U.S. Treasury fines ExxonMobile meager $2m for violation of the Russian-Ukraine Sanctions!

Some days you wonder if the connections of the New York isn’t to strong for the moment. When the joys of their loot and their power is not making them lose their senses. The common sense is clearly gone, as the company formerly run by Rex Tillerson, the now State Secretary of United States. Who couldn’t care less about the relationship between the United States of America and the Russian Federation. As the illegal and not internationally accepted annexation of the Crimea from the Republic of Ukraine happen. Still, even as that was happening the former Standard Oil baby ExxonMobile decided to be a trading partner and create opportunities in the vast resources in Russia and Russian territories. Now today they we’re fined, but that was a little slap on their wrist, as the real wealth inside the deal shows how much they really could have earned. Therefore, the crime and the penalty doesn’t fit. The Company gets away with a heist, but has to pay small interests for doing so. Now they are waiting for the possible time for their giant payoff and this will be simple write-off in their results in the next quarterly estimates. This sort of fine isn’t that serious, as it can easily chop it off and continue to eat.

First we will look into what the Wall Street Journal wrote about the deal between Russia and ExxonMobile, the second and third are about today’s fine and you see why it insulting fine to give.

“A U.S. official said the new penalties would affect Exxon’s current drilling in the icy Kara Sea with its Kremlin-controlled partner, OAO Rosneft, though the extent of the impact was unclear Thursday. No other Western energy company has as much direct exposure to Russia as Exxon, thanks to a $3.2 billion deal giving the company access to a swath of the Arctic larger than Texas that could hold the equivalent of billions of barrels of oil and gas. Officials in Europe, which has extensive trade links to Russia, have insisted that Western nations share the fallout from sanctions against Moscow. Russia has said it would retaliate against additional sanctions with measures of its own, further heightening the risks to companies operating there, legal experts said. Exxon is “assessing the sanctions,” said Alan Jeffers, a company spokesman. “It’s our policy to comply with all laws.” (Gilbert, 2014)

“ExxonMobil Corporation Assessed a Penalty for Violating the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations: ExxonMobil Corp., oflrving, Texas, including its U.S. subsidiaries ExxonMobil Development Company and ExxonMobil Oil Corp. (collectively, “ExxonMobil”), has been assessed a civil monetary penalty of $2,000,000 for violations of the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 589 (Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations). Between on or about May 14, 2014 and on or about May 23, 2014, ExxonMobil violated§ 589.201 of the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations when the presidents of its U.S. subsidiaries dealt in services of an individual whose property and interests in property were blocked, namely, by signing eight legal documents related to oil and gas projects in Russia with Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft OAO, 1 and an individual identified on OF AC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the “SDN List”) (referred to hereinafter as an “SDN”)” (U.S. Treasury, 20.07.2017).

“OF AC considered the following to be aggravating factors: (1) ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements when it failed to consider warning signs associated with dealing in the blocked services of an SDN; (2) ExxonMobil’s senior-most executives knew of Sechin’ s status as an SDN when they dealt in the blocked services of Sechin; (3) ExxonMobil caused significant harm to the Ukraine-related sanctions program objectives by engaging the services of an SDN designated on the basis that he is an official of the Government of the Russian Federation contributing to the crisis in Ukraine; and (4) ExxonMobil is a sophisticated and experienced oil and gas company that has global operations and routinely deals in goods, services, and technology subject to U.S economic sanctions and U.S. export controls” (U.S. Treasury, 20.07.2017).

So it’s okay, the company ExxonMobile was fined for intervening in a Republic and inside a state where there was clear sanctions against trade. That was something Rex Tillerson knew and also the Russian counterparts, but ExxonMobile didn’t care. They just wanted the profits and earn on the fragile arctic and also into areas like the annexed Crimea. This shows the intent of profiting while being under sanctions and not respecting the laws of the United States and being a registered company residing in the United States.

This show the ethical backdrop of the New York Gang and the Administration of today, we cannot know how much the company earned before the stop between Rosneft and ExxonMobile. The suspension of activity between them. What we can imagine is that it was vastly more than the little they paid for breaking the law. Peace.

Reference:

Gilbert, Daniel – ‘Sanctions Over Ukraine Put Exxon at Risk’ (11.09.2014) – Wall Street Journal

A look into Donald Trump’s possible nominee for Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson, what has he said and done?

“Whether I choose him or not for “State”- Rex Tillerson, the Chairman & CEO of ExxonMobil, is a world class player and dealmaker. Stay tuned!” – Donald J. Trump on Twitter 11.12.2016.

We have to scrutinize and look over the men that possibly will be the most powerful men and woman in the Trump Administration, as they should not be forgotten what they did in the past. Especially when Trump himself has branded Obama Administration as ‘hopeless’ and ‘bad’; therefore his Administration should be better, though by the men and woman who is already picked his stature for military and rich-men is staggering, more than the qualifications for each role in Government. That is what is worrying. This time around it is the current Chairman of ExxonMobile, a negotiator and deal-maker for the grand-oil empire from Texas, the Rex Tillerson who is connected in Venezuela, Russia and Kazakhstan. He is the next in line for the possible task of Secretary of State!

