By Alanna Hartzok
Alanna Hartzok is Co-Founder and
Co-Director of Earth Rights Institute, Vice President of the Council
of Georgist Organizations, and UN NGO Representative for the International
Union for Land Value Taxation. Other published articles of hers are posted
at <http://www.earthrights.net> Contact info: <earthrts@pa.net> or
717-264-0957.
This paper was presented
in the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG) track of the Eastern
Economic Association 30th Annual Conference held February 20 - 22, 2004
in Washington, DC.
Abstract: Citizens of Alaska have
been receiving individual dividend checks from an oil rent trust fund since 1982.
Norway's citizens receive substantial social services and invest oil rents in a
permanent fund for the future. Nigeria has yet to establish a similar fund for
its oil revenue stream. This paper explores the oil rent institutions of
Alaska, Norway and Nigeria with a focus on these questions: Are citizen
dividends from oil rent funds currently or potentially a source of substantial
basic income? Are oil rent funds the best source for citizen dividends or
should CDs be based on other types of resource rents?
The paper concludes that while oil fund citizen dividends are a significant
source of supplementary income, especially for lower income individuals and
families in Alaska, citizen dividends in Norway would augment income but
possibly at the expense of social benefits, and CDs from oil rent in Nigeria
probably would not be a sufficient basis for ending impoverishment.
Additionally, the paper recommends that state constituted oil rent funds should
both facilitate the transition to sustainable economies based on renewable
energy sources and themselves transition to funds based on surface land site
values and other permanent and more environmentally benign resource rents as a
future source of citizen dividends for basic income.
*
ALASKA
The Alaska state constitution claims common heritage rights of ownership of oil
and other minerals for the people of the state as a whole. Citizen dividend
checks are distributed every year in Alaska out of the interest payments to an
oil royalties deposit account called the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) created in
1976 after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The APF is a public trust
fund - a diversified stock, bond and real estate portfolio - into which are
deposited the oil royalties received from the corporations which extract the
oil from the lands of Alaska. The first citizen dividend check from the
interest of the APF was issued in 1982 and was for $1000 per every
person for everyone in Alaska who had resided in the state for at least
one year. Annual citizen dividends have been issued every year since
then, for a total of more than $23,000 per person.
In 2003, each of the nearly 600,000 Alaska US citizens (residents of Alaska for
at least one year) received a check for $1,107 from the APF. The total amount
dispersed was $663.2 million. The $25 billion investment fund's core
experienced stock market losses, which led to the dividend's decline this past
year compared to the several previous years. The amount was $433 less, a 28
percent drop from the 2002 pay out of $1,540, and a 44 percent decrease from
the all-time high of $1,964 in year 2000. The amount changes based on a
five-year average of APF investment income derived from the bonds, stock
dividends, real estate and other investments.
Alaska relies on oil for about 80 percent of its revenue and has no sales or
income tax. Alaska state government is mandated to invest 25% of its oil
revenue into the APF while the other 75% of oil royalty revenue is dispersed to
other government funds to finance education, infrastructure and social
services. If 100% of Alaska's oil royalties had been deposited into the APF, it
is conceivable that the CD this year could have been about $4,400 or $17,600
for a family of four. But then there would have been no funds for roads,
education and other public services and no funds available to run the state
legislature - a libertarian dream fulfilment or a social and economic disaster,
which one we will never know. If state services were to have been maintained
while 100% of oil royalties were deposited in the APF, there would of course
have been the need for income, sales and other taxes on wages and production.
At the end of the 2002 fiscal year, the state of Alaska had a deficit of nearly
$400 million. State lawmakers frequently debate whether the APF should be used
to help run state government, but the Fund is protected by law from being used
for government expenditures. Rather than cutting into the Fund and citizen
dividends, others are proposing an increase in oil rents and royalties from oil
corporations.
On February 5th of this year of 2004, several Democratic Representatives filed
legislation to help Alaskans recover a fairer share for their oil. That same
week former Alaska Governors Jay Hammond and Wally Hickel stated that it is
time to review the fairness of oil tax exemptions contained in a 1989 law known
as "the ELF", or Economic Limit Factor. Their viewpoint is that ELF
gives unjust-ified tax exemptions. The Alaska Fair Share bill would redress the
Economic Limit Factor and meet the constitutional obligation to make sure
Alaska's oil provides "the maximum benefit to the people" as mandated
by the state constitution.
