From AFRICA ENERGY INTELLIGENCE 24 AUGUST 2011

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

By KEVIN KOENINGER

MANHATTAN (CN) – Three Nigerian widows say Shell Petroleum and its African subsidiaries conspired with each other and with Nigeria’s military government “to violate basic human rights … so as to ensure their continued enjoyment of disproportionately huge profit from very cheap oil they obtained from the Ogoniland,” a 400-square-mile section of the Niger Delta.

The widows say their husbands, members of the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), were part of “the Ogoni 9,” who were falsely accused of murdering tribal elders.

“Although none of the Ogoni 9 was near the town where the murder of the four tribal elders took place, they were convicted and sentenced to death in a trial that was widely condemned locally and internationally and resulted in the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth of Nations. The Ogoni 9 were denied appeal process and were hurriedly executed by hanging eight days after the decision in spite of national and international pleas,” the complaint states.

“The lawyers for the plaintiffs and the other Ogoni 9 were harassed, threatened and denied access to their clients and as a result most of them withdrew their representation in protest and their clients had to face the rigged tribunal themselves.”

That Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Ltd. (SPDC) “had a firm hold and control of the Nigerian government is undisputable as defendant Royal Dutch/Shell with and through defendant SPDC produces about half the oil and gas that constitute about 80 percent of Nigerian government’s annual revenue,” the complaint states.

“It is equally clear that defendants recklessly and heartlessly exploited this relationship with the Nigerian government to amass enormous annual profits at the expense of the Nigerians and the Ogoni people in particular.”

Shell began drilling in the Niger Delta in 1958, and since then “it had acquired land for oil drilling unfairly, dubiously and fraudulently from indigenes and built pipelines across the farmland and through the yards and in front of the homes of indigenes thereby … exposing the indigenes to heightened daily danger,” according to the complaint.

“Hydrocarbon pollution found in water in Ogoniland is reported to be more than sixty times of that allowed in the U.S. and a[t] 360 times the limit in the European community.”

The complaint adds: “The conspiracy that exist[s] among defendants and between defendants and the Nigerian government make it possible for defendant SPDC to hijack for the exploration and extraction of oil and gas, very scarce land from the indigenes of Ogoni communities and pay the indigenes sums that are far below value of the land.

“The defendants in step with the Nigerian government orchestrates a repressive and hopeless atmosphere in the Ogoniland and makes the prospect of meaningful living and subsistence in the Ogoniland impossible and as a result undermined the value of all that is of the Ogonis and their otherwise scarce and very valuable real estate.”

Since MOSOP was organized in the early 1990′s, Shell has used the mobile police, “the paramilitary branch of the Nigerian police … commonly referred to as ‘kill and go’ for their reputation of killing innocent people and walking away” to quell protests, the widows say.

The Ogoni people suffered repeated attacks in 1993, including one “against Ogoni villages near the Andoni border by armed troops who usually operated in boats belonging to Shell and Chevron … [in which] over one thousand (1,000) villagers were killed and twenty thousand (25,000) [sic] rendered homeless,” according to the complaint.

It adds: “As SPDC intensified its attacks with the help of Nigerian Security Forces against Ogoni communities, SPDC coordinated [a] media campaign by Royal Dutch/Shell that denigrates and attempts to discredit MOSOP leaders by blaming MOSOP and its leaders for the heinous crimes committed in Ogoniland.”

The vilification of the plaintiffs included pinning the killing of four Ogoni tribal elders on them in May 1994, leading to their arrest, torture and “obtaining false testimonies by bribing at least two witnesses to implicate MOSOP leadership … and having the Nigerian Military Government falsely charging the MOSOP leaders for murder,” the complaint states.

After their husbands were executed, the widows say, “two or more of the witnesses that testified at the trial against the MOSOP leaders later admitted in the presence of Shell’s attorney that Shell and the Nigerian Military junta bribed them to give false testimonies with promises of money and jobs at Shell.”

The widows say the attack on the elders was actually carried out by Lt. Col. Paul Okutimo, who was seen days before the murder “receiving seven large bags of money … that … were so heavy that one of them fell, broke open and [spilled] bundles of money … all over the ground.”