“If you ask the average person on the street about U.S. energy and U.S. oil in particular, our situation, most Americans would say, ‘Oh, we’re energy poor; we don’t have enough oil; we don’t have enough natural gas.’” – Rex Tillerman

What he even wished to happen inside the US in the midst of the Obama Administration:

“Q: President Obama has outlined a plan to cut oil imports by one-third over the next 10 years. Is this feasible?

A: We expect gasoline demand in the U.S. to decline about 17% over the next 20 years. And that’s a function of both efficiency standards that have been put in place for automobiles, but also an ongoing penetration of hybrid and hybrid-electric vehicles. There’s going to be a natural decline in demand for motor fuels from that. That will be partially offset by increasing demand for heavy-duty fuels like diesel. That, along with the penetration of bio fuels, is going to result in a mitigation of imports. Whether we eliminate a third of the imports is hard to say. Another piece of our success will rest on whether the U.S. government decides to make available the lands that it controls, because 60% of the remaining oil resource in the U.S. is on federal lands and 40% of the remaining gas resource. It’s up to the federal government to allow the industry to explore those lands and develop those resources that could have a big impact on supply in the future” (Bartiromo, 2011).

Secretary of State does: “The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development” (Secretary of State, link: http://www.state.gov/secretary/).

So as the foreign affairs job has lots of responsibility to be the face of the nation when the President self cannot travel or negotiate, even do diplomatic missions to keep up with alliances and treaties that the US Government have or currently in the works. So the position should be done by somebody with tact and courtesy for the will of the US Government and the foreign dignitaries so that the person doesn’t offend either party while working for the common good. That is something that the possible former ExxonMobile chairman Tillerson has to do.

Negotiations in Venezuela:

“According to the XM executives, the last significant contact XM had with the BRV or PDVSA was XM Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson’s May 16 meeting with Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez. During the meeting, Tillerson told Alvarez that XM must have a confidentiality agreement before it could begin negotiations on the remaining migration issues. In addition, he stated book value was not an acceptable basis for compensation for lost value. Finally, Tillerson said XM was looking for a win-win solution but warned that XM was willing to go to arbitration if it had to do so. The executives later mentioned that PDVSA’s stake in the Chalmette refinery was mentioned as a possible component in a compensation package. They did not specify who raised the topic” (…) “When asked if other IOCs had entered into negotiations with the BRV, XM executives replied they did not believe any companies had entered into meaningful negotiations. They stated they met with Total executives on May 22 to discuss the general situation. The Total executives stated their company has also rejected book value as a basis for compensation for lost value. In addition, they told the XM executives they believe the Sincor strategic association will be hit with a large tax assessment in the near future. Seniat, the BRV tax authority, presented CP and Chevron earlier this month with tax bills for close to USD 550 million for back taxes for the Petrozuata and Hamaca strategic associations for the years 2003 to 2005” (WikiLeaks, 2007).

In 2008 – Trading oil in Kazakstan:

“(Note: The one exception was a threat by President Nazarbayev in a December meeting with Tillerson’s deputy to use the subsoil legislation. Nazarbayev, however, reverted to his previous public line when he reassured the Ambassador privately the next day that the legislation would not/not be used against any existing contract. End Note.) In the end, both ExxonMobil and ConocoPhilips confirmed that the GOK used tough, but legitimate business pressures to pursue their case” (…) “ExxonMobil told us that CEO Rex Tillerson had decided that Exxon was going to hold the line on this issue. However, all our sources indidated that Tillerson was subjected to very strong pressure in the final negotiations, both by the other CEOs and by the Kazakhstani side. According to our in-country ExxonMobil contact (who was not in the meetings but who was extensively debriefed about them), it was the lure of future business in Kazakhstan that eventually led Tillerson to reverse course, and to agree to a “below market price” figure of $1.8 billion as the valuation of KMG’s increased share. (Note: Determining the “market price” for this share is essentially impossible, as different financial models will yield wildly varying results depending on the assumptions used. That said, all parties involved agree that $1.8 billion is a “below market price,” even if they can not tell you how much below market. End Note.)” (WikiLeaks, 2008). In 2011: “0100 Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev meets Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobile corporation, and Dhimitrios Khristofias, the  president of Cyprus, within the framework of his visit to New York to  attend 66th session of the UN General Assembly. Video shows meetings;  Rex Tillerson and Dhimitrios Khristofias, speaking to camera” (WikiLeaks, 2011).

“Experience tells us that a good foundation is critical for success in the Arctic and elsewhere. ExxonMobil’s Sakhalin-1 project with Rosneft is an example where we have put this experience to work.” – Rex Tillerson

On Russia:

“Tillerson said he valued the efforts of the Russian government to improve the tax regime and that it would have a positive effect on Russian and foreign investors.The moves will help expand cooperation in the complex situation in Russia, he said. Tillerson said he was encouraged to see Russia move to create a competitive environment, taking into account the experiences of other tax regimes in other countries” (WikiLeaks, 2011). “Prime Minister Vladimir Putin yesterday put the total of direct  investment in joint projects by Rosneft and ExxonMobil at 200-300  billion dollars, but “if we are talking about infrastructure, the construction of the necessary buildings, and surface facilities, the  investment could reach 500 billion dollars”. However, ExxonMobil expects  its agreement with Rosneft to encourage the Russian authorities to ease the tax regime for the industry. “Such steps will help the government to  expand cooperation in the difficult situation that is taking shape in  Russia,” the head of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, explained” (WikiLeaks, 2011).