Because of the ELF statute tax breaks, Alaska's oil production tax rate has
plummeted from 13.5% in 1993 to 7.5% today, and by 2013, it would be down to 4%
if the law is not changed. Also because of ELF, 11 of the last 14 fields
developed since 1989 pay none or almost none of Alaska's 15% Production Tax.
While the state's share for Alaska oil has fallen, corporate oil profits have
soared. BP and Conoco Phillips reported net earnings of $9 billion and $7
billion respectively last year. According to the Department of Revenue, at
recent oil prices of $30 per barrel the annual share corporations receive for
Alaska oil would exceed total state oil revenue by $1.2 billion.
The Alaska Fair Share bill establishes a modest minimum production tax of 5%
and would raise an additional $400 million in revenue this year. That
approximates the current state budget gap. The bill raises more at higher
prices per barrel, and an additional $100 million at average prices, according
to the Department. The bill also lets the state share in profits above $20 per
barrel by slowly increasing the severance tax above that price. To encourage
development, the Alaska Fair Share bill reduces the severance tax rate at low
prices, when companies face the prospect of reduced profits, and possible
investment losses.
Passage of the bill would alleviate state government expense shortfalls, and
would possibly result in higher citizen dividend payments as more funds would
be deposited into the APF. We cannot predict this for certain, however, as the
CDs come from the investment portfolio interest, are averaged over a five year
investment period, and determined by the portfolio performance.
We do know that due in large part to the citizen dividend payments combined
with the happy consequences of no state income or sales taxes, Alaska is the
only state in the United States where the wealth gap has decreased in the past
decade. The citizen dividends from the APF are an important and significant
source of income, especially for rural families maintaining more
land based subsistence lifestyles.
NORWAY
Norway, one of the world's richest economies, is a model of prudent economic
management of resource wealth. So states the IMF 2000 Article IV consultation
with Norway. Norway is the top non-OPEC oil exporter, the world's third-largest
exporter of oil, and pumps about 3.2 million barrels per day. Norway's oil and
gas industry underpins the economy, providing up to 25% of the country's gross
domestic product. This country of nearly four and one half million people
has a steady growth rate, almost no poverty, and negligible unemployment.
Norway has a diverse economy based on agriculture, forestry, fishing and
manufacturing, among other things, and its oil industry has developed amid much
planning, bargaining, and public debate.
The most recent U.N. Human Development Report ranks Norway the number one place
in the world to live, based on a cocktail of indicators about health, wealth
and social outlook. Nearly 1% of GDP is spent each year to fight global poverty
and enhance peace. Oslo often plays a mediating role in foreign conflicts, from
efforts to reconcile North and South Korea to the now foundering Middle East
peace process. Norway has created an economy that retained its progressive tax
structure, re-invested its oil profits throughout the economy, and saved money
to cushion future market shocks.
Norway struck oil in the North Sea in the 1960s. Norwegians' best defence
against the decline of the industry that has made it the world's
fourth-wealthiest country is the State Petroleum Fund, which is managed by the
national 'Norges Bank'. Parliament created the oil fund in 1990, but the
state had its first budget surplus only in 1995. Until then, oil income was
used to pay down Norway's staggering foreign debt from the tough years before
North Sea riches could be exploited. A substantial amount of the profits
from the exploitation of a resource that is viewed as belonging to all
Norwegians, not just the current generation, is invested in foreign stocks and
bonds. The state-owned fund guards against spending too freely on public sector
services in boom years so as not to lay off droves of state workers when the
economy goes bust.
The Petroleum Fund is an instrument designed to prevent Norway's substantial
oil profits from being taken too rapidly into the economy. State bank officials
and government leaders believe that dispersing oil revenues directly would
overheat the Norwegian economy and suppress private sector growth. Their view
is that the resource rent collected from the sale of their natural wealth of
oil should be conserved.
Norway has extracted only about 30% of its known oil resources in the three
decades and reserves are expected to last 40 more years. But the oil that's
left is mostly in depths, distances and quantities that make its extraction
less likely to produce profits of the magnitude to which the country has become
accustomed.
From the perspective of some, Norway focuses more on how to administer and
distribute the assets already acquired than on how new value is to be created.
There are generous benefits for both men and women of eight weeks' vacation,
liberal sick leave and day care that are reliable and inexpensive. Three-year
maternity leaves, broad part-time opportunities and creative application of
telecommuting help keep women in the work force. State assistance to single
mothers is so generous that there is no need for a father's income.
