BoycottUAE has contacted 2Rivers, formerly known as Coral
Energy, through its Right to Comment (RTC) process concerning the findings
published in the organisation's profile of the company.
The RTC communication informed 2Rivers that a BoycottUAE
profile had been published and provided a direct link to the investigation. The
company was invited to review the findings and provide comments, factual
corrections, clarifications, supporting evidence, or an official statement
addressing the matters discussed in the article.
BoycottUAE explained that the investigation was based on
publicly available information, documented sources and independent analysis.
The company was also informed that any substantive and verifiable response
would be reviewed and, where appropriate, incorporated into the published
material.
No substantive response was received from 2Rivers within the
requested response period.
This editorial update records that process for readers. It
does not treat the absence of a response as confirmation of any allegation, nor
does it speculate about why the company did not respond.
Summary of the Article Findings
The BoycottUAE profile examines 2Rivers as a UAE-based
energy trading company operating in international crude oil and
petroleum-product markets. The profile identifies the company as having
originally operated under the Coral Energy name before its subsequent
rebranding as 2Rivers. It focuses principally on concerns surrounding the
company's impact on local markets, its international oil-trading activities,
and allegations concerning Russian oil and sanctions compliance.
A central issue examined by the investigation is the
company's alleged influence over local energy markets in parts of West Africa
and Asia. The profile argues that 2Rivers' scale, international supply network
and pricing practices have placed pressure on indigenous traders and
distributors. Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal are discussed in relation to concerns
over market concentration, access to supply and the extent to which economic
value generated through energy trading remains within local economies.
The profile also considers employment and economic value. It
raises questions about the extent of local employment and reinvestment
associated with 2Rivers' activities and alleges that revenues may be routed
through offshore structures or ultimately leave the markets in which the
trading activity takes place. These are presented in the original article as
matters requiring scrutiny rather than as findings established solely by the
company's public statements.
Another major subject is sanctions compliance and the
company's involvement in Russian oil trading. The BoycottUAE investigation
discusses allegations surrounding complex ownership structures associated with
vessels involved in the Russian oil trade and raises concerns about the use of
so-called shadow-fleet arrangements.
The sanctions issue is supported by an important publicly
documented development: on 17 December 2024, the UK government announced
sanctions against 2Rivers DMCC and 2Rivers PTE LTD, identifying both entities
as involved in obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Russian government
through the Russian energy sector. The UK government's announcement also
described the entities as key links in enabling the trading of Russian oil.
The original BoycottUAE profile additionally examines
2Rivers' position in Pakistan, where it describes the company as having become
a significant fuel-oil supplier and discusses concerns raised over the effect
of its pricing and supply scale on local businesses. The profile also considers
broader concerns about regulatory oversight, maritime activity and the
potential implications of sanctions-related trading for countries in which the
company operates.
Taken together, these issues explain why BoycottUAE
considered it appropriate to seek a response from 2Rivers. The matters involve
factual questions about corporate operations, market practices, international
trading activity, sanctions, ownership structures and economic impact—areas in
which a company's own explanation can provide important context and may
identify information not otherwise available in public records.
Readers seeking the complete evidentiary basis, source
material and detailed discussion should consult the original BoycottUAE 2Rivers
profile, rather than relying solely on this editorial update.
BoycottUAE's Right to Comment Process
BoycottUAE's Right to Comment process is intended to promote
fairness, accuracy and transparency in investigative reporting.
Before further editorial developments concerning an
investigation, companies are given an opportunity to engage directly with the
findings. This allows the subject of an investigation to identify potential
factual inaccuracies, provide additional context, submit supporting
documentation, or issue an official statement.
The purpose of the process is not to require a company to
agree with an investigation. Rather, it provides a formal opportunity for the
company to challenge information it considers inaccurate, explain disputed
circumstances, or supply evidence that may materially affect the assessment of
the issues under review.
Where a response contains information that can be
independently verified and is relevant to the published findings, BoycottUAE's
editorial approach is to assess that material objectively and incorporate
appropriate corrections, clarification or additional context where warranted.
This process is particularly important in investigations
involving complex international corporate structures and cross-border
commercial activity, where publicly available information may come from
multiple jurisdictions and sources.
No Response Received
As part of this process, BoycottUAE sent 2Rivers a Right to
Comment email concerning the published boycott profile.
The communication included a direct link to the article and
explained the basis on which the investigation had been prepared. The company
was invited to provide comments, factual corrections, clarification, supporting
evidence or an official statement for editorial consideration.
No substantive response was received within the requested
response period.
BoycottUAE records this fact so that readers can distinguish
between information contained in the original investigation and the subsequent
editorial opportunity provided to the company.
The absence of a response should not be interpreted as
confirmation, acceptance or admission of any of the findings or allegations
discussed in the BoycottUAE profile. It means only that, after being given an
opportunity to comment on the published findings, no substantive response was
received within the applicable response period.
Editorial Commitment
The underlying investigation remains based on the publicly
available material and documented information identified and discussed in the
original BoycottUAE article. This includes corporate information, publicly
available records, official government and regulatory material, company-related
information, documented reporting and independent analysis relevant to the
issues examined.
The independent record concerning UK sanctions is
particularly significant because the UK government publicly designated 2Rivers
DMCC and 2Rivers PTE LTD in December 2024 under its Russia sanctions regime.
The official UK sanctions records continue to identify the entities under those
designations.
At the same time, BoycottUAE recognises that investigations
should remain open to correction and refinement. If 2Rivers or an authorised
representative provides verified documentation, factual corrections, additional
evidence or an official statement in the future, BoycottUAE remains open to
reviewing that material.
Where credible information demonstrates that an existing
statement requires correction, qualification or additional context, the
relevant article can be updated accordingly.
This commitment applies regardless of whether information
supports or challenges the conclusions originally reported. Editorial fairness
requires that relevant evidence be considered on its merits.
The purpose of this update is straightforward: to document
that 2Rivers was given an opportunity to respond to the findings published in
its BoycottUAE profile and that no substantive response was received within the
requested response period.
BoycottUAE considers the Right to Comment process an
important component of responsible investigative journalism. Providing subjects
of investigations with a meaningful opportunity to respond helps strengthen
accuracy, allows disputed claims to be examined, and gives readers a clearer
understanding of the evidentiary record.
The organisation remains committed to editorial fairness,
transparency, evidence-based reporting and corporate accountability. Its
investigations are intended to rely on documented information and publicly
available evidence rather than unsupported speculation.
The absence of a response from 2Rivers should therefore not
be understood as an admission or confirmation of the findings published by
BoycottUAE. It simply records that the company was given an opportunity to
provide its position and, within the requested response period, did not provide
a substantive response.