On Fracking:

“Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson speaking at a January 2010 congressional hearing concerning the $41 billion merger of Exxon with XTO Energy (one of the worlda**s biggest natural gas drilling companies), said he could support revealing toxic frack mixes. He added that, by combining the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling processes a**we can now find and produce unconventional natural gas supplies miles below the surface in a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible manner.a** Exxon has threatened to nix its XTO acquisition if Congress makes fracking a**illegal or commercially impractical.a**” (WikiLeaks, 2010).

Article about Tillerson faith in Global Warming:

“They’re clearly cognizant of global warming – they employ some of the world’s best scientists, after all, and they’re bidding on all those oil leases made possible by the staggering melt of Arctic ice. And yet they relentlessly search for more hydrocarbons – in early March, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson told Wall Street analysts that the company plans to spend $37 billion a year through 2016 (about $100 million a day) searching for yet more oil and gas.

There’s not a more reckless man on the planet than Tillerson. Late last month, on the same day the Colorado fires reached their height, he told a New York audience that global warming is real, but dismissed it as an “engineering problem” that has “engineering solutions.” Such as?” (Bill McKibben – ‘Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math’ 09.07.2012).

David Fenton sent an E-Mail titled: “Murdoch climate campaign” on the 19.02.2015 to Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta that said: “Hi again. Here is the plan to go after WSJ and FOX on climate. I have 500,000 of this pledged if I can raise another million. It’s a real pledge from Graeme Wood in Australia. I sure hope something like this can happen it’s long overdue. Thanks again, David”. This E-Mail had an attachment where this we’re said:

“1)       A climate science ad series (surprisingly affordable) on the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page, sponsored by a mainstream institution like Columbia University’s Earth Institute or the Union of Concerned Scientists.  These would be unassailably factual and scientific but also compelling, memorable and clear. They would show the facts the Journal denies — Co2 from fossil fuels traps heat, the earth has warmed, the CEO of EXXON believes it why not this paper? This series would stress consequences for the economy and mainstream support from groups like the World Bank, International Energy Agency, PWC, NAS, the Royal Society, etc. Of course the Journal would attack the series in editorials, which will help it get more attention” (WikiLeaks, 2015).

This here shows some of the stories of the man in the past, Rex Tillerson who has apparently massive faith in fracking and negotiation with Putin for the business he was running ExxonMobile. The WikiLeaks stories are special in themselves, but there other lost tales that needs to show the character of the man.

Like the Kurdistan adventure:

“Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson refused Tuesday to answer questions about a controversial deal the oil company has signed with the Kurdish government in northern Iraq” (…) “Exxon, (XOM, Fortune 500) which holds big contracts with the Iraqi government to develop oil fields in the southern part of the country, was sharply criticized by Iraqi government ministers last month over the deal. The Iraqis suggested Exxon might be sanctioned over the move, possibly putting their deals in the southern part of the country in jeopardy” (…) “Iraqis in Baghdad are loathe to see oil companies sign separate deals with the semi-autonomous government in the Kurdish north, preferring instead that all deals go though the central government” (Hargreaves, 2011). So the next Secretary of State is ruthless in trade for fortunes that he picked deals with Kurdistan government over the Southern Iraqi Central Government that counters the diplomatic way that the governments do with Iraq. So Rex Tillerman could surely do the same in charge of the State Department under the Trump Administration.

Here is a story in the inner workings in Chad:

“There was Exxon’s meddling in a 2006 standoff between Idriss Déby, the authoritarian leader of Chad — a Central African country with rich oil reserves — and Paul Wolfowitz, then the leader of the World Bank. Déby wanted weapons to fight rebels supported by nearby Sudan, but good-governance clauses in loans Chad had received from the World Bank restricted the country’s ability to purchase arms. Wolfowitz was ready to freeze some of Sudan’s bank accounts, prompting Déby to threaten to effectively kick Exxon out of Chad. That could have cost the company billions of dollars. So Exxon lobbied the U.S. ambassador to Chad to fix the problem, which led to Déby getting his weapons and Exxon its oil” (…) “By now ExxonMobil had made its own choice clear,” Coll writes. “It was more interested in the survival of Chad’s oil production than it was in the World Bank’s experiment in nation building.” (Walsh, 2012). So he would use World Bank loans to trade weapons to make sure that the ExxonMobil get the possibility to the Oil Reserves in Chad. That proves how far the man will go for profit, that the authoritarian leaders needs for arms can be meet, if he get the oil as long as he makes a killing.

Than you have the story of how he worked in Guyana:

“US oil giant ExxonMobil made waves in Guyana last Thursday by announcing it had confirmed a “world-class discovery” of oil offshore. The company said results from its exploration well in the Stabroek block, about 120 miles (193 kilometres) offshore Guyana, found between 800 million and 1.4 billion oil-equivalent barrels” (…) “The waters around Guyana are largely unexplored. According to a Forbes story quoting Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, the 3-D seismic survey that Exxon conducted in the area was its largest in history — “the equivalent of 1,400 Gulf of Mexico blocks” (…) “In November 2015, Guyana’s government faced accusations that the state didn’t have the capacity to independently monitor ExxonMobil’s compliance with environmental regulations. The worry arose after it was alleged that ExxonMobil was promoting and funding climate change denials” (Abdelwahab, 2016).

So now that he is peculiar connected into the oil developments outside Guyana, as it was profitable for the company without considering the environment of the ocean and the sea as the we’re even paying climate change deniers in Guyana. That the billions of barrel is more important that the effect that oil drilling will have on the nation.

This from the guy that are key part of the former Standard Oil companies that we’re re-merged from Exxon and Mobil Oil Companies, that we’re too powerful in the United States. The US Company now are now so big Multi-National that they can secure the World Bank to fund Chad Government loans so they can buy weapons, and exchange give possible oil fields to the ExxonMobil. If that doesn’t say anything nothing does. This sort of fellow will now run the Secretary of State, not to talk about the Foreign Affairs of the United States. The diplomatic correspondence and according to due procedure of the Trump Administration; that will be interesting as the CEO Tillerman has been focused on profits and not on anything else. We can wonder what will be his Modus Operandi as a Secretary of State, what his policies and foreign affairs chief under Trump. Peace.

Reference:

Abdelwahab, Alex – ‘ExxonMobil’s significant oil find off Guyana leads to questions about the country’s future’ (05.07.2016) link: http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-ExxonMobil’s-significant-oil-find-off-Guyana-leads-to-questions-about-the-country’s-future-30969.html

Bartiriromo, Maria – ‘ExxonMobil CEO: Open more federal land for oil and gas’ (18.04.2011) link: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/bartiromo/2011-04-18-bartiromo-rex-tillerson-exxonmobil.htm

Hargreaves, Steve – ‘Exxon silent on controversial Iraq oil deal’ (06.12.2011) link: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/news/international/Exxon_Iraq_oil_deal/

Walsh, Bryan – ‘Inside the Death Star — Also Known as Exxon’ (01.05.2012) link: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2113546,00.html

Wikileaks –‘KAZAKHSTAN: ALL SIDES SMILING WITH KASHAGAN DEAL’ (18.01.2008) link: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08ASTANA91_a.html

WikiLeaks – ‘FAJA NEGOTIATIONS: NO NEWS IS BAD NEWS’ (25.05.2007) link: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07CARACAS1030_a.html

WikiLeaks – ‘KAZAKHSTAN/CYPRUS/UK – Programme summary of Kazakh Khabar TV “Zhanalyqtar” news 1400 gmt 21 Sep 11’ (21.09.2011) link: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/71/711052_kazakhstan-cyprus-uk-programme-summary-of-kazakh-khabar-tv.html

WikiLeaks – ‘RUSSIA/FORMER SOVIET UNION-Exxonmobil Hails Russian Government Efforts to Improve Tax System’ (31.08.2011) link: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/25/2574477_russia-former-soviet-union-exxonmobil-hails-russian.html

WikiLeaks – ‘Murdoch climate campaign’ (19.02.2015) link: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/27241

WikiLeaks – ‘Re: FRACK – W.Va. eyes fluid disclosure; quote from Lachelt’ (09.03.2010) link: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/38/386876_re-frack-w-va-eyes-fluid-disclosure-quote-from-lachelt-.html

WikiLeaks – ‘RUSSIA/CANADA/MEXICO – Russia’s oil firm signs partnership deal with ExxonMobil’ (02.09.2011) link: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/70/705223_russia-canada-mexico-russia-s-oil-firm-signs-partnership.html

Press Release: AfDB approves US $76.7-million for Uganda’s agriculture programme (20.01.2016)

The African Development Bank (AfDB) has approved a US $76.7-million loan to finance phase two of the Uganda Farm Income Enhancement and Forestry Conservation Programme (FIEFOC-2).

The programme, which was commended by the AfDB Board on Wednesday, January 20 for its good design and high-impact development objectives, comprises agriculture infrastructure and agribusiness development activities as well as an integrated natural resources management scheme aimed to consolidate and expand key achievements of its predecessor (phase one), which was completed in December 2012.

Designed within the context of Uganda’s National Development Plan and long-term development strategy – the Vision 2040 – the Project focuses on improving farm incomes, rural livelihoods, food security and climate resilience. It will also support sustainable natural resources management and agricultural enterprise development.

In 2013, about 19.7% of the population, or 6.7 million people, were unable to meet their basic needs, according to a Uganda National Household Survey, which also disclosed that the incidence of poverty was highest among the food-crop growing category in the rural areas due to low income. Thus, the programme seeks to increase production and farmer incomes through improvements and expansion of irrigation schemes, development of agribusiness and adoption of sustainable land, forest, and water management practices and technologies to generate income from natural resources.