Norway's State Petroleum Fund is now worth about $60 billion. Many of Norway's
citizens fail to see why they should pay some of Europe's highest tax rates
when Norway's crude output is worth about $7,000 a year for each citizen, about
one fourth of per capita GDP of $28,433. If the $60 billion is invested for a
rate of return of 10%, then each Norwegian citizen could receive $1333 as an
annual CD. The state's priority instead is to conserve and build the Fund and
funnel fund revenue into social benefits.
NIGERIA
Two thousand years ago, Pliny the Elder wrote that the two greatest curses of
civilization were the discovery of silver and gold. Perhaps oil and gas should
be added to the list of natural wealth that ends up damaging more then helping
people in many parts of the world that are rich in subsoil resources. This has
certainly been the case in Nigeria.
There have been 28 wars waged in Africa in the past three years over the
control of mineral resources, many of them in West Africa. Conflicts in Nigeria
have been ongoing since oil was first discovered four decades ago.
Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation home to more than 130 million
people, or one-sixth of the population of the African continent. The giant of
West Africa, Nigeria has half the area's population and one of its most highly
educated workforces. Nigeria is the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the United
States. The Bush administration has recognized African oil as a key US
strategic interest as the country seeks more stable sources of petroleum
outside the turbulent Middle East.
Nigeria is potentially Africa's richest country. As the world's sixth largest
producer of crude oil, with huge reserves of mineral and agricultural riches
and manpower, it should be enjoying some of the highest global living
standards. But it has some of the lowest living standards in Africa. Surveys
conducted by Nigeria's Federal Office of Statistics show that in a 16 years
period between 1980 and 1996, Nigeria's poverty level rose from 28 to 66
percent. GDP per person in 1982 was $860, in 1996 it as $280, and now
reported to be $290. Numerically, while 17.7 million people lived in poverty in
1980, the population living on less than US $1.40 a day, rose to 67.1 million
by 1996.
Northern and southern Nigeria are essentially two different countries. Some
view the oil producing region of the Niger Delta in the south as a sort of
internal colony of Nigeria. Home to 15 million impoverished people, the Niger
Delta region produces 90 percent of Nigeria's wealth. Under the swamps and
mangroves of one of the world's richest ecosystems lie vast reserves - an
estimated 40 more years of crude and a century of natural gas. The first
oil was produced here in 1956. After 40 years of production, there are rutted
roads, decrepit schools, few health clinics, no conduits for running water, and
polluted creeks and farmlands. There have been dozens of oil spills and gas
flares spew carbon dioxide 24 hours a day. The Niger Delta is one of this
country's poorest regions, despite its oil wealth. Most people are struggling
to survive on less than $1 a day. Away from the main towns there is no real
development, no roads, no electricity, no running water and no telephones.
Most of the oil that has earned Nigeria close to US$340 billion since
production began over four decades ago has come from the Niger Delta onshore
sites. Some put the number at $300 billion with about $50 billion
"disappeared overseas" meaning stolen by corrupt officials. Shell
and other western oil companies extract oil worth an estimated $150 billion a
year in recent years from the area. A rough estimate is that Nigeria earns some
$10 billion every year from oil.
Based on Nigeriašs 1988 population of 100 million, if Nigeria had distributed
the entire $340 billion it has received in oil exploration up until year 2000,
over a forty year period, the citizen dividend per person per year would have
been about $85. Based on the figure of $10 billion that Nigeria earns every
year from oil and a current population of 130 million, distributing the full
amount as citizen dividends would yield about $77 per year per person. Based on
oil extraction worth of $150 billion a year from the area, and a resource rent
of 10% (or $15 billion) charged by the Nigerian government, the annual citizen
dividend would be about $115 per person per year.
As noted earlier, GDP per person in 1982 was $860, in 1996 it had fallen to
$280. Based on the current GDP of $290, adding the $115 dividend, would
bring the income per person per year to $405. For a family of four, that would
be $1620 per year with the dividend ($1160 without the dividend). Based on the
GDP per person in 1982, a family of four would have earned $3440. That same family
in 1982 with the dividend of $85 added would have had $3780. While a citizen's
dividend in Nigeria would mean a significant increase in annual income, one
must note the vastly more substantial decrease in GDP from 1982 up until this
time.
After the discovery of oil and with the high exchange rate of US petrodollars
compared to Nigerian nairas, palm oil, groundnuts and other previous export
products of Nigeria were for the most part eliminated. Nigeria's economy had
been mostly subsistence agriculture and fishing, and with the collapse of their
few export commodities, the economy took a nosedive for most Nigerians.
