Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘August, 2011’

A UN report criticises Royal Dutch Shell over pollution in Ogoniland

Aug 13th 2011

BY BOOTING out Royal Dutch Shell in 1993, the 500,000 inhabitants of Nigeria’s Ogoniland hoped to take the first step towards cleaning up their homeland, a small region within the creeks and swamps of the vast Niger Delta, Africa’s biggest oil-producing region. Almost 20 years later, a new report from the UN says it could take 30 years and at least $1 billion to rid the poisoned mangroves of a thick, black carpet of crude.

The report, the most extensive, scientific research carried out in the Niger Delta, found that some families were drinking water contaminated with 900 times as much benzene, a carcinogen, as is deemed safe by the World Health Organisation. It said areas that Shell had said were clean were in fact still polluted. It also exposed serious failures on the part of Shell and Nigeria’s national oil company NNPC, which it says failed to follow their own best operating practices. Some infrastructure, the report said, was unsafe and could cause further spills. Shell said the “report makes a valuable contribution”, and that it was reviewing its practices.

Shell pulled out of Ogoniland under pressure from the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), founded by a writer, Ken Saro-Wiwa. Saro-Wiwa, who focused international attention on Ogoniland’s woes, fell out with Nigeria’s then-military government and was hanged in 1995 along with eight other dissident tribal leaders. Without admitting guilt, Shell agreed to pay £9.6m in an out-of-court settlement of a legal action that accused the company of collaborating in the executions.

Legal pressures on the company are increasing. The UN report came in the same week the European oil giant admitted liability for the first time under British jurisdiction for two big leaks in the delta. After half a century of working in Nigeria, Shell is pulling back. It is close to selling four productive oil blocks. It also paid out $1.7m in compensation to groups in the delta affected by spills.

After half a century of hostility to Shell and disappointment at broken promises from the government, MOSOP has so far shown little interest in the UN report. But Mr Saro-Wiwa’s son is more upbeat. “The report is a belated vindication of the allegations my father raised 25 years ago,” says Mr Saro-Wiwa Junior. “I think and hope that an important psychological barrier has been broken.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell VP Andrew Vickers comments on UNEP Ogoniland Report

Mutiu Sunmonu, Managing Director of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) comments on the report and outlines how the company is taking action to prevent operational spills.

EMAIL SENT TO OGONI SCIENTISTS OKEKE UCHE AND ANASONYE BY SHELL VICE PRESIDENT ANDREW VICKERS, ON BEHALF OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC CEO PETER VOSER

WE RECEIVED THIS COPY FROM MR VICKERS

(ARTICLE CONTAINING INITIAL EMAIL: Nigerian Ogoniland oilspillage cleanup issue)

From: Andrew.Vickers@shell.com
Date: 11 August 2011 16:54:33 GMT+01:00
To: godfrey.okeke@helsinki.fi
Cc: Jorma.Ollila@shell.com, john@shellnews.net, Peter.Voser@shell.com

Subject: Nigerian Ogoniland oilspillage cleanup issue

Dear Okeke Uche and Anasonye Festus,

Thank you for your email to Peter Voser. He has requested that I reply to you. We welcome your approach to a multi-stakeholder dialogue and value your feedback.

We note your concerns and value your opinions regarding the UNEP report. We think this report is a valuable contribution towards improving understanding of the environmental impact of oil contamination in the region and the repercussions on human health, security and livelihoods.

SPDC has, and is, taking action where it can. Although SPDC hasn’t produced oil in Ogoniland since 1993. It cleans up all spills and releases from SPDC JV facilities no matter what their cause and restores the land to its original state. And it has recently made tamper proof more than 100 SPDC wells no longer in use there to stop further oil releases caused by theft and sabotage.

For more information on Shell’s response to the UNEP Report please visit: http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/society/nigeria/spills/unep_response/

You may have seen other press reports on Nigeria. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss further.

Regards,
Andrew Vickers

Andrew Vickers
Vice President, NGO and Stakeholder Relations
Shell International B.V.
PO Box 162, 2501 AN The Hague, The Netherlands

Panel Seeks Stiffer Rules for Drilling of Gas Wells

By and

A version of this article appeared in print on August 11, 2011, on page A13 of the New York edition

A federal Department of Energy panel issued recommendations on Thursday for improving the safety and environmental impact of drilling in shale formations for natural gas.