The programme will be implemented over a five-year period in five districts – Nebbi, Oyam, Butaleja, Kween, and Kasese – where irrigation schemes are located. The districts have an estimated 1.8 million population, 52% of them women. It will also benefit 300,000 households of which 20% are female-headed outside the irrigation command areas, by introducing or improving soil-conservation measures in the catchments feeding the irrigation schemes.

Furthermore, the project is expected to provide technical skills in conservation and other farming practices that promote environmental management and thereby increasing agricultural productivity in the project areas. It will also assist in the formulation and implementation of measures that reduce deforestation and promote agro-forestry which will lead to emission reduction and the protection of carbon reservoirs as part of the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) agenda. Carbon dioxide (CO2) to be sequestered in 20 years through tree-planting is estimated at 245,000. Training under the project will provide an opportunity for special attention to be given to intensification of climate-smart farming operations.

The project is anchored on the Bank’s Country Strategy for Uganda (2011-2016), which focuses on infrastructure development and increased agriculture productivity as well as human capacity improvement and skills development for poverty reduction. It is also in line with the Bank’s Ten-Year Strategy (2013-2022) and High 5s, which prioritize agriculture and food security as one of the key areas for the Bank’s future assistance.

The total cost of the project is estimated at US $91.43 million. In addition to the US $76.7-million AfDB loan, the Nordic Development Fund (NDF) will provide a US $5.6-million grant while the Government of Uganda will contribute US $9.13 million in counterpart funding.

A look into the Coke’s BioPET-PlantBottle™ 1.0 – Is it really Green or is it Greenwashing?

We live in a time where big multinational companies who do what they can do their business. Buy for one, sell for two. That is capitalism and the dream of getting wealth and generating it. We live in a day and age where multinational companies have vast powers and can use it whatever way they like. They can if wanting to make as much of wealth to circus of companies and hide the earnings in a tax-haven in the Caribbean or in Lichtenstein. But this article or blog will be about that. It’s about another possibility that they can do.

Milking a special type of cow:

Something that isn’t right. Companies can if they feel tell stories and express themselves as they please. Until a certain extent they can if they want to make them look extra good, but if so they shouldn’t play in-between reality and fiction. Especially not portraying stories about their products – they can make their milk being squeezed out a most beautiful cow ever. Even if wasn’t most purebred highland cattle from the western islands of Scotland. Instead it’s made with some lame ass country cow. If a Milk producing company said their entire product was made from Highland Cattle, we as consumer expect the product to be that, right? So if the pieces of production and process is made with fractions of other milking cow it want be pure Highland. It will be milk, but not as promised. Some people would be devastated. Some people would call it fraud. And partly it is, even if pieces of it made with the milk. This piece here will be about similar way of acting one way, and acting another. While telling the public something else. This here is a kind of way to make something greener then it really is. It isn’t really green, but said so. In a way that mislead the public. Some people calls that way of acting for Greenwashing. It’s a nice way to express them in similar incidence. First certain words will be translated like PEF, PET, PTA and LRB. So that people will know what they are. After that I will show what a certain company called the Coca-Cola Company makes which a famous Bottle the famous PlantBottle™.

Words to know:

• polyethylene furanoate (PEF)
• polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
• purified terephthalic acid (PTA).
• liquid refreshment beverages (LRB)

Bio-Plastic information:

The first information is that it’s renewable made from Sugercane-polyethylene which has the ability to replace 30% of the petroleum that would have been used for making certain type of plastic. The other good piece of using bio-plastic will be lower-carbon footprint (Sugercane.org).

Hitachi company explains what PTA is: “Purified terephthalic acid (PTA) is made by causing a reaction between the secondary petroleum product paraxylene (PX) and acetic acid”. When Hitachi describes PET its like this: “Polyethylene terephthalate(PET) is a general-purpose plastic made through polycondensation of PTA with ethylene glycol (EG). This material has many outstanding properties: resistance to both heat and cold, transparency, electrical qualities, chemical proof and abrasion proof” (Hitachi).

How Coca-Cola endeavors to make the PlantBottle™:

Here is how it has gone from 2011, when Gevo made an agreement with the Coca-Cola Company to make the second generation plant-bottle with Isobutanol.  Further commenting on the important factor between Coca-Cola and GEVO: “The global market for PET is approximately 50 million metric tons and has a value of $100 billion, with approximately 30 percent used for plastic bottles. In this next generation of PlantBottle™ packaging, Coca-Cola plans to produce plastic beverage bottles made entirely from renewable raw materials” (Gevo, 2011).

In the same year (2011) Coca-Cola Company made already a deal with Virent: “signing multi-year, multi-million dollar Joint Development and Supply Agreements to scale-up Virent’s plant-based Paraxylene (PX), trademarked BioFormPX, as a route to commercially viable, 100% renewable, 100% recyclable PlantBottle PET resin. In the past, Coca Cola’s PlantBottles have included only 30% plant-based plastic. Virent’s chemical allows the remaining 70% of the bottle to be plant-based” (…) “Virent is one of three companies working with Coca-Cola on PlantBottle technology. The others are Colorado-based Gevo and Avantium, which is based in the Netherlands” (Lane, 2014).