What has become of Nigeria's oil wealth? Nigeria was rated the world's
most corrupt country (out of 52) by Transparency International's Corruption
Perception Index. Much has been made of the fact that money generated from
Africa's oil reserves has been lost in corruption, mismanagement and violent
conflict. In Nigeria, an estimated $4 billion in government funds was stolen by
the dictatorship of General Sani Abacha in the 1990s. Some estimate that as
much as $50 billion in oil revenue has been stolen since Nigeria first began
production.
Faced with severe balance of payments problems in the mid 1980s, the then
military ruler, General Ibrahim Babangida, adopted International Monetary Fund
and World Bank advised structural adjustment programs. The key objective was to
ensure that Nigeria serviced its external debt of US $28 billion and maintained
macro-economic stability, while cutting back on social spending. Starved of
funds, social service institutions began to decay and service delivery in
schools and hospitals sharply declined. The World Bank estimates that public
spending per capita on health is less than $5 and as low as $2 in some parts of
Nigeria, contrary to $34 recommended for low-income countries by the World
Health Organization. Infrastructure and utilities began to collapse.
Comparing the $4 billion stolen by Abacha to the $28 billion in external debt
that Nigeria was forced to pay by the IMF/WB advised structural adjustment
programs, it seems that a case could be made that the greater crime can be
found in the neoliberal economic system. As has happened to many other third
world resource rich countries, government leaders were urged to use the oil and
mineral wealth royalty payments to secure loans for their countries and to buy
military equipment and other foreign made commodities. Then the accumulated
debt was called in on the backs of the people as a whole.
The IMF and WB could have insisted that a transparent oil rent fund similar to
the Alaska Permanent Fund be established as a condition for loans. The fact
that the international banking institutions did not act in a responsible manner
by promoting transparent public finance institutions and socially just
structural adjustments programs but instead put countries into odious debt
lends credence to the position that these institutions were established to
maintain the predominance of the US dollar as the major global currency over
and above any humanitarian or even good governance objectives.
What might happen to the people of Nigeria in the years ahead? President
Obasanjo and his administration intend to increase Nigeria's oil reserves to 50
billion barrels by 2010 and to raise its production capacity to five million
barrels per day by 2010. Confirmed offshore oil deposits have increased from
about 30 percent of the country's total reserves in 1997 to about 50 percent
today. As Nigeria moves closer to the reserves and production targets set by
Obasanjo, this percentage is likely to increase to more than 70 percent. Since
oil production for Nigeria is set to move increasingly offshore of the Niger
Delta, people in the region are concerned that they will be left behind once
again with no share of the federally controlled oil wealth. Nigerians would be
wise to revamp and diversify their economy sooner rather than later.
Given the extent of the corruption, violence, destruction and environmental
devastation, perhaps the people of the Niger Delta should make a hard push for
the federal government and the oil companies to repair and restore their land
and water and then look forward to a new day of sustainable development based
on renewable sources of energy and their own capacity for self-directed
development. Any oil resource rents that they can draw down from the federal
government or finagle directly from the oil companies might better be directed
towards capping and tapping the dozens of natural gas flares to provide an
energy source for the region that will help it transition to renewable energy
of wind, solar, and micro hydropower.
Additionally, transparent, interest free (perhaps a 2% management fee only)
revolving loan funds for ecovillage and sustainable development projects could
be established with the oil revenue, either managed on the federal level or via
separately mandated funds on the state level. Thus the oil revenue would be
used for internal development projects, not invested externally as is the case
with the Alaska and Norwegian permanent funds. As these projects proceed, and
the economy gently expands, land values will rise and these funds could then
transition towards a surface land rent and distribution fund. A portion of
these funds could then be distributed as citizen dividends.
Let us note here that land based taxes and land value recapture policies are
recommended in the 1996 Action Agenda of the UN Center for Human Settlements, a
document agreed to by all UN member states. The approach was also strongly
promoted by ecological economist Herman Daly of the University of Maryland in a
very important speech that he gave to the World Bank on April 30, 2002.
Although Professor Sala-i-Martin at Columbia University recently
wrote a paper advising the World Bank to help establish a fund in Nigeria
similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund, those of us who have been advocating for
a Niger Delta Fund are now thinking that a sustainable development focus would
be better than using the oil revenue for citizen dividends in terms of overall
wealth creation for the region.
Nigeria newspapers earlier this week gave us some positive and hopeful stories.
President Olusegun Obasanjo has fully endorsed the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative (EITI) and has inaugurated the National Stakeholders
Working Group, a 28-person team, which will work to publish all payments made
by and to its multi-billion dollar oil industry. Obsanjo wants to hold to
account the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and its international
partners, including Chevron Texaco and ExxonMobil, the Anglo-Dutch major Shell
and France's Total.
President Obasanjo also said that whatever resources the country gets from
extractive industries should be invested in "renewable and non-depleting
aspects of our national economy. What we should, of course, not do is,
advertently or inadvertently, waste these resources because...they are not
renewable". He further stated that "apart from being non-renewable, I
have said on a number of occasions that what God has put in the soil for
Nigerians are put in the soil for past, present and future Nigerians...
therefore, those of us who are managing it must manage it for all Nigerians -
past, present and future. And we cannot do that unless we are
transparent..."
Other good news out of Nigeria this past week is that Obasanjo signed into law
the Allocation of Revenue Act 2004 which abolishes the dichotomy between
onshore and offshore oil production in respect of the principle of derivation
for the purposes of allocation of oil revenue accruing to the Federation.
This announcement was received with jubilation in the Niger Delta states
where state officials described it as a victory for the "down-trodden
people of the Niger Delta."
All of this is also very good news for those of us working to secure resource
rents for the people worldwide and to underpin our political democracies with
earth rights democracy ethics and policies.
As the world turns, in a case being investigated by the US Justice Department
and the FBI, it is alleged that Halliburton paid over $100 million to bribe
Nigerian oil ministry officials and $200 million to bribe government officials
surrounding the award of the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas project between 1995
- 2002. A Halliburton spokesperson said the company has handed over documents
to the Justice Department but insisted that the company did no wrong. She said
that Halliburton always maintains the highest ethical business standards.
CLIMATE
CHANGE AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Some environmentalists raise the concern that citizen dividends and social
services based on petroleum and other non-renewable resources rents makes it
that much more difficult to shift to renewable sources of energy. Alaskan
representatives frequently have voted to open up the Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge and other areas for more oil drilling. This writer's first response to
this concern is that if citizens do not get a rightful share of these resource
rents, then corporations will capture even greater amounts of surplus profits.
While this is true, we need to look at the issue in a holistic way.
From the vantage point of a planetary civilization, we clearly need to shift
to renewable energy sources. There is clear and compelling scientific
evidence of global warming. Climate change is one of the most pressing
environmental problems of our time. Carbon dioxide and other gases released by
fossil fuel consumption and deforestation is trapping heat in our atmosphere
for 100 years or longer, with devastating environmental consequence. It is time
to go full throttle in addressing this enormous challenge.
We need to use oil resource rents to shift to renewable energy and sustainable
economies. Both the Alaskan and Norwegian petroleum funds invest in stocks,
bonds and real estate. Interest from these investments are distributed as
citizen dividends in Alaska and for social services Norway. The priorities of
the fund portfolios need to be scrutinized and revamped. Currently the
investment portfolios are mandated to follow the "prudent investor
rule" meaning that managers must find the balance point between highest
profits and lowest risks. Fund investments are not based on or screened for
socially and/or environmentally responsible criteria.
Furthermore, those of us working for a full range of resource rents as the
basis for earth rights democracy view oil rent fund investment in real estate
worldwide as an expropriation of surface land resource rents from other nations
and thus are not a just source of interest income for the citizens of oil rent
fund countries like Alaska and Norway.
The Alaskan and Norwegian funds, and the Nigerian fund if it is established,
need to have socially and environmentally responsible criteria. Investments
should be made in renewable energy - wind, solar, green hydrogen, micro
hydropower - and in reforestation and other environmental restoration
activities. A portion of the funds should be made available as interest free
(suggested 2% - 3% management fee) revolving loan funds to people in developing
nations to help finance their efforts for sustainable development.
A criteria of the loans should be that the communities receiving the loans
begin implementing surface land value (ground rent) recapture in their towns,
regions and nations. Land value based resource rent funds, if full ground rent
is collected for the people as a whole, promotes land reform and affordable
land access for current and future generations in addition to generating funds
for public benefits and citizen dividends.