In a report on the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that is used currently in most oil and gas wells, the seven-member Natural Gas Subcommittee called for better tracking and more careful disposal of the waste that comes up from wells, stricter standards on air pollution and greenhouse gases associated with drilling, and the creation of a federal database so the public can better monitor drilling operations.

The report also called for companies to eliminate diesel fuel from their fracking fluid because it includes carcinogenic chemicals, and for companies and regulators to disclose the full list of ingredients used in fracking.

“The public deserves assurance that the full economic, environmental and energy security benefits of shale gas development will be realized without sacrificing public health, environmental protection and safety,” said the report, which was prepared by a subcommittee led by John Deutch, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and a group of energy experts including Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, and Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Federal officials should finance the development of more efficient and clean drilling techniques, the report said, adding that fees and taxes on industry were a legitimate way to pay for needed changes in oversight.

The report called for the use of a “manifest system” for tracking waste from the wells. Such a system typically requires that each load of waste is tracked as it is transported from handler to handler, from the well to its disposal, to verify that it is not dumped at the side of the road.

Tracking and handling the drilling waste have been especially problematic in Pennsylvania. Drilling is intense in the state, but there is also a shortage of injection wells for disposal of the wells’ contaminated wastewater and sludge. State regulators considered instituting a manifest system in 2009, but opted against it after the industry staunchly opposed the proposal.

“We’re issuing a call for industry action,” Mr. Deutch said, “but we are not leaving it to industry alone.”

After The New York Times published a series of articles and internal Environmental Protection Agency documents revealing legal and environmental concerns among the agency’s enforcement lawyers about natural gas drilling, President Obama asked Steven Chu, the energy secretary, in May to produce an advisory report within 90 days on ways to improve the oversight of natural gas drilling.

However, the committee has been criticized by all sides since its creation. In three separate letters, 57 New York lawmakers, 28 scientists, and representatives from more than 100 environmental groups cited concerns about the industry ties held by six members of the seven-person panel, including Mr. Deutch, who sits on the board of Cheniere Energy, a company that has plans to export liquefied natural gas.

When the president announced the committee, Republican lawmakers including Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called the study redundant, pointing to research already under way by the E.P.A.

Some E.P.A. officials have also complained about the committee, which they said seemed to pre-empt and undermine the E.P.A.’s own more rigorous national study on fracking and drinking water. The agency’s preliminary findings are expected next year.

The Obama administration has strongly supported expanding drilling for natural gas because it is an abundant domestic and potentially cleaner source of electricity than coal.

However, scrutiny of the industry and questions about what improvements in oversight are needed to proceed safely with this drilling have grown. The Securities and Exchange Commission recently subpoenaed several oil and gas companies about whether they accurately present to investors drilling costs and long-term well performance. The General Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, was recently assigned to research similar and other questions related to drilling.

Since problems were highlighted, most drilling companies in Pennsylvania have stopped sending their wastewater through treatment plants that were unable to remove many of the contaminants before the water was discharged into rivers. State regulators and drinking water operators are also now testing more regularly for radioactive and other toxic elements in the drilling wastewater.

Federal lawmakers have asked the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy, to answer questions about its natural gas projections and produce documents related to a shale gas Web site that included substantial discussion of the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing.

Internal agency e-mails published last month in The Times show disagreement about whether the Web site was too critical of the industry, though administration officials have since said logistical concerns were the reason the Web site has not gone online. Those e-mails also feature other Energy Department officials citing their agency’s main shale gas primer as too “rosy” and encouraging a reporter to look to external publications for additional information.

Thursday’s report, however, takes a more nuanced view. It cites the promise of shale gas as having “enormous potential to provide economic and environmental benefits for the county” while also highlighting a broader range of risks that need to be addressed.

The report called for further study to settle disagreements in the research about whether natural gas — when its extraction, transportation, storage and use by consumers are taken into account — is actually less harmful to the environment than coal or other fuel sources. It also described contamination of drinking water from fracking chemicals as improbable but refers to the risk of gas migrating into aquifers as a greater source of concern needing further study.