In South Africa in Wadeville outside of Johannesburg, South Africa there is coming a new bottle-plant. This is Africa’s first: “Coca-Cola approved technology for carbonated soft drink bottles thus enabling the closure of the loop in the biggest sector in the beverage market. The 3000m² Phoenix PET plant, equipped with Starlinger technology, will supply an additional 14 000 tonnes of PET resin per year to the PET packaging industry. It will eventually divert an additional 22 000 tonnes of post-consumer PET bottles from landfills each year, reducing resource consumption, creating jobs and assisting industry in meeting its target of a 50% recycling rate for 2015” (Parkes, 2015).

Later JBF Industries and Coca-Cola went into a partnership in 2012 to produce bio-glycol that will be used in the new plant-bottle. This will end up with a deal and an agreement that will do this: “Construction on the new facility is expected to begin at the end of this year and will last 24 months. At full capacity, it is estimated the facility will produce 500,000 metric tons of material per year. By using plant-based materials instead of nonrenewable materials, the facility will remove the equivalent of 690,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of consuming more than 1.5 million barrels of oil each year” (Mohan, 2012).

The Dreams of Coca-Cola Company and their PlantBottle™ 2.0:

A spokesman for Coke Scott Vitters commented in 2014 this: “Coca-Cola introduced the world to PlantBottle in 2009. The technology uses natural sugars found in plants to make ingredients identical to the fossil based ones traditionally used in polyester fiber and resins. PlantBottle packaging looks, functions and importantly recycles just like traditional polyester (or PET) plastic, but with a lower dependence on fossil fuels and a lighter environmental footprint on the planet” (…) “Today our first generation PlantBottle technology replaces one of the two ingredients that make PET plastic. Our long-term target is to realize a 100% renewable, fully recyclable plastic bottle. To realize this goal, Coca-Cola is investing millions in local technology companies – companies like Virent in Madison, Wisconsin; Gevo in Englewood, Colorado and Avantium in Amsterdam, the Netherlands” (Vitters, 2014).

“Continuing in rigid high-barrier packaging, polyethylene furanoate (PEF) bottle development remains on track. Avantium has entered into an agreement with ALPLA for development of PEF bottles, with the first bottles targeted to reach market by 2016. Avantium has also partnered with Coca-Cola and Danone in the development of PEF bottles”. (…) ”PEF is a next-generation, bio-based, recyclable polyester developed by Avantium on the basis of furanics technology. According to Avantium, PEF has 50-60 percent lower carbon footprint compared to petroleum-based PET” (Rosato, 2014).

Right now the Coca-Cola Company together with other industry packaging companies as Virent, Gevo and Avantium has made this possible: “The PlantBottle 2.0 represents an upgrade to the existing bio-based PlantBottle the beverage company already uses for some of its drinks. This substitute for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles has a 30% bio-based content, principally derived from Brazilian sugar cane supplied by Braskem”. In the future the same companies hope for “The 100% bioplastic bottle is the result of collaboration between Coca-Cola, Geno and Virent to perfect bio-purified terephthalic acid (PTA). Commercial rollout of PlantBottle 2.0 will take place over the next five years, culminating in a full replacement in 2020” (SustPack).

Ringier Plastics commented this: “From traditional PET to recyclable (also known as R-PET) to bio-based PET, technology and environmental properties have come a long way. PET generally consists of 70% terephthalic acid and 30% monoethylene glycol (MEG). But now it is quite possible to produce bio-based MEG from renewable raw materials instead of fossils. Coca-Cola is a pioneer is adopting bio-PET packaging with its PlantBottle™, producing the first ever fully-recyclable PET plastic beverage bottle using 30% of non-fossil material and resulting in less carbon footprint. Coca-Cola aims to convert all its plastic packaging to PlantBottle by 2020 and entered into a partnership with H.J. Heinz Co. to produce ketchup bottles using PlantBottle material” (Ringier Plastics, 2015).

The Marketing Companies making PlantBottle™ what it is:

“Fahrenheit 212 worked with Coca-Cola’s global packaging team to translate a complex and contentious advance in polymer production into a clear and compelling consumer proposition.  The PlantBottle brand name evolved from the concept development and strategic positioning work undertaken by Fahrenheit 212 and the PlantBottle icon, which has been now been featured on over 10 billion packages since its launch in 2010, was conceived and created by our in-house design team” (…) “In its first year, PlantBottle was launched in nine global markets, including Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Sweden and the United States across brands such as Coca-Cola, Sprite, Dasani and vitaminwater”  (Fahrenheit 212). The other marketing plan of Coca-Cola company was merged with another agency they did this: “Ogilvy & Mather’s campaign uses Coca-Cola’s iconic red and white color scheme and optical illusions to create intriguing images for the new bottle. The print ads all emphasize a way that plants make us happy, followed by the message that Coca-Cola’s PlantBottle is “Up to 30% made from plants” and “100% recyclable.”“ (Oster, 2014). One of Ogilvy & Mather’s ads just below.