The plaintiffs, suing as individuals and as administrators of their husbands’ estates, seek compensatory and punitive damages for RICO violations, human rights violations, emotional distress, conspiracy, assault, torture and wrongful death.

The widows – Victoria Bera, Blessing Nkem Nordu Eawo and Vureka Charity Paul Levula – are represented by Francis Kadiri and Alaba Rufai.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Printed below are several recent articles from Nigerian publications containing allegations of corruption relating to the Shell Malabu 9 billion barrel oil block deal.

By Jerome Mwanda
IDN-InDepth NewsReport

NAIROBI (IDN) – “We help to meet the world’s growing energy needs in economically, environmentally and socially responsible ways,” claims the oil giant Shell on its website. But a new report avers that it has been doing just the opposite: triggering devastating oil spills, indulging in the illegal practice of gas flaring, and crassly violating human rights in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria by paying money and awarding contracts to armed militants.

A new report titled ‘Counting the Cost,’ implicates Shell in cases of serious violence in Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta region from 2000 to 2010, detailing how Shell’s routine payments to armed militants exacerbated conflicts and led to the destruction of Rumuekpe town.

The report published in London by a coalition of local and international non-governmental (NGO) organisations, led by the London based NGO, the Platform, comes within a few weeks of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) publicising its findings that looked into the ecological impact of oil spills in Ogoni.

UNEP found that Shell has fallen below its operating standards and covered up the full extent of its pollution. It recommended an initial fund of $1 billion to start the clean-up process in Ogoni. The full cost of cleaning oil spills in the Niger Delta is, however, estimated to be up to 500 times higher.

The report by the NGO Platform accuses Shell – with headquarters in the Dutch capital, The Hague – of collaborating with the state in the execution in 1995 of writer, Ken Saro-Wiwa and other leaders of the Ogoni tribe.

The coalition backing the report includes Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Milieudefensie, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, Social Action, Spinwatch and Stakeholder Democracy Network.

According to the Nigerian Tribune, Shell was said to have paid $15.5 million to the eight families in settlement, and key documents implicating it never saw the light of day during the trial.

Shell has, however, disputed the report, defending its human rights record and questioning the accuracy of the evidence, while pledging to study the recommendations, according to its London office, the Nigerian Tribune reported.

Key findings of the report include testimonies of contracts that implicated Shell in regularly assisting armed militants with lucrative payments, such as an alleged transfer of over $159,000 to a group credibly linked to militia violence in late 2010.

Shell was also alleged to have, from 2006 onwards, paid thousands of dollars every month to armed militants in the town of Rumuekpe, in the full knowledge that the money was used to sustain three years of conflict.

One gang member, Chukwu Azikwe, told the NGO Platform, the newspaper adds, that “we were given money and that is the money we were using to buy ammunition, to buy this bullet, and every other thing to eat and to sustain the war,” adding that his gang and its leader, S. K. Agala, had vandalised Shell pipelines.

Ransom

“They will pay ransom. Some of them in the management will bring out money, dole out money into this place, in cash,” he said.

Platform alleged that in Rumuekpe, “the main artery of Shell’s eastern operations in Rivers State,” Shell distributed “community development” funds and contracts via Friday Edu, a youth leader and Shell community liaison officer.

By 2005, Edu’s monopoly over the resources of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) was reported to have sparked a leadership tussle with Agala’s group, with the latter reportedly forced out of the community and a number of people killed.

The allegations, according to Platform, were largely substantiated by a Shell official, adding that a manager with Shell confirmed that in 2006, one of the most violent years, Shell awarded six types of contract in Rumuekpe, says the newspaper.

Rumuekpe is just one of several case studies examined by the report, which alleged that in 2009 and 2010, security personnel guarding Shell facilities were responsible for extra-judicial killings and torture in Ogoniland.

In the meantime, a Nigerian environmental activist, Sunny Ofehe, standing trial in The Netherlands for alleged plot to bomb pipelines in the Niger Delta, has cried out, saying “I am not a terrorist or suicide bomber.”

In an e-mail made available to the Nigerian Tribune, Ofehe, who is also the founder of Hope for Niger Delta Campaign, said his travail was traceable to the parliamentary testimonies he gave at the Dutch parliament about degradation of Niger Delta environment by Shell Oil and other oil majors.