SOURCE

Nigerian Ogoniland oilspillage cleanup issue

DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT

Received by email from Okeke Uche and Anasonye Festus (Scientists, University of Helsinki, Finland). Also sent to Jorma Ollia and Peter Voser, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Greetings………

Our attention has been drawn to the most recent report on the oil spillage issue in the Ogoniland, Nigeria. This is a great victory for us and has been long overdue.

We have gathered from many sources that the United Nations is interested in  monitoring the cleaning up of Ogoniland oil spillage which should last for several years.

Most recently, we have also gathered that the Federal Government of Nigeria is considering taking over the responsibility for cleaning up Ogoniland through the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) of Nigeria (“Nigeria: FG to Clean up Ogoniland“, 7/08/2011. This Day Newspaper, Nigeria).

However, we are deeply concerned by such move on the part of the Federal Government of Nigeria which have over the years proved to be ineffective and unreliable in this issue (see Afrique en ligne article printed below).

We hereby state our absolute distrust in this system and urge all parties concerned especially SHELL to do things right this time.

We believe that all efforts for this cleanup as reflected in the UNEP report should be long term and involve highly qualified experts.

We are also monitoring this issue closely and as a matter of fact (as scientists), we are making plans to study the ecosystem in this region for the effective application of appropriate bioremediation techniques in Ogoniland.

Regards,

Okeke Uche and Anasonye Festus (University of Helsinki, Finland).

Nigeria: UN to monitor Ogoni oil spill clean-up

Ogoni oil spill clean-up – The UN is said to be planning a close monitoring of the clean-up of the Ogoni oil spill in Nigeria as recommended by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in its report last week, the Guardian newspaper reported Tuesday, quoting Martin Nesirky, the spokesperson to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The paper said that the UN chief is being briefed about the details of the UNEP report, which called for the biggest oil spill clean-up ever recommended. Although Nesirky did not state what the initial reaction of the secretary-general was to the report, UN sources say the matter is high up on Ban’s agenda considering his global concern against pollution generally.

The UN sources added that the entire UN system, especially the UNEP and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), would be deployed with specific instructions to help Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and the oil companies involved, especially Shell, to conduct an acceptable clean-up that is to last several years.

The resolve of the UN to conduct an effective follow-up, according to sources, is because the UNEP report itself detailed how oil companies and the Nigerian government failed to meet their own standards, and how the stipulated process of investigation, reporting and clean-up was deeply flawed in favour of the oil firms and against the victims.

For instance, while in the US, oil spills get immediate responses in order to avert community and media uproar, in the Niger Delta of Nigeria, where there are far more incidents of pollution, response if it comes at all can take as long as months.

Besides, sources say it would take a concerted effort to ensure that local contaminated areas in Ogoni are cleaned up in as long as five years, and the heavily-impacted mangrove areas and swamplands could even take a much longer number of years  – as much as up to 30 years.

Short of an international focus and monitoring from a credible body like the UN, the cleanup may easily become a mirage, a source stated.

Equally, the report itself asked that all sources of ongoing contamination must be brought to an end before the cleanup of the creeks, sediments and mangroves can begin.

Indeed, western media outlets and non-governmental organisations have since been awash with comments on the findings of the UNEP, which has called for what is deemed as the biggest ever oil cleanup in world record.

For instance, Amnesty International while commenting on the UNEP report said “oil companies have been exploiting Nigeria’s weak regulatory system for too long.”

According to Audrey Gaughran of Amnesty International, the process of reporting and investigation of spills in Nigeria do not “adequately prevent environmental damage and they frequently fail to properly address the devastating impact that their bad practice has on people’s lives.”

Regarding follow-up measures, the UNEP report recommends establishing three new institutions in Nigeria to support a comprehensive environmental restoration.

A proposed Ogoniland Environmental Restoration Authority would oversee implementation of the study’s recommendations and should be set up during a transition phase, which UNEP suggests should begin as soon as possible.

The authority’s activities should be funded by an Environmental Restoration Fund for Ogoniland, to be set up with an initial capital injection of US$ 1 billion contributed by the oil industry and the government, to cover the first five years of the clean-up.

A recommended Integrated Contaminated Soil Management Centre, to be built in Ogoniland and supported by potentially hundreds of mini-treatment centres, would treat contaminated soil and provide hundreds of job opportunities.

