declined the Terms.

  Without prejudging my conclusions I hope that what I shall be reporting to Trafigura will influence international thinking.’

The WSP report

• What was the point of the WSP Report? Why bother producing it so long afterwards?

  There are still claims that the remains of the slops are present and causing harm to human health in the Ivory Coast.

  Trafigura commissioned international environmental consultancy WSP to undertake further investigations in order to ascertain the truth. It concluded that a) there is no risk to human health from contaminants specifically relating to slops at the dump sites tested and b) a number of environmental issues not related to the slops were identified at some of the alleged dump sites, as well as other sites suggesting historical contamination associated with other processes and/or activities.

The UN report

• But the UN is a world-renowned and trusted entity – surely one of its organisations wouldn’t produce an inaccurate report?

  Trafigura holds the valuable work carried out by the UN and the UN’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in the highest regard.
  However, the report was not produced by the UN or one of its organisations. Professor Ibeanu was merely a Special Rapporteur to the UN and was commissioned to assess the situation and write the report.
  Trafigura welcomed the prospect of an independent report on the situation and offered Professor Ibeanu its full assistance, cooperation and extensive access to properly sourced information. However, in the event, Professor Ibeanu spent very little time in Ivory Coast and commissioned no independent scientific research of his own. His report relied almost exclusively upon anecdote and rumour in place of verifiable facts.

Leigh Day & Co initiates English High Court group action

• Why was Leigh Day & Co claiming against Trafigura when it was Compagnie Tommy who dumped the slops?

  It was Compagnie Tommy, a local independent contractor engaged by Trafigura, and not Trafigura itself which unlawfully and reprehensibly dumped the slops in and around Abidjan.

  However, Trafigura believes that the claims were brought against Trafigura and not Compagnie Tommy as it allowed them to be brought by Leigh Day & Co in the English courts and because Trafigura has deeper pockets.

• But Trafigura paid £30 million. Surely you admit there were serious injuries from the incident?

  No. Trafigura agreed to pay £950 to each claimant. The claimants’ lawyers had claimed £5,000 or more for each person, totalling about £180 million. That £950 is an appropriate sum for those who may have suffered short-term, low-level symptoms or anxiety. In England, for example, compensation for a minor whiplash injury typically is around £850 to £2,750. By agreeing to pay £950 per claimant, Trafigura did not admit any liability.  The settlement was a sensible resolution to avoid additional expensive and time-consuming legal costs.

• And what about the Ivorian claimants? I’ve read that they haven’t received the money paid to Leigh Day & Co by Trafigura.

  Trafigura understands that, as of 1st May 2011, many thousands of those entitled to payment from the September 2009 settlement have not been paid.

  The company is saddened by this but feels it is a reflection of how Leigh Day & Co has operated from the outset. One can only assume that Leigh Day & Co is vigorously working to get all its clients their £950 entitlement as it is in managing its claims for £105 million in costs.

  Trafigura must stress that it paid the settlement sum in full on the day the settlement was agreed in September 2009. Leigh Day & Co has the responsibility for distributing that to its clients. Any specific questions as to the current status of payments can only be answered by Leigh Day & Co.

• So, if Trafigura agreed a settlement, why was the court involved?

  It is mandatory in the UK for a settlement involving children to be endorsed by the High Court. It is also the reason that the endorsement hearing had to be held in private.

• Why did Trafigura agree to a settlement with Leigh Day & Co and its claimants, given it does not admit liability?

  As long as it was being suggested by the claimant’s lawyers that Trafigura’s actions had caused deaths, miscarriages and serious and long-term injuries, Trafigura was determined to go to trial to vindicate its position. However, Leigh Day & Co finally acknowledged the reports of independent scientific experts and doctors showing that the serious and long-term injuries they had alleged simply could not have been caused by the slops.

  Once it was demonstrated and accepted by Leigh Day & Co that the slops could, at worst, only have caused ‘low level flu-like symptoms and anxiety’ the decision to settle was consistent with Trafigura’s approach since the beginning to recognise what it believed to be a responsibility to the region and its people regardless of any legal liability.

  On another level it was also important to draw a line under this event for all involved and once the scientific case clearly established the facts, it made sense to complete the procedure as soon as practicable.

• Once the proceedings in the Group Legal Action brought by Leigh Day & Co concluded why did you not publish the experts’ reports?

  The independent experts’ reports are not scientific papers in the academic sense (i.e. not available for broad publication). The reports were highly detailed, are thousands of pages long and, more importantly, were specifically prepared as forensic evidence with regard to cases concerning private individuals, including children.

Ivory Coast legal action

• Wasn’t Trafigura’s subsidiary Puma Energy involved in the Abidjan trial? Didn’t its manager leave the Ivory Coast before he was due to appear as a witness?

  Puma Energy CI assisted with checking Compagnie Tommy’s credentials prior to the arrival of the Probo Koala. Its local manager was placed on a witness list for the Abidjan trial but he was never actually called and, during the trial, the prosecutor declared that he did not require him.

• How has Trafigura’s trading with the Ivory Coast been affected?

  It hasn’t. Trafigura continued to trade with the Ivory Coast before, during and after the event.

  While abiding for example, by recently imposed EU sanctions, Trafigura has traded significant volumes with the Ivory Coast in recent years, delivering crude and fuel products and off-taking products and local crude.  More generally, Trafigura plays a vital role in delivering oil cargoes to west Africa.

  Trafigura and its subsidiary companies have invested millions of dollars in infrastructure and facilities in the port of Abidjan and the Ivory Coast. It was – and remains – an important business centre for Trafigura.

Dutch legal action

• Did Trafigura contravene Basel Convention regulations in Amsterdam?

  No. Trafigura did not.

  If slops are shipped from one country to another (a trans-boundary shipment), then the carriage and disposal of the waste is in principle regulated by the Basel Convention.

  However, if waste is produced on a ship, the disposal of that waste is excluded from the Basel regime and is regulated by MARPOL regulations.

  The slops on the Probo Koala were produced by an operation at sea and were therefore subject to MARPOL regulations, not the Basel Convention.

  Unfortunately the Amsterdam Court ruled that Trafigura did contravene the Basel Contravention in Amsterdam. Trafigura has appealed the judgment.

• Why did Trafigura think the judgment was ‘fundamentally flawed’?

  Trafigura maintains that the court put forward a wildly divergent interpretation of the applicable international conventions, EU and Dutch law. The company’s lawyers advised that there are clear grounds for appeal, particularly in how the court interpreted the scope and provisions of the old European Waste Shipment Regulation (259/93/EC) and with its failure to examine the usual application of the MARPOL Convention and EU Port Reception Facilities Directive to the slops material.

Dutch media, bribery allegations & Greenpeace

• If the claims are so misleading, why hasn't Trafigura sued the Dutch media?

  The Probo Koala incident has attracted considerable press coverage in the Netherlands, where certain elements of the media have appeared to have little interest in balanced or responsible reporting.

  Trafigura has formerly challenged such reporting and will continue to do so where necessary.  Ultimately however Trafigura aspires to engage positively with the media to avoid emotive stories such as these being misrepresented.

  From a legal perspective, Dutch libel laws differ from those in the UK in that the media are given far more leeway to publish inaccurate and defamatory allegations on matters they say are of ‘public interest’, regardless of their accuracy and without having to ensure anywhere near as much balance and fairness as under UK law. Therefore litigation is unlikely to be the most effective response for Trafigura to take in relation to inaccurate coverage.  Trafigura continues to believe that there is no public interest in the publication of inaccurate material.

• Why is Trafigura so litigious?

  It isn’t.

  Trafigura has taken specific legal action in libel on only two occasions when the inaccuracies have been particularly outrageous. Trafigura has won both the defamation claims it has brought – against the BBC and Leigh Day & Co. The company has also obtained unreserved apologies from other media, including The Guardian and The Times, without pursuing them in the courts.

  The only other media-related legal action taken by Trafigura was the so-called ‘super-injunction’ against The Guardian but that was a breach of confidence action, not a defamation action.

• Greenpeace and others have frequently suggested that Trafigura has bullied journalists. Is this true?

  No. This is an absurd suggestion. Trafigura will however seek to defend its name where inappropriate or inaccurate statements are made that could mislead the public.  Trafigura continues to believe that there is no public interest in the publication of inaccurate material.

• Why does Greenpeace keep appearing in the Probo Koala story?

  Greenpeace (Netherlands) specifically chose the issue as the focus of one of its campaigns.  Ever since the Probo Koala incident began, it made a series of unfounded accusations concerning Trafigura and its business activities.  Time and time again, these allegations have been found to be totally baseless but, sadly, they have been given credibility by some journalists.

  Trafigura favours a policy of constructive engagement with members of the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) community and will always seek to address societal concerns in a manner that is both transparent and befitting of a world leading business.

Trafigura & the future

• What measures have been taken to ensure such an event won't happen again?

  From an internal procedure point of view, Trafigura continues to ensure that slops are only discharged in the hands of licensed operators. Nevertheless, international regulations are such that there is limited scope for a ship operator to a) select the port in which it calls to discharge slops and b) retain control over what happens to the slops once they are discharged into the hands of a licensed operator. This is why Trafigura is very active in assisting the industry and ensuring that such matters are adequately implemented at national and local levels.