Below the Surface: My Responsibility, Not Above It

by admin | Mar 24, 2025 | business, crime, crimes, criminal prosecution, news

Utilizing maps, drilling records, and detailed technical accounts, Alexandre Schneiter, who previously served as the CEO of Lundin Oil, attempted to absolve himself of liability related to alleged war crimes near Block 5A—an area designated for oil extraction within what is currently South Sudan. However, the prosecutor’s inquiries extended beyond these matters; they delved into what knowledge the firm possessed—and actions taken—during the height of the civil conflict raging over those very oilfields.

How can three lines drawn on a map possibly be assisting in facilitating war crimes?

In the district court in Stockholm, during recess in Courtroom 34 on the second floor, one of Alexandre Schneiter’s attorneys expresses irritation as they wind their way down the staircase towards a cafe for a break.

As autumn shifted into winter, and winter transitioned into what Swedes call the “fifth season”—spring-winter—Swiss national Schneiter was questioned from early February until midway through March 2025.

The first half of the significant 300-day trial involving two executives from the Swedish company Lundin Oil has concluded. They face charges related to their alleged involvement in facilitating war crimes in South Sudan during the period from 1997 to 2003. Following an uncomfortable cross-examination of his fellow defendant, Ian Lundin, Schneiter and his defense team were unequivocal: although Schneiter held responsibility for identifying oil reserves within the ancient sedimentary layers below Sudan’s terrain, he claimed no part in matters concerning safety or day-to-day operations.

There is no liability for anything above the surface.

Several weeks prior to the conversation regarding the three lines delineated on a map, the ex-CEO requested an opportunity to address some initial remarks during his testimony. “In recent hearings, we’ve extensively discussed seismic matters, and geophysics can be described as the examination of our planet along with the collection of information through physical phenomena such as magnetism, gravity, and seismic events,” he stated.

In 1992, Schneiter became part of the Lundin Group as a geologist. He has steadily advanced thanks to his knack for locating oil reserves where previous attempts had failed. To date, the sole discovery within Block 5A was made by him. During proceedings at the Stockholm District Court, an image of the core sample taken from Thar Yath, which dates back to 1999, appears on screen. In layman’s terms, Schneiter points out that the dark patches visible in the soil indicate the presence of oil.

What we’re observing here is quite fascinating despite being irrelevant: this rock dates back approximately 100 million years,” Schneiter went on to say, highlighting that his primary concern has always been what lies underneath the Earth’s crust, with everything else beyond it falling outside of his purview. He also mentioned that no extraction activities were carried out. In contrast, the neighboring areas in Blocks 1, 2, and 4 exported petroleum; however, Block 5A did not produce even a small amount of oil.

It is only after numerous hours of presentations that Schneiter addresses one of the allegations: “I believe it is totally inaccurate to state that attending a few gatherings had any influence on the conflict within the nation.”

Constructing a pathway through an undeveloped region

According to prosecutors, it’s the opposite. The three lines on the map represent planned seismic lines — kilometer-long cables with small explosive devices attached and used to listen to what’s hidden underground. The map was presented by Schneiter at a meeting with representatives of Sudan in October 2001 and crossed an area not controlled by the Sudanese regime at the time.

The prosecutors call this region the MOK or the Nhialdiu zone. They state that the Sudanese military then requested the construction of a route to Nhialdiu with the aim of safeguarding scheduled seismic investigations within the MOK operational zones; the firm allegedly agreed to these terms per the allegations. Based on witness accounts and internal company safety documents, the location was later marred by intense combat activities.

According to the prosecution, a proposal to construct a roadway through territory outside the control of both the Sudanese military and affiliated paramilitary groups was intended as a warning that this action could precipitate military operations. These operations would involve the armed forces carrying out untargeted assaults on civilian populations.

However, when the prosecutor presents the seismic maps from the “Exploration Development Strategy 2002” document during the proceedings, Schneiter becomes visibly relieved and states that he is glad to finally clarify what these maps represent. He feels certain that both his defense team and the prosecution have failed to grasp their significance.

What the picture depicts is the bedrock in Block 5A. Picture this like a bathtub; the sides represent the shallower areas, whereas the center represents the deeper section. Now imagine filling that tub with sand, and you’ll have the Muglad Basin,” Schneiter exclaims cheerfully.

He contends that this region of the Earth remains unchanged. Both the distance to the bedrock and the contour of the basin are unvarying geological constants. He further notes, “From a business perspective, as a company, you should avoid exploring the deeper areas; instead, concentrate your efforts on the more superficial layers.”