The report also recommends creating a Centre of Excellence in Environmental Restoration in Ogoniland to promote learning and benefit other communities impacted by oil contamination in the Niger Delta and elsewhere in the world.

Reforms of environmental government regulation, monitoring and enforcement, and improved practices by the oil industry are also recommended in the report.

The UNEP report stated that the environmental restoration of Ogoniland oil region could prove to be the world’s most wide-ranging and long-term oil clean-up ever, if contaminated drinking water, land, creeks and other ecosystems are to be brought back to full health, according to a UN report.

The independent scientific assessment, carried out by the UNEP over a 14-month period, showed greater and deeper pollution than previously thought after an agency team examined more than 200 locations, surveyed 122 kilometres of pipeline rights of way, analyzed 4,000 soil and water samples, reviewed more than 5,000 medical records and engaged over 23,000 people at local community meetings.

Pana 09/08/2011

RELATED ARTICLE

Royal Dutch Shell has 14.40% Drop in Stock Price

Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS.B), which bottomed at $71.82 on 08/02/11, the day Congress resolved the debt crisis, has since dropped 14.4% to its most recent close of $61.48. Over the same time period the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 9.7% from 11,866 to 10,720 as of the last close.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC, through subsidiaries, explores for, produces, and refines petroleum. The Company produces fuels, chemicals, and lubricants. Shell owns and operates gasoline filling stations worldwide.

Royal Dutch Shell has overhead space with shares priced $61.48, or 40.5% below the average consensus analyst price target of $86.35. Royal Dutch Shell shares should first meet with resistance at the 200-day moving average (MA) of $69.41and find additional resistance at the 50-day MA of $70.54.

Royal Dutch Shell share prices have moved between a 52-week high of $78.81 and a 52-week low of $50.48 and are now trading 22% above that low price at $61.48 per share. Over the last five market days, the 200-day moving average (MA) has remained constant while the 50-day MA has declined 0.8%.

By Mallory Stone
mstone@fnno.com

OGONI ACTIVISTS ACCUSE SHELL OF ‘ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM’

Extracts from a Press Statement issued by the National Union of Ogoni Students, USA.

On August 04, 2011 the world had a preview of the report of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) sent to the Nigerian government after 14 months of studying the impact of Shell Oil Company’s operations in Ogoni.

The report was astonishing and confirmed the toxicology of the Ogoni environment as a result of oil exploration, pollution, spillages and negligence. The report also collaborated on genocidal claim by Ogoni people as they experience slow death resulting from oil agents like benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX), mercury, PAHs, VOC, polluted reactive gases, and metals.

Shell Oil Company has knowingly degraded the Ogoni environment and made Ogoni people live and die slowly  from pollutants, a man made poison for 55 years, while applying different operating standards in the west. This is the height of injustice and tantamount to environmental racism.

Since it is the desire of the United Nations that Ogoni and other indigenous communities should survive, we urge the UN and other western nations to come to the aid of Ogoni by compelling Nigeria to adhere to the terms of the Ogoni Bill of Rights (1990), Resolution of the Rivers State House of Assembly (1993), and the UN Report on Ogoni (1996).  We also recommend that the international community should compel Shell Oil Company to follow universal operation standards, be accountable, and accept responsibilities for 55 years of environmental devastation and degradation in Ogoniland.

BP accepted liability in the United States’ Gulf Oil Spillage in 2010 by adequate clean-up and setting-up compensation funds.

We want Shell Oil to do the same in Ogoni.

LA TIMES EDITORIAL: OIL AND THE ARCTIC MIGHT NOT MIX

A family of polar bears on the Beaufort Sea, where Shell plans to drill for oil and gas. One of the remaining obstacles for the oil company is the plan’s potential effect on polar bears in the region. (Reuters)

August 10, 2011

Shell Oil’s proposal to drill three exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope received a conditional go-ahead last week from the Obama administration even though the Interior Department has not yet approved the company’s plan for responding to a catastrophic oil spill. That plan fails to adequately address many of the harsh realities of drilling in Arctic seas. It’s too early for any approval, conditional or otherwise.

Exploratory offshore drilling in the Arctic doesn’t present the same potential for danger as, say, BP‘s offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The hazards of drilling in the Arctic are quite different and in ways worse.

Shell’s wells would be just 160 feet underwater, as opposed to the 5,000-foot depth of BP’s Deepwater Horizon well, source of the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. That, at least theoretically, would make the Arctic wells easier to cap. But there are other important differences. BP’s rig was located in generally calm waters that happen to contain oil-degrading bacteria. The gulf’s concentration of oil rigs also makes it a hub for Coast Guard rescue equipment and drilling expertise.

Shell’s response plan contends that it can clean up 95% of spilled oil, an unprecedented percentage even in much less hostile environments. But the skimmers and booms that are usually employed to clean up spills don’t work effectively in waters with large amounts of floating ice. Nor is there any guarantee that Shell would be able to get disaster equipment to the wells. Canada’s National Energy Board recently reported that on one day out of five, conditions in the Arctic, including the Beaufort Sea, are too harsh to send out spill-response teams. Meanwhile, the nearest Coast Guard station is 1,000 miles away, and the agency told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that it cannot be counted on to respond to spills off the North Slope.

Shell’s proposal must clear other hurdles before any drilling can take place. For example, the company must show other federal agencies that its activities would not harm polar bears or marine life. But the application shouldn’t have reached this point without a response plan that is realistic about the environmental dangers of seeking an energy future in the Arctic seas.

Employee safety advice to Shell ‘bean counter’, Peter Voser

COMMENTS FROM RETIRED ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP HSE AUDITOR, BILL CAMPBELL (RIGHT) RELATING TO THE ARTICLE:

HSE feared a ‘catastrophe’ at Brent C platform

Learning after the event is a recipe for Disaster

Maybe its because he is a bean counter but Peter Voser does not seem to understand that risks need to be controlled before the event – not raised to unacceptable levels where loss of containment occurs – it would seem on a regular basis – within Shell North Sea operations and elsewhere around the World in its daily activities.

In general loss of containment, or other circumstances causing flammable atmospheres to exist, when these exist concurrent with a source of ignition causing an explosion,  is the largest cause of industrial deaths and asset damage worldwide.

Containing hydrocarbon releases into the atmosphere immediately after the event is simply not good enough and from time to time your luck runs out as witnessed by Piper Alpha, Brent Bravo and Deepwater Horizon.

Containing hydrocarbon leaks after they occur especially on a remote offshore installation is akin to gambling with the lives of those you have a duty of care to protect
———————————————————————————————————–
Peter Voser as quoted said: “We have had leaks, we are learning out of them, we are containing them immediately and I think that is the way to improve in the longer term.

“Our safety record has been improving all the time, not just in the UK but also on a global basis. I think we are recognised as a leader in this field.”

“Let me be clear that safety is a key component of our thinking on how we operate our assets. We are constantly improving and we are learning,”

COMMENTS FROM A RETIRED SHELL NORTH SEA PLATFORM EXPERT

Nothing seems to change does it.  After all the exposure Shell have had to thousands of adverse comments on the TV, main line daily newspapers, Sunday newspapers , radio broadcasts, specialist Oil and Gas magazines and the regulator HSE, who have a full set of very blunt teeth, over the last 14 years still have the same approach.  Even the the Donovans collating the worldwide misdemeanours does not penetrate their armour.  Safety is our main concern!  We are committed to safety,  ad nauseum.  I think in Shell case being a member of “Big Oil” they have a huge publicity and legal departments that work 24/7 365 to prepare coverup statements and endless denials of extremely poor Operational Management across the entire  Global endeavour.  Basically they don’t care.

RELATED ARTICLES

Oil and gas spills in North Sea every week, papers reveal

Collusion between Shell and HSE in Brent Bravo cover-up

upstreamonline: HSE feared a ‘catastrophe’ at Brent C platform

The UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE) feared “catastrophic consequences” on Shell’s Brent Charlie platform because the scale of a long-running series of gas leaks meant ignition was “almost inevitable”, documents reveal.

ROB WATTS London  05 August 2011 01:39 GMT

Leaked documents and others obtained by Upstream under UK freedom of information (FoI) legislation shed further light on the complex safety problems Shell is battling on the ageing North Sea facility.

One leaked document, dated 18 July, said Shell is facing a 15,000-hour maintenance backlog on mechanical equipment. This is on top of the extensive work it is undertaking to overcome leaks of hydrocarbon gas and hydrogen sulphide — known as glugs — that have led to the shutdown of the platform and 30,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day of output.

