Report 62 — Michael Noble
On Tuesday 16 September 2025, Courtroom 34 opened its doors to Michael Noble. However, Judge Zander asked him to exit the courtroom shortly thereafter as the prosecution requested time to give an additional opening statement.
The prosecution referred to the previous week’s hearing with journalist Bengt Nilsson, specifically to a comment made by defense counsel Olle Kullinger regarding the optimal scouting altitude in connection with the recommended altitude of four thousand feet which was found in material from June/July 1997. The document was a report from a scouting trip over Block 5A on 26 June 1997, where Nilsson, accompanied by Lundin Oil representatives, travelled at 230km/h at 100m above the ground. The prosecution stated that they could not say that such an altitude was or was not optimal for scouting purposes.
The testimony of Michael Noble
After this interlude, the court turned its attention to hearing Michael Noble’s testimony. Noble was the chief geophysicist and project manager for IPC between 1997-1999. His role encompassed contracting, interpreting new and old data, and planning seismic surveys. Annika Wennerström, on behalf of the prosecution, opened the examination in chief by asking Noble about his background. He testified that he had worked in the oil industry since 1982, in countries like Great Britain, Egypt, and Dubai, and he joined IPC in 1997. He studied geology and geophysics and has a master’s degree in petroleum geology. During his time at the company, Noble reported directly to Alexandre Schneiter and Keith Hill; however, because IPC was not a big company, the reporting practices were very informal.
Keith Hill had an office next to Noble in Khartoum. He was responsible for the Sudan project, including liaising with security personnel. Hill had a background as a geologist, so reporting was an informal affair. Noble told the court that he reported directly to Hill, and he would enter Hill’s office with updates and information. When asked who Hill reported to, Noble said he did not know the formal reporting channels, but assumed it was directly to Schneiter and Geneva. Noble’s relationship with Alexander Schneiter was very much the same. “It didn’t feel like reporting because we spoke the same language.” He would give Schneiter updates and that would be sufficient.
When Noble joined IPC, later Lundin Oil, the Sudan project had not yet started. It was Hill who had brought the idea of Sudan to the company, and he had started just after Noble, so the contract with the Sudanese government had not yet been signed. He testified that the work program for Block 5A would have been negotiated with the government prior to signing the contract, and that it was likely the company’s lawyer who had done so.
The first trip Noble made to Sudan as part of his work for IPC was in March 1997, when he participated in a scouting trip. He said they took the contractors to the area by helicopter to look at the area in which seismic activity would take place for the purpose of finding a location for drilling the well. There were lots of swamp areas, Noble said, which made it difficult from a technical perspective. They landed in a few places to assess what would be required to undertake the seismic. Only one contractor made a bid, he said. He noted the challenging physical environment as a potential reason. They also went to Heglig, where they met Julian Heawood, who was working with the seismic crew there together with GDP, Noble testified. Heawood was hired by him as a quality control operator on the Highland crew. He stayed for the duration of the survey from February to May 1998.
Noble testified that he was given autonomy to do what he believed was the best within the parameters of his duties on the geophysical side of the project. These included contracting, interpreting data, and planning the seismic survey. He said he had a good relationship with Schneiter and Ian Lundin. Noble told the court that there was a weekly meeting that the manager of the Dubai office would attend. However, there was rarely a need to write anything down, he recalled. Noble said that he wrote a final report after processing the existing seismic data. The main prospects were MOK, Bentiu and Dok. Noble explained that the existing data had been acquired from previous surveys conducted in the Block by Chevron when they operated there in the 70s, and they collected their own through the survey. The court heard that the processing of existing seismic data was done in one go, and new data was integrated afterwards, adjusting the leads and prospects. By integrating old and new data, they could analyze it and conclude that the prospects mentioned were the most interesting. Noble testified that although the data from the survey was fully processed in August 1997, as new data was integrated throughout the survey, the leads and prospects could change, which would result in reprocessed seismic lines.