It all sound beautiful doesn’t it. Mixing PEF and PET like its nothing? Plastic turned fantastic from petroleum based sort of bottle into plant heaven, right? Is there a reason why it just sounds so magnificent! If so, why does it for the last five years show up a dirty dozens of similar quotes from Scott Vitters in all kind of outlets from the Guardian to the New Zealand Scumbag post? That makes a brother like me curious. Especially when they been cooking this for so long.

Well, there isn’t everybody who has a piece of pay from Coca-Cola Company. This reports I come with now haven’t a clear connection or are in business with the Company. They are separated from it and are on their own. So you should see what their saying and be fascinated.

There many ways of telling how it really is: “Coke invented the Plant Bottle.  The Plant Bottle is made from sugarcane, a food source.  The Plant Bottle is a PET plastic bottle.  The Plant bottle is 100% PET, 70% made from oil and 30% from sugarcane.  The Plant Bottle is not biodegradable and lasts as long as the petroleum-based PET however a large segment of the population believes that the Plant Bottle is, in fact, biodegradable” (…) “Coke has invested heavily in rPET bottle-to-bottle recycling.  Coke is a large buyer of rPET pellets in China and reputedly is putting rPET in small” (…) “The largest producer of rPET pellets in China is tripling its capacity in 2011” (…) “Krones, one of the world’s largest developers and supplies of machinery to the bottling industry is introducing a series of super efficient PET washing and flaking recycling equipment.  rPET flakes and pellets can be manufactured at prices less than virgin PET” (N.Michaels).

Another example of renewable resources usage are PET bottles – called Plant Bottle. Those bottles are composed of PET, produced from terephthalic acid (70 % of mass) and ethylene glycol (30 % of mass). Terephthalic acid comes from oil, whereas glycol is produced from ethanol (deriving from fermentation of vegetable feedstock). Such bottles can be easily recycled, and they can be collected with other (classical) PET bottles. This partially bio-based PET saves global fossil resources and also reduces CO2 emissions. Plant Bottle is 20 % biobased (20 % of the carbon present in the material comes from renewable resources) and 30 % bio-massed (30 % of the mass of the material comes from renewable resources) and a simple scheme on figure 12 shows how the Plant Bottle is made (Plastice).

Gendell said in 2012 this about the PlantBottle: “The first complexity is that only a portion is plant-based, so the PET is also composed of some things that ought to stay within a technological closed loop” (…) “The other complexity is that there must be a mechanism by which the plant-based material may return to nature and participate in the biological cycle. Even if the first complexity were resolved by making PET entirely from plant-based materials (which is not truly possible today, considering all the catalysts and polymer chemistry whatsits that are not made from plants), the PET would still be an inherently non-biodegradable material” (Gendell, 2012).

In Denmark a Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe is a Danish Consumer Ombudsman says this: “criticized Coke’s use of several marketing ploys, including the use of the word “plant,” excessive green colors and a circular-arrow logo inspired by the familiar symbol for recyclability. The ombudsman also noted a lack of documentation to support Coke’s claim that PlantBottle is “environmentally friendly” or has a “reduced carbon footprint.”” (…) “the bottle contains only a maximum of 15 percent plant material — a percentage he said hardly justifies the designation “PlantBottle.”” (…) “The Consumer Ombudsman requested the trader to indicate the minimum percentage of plant material in the bottle or to explain more clearly why the plant material proportion of the bottle was specified as ‘up to 15 percent” (Zara, 2013).

The issue with getting a 100% Bio-PET bottle is a big issue for Coca-Cola Company. Ordinary PET or 30% Bio-PET bottle has Petroleum-based component considering the bio-based in PEF. The Plastic Packaging Expert Gordon Bockner: “PEF molecule is a contaminant in the existing PET stream. A very small amount of PEF will (a) reduce the performance characteristic of the resulting PET/PEF blend and (b) neither will the blend be crystal clear and glossy, which are two of the key (marketing) attributes OPET. It is, therefore, not realistic to suggest that the two resins might be successfully blended to make a commodity LRB packaging resin” (Pierce, 2014).

Liz Baird the Environmental Consultant has said this about the PlantBottle:”When a company uses their marketing to appeal to the eco-conscious consumer, but they are spending more money marketing than they spend on being green, it’s called greenwashing” (…) “For example, there are some companies who tout their products as green, but if you look at the list of ingredients, palm oil is one of them. Harvesting palm oil is extremely dangerous to the orangutans” (EcoDaily, 2015).

After thought:

This here story here is about the 30% Bio Sugarcane based PET Resin and the rest of the bottle 70%. Not the newly released bottle that is supposable 100% BioBased Plant bottle. It hasn’t been addressed yet because I don’t see how it’s made possible and there aren’t reports or scientific how the whole PET resin is made. Therefore I won’t address it today. This here is just a full case on how Coca-Cola Company has described the infamous Plantbottle™. So since this original Plantbottle™ 1.0 is 30%. And call all natural you get the feel of a greenwash perception scheme. That isn’t fair for the consumer or society. It even got a Danish Ombudsman on the tail, but the same scenario and drop hasn’t made a fuzz where else it has been released, this is something about the leniency towards the Coca-Cola Company in these countries that has this specific bottle. That you have many companies on all sides of the globe focusing on how to make a Sugarcane bottle instead of a petroleum-based one, the first step was using 30% of the Bio PET resin. If they will fix it and make it, also make sure that it can contain the material that it’s talking about. It can’t be either or. Has to been made for a certain type of PET-Resin to make it hard enough to be a bottle for production-line and to contain the sugar-caffeine-carbonated-liquid called Coke from Coca-Cola Company.

