Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Shell, Nigeria, Militant Attacks, and the Escalating Price of Oil

By John Donovan

The petroleum industry in Nigeria is the largest industry and main generator of GDP in the West African nation which is also the continent’s most populous. Since the British discovered oil in the Niger Delta in the late 1950s, the oil industry has been marred by political and economic strife largely due to a long history of corrupt military regimes and complicity of multinational corporations, notably Royal Dutch Shell.

The above is the current opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article “Petroleum industry in Nigeria”.

Although all oil companies operating in Nigeria have faced the same basic problems, Shell has acquired far and away the worst reputation, particular in the Niger Delta with minority ethnic groups. This stems from alleged exploitation of oil and gas resources and environmental pollution resulting partly from long term gas flaring.

There is also residual bitterness from Shell’s alleged association with the hanging on false charges of Ogoni campaigners, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, the playwright and author who, like Ghandi, advocated entirely peaceful protest. Shell has recently settled for $15.5m the Wiwa v. Shell case brought in the U.S. Courts. This paltry settlement sum is but a pinprick to the oil giant and is driven by Shell’s desperation to gain re-entry into Ogoniland. Based on insider information I was able to predict the Wiwa v. Shell settlement several days before it was announced to a surprised world. We also beat the news embargo of the settlement.

A Bloomberg article published today reports on of a claimed attack on a Shell oil pipeline by militants. The last paragraph reports on the escalating price of oil saying that “Prices are up 60 percent this year”. 

Since I am about to make serious allegations about Shell’s sinister link to Nigerian militants and the correlation of their activities to oil prices, it is proper to declare that I operate a news based website – royaldutchshellplc.com – focused on the activities of Shell. In July 2008, the One World Trust, an independent organisation affiliated to the UN and the UK Houses of Parliament, said that we had shown “the power an individual website can have in holding a global organisation to account”. The same article observed that “the Ogoni tribe of Nigeria also use the website to spread information about Shell’s activities in the Niger Delta”.

Eminent energy journalists such as Ed Crooks of the Financial Times have written front page stories based on information and leaked Shell documents we supplied.  If the authenticity of any leaked information is suspect, we routinely verify it with Shell before using the material. For this reason the credibility of our Shell insider information is extremely high.

In 2004, a confidential document meant solely for Shell internal consumption was leaked to us. The 93 page report by WAC Global Services was entitled: “PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE NIGER DELTA”. Its leakage resulted in a number of news stories.

The following are three examples, all published on 11 June 2004, citing findings in the report that Shell fuelled conflict, poverty and corruption through its activities in Nigeria.

BBC News: Shell admits fuelling corruption 
CNN News: Shell admits blame in Nigeria
The Times: Shell ‘may have to abandon Nigeria’

As such, there is no shortage of controversial subjects and issues arising from Shell’s presence in Nigeria.  I will, however, in view of time and publication constraints, focus on one subject of topical interest – the link between oil production cuts in Nigeria resulting from militant attacks and the escalating cost of oil which threatens the slow return to global financial stability.  

We publish hundreds of news articles every week and they frequently include reports of attacks by militants on Shell infrastructure in Nigeria. Many reports have correctly linked rising high oil prices with the hostage taking and the militant attacks, some of which have resulted in the death of Shell employees. The following extract is from a report in The Scotsman on Friday 13 July 2007: “The attacks have contributed to a drop in production of about 25 per cent, driving up oil prices worldwide with no end to the kidnappings in sight”.

Until recently Shell was the undisputed leading oil producer in Nigeria. To the outside world Shell appears to be an unfortunate victim of regular attacks by militants on its employees, pipelines and installations which drive up the price of oil.  The true circumstances are more murky and disturbing.

We carried out some research after being contacted by a Shell Nigeria insider who said that senior colleagues had a commercial relationship with militant leaders of gangs carrying out the attacks. We established that the source was authentic. Indeed, to our surprise we discovered that The Financial Times had already confirmed the basics of our source’s allegations (see “Shell gives Nigerian work to Militant companies”). Two possible interpretations come to mind.

The first is that Shell entered into the murky dealings against the backdrop of a very difficult situation and with the worthy objective of keeping the oil flowing, believing this would be in the best overall interests of Nigeria and Shell stakeholders, including Shell Nigeria employees.  

The less attractive possibility is that there is much more money to be made by Shell on a global basis by stemming oil flow from Nigeria than in keeping it flowing. Production cuts due to militant attacks take place with alarming frequency. It only takes a small crimp in the oil pipeline applied on a regular basis to drive up the global oil price and keep it at a high level, thereby generating billions of extra dollars in annual profits: in the case of Shell, $31.4 billion last year.

However, neither interpretation is compatible with Shell General Business Principles pledging among other things honesty, integrity and openness in all of Shell’s dealings. 

If Shell had stuck to its principles then it would not have ended up with the admissions in its own internal report. Furthermore the reserves scandal would not have occurred and Shell’s reputation in Nigeria and elsewhere would still be intact.  Instead of setting an example in a corrupt political and business climate, Shell management took the easier path.

As a long term Shell shareholder I would like the company to conduct its business in accordance with its own stated business principles. That does not seem an unreasonable ambition under the circumstances.  If Shell can convince the Ogoni and other minority ethnic groups in the Nigerian Delta of a conversion to a genuinely ethical policy, rather than one used perhaps only for public relations purposes, then they might be able to make a fresh start in Nigeria.

Unfortunately, the time for making any such transformation appears to be running out and the fears expressed in the report that Shell will have to abandon Nigeria may come to pass.

ENDS

The above article is an updated version of an article first published in March 2008.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: