A dramatic escalation in Colombia’s decades-long internal conflict has placed the nation’s energy sector on high alert. Armed clashes between state forces, leftist guerillas, and criminal bands have intensified in the oil-rich departments of Arauca and Norte de Santander, prompting British energy companies with significant holdings in the region to urgently recalibrate their risk assessments. The spike in violence represents the most severe disruption since the 2016 peace deal with the FARC, and threatens to destabilize a vital artery of the country’s economy.
Colombia has long been a complex theatre for resource extraction. The country is Latin America’s third-largest oil producer, with crude accounting for roughly 30% of exports. British firms, including BP and smaller independent operators, have invested billions in exploration and production infrastructure. The current wave of attacks on pipelines and drilling sites has already forced temporary shutdowns at several facilities, reducing output by an estimated 120,000 barrels per day. The National Liberation Army (ELN) and the dissident FARC faction known as ‘Estado Mayor Central’ have claimed responsibility for the sabotage, leveraging the disruption to press demands for territorial control and political concessions.
The human cost is equally stark. More than 200,000 people have been displaced in 2023 alone, with the UN reporting a 40% increase in forced confinements in oil-producing regions. Civilians are trapped between warring groups, while environmental damage from pipeline leaks compounds the misery. The situation is further complicated by the presence of foreign nationals: British executives and engineers remain in secure compounds, but several evacuation plans have been activated.
From a climate and energy transition perspective, this conflict serves as a stark reminder of the inherent volatility of fossil fuel extraction. When the security apparatus of a state is stretched thin by internal strife, the energy infrastructure becomes a strategic target. The inherent fragility of long supply chains and the carbon intensity of such operations are laid bare. The British energy firms now face a dilemma: continue operating in an increasingly dangerous environment, risking both profit and reputation, or pull out and cede ground to Russian and Chinese state-owned enterprises that are less sensitive to ethical considerations.
The UK government’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office has issued a travel warning, but has stopped short of advising the immediate withdrawal of British nationals. This places a burden on corporate responsibility. The steady hand of the Boardroom must now navigate a path between shareholder value and the safety of employees. But this is not simply a business risk: it is a geopolitical and moral question. The carbon embedded in Colombian crude is already contributing to global heating. To shut down production would temporarily lower emissions but could also push the world’s energy system toward even dirtier sources, such as coal from Venezuela or tar sands from Canada.
The science is clear: every fraction of a degree of warming matters. The emissions of past decades are locked in. The only path forward is a managed decline of fossil fuels, not an abrupt collapse. But in Colombia, the calculus is perverted by violence. The climate correspondent must report that the clean energy transition cannot happen overnight, and that during this transition, we rely on unstable nations to feed our addiction. The solution is not to pretend that we can disentangle overnight, but to accelerate the deployment of renewables and storage to break this cycle of dependency.
In the immediate term, British firms will likely hedge: reduce exposure, rely on security contractors, and manage public relations. But for the Colombian people, the cost of oil extraction is already being paid in blood. The world must acknowledge that the energy transition is not simply a technological problem: it is a crisis of governance, justice, and security. Until we address that, the flames of conflict will continue to be fed by the very fuel we burn.