The prosecution asked Noble whether there were others who worked with him in the field. He said he worked with a man named Antoine, who was an experienced geologist, and he supervised another operator. Noble told the court that he was responsible for hiring staff for quality control and fieldwork, and that these people also reported to him on matters concerning the technical aspects of the survey. Apart from those mentioned, Noble worked with Dr. Alan Bagi, who was the office manager in Khartoum, Jim Bryan, and then a man named Jeff, both of whom held the role of seismic manager at different times. He also knew of Alan Packwood and Steve Jolley, who were security personnel. There were other HSE staff, but he said they varied, and he was not involved in security anyway.
When the prosecution moved to the topic of security reporting in the area, Noble testified that security was Hill’s area of responsibility, and he kept it to himself for the most part. Noble said that he did see signs of unrest and civil war, and security issues were frequent occurrences. The HSE staff would warn them of any issues and ensure they were not in the area of unrest. They also had their own security team of locals, Noble said. The prosecution continued with a line of questioning regarding his observations of villages and civilians during his trips to and from the Block. Noble testified that he could not recall seeing any changes. Here, the prosecution pointed out that his answer was inconsistent with the one he gave during his interview with the Swedish police on 2 December 2015 and requested leave to question Noble on his previous answer. Judge Zander granted the request and the prosecution displayed page 78 of the interview on the four big screens. The prosecution told him that he had in fact made observations while flying over the area. “You asked me about differences, not observations,” Noble replied. Faced with his response to the same question almost a decade earlier, he followed up by telling the court what he told the police: that he had seen brown circles and that it could have been huts that had been burned down. “They live a nomadic lifestyle. I don’t think I flew over the same area twice, so I cannot have seen any differences,” he said. He added that it was common knowledge that civilians burned huts, and that Julian Heawood had told him as much.
Noble was shown a number of reports containing security information, but said that he was only concerned with the seismic information in the reports. He left the security updates to Hill and other HSE personnel, relying on them to provide necessary security information pertaining to his work, such as where to suspend seismic activities due to fighting and when to resume. He recalled that when an area saw an increase in fighting and security incidents, “[W]e would avoid operating in the area and we would stay away.” The incidents usually lasted for short periods of time and Noble did not know who was involved in the conflicts.
When it was time for questioning from the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Percy Bratt asked Noble if he was aware that the Sudanese regime had been described as an Islamic dictator government. Noble said he would not have known during that time. “Anyone who read the papers read about a civil war, but I don’t think people knew about the regime being the aggressors.”
Alexandre Schneiter’s defense counsel, Olle Kullinger, opened with a line of questioning pertaining to Schneiter’s role in the company during Noble’s time in Sudan. Noble reported directly to Schneiter on matters related to technical issues with the seismic operation. Both were geophysicists, and Schneiter was responsible for the seismic work program. Kullinger raised two documents, including TCM meeting notes from 26 October 1998, which discussed the tender bids and prospect ranking. Out of six potential bidders, only two presented one joint bid. The others cited government or security concerns. Noble said that the project and terrain was difficult so it was possible that companies used security as an excuse, although he could not remember.
Kullinger asked Noble whether it was possible for prospect and lead rankings to change over time, displaying further evidentiary material. Noble explains again that prospects and leads could change depending on new data and analyses. Kullinger highlighted that according to these documents, MOK was the least interesting lead in 1999.
The prosecution chose to re-examine Noble after Alexander Schneiter’s defense concluded, focusing their questions on security reporting after the initial scouting trip. The security risk was described as “extreme,” describing the situation as such that the government could not maintain law and order, and the country was on the verge of a civil war. Noble told the court that he could not recall any details. He said that Sudan was a big country and had a long history of conflict, but that there was not active fighting in the whole country. He explained that the key to operating was having the right intelligence. The Chinese company BGP had already been successfully operating in Heglig, which was close to Lundin’s own area of operations. He continued by explaining that Keith Hill hired Rapport for the purpose of establishing a relationship with the locals as a way to gather intelligence and they were generally useful. Noble was unable to provide more information to the prosecution regarding how intelligence was collected and who received security updates, responding only with variations of “I don’t remember.”