“I have been campaigning against environmental devastation of our people’s environment for many years and testified at the Dutch Parliament against Shell in a parliamentary hearing, where Shell was summoned to defend its practice in the region,” he said.

Less than a month after the hearing, he added, “a team of about 30 policemen came to my house and arrested me on trumped-up charges and I was detained for 14 days before being released, but remained a suspect; when they could not establish a case against me, they came up with a new charge of conspiracy to commit terror act by blowing oil pipelines” belonging to Shell in the Niger Delta.

“I became the first person to be charged under this law since it came into effect in 2004. I appeared in court for the first time on September 5 and we now have a new hearing date of December 5, 2011,” the Nigerian Tribune quoted Ofehe saying.

Global Implications

The report finds that:

- Shell’s close relationship with the Nigerian military exposes the company to charges of complicity in the systematic killing and torture of local residents.

- Testimony and contracts seen by Platform implicate Shell in regularly assisting armed militants with lucrative payments. In one case from 2010, Shell is alleged to have transferred over $159,000 to a group credibly linked to militia violence.

- Shell’s poor community engagement has provided the “catalyst” for major disruption, including one incident that shut down a third of Shell’s daily oil production in August 2011.

- In the absence of proper supervision and controls, Shell contractors, including multinationals like Halliburton, Daewoo and Saipem, have replicated many of Shell’s mistakes.

“Shell’s conduct in the Delta has local and global implications. Basic company errors have exacerbated violent conflicts in which entire communities have been destroyed. Billions have been lost in revenues to the government and oil companies, sending shockwaves through the global economy,” says the report.

These are not new phenomena, it adds. In 2003, a leaked internal report denounced Shell for its active involvement in the Delta conflict. Then, as now, Shell pledged to improve. But NGO Platform’s report finds that Shell has not taken the necessary steps to de-militarise its operations in the Delta, resolve long-standing grievances and respect the human rights of local communities.

The eight cases in this report are the thin end of the wedge. Many further cases of human rights abuse are associated with Shell’s operations in the western, central and outer Delta regions, as well as with Chevron, Eni and other oil companies and private military and security contractors (PMSCs), says the report.

Platform visited the Niger Delta in September to October 2010 and conducted over 50 interviews with women, ‘youth’, elders, community leaders, ex-militants and human rights defenders. Platform interviewed the families, victims, witnesses and perpetrators of human rights abuses, oil company employees, contractors and academic experts. Due to the risk of reprisals, Platform has changed or withheld the names of some informants.

Where available, hospital records, contracts, court documents, photographic evidence and other forms of documentation have been relied on. Media articles, academic publications, company records and NGO reports have also been used for reference.

The report points out that in a country where access to justice is denied to many, moments of accountability are rare. But on two recent occasions Shell’s operations in Nigeria have been the subject of international scrutiny, raising legal, financial and reputational risks for the company.

On June 8, 2009, Shell settled a landmark U.S. lawsuit brought by nine plaintiffs from the minority Ogoni region of the Niger Delta. The case accused Shell of colluding with government forces in crimes against humanity and gross human rights abuses, including the execution of writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists on November 10, 1995. The Wiwa v Shell lawsuit cost the company more than the $15.5 million settlement it eventually paid out. Shell’s reputation and brand, valued at $3.3 billion in 2008, suffered substantially. [IDN-InDepthNews - November 8, 2011]

Picture: Shell Nigeria | Credit: priceofoil.org

2011 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters

Send your comment

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook:
http://twitter.com/InDepthNews
http://www.facebook.com/pages/IDN-InDepthNews/207395499271390?sk=wall

SOURCE ARTICLE

IDN-InDepthNews offers news analyses and viewpoints on topics that impact the world and its peoples.

IDN-InDepthNews serves as flagship of GlobalNewsHub – the media network of the Globalom Media Group and Global Cooperation Council.

The Globalom Media Group is an information, communication and publishing agency committed to social and ethical responsibility. Its publications include online and print magazines such as the Global Perspectives magazine for international cooperation, the South Asian Outlook independent e-Monthly, The Global South independent e-Journal for global interdependence and the Development Watch monitor for international cooperation.

By John Donovan

It is interesting to read the current articles (1) (2) from the Brunei Times highlighted by a contributor to our Shell Blog. They concern allegations of irregularities in a Shell tender process.

Some years ago I stumbled across evidence in Shell’s own internal documents of a rigged contract tender process involving several Shell executives, led by Andrew Lazenby, a then Shell National Promotions executive. I was in the process of suing Shell in the High Court for the fourth time (Shell had already settled the first three cases) when I found the amazing array of evidence in discovery documents supplied by Shell. All of the cases involved the same Shell executive, Andrew Lazenby. All involved IP theft by Shell. The company settled all four claims and paid all legal costs, said to be over a £1 million in respect of the last case.

Lazenby was also a bungler. Two of the promotions secretly produced by Shell without our knowledge or consent and launched by Shell on a national basis, were potentially fatally flawed due to being insecure. Shell staff could potentially identify and remove winning game pieces before they were given out to drivers on Shell forecourts.

THE SHELL SMART CONTRACT TENDER SCAM

PDF file containing selective extracts from cross-examination of retired Shell Executive Frank Leggatt regarding a rigged contract tender for the SMART scheme masterminded by Shell executive Andrew Lazenby, in a conspiracy involving several Shell managers, some of whom still hold senior positions at Shell. The objective was to steal information from several companies lured into confidentiality agreements under false pretenses.

Witness Statement of Mike McMahon, the CEO of one such company, Concept Loyalty Limited.

*RELATED APPROACH LETTER TO Mr McMahon dated 19 March 1999 DETAILING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOUND IN SHELL’S MOUNTAIN OF “DISCOVERY” DOCUMENTS

*Includes examples of two items listed in the letter: (1) a handwritten note dated 23 October 1992 by Shell Manager Andrew Lazenby circulated to his management colleagues notifying them of his intention to deceive companies in the tendering process for the multimillion pounds SMART scheme by keeping them holding as long as possible when in fact he had already decided to reject them (2) a standard letter dated 27 October 1992 subsequently sent by him to Mr McMahon (and other “rejects”) pretending they were ALL still in contention. Lazenby requested considerably more information on the false premise that they were still in the running for a multi-million pounds contract. This caused considerable time and expense to be incurred by all the “reject” companies involved. They were enticed into supplying Shell with commercially valuable information. It was a carefully planned con trick on the part of Shell management.

On the same date, 27 October 1992, Mr Lazenby sent letters to the two companies he had short listed – the sole runners left in the race as Mr McMahon put it, Geoff Howe & Associates and Senior King Limited. Lazenby requested more information from them before ultimately awarding the contract to “Option One”, a company which was NOT IN THE TENDERING PROCESS or as Mr McMahon described it, a horse which was not even running in the race.

Option One was the same company to whom Andrew Lazenby funneled all of our confidential proposals – he had a close personal relationship with Option One directors outside of business activities.

In a Typewritten confidential “SHORTLIST SELECTION RATIONAL” dated 28 October 1992 circulated by Andrew Lazenby to his managerial colleagues, Tim Hannagan and David Watson (both still at Shell), Lazenby provided a “Listing of reasons for rejection” as per his handwritten note of 23 October 1992. It is further proof of double dealing with Lazenby rubbishing the four companies who he had decided to reject, but had written to the previous day pretending otherwise, to “keep rejects holding as long as poss” as per the same handwritten note.

In his Witness Statement, Tim Hannagan confirmed the shortlist process, with what Hannagan described as “the players” being first listed, then “narrowed down” to a shortlist of six, then two, before the remaining “players” were also rejected in favour of Option One, the company enjoying a special relationship with Andrew Lazenby which, was never a participant in the tender. It is notable that in his Witness Statement, Hannagan tried to distance himself from the actions of Andrew Lazenby. He should have disassociated himself at the time from the rigged process.

Several months later, Lazenby was still conspiring with his immediate boss, David Watson, on how to keep Mike McMahon and his company holding on. This is self-evident from a draft letter addressed to Mike McMahon dated 4 May 1993, which Lazenby sent to David Watson (“DW”) for comment, prior to it being mailed. It contained suggested amendments and an additional clause. Lazenby asked McMahon to put Shell in “as the exclusive petrol retailer” in “your smardcard loyalty scheme”. Lazenby stated that “Final commitment” would depend on positive results after extensive consumer testing. The implication being that a commitment had been made, but not a “Final commitment.”

McMahon and his company must have been overjoyed at the news, but were unaware that on the same day, 4 May 1993, Lazenby also sent an email to several Shell colleagues, including David Watson, discussing the sharing out of roles on the “blossoming” Shell SMART project. Shell had not the slightest genuine intention of moving forward with the scheme offered by McMahon. In the email to his Shell colleagues, Lazenby described himself as “machiavellian.”

Some definitions of “machiavellian”:“cunning and unscrupulous: using clever trickery, amoral methods, and expediency to achieve a desired goal”; “Suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit, and cunning.“; “using clever but often dishonest methods which deceive people..”:

Some synonyms: plotting; deceitful; sly; cunning; calculating; insidious; unscrupulous; wily; underhanded; contriving; artful; devious

How apt and appropriate given the circumstances.

Lazenby and his colleagues deliberately conned innocent smaller companies to invest time and money and disclose proprietary information, all under false pretenses, after the decision had already been made not to use them.

The mind set of Lazenby is evident from an incriminating email relating to the Shell SMART multi-partner loyalty card project which he circulated to Shell managerial colleagues.

Extract: “NB: To answer your last point: My note of 25/10 is the official position, my note of 9/9 expressed a personal and pragmatic view of how to handle the problem - it is in fact illegal and is certainly unofficial, and if we were discovered then we will enforce the official legal position - which is that all volume must currently be rewarded with promotional points”.

Companies in a tender process for a SMART loyalty card contract were deliberately drawn into confidentiality agreements supplied by Pamela Marsh who worked for Richard Wiseman in the legal department. Proprietary information was extracted from the companies under false pretenses and they were held back from approaching other oil companies in the belief they were still in the running for the SMART contract, when in fact, the decision had already been made to reject them from the tender.

The Smart contract was miraculously awarded to an agency – Option One – which I stress again had not even run in the contract race. As indicated, Lazenby had a close private relationship with senior directors of Option One. His diaries revealed that he also had an offshore bank account in the Channel Islands (Jersey). As far as we could tell, all confidential ideas disclosed to Lazenby and subsequently adopted by Shell were channeled to Option One. This included a series of proposals we put to Lazenby including a rerun of the Shell Make Money game we had devised for Shell and held joint rights with Shell.

Never guessing that his hand-written diary entries would be exposed to scrutiny in a High Court case, Lazenby made entries which revealed that he was a disgruntled employee and was intent to “Set up personal business while @ Shell 35 yrs = exit date.” It was his apparent objective to exploit his position to create enough personal wealth to exit Shell at the age of 35.

Despite his lack of integrity, Andrew Lazenby was given full backing from the highest levels of Royal Dutch Shell senior management, including Malcolm Brinded and Mark Moody-Stuart, even though the evidence of his conniving and unscrupulous predatory treatment of smaller companies was brought to their attention.

That should tell you all you need to know about Shell senior management support for Shell’s claimed business principles, which supposedly includes honesty, integrity, transparency, and respect for people, in all of Shell’s dealings. Pure propaganda BS in our experience.

Detailed information about the SMART contract scam is contained in the article ALARM BELLS RING OVER TENDERING FOR ROYAL DUTCH SHELL CONTRACTS

17 October 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it will use a dispute between Nigerian villagers and oil giant Royal Dutch Shell to decide whether corporations may be held liable in U.S. courts for alleged human rights abuses overseas.

The justices said Monday they will review a federal appeals court ruling in favor of Shell. The case centers on the 222-year-old Alien Tort Statute that has been increasingly used in recent years to sue corporations for alleged abuses abroad.

The villagers argue Shell was complicit in torture and other crimes against humanity in the country’s oil-rich Ogoni region in the Niger Delta.

A divided panel of federal appeals court judges in New York said the 18th century law may not be used against corporations. More recently, appellate judges in Washington said it could.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

ADDED BY JOHN DONOVAN: SHELL IN NIGERIA

Shell’s horrendous track record in Nigeria includes embedding spies in the Nigerian government; paying rival militant gangs; engaging in corruption (not only in Nigeria); arming police spies; using a private spy firm (Hakluyt) partly owned and controlled by Shell directors, to infiltrate Nigerian activists (friends of Ken Saro-Wiwa) and linking Shell with murder and human rights abuses which are the subject of the above case. Questions inevitably arise about financial linkage to Shell of the militants responsible for the repeated attacks against Shell pipelines and infrastructure over many years, which has driven up the cost of oil. Shell has such a shameful record in Nigeria, including plunder and pollution on an epic scale, that it has even considered ditching the Shell global brand name. Such a radical move would also distance the company from its Nazi past.

Transparency International

10 October 2011

In the wake of serious bribery allegations involving GPT, the UK subsidiary of European defence company EADS, and the Saudi Royal family, Transparency International UK is calling on the Government to support a full investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

The Attorney General is reportedly deliberating over whether the SFO should continue to investigate allegations that GPT made illicit payments to the Saudi Royal family in order to secure a contract worth £2 billion.

The Attorney General’s decision will face a high level of international scrutiny because the UK’s anti-corruption record is currently under review by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OECD. Under Article 5 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, to which the UK is a party, a state cannot allow political, economic or diplomatic considerations to interfere with the investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery cases. This echoes the BAE Systems case in 2006, when the Blair government caused an international outcry by forcing the SFO to drop an investigation into allegations of bribery in the Al Yamamah UK-Saudi defence contract.

Chandrashekhar Krishnan, Executive Director of Transparency International UK said “Under no circumstance should the UK allow political, economic or diplomatic considerations to affect the course of justice. If the SFO believe they have a strong case, it is vital that they are allowed to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute without political interference.

“We would expect EADS, as leading members of the international defence industry’s own anti-corruption initiatives such as the Common Industry Standards for Anti-Corruption and IFBEC, to cooperate with the SFO and undertake a thorough internal investigation into these allegations.

“The UK’s anti-corruption performance is currently under international scrutiny and the Government’s decision will be closely watched by any corrupt company and government overseas looking for an excuse to continue business as usual. It is imperative that the Government sticks by the international rules and ensures this investigation goes ahead.”

Notes

1. It has been reported that the Serious Fraud Office opened an investigation into GPT, a British subsidiary of EADS, after a whistle-blower alerted them to a payment of £11.5 million made to a Swiss bank account controlled by a member of the Saudi Royal family.
2. The Attorney General has reportedly been briefed and must now decide whether or not to allow a prosecution to proceed.
3. Transparency International UK [registered charity no.1112842] is the UK chapter of the world’s leading non-governmental anti-corruption organisation. With more than 90 chapters worldwide, Transparency International has extensive global expertise and understanding of corruption.
4. Transparency International UK’s Defence and Security Programme helps to build integrity and reduce corruption in defence and security establishments worldwide through supporting counter corruption reform in nations, raising integrity in arms transfers, and influencing policy in defence and security:www.ti-defence.org Transparency International UK is part of the global movement against corruption: www.transparency.org.uk

###

For more information, please contact Rachel Davies on 020 79227967/ 07411 347754 or Maria Gili on 020 79227974

www.transparency.org.uk

SOURCE

Related information: SHELL CONNECTION WITH THE SAUDI ARABIA / AL YAMAMAH BAE ARMS SCANDAL

By John Donovan

We have been reporting for some time about Shell skullduggery in Nigeria, including:

• Shell’s sinister commercial relationship with militant leaders carrying out attacks against Shell employees and pipelines
• arming Nigerian police spies
• embedding Shell spies throughout the Nigerian government
• engaging in massive corruption

Our sources have included Wiki-leaks, a senior manager inside Shell Nigeria and a senior member of Shell Global Security.