In the US about one half of corporate profits comes from real estate related
activities so we know that resource rents from surface lands could be a
substantial source of funds for basic income and citizen dividends. In addition
to land sites, rents from the electromagnetic spectrum, water power points and
satellite orbital zones should be sourced for citizen dividends in the future.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
In concluding this consideration of oil resource rents as a basis for citizen
dividends and basic income payments, here are three key recommendations:
(1) full use should be made of information and communication technologies for
total transparency in revenue raising and expenditure on the part of both
government and extractive resource industries, as modeled by the Alaska
Permanent Fund and promoted by the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative;
(2) resource rent from non-renewable resources should be invested in socially
and environmentally responsible ways and primarily in the needed transition to
renewable energy based economies; and
(3) oil and other non-renewable resource rent funds should themselves
transition towards capturing substantial resource rents from surface land site
values (ground rent) and other permanent and sustainable sources of rent, such
as hydropower points, electromagnetic spectrum and satellite orbital zones.
********************
REFERENCES for Oil Resource Rents paper:
ALASKA:
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation: http://www.apfc.org
Alaska economy taps into oil wealth by Mary Pemberton, AP,
10/8/2003
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/08/alaska_economy_taps_into_oil_wealth?mode=PF
The Alaska Permanent Fund: A Model of Resource Rents for Public
Investment
and Citizen Dividends by Alanna Hartzok Spring 2002 issue of Geophilos
http://www.earthrights.net/docs/alaska.html
The Problems of Wealth by Donald F. Gordon from Trustee
Papers Volume I http://www.akdemocrats.org/Documents/020504_End_Oil_Tax_Breaks.pdf
Permanent Fund Dividend No Government Handout by Representative Harry
Crawford
http://crawford.akdemocrats.org
Unjustified Oil Tax Breaks 2/5/04
http://www.akdemocrats.org/Documents/020504_End_Oil_Tax_Breaks.pdf
NORWAY:
Norway looking beyond the oil
boom Department of Energy via Newspage
26-02-00
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nte01744.htm
Further Regulatory Reforms Would Safeguard Norway's
Prosperity
Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development, 02/06/02
http://www.oecd.org/document/59/0,2340,en_2649_33735_2514299_1_1_1_1,00.html
Norway's Labor party aims stay on by Alister Doyle posted 9/11/01
http://www.japantoday.com/gidx/news75407.html
IMF Concludes Article IV Consultation with Norway http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2001/pn0110.htm
So, This Is Heaven: Norway by Carol J. Williams, TIMES
Staff Writer 11/08/01
http://www.oecdwash.org/PUBS/BOOKS/RP034/rp034cp.htm
NIGERIA:
Oil just clogs the works by David McWilliams, 3/30/03
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/03/30/story651105249.asp
Nigeria's oil wealth shuns the needy by the BBC's James Whittington,
12/28/01
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1732196.stm
http://www.afrol.com/News2002/ca001_oil_bishops.htm
Nigeria And Her Oil Wealth by Reno Omokri LLB, BL, LLM
http://www.gamji.com/amviews207.htm
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA)
Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) LAGOS, 4 July 2002
NIGERIA: Focus on the scourge of poverty LAGOS, 11 June 2002
NIGERIA: Focus on dispute over offshore oil resources LAGOS, 9 May 2002
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=28258
Nigeria's Delta Problem by C. Payne Luca, October 1999.
http://www.africare.org/news/editorials/nigeria-delta.html
Africa: U.S. Interest in Oil Wealth, uploaded 01 June 2003
http://www.usafricaonline.com/nigeriaoil.chevrontexaco.html
Haliburton says wešre not aloneš, by Akanimo Sampson, Bureau Chief,
Port Harcourt
Daily Independent Online, February 17, 2004
In Nigeria's Oil Patch, an Unsung Ethnic Voice by Lara Santoro, August
13, 1998
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/08/13/fp5s1-csm.htm
Alienation and Militancy in the Niger Delta: A Response to CSIS on
Petroleum, Politics, and Democracy in Nigeria by Oronto Douglas, Von
Kemedi, Ike Okonta, and Michael Watts, Foreign Policy In Focus, July 2003
http://fpif.org/papers/nigeria2003.html
Obasanjo Wants Transparency Acted, Inaugurates Group by Josephine Lohor in Abuja
This Day News, February 17, 2004
Obasanjo signs onshore-offshore bill by Sam Akpe in Abuja
The Punch, February 18, 2004.
Managing Oil Wealth by Benn
Eifert, Alan Gelb, and Nils Borje Tallroth
A quarterly magazine of the IMF: March 2003, Volume 40, Number 1
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2003/03/eife.htm
Norway, Alaska considered as models for Iraqi oil industry by Marego
Athans
KRT Business News webposted June 10, 2003
http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/stories/061003/ind_20030610005.shtml