Regarding the prosecutor’s perspective, the photograph was presented as evidence of Lundin having an interest in the MOK region. However, Schneiter contends that it simply highlights a “tendency” suggesting the area is quite deep, implying that MOK would be the most unsuitable location for exploration.

They couldn’t be less concerned whether it’s Iran, Sudan, or the North Sea.

To be perfectly clear: when a geophysicist examines this data, they aren’t concerned whether it’s about Iran, Sudan, or the North Sea,” Schneiter goes on to explain. He clarifies that within a reservoir, there are layers of varying depths; however, as you go deeper, the quality diminishes until the oil ultimately transforms into natural gas. Once again, his tone takes on an educational edge, suggesting that the prosecutors have misconstrued aspects of both oil exploration and the operational processes of an oil company.

The contrast in Schneiter’s responses versus those of Lundin, the ex-president of Lundin Oil—who was questioned last month—is quite evident. While Lundin frequently failed to remember specific details, Schneiter strives for accuracy, recalls precise information, and firmly rejects both the prosecution’s account and supporting documentation.

For him, it goes beyond merely dismissing allegations; it’s also about narrating how the corporation constructed pathways to secure approval within local communities and operated health centers to garner backing. The objective was never solely focused on extracting oil, but rather on elevating the nation out of economic hardship through assistance provided by different entities of the global community.

Attempting to ground Schneiter to the Earth’s surface

Frequently, this results in an ongoing conflict between the prosecution and Schneiter regarding his role in the operations and matters managed within Block 5A or at the Khartoum office. Whenever the prosecutors emphasize that Schneiter had a meeting with General Paulino Matip of the South Sudan Independence Movement—who led a militia fighting against Peter Gadet’s Sudan People’s Liberation Army alongside the government—to gain approval for flying helicopters in Block 5A, Schneiter offers a contrasting account.

“It happened by chance. When I arrived in Khartoum and checked into the hotel, I spotted Matip in the lobby,” explains Schneiter. He doesn’t recall whether their approval to fly came with conditions about avoiding “the southern area” of the restricted zone. “I do not remember requesting any permits from him,” insists Schneiter.

The prosecutors kept attempting to connect Schneiter with the operations by pointing out that during the attack on the rig in Thar Yath where security guards lost their lives in May 1999, records show he was the individual whom the personnel contacted. However, Schneiter states he doesn’t recall this happening. He justifies himself by saying his name appeared on a “general emergency contact list.”

Following five days of interrogation, the prosecution addressed a gathering involving delegates from Sudan and the firm in October 2000. It is alleged that this encounter marked Schneiter’s initial involvement in criminal activity. The meeting records included visuals depicting “major events” impacting the corporation. During his presentation, prosecutor Henrik Attorps displayed data indicating that evidence of these occurrences was discovered when authorities searched the accused’s residence in Switzerland.

Schneiter stated that he did not see the list documenting numerous events, yet remembered that rebel chief Gadet was launching attacks and the military was responding defensively. The firm had ceased all activities and was only monitoring developments at the time. Nevertheless, the prosecutor contended that the existence of this list indicated Schneiter’s awareness of various clashes and combat situations.

“As far as I understood back then, it was primarily about tribal disputes, and Gadet was causing more problems. However, I didn’t have any means of influencing the situation,” Schneiter replied.

“- Further west, it indicates that significant troops are deployed to address the threat posed by Gadet and to guarantee the safety of Block 5A. Was this rationale—that military assets were assigned for your protection—something you were made aware of at that point?” the prosecutor went on.

Schneiter responded that security was not within his purview and that he believed the army supplied a “neutral guard force.”

But upon hearing about this neutral guard force, how does it correlate with the presence of 1,600 soldiers positioned within the block and substantial forces located farther west?

– While I was out in the field, I witnessed firsthand that there was a neutral security detail consisting of amiable guards. Therefore, this document should be considered as an estimate rather than a factual statement,” Schneiter responded.

At the beginning of the trial, the prosecutor introduced a depiction of a crimson staircase. Each step represented an act and thus a greater degree of involvement, aiming to demonstrate how different actions—or “complicit acts”—collectively facilitated the offenses carried out in Block 5A throughout what was referred to as the crime period. Schneiter’s defense contested the prosecution’s approach, arguing that Schneiter allegedly urged for military responses by providing information to the Sudanese regarding scheduled operations.

Following Schneiter’s questioning, the court plans to hear approximately 50 witnesses for the remainder of 2025 and continuing through 2026. Due to the extended duration of the examinations involving the two accused individuals beyond what was initially anticipated, the projected conclusion date for this prolonged legal proceeding in Sweden has been rescheduled to May 2026.

Martin Schibbye is a Swedish freelance journalist and the creator of the news site Blankspot.se.

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.
Syndigate.info
).