Wonder how it will be 100% compared to the 1.0 type of bottle. That will be another story. Would be another story to see how the produce and production of Plantbottle 2.0 who supposed to be 100% made of sugarcane. And I might go into detail about that if I get the hold of that information. I can’t write it out of the thin air. Got to taste the carbonated sugar-water and then get the feel of the flavors and ways. Peace.

Reference:

EcoDaily – ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green – Labeling Can Be A Guise’ (01.07.2015) Link: http://ecodaily.org/its-not-easy-being-green-labeling-can-be-a-guise/

Parkes, Lisa – ‘Africa’s first Bottle-2-Bottle Plastic Recycling Plant Opens its Doors in Wadeville’ (13.05.2015) Link: http://www.petco.co.za/ag3nt/system/about_petco_dynamic_blog.php

Oster, Erik – ‘Ogilvy & Mather NY Introduces PlantBottle for Coca-Cola’ (09.06.2015) Link: http://www.adweek.com/agencyspy/ogilvy-mather-ny-launches-plants-make-us-happy-for-coca-cola/67789

Mohan, Anne Marie – ‘Coca-Cola enters partnership to expand PlantBottle production’ (27.09.2012) Link: http://www.greenerpackage.com/bioplastics/coca-cola_enters_partnership_expand_plantbottle_production

Fahrenheit 212 – ‘Coca-Cola PlantBottle – Defining the Consumer Proposition for Bio-PET’ Link: http://www.fahrenheit-212.com/coca-cola-plantbottle/

Rosato, Don – ‘Green plastic barrier packaging material and process advances’ (28.07.2014) Link: http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/green-plastic-barrier-packaging-material-and-process-advances/food-beverage

Pierce, Lisa McTigue – ‘PEF will not oust PET for beverage bottles anytime soon’ (25.07.2014) Link: http://www.packagingdigest.com/resins/pef-will-not-oust-pet-for-beverage-bottles-anytime-soon140724

N.Michaels: ‘Why and When will Bottle-to-Bottle rPET Technology Dominate?’ (03.12.2010) Link: http://theplanetbottle.net/news/2010/12/why-and-when-will-bottle-to-bottle-rpet-technology-dominate/#sthash.QksuvCPg.dpuf

Lane, Isabel – ‘Coke invests further in scaling Virent’s paraxylene production for PlantBottle’ (09.09.2014) link: http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/09/09/coke-invests-further-in-scaling-virents-paraxylene-production-for-plantbottle/

Gendell, Adam – ‘The catch behind Coca-Cola’s switch to plant-based bottles’ (10.10.2012) Link: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2012/10/10/catch-behind-coca-colas-switch-plant-based-bottles

Ringier Plastics – ‘Bio-based PET shows the way forward’ (07.05.2015) Link: http://www.industrysourcing.com/article/bio-based-pet-shows-way-forward

Vitters, Scott – ‘Statement of Scott Vitters General Manager, PlantBottle Innovation Platform The Coca-Cola Company United States Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry United States Senate June 17, 2014’

PTA – ‘Production process for purified terephthalic acid (PTA)’ Link: http://www.hitachi.com/businesses/infrastructure/product_site/ip/process/pta.html

PET – ‘Production process for polyethylene terephthalate (PET)’ Link: http://www.hitachi.com/businesses/infrastructure/product_site/ip/process/pet.html

Sugarcane.org – ‘Bioplastics’ Link: http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioplastics

SustPack – ‘Coca-Cola Gives Expo Debut To 100% Bio-Based PlantBottle’ Link: http://www.sustainability-in-packaging.com/news/coca-cola-gives-expo-debut-to-100-bio-based-plantb

Gevo – ‘Bio-based Isobutanol to Enable Coca-Cola to Develop Second Generation PlantBottle™ Packaging’ link: http://www.gevo.com/?casestudy=bio-based-isobutanol-to-enable-coca-cola-to-develop-second-generation-plantbottle-packaging

Zara, Christopher – ‘Coca-Cola Company (KO) Busted For ‘Greenwashing’: PlantBottle Marketing Exaggerated Environmental Benefits, Says Consumer Report’ (03.09.2013) Link: http://www.ibtimes.com/coca-cola-company-ko-busted-greenwashing-plantbottle-marketing-exaggerated-environmental-benefits

Patent – ‘Method of making a bottle made of fdca and diol monomers and apparatus for implementing such method’ (31.08.2012): http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014032731A1?cl=en

Plastice – ‘Bioplastics – Opportunity for the Future’ (2013) Link: http://www.central2013.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/outputlib/Plastice_Bioplastics_Opportunity_for_the_Future_web.pdf