The HSE said more staff should be devoted to reducing the maintenance backlog.

The periodic releases happen when gases build up in Brent C’s large inter-connected concrete oil and produced water storage cells on the seabed and migrate — or “glug” — into one of its legs, Column C1. These releases are contained by a gas-tight floor before a venting system diverts the gas into the atmosphere and away from the platform.

However, Shell has experienced difficulties in doing this effectively and in calm weather gas has been detected on the topsides.

Upgrades to the venting system are taking place and Shell aims to restart the platform in January 2012.

The 18 July document — sent by the HSE to Shell after an inspection on 30 and 31 May this year — also reveals that inspectors found areas of the platform suffering from severe corrosion.

Concerns that elected workforce safety representatives on Brent C have not been involved properly in reviewing options to resolve the glug problems were also raised.

The HSE told Upstream: “While some operational personnel have been involved, the level of safety reps’ involvement in reviewing the solutions to the ‘glug’ issues needs to be improved to demonstrate effective workforce involvement.”

The HSE wants Shell to focus on overcoming corrosion but added: “Corrosion will always be an issue on an installation of this age and it was evident that work was ongoing to address this, for example handrail and grating replacement.”

A document obtained under FoI rules details notes of a meeting between Shell and HSE officials at the Anglo-Dutch supermajor’s Aberdeen offices on 17 January this year, five days after gas was detected on Brent C’s topsides after a glug.

In the the papers, the HSE said: “It is considered that for releases of this scale, ignition of such a cloud is almost inevitable and that it is foreseeable that the consequences could be catastrophic.”

Oil and gas exports have been shut in since the 12 January release, with a well designed to provide feedstock for power generation shut in on 15 July, following a deferred Prohibition Notice issued by the HSE.

This followed another release on 28 June, when oil and produced water flooded into the C1 leg after pumps failed.

Shell told Upstream this week: “Our work on Brent Charlie continues to progress. Consultation with staff is a standard requirement when a safety case is updated or changed. There will be further consultation on the final format of the updated section of the safety case.

“Production will not resume until all necessary work is complete. We are currently working towards a restart date of early 2012.”

Brent Charlie, in Block 211/29 of the northern North Sea, has been producing since 1976.

•• Shell chief executive Peter Voser admitted the company he leads does “make mistakes” about safety but insists it is constantly learning from them.

“Do we make mistakes? Yes, we do make mistakes, but we learn from and we avoid them in the future,” Voser said last week.

Voser was responding to a question about UK North Sea safety during a conference call with media to discuss Shell’s second-quarter results.

He said: “We have had leaks, we are learning out of them, we are containing them immediately and I think that is the way to improve in the longer term.

“Our safety record has been improving all the time, not just in the UK but also on a global basis. I think we are recognised as a leader in this field.”

“Let me be clear that safety is a key component of our thinking on how we operate our assets. We are constantly improving and we are learning,” he said.

Published: 05 August 2011 01:39 GMT  | Last updated: 05 August 2011 04:28 GMT

MOSOP PRESIDENT REFUTES CORRUPTION ALLEGATION

By John Donovan

We have printed below an email we have received purportedly from MOSOP President Dr Goodluck Diigbo replying to corruption allegations made against him.  The”Amaechi”mentioned in the email is a reference to Chibuike Amaechi, Governor of Rivers State in Nigeria.

The email was addressed to fellow Ogonis, Austin Lemea, and refers to Patrick Naagbaaton, another Ogoni activist. We are in possession of email correspondence from both of these individuals relating to Nigerian politics, Shell and the recent UNEP report on Nigerian oil spills.

From: MOSOP President Spokesman <mosoppresidentspksmn@gmail.com>
Subject:  You can focus on more productive writing, not peddling rumors
Date: 9 August 2011 13:00:56 GMT+01:00
To: austinlemea@yahoo.com
Bcc: alfred@shellnews.net

Lemea,

You are referring to Patrick Naagbaaton’s rumor suggesting that Amaechi gave me N10 million.

It is a total falsehood.

You can focus on more productive writing, not rumor-mongering.

My interest is not in short-term goal.

I have my conscience intact.

This is an abuse of my time.

It is a distraction.

I wish you folks luck.


Dr. Goodluck Diigbo