Some related articles reporting on Shell’s shameful track record in Nigeria:

*ROYAL DUTCH SHELL NIGERIAN CORRUPTION SCANDAL
*WIKILEAKS: SHELL EMBEDDED SPIES IN NIGERIAN GOV
*Shell embedded spies in governments of Nigeria, Dubai and Iraq
*PDF ORIGINAL ARTICLE SHELL EMBEDDED SPIES IN NIGERIA
*SHELL SETTLES CLAIM FOR MURDER & TORTURE IN NIGERIA
*SHELL COMPLICITY IN NIGERIAN MURDER OF CIVILIANS
*UNLOVEABLE SHELL, THE GODDESS OF OIL
*CLEAN-UP FOR NIGER DELTA AND SHELL’S REPUTATION
*SHELL PAYS $10 MILLION CORRUPTION FINE TO NIGERIANS
*SHELL ACCEPTS LIABILITY FOR TWO OIL SPILLS IN NIGERIA

A recent Guardian article confirmed from its own sources our long standing allegation that Shell has fuelled violence in Nigeria by paying rival militant gangs.

It is interesting in the light of this confirmation to reflect on past events.

For example, an article published by Bloomberg in November 2008 under the headline:

“Nigerian Oil Pipe Fire Extinguished, 6 Workers Died, Shell Says“

The article mentions that “Nigerian oil production rate has suffered this year from militant attacks and oil theft“, thereby implying that the fire – the cause of which was unknown – may have resulted from sabotage by militants.

If this was the case, were the militants paid by Shell, bearing in mind that militant attacks were driving up the global price of oil, fortuitously generating billions of dollars in extra revenue for Shell?

Was Shell responsible for the deaths of its own employees?

Graphics from the Guardian article: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil

By John Donovan

Monday, 3 October 2011

Shell fueled human rights abuses in Nigeria by paying huge contracts to armed militants, according to a new report published today by Platform and a coalition of NGOs and featured in The Guardian.

This evening we received an email of thanks from Ben Amunwa of platformlondon.org. Ben is the author of the 41 page report called Counting the Cost, which uncovers how Shell’s routine payments to armed militants exacerbated conflicts, in one case leading to the destruction of Rumuekpe town where it is estimated that at least 60 people were killed.

Shell also continues to rely on Nigerian government forces who have perpetrated systematic human rights abuses against local residents, including unlawful killings, torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

What writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa dubbed the “slick alliance” between oil multinationals and the Nigerian military is alive and harmful as ever. Shell’s operations remain inextricably linked to human rights violations committed by government forces. The Nigerian government, driven to keep oil revenues flowing and working in close partnership with oil multinationals, has heavily militarised the Delta. Shell alone has hired over 1,300 government forces as armed guards. For communities, the impacts have been devastating and are in addition to ongoing environmental damage from oil spills and gas flaring.

Commenting on the report, Nnimmo Bassey of Friends of the Earth International said: “Shell’s obligations are clear: it must clean up after decades of devastating oil spills, end the illegal practice of gas flaring and compensate the victims of human rights abuses in Nigeria. It is unacceptable that Shell continues to deny responsibility, while pushing communities deeper into poverty and fuelling destructive conflicts.”

“Shell’s divisive practices have led to daily human rights violations in the Niger Delta,” added Geert Ritsema from Friends of the Earth Netherlands. “Many of the victims have no access to justice and cannot afford to take the oil giant to court. Lawsuits in Nigeria can take decades to resolve and the remedies are often inadequate. Yet Shell must be held accountable for its environmental destruction and complicity in human rights abuses in Nigeria, and home governments like the UK and Netherlands must ensure that remedies are available and accessible to the victims.”

Interviews with Ben Amunwa and the former Royal Dutch Shell Group Chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, will be aired during a related feature on the BBC World Service “Business Daily” at 8.30am tomorrow, Tuesday 4 October.

I have been reporting on these disturbing matters since 2007 e.g. Is Shell skulduggery in Nigeria pumping up global oil prices?: 18 July 2007. The astonishing revelations in my article came from a high level manager inside Shell Nigeria.

Mon Oct 3, 2011 6:39pm BST

* Shell funded clashing armed gangs – watchdog report

* Oil major denies it caused any human rights abuses

* Company is selling off Nigerian oil blocks

By Joe Brock

ABUJA, Oct 3 (Reuters) – An industry watchdog accused Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) on Monday of funding armed gangs in Nigeria and said this had fuelled human rights abuses in Africa’s most populous nation.

The company, the biggest operator in the West African nation’s oil industry, denied the allegations.

Platform, a London-based non-government organisation monitoring the oil and gas industry, said in a 75-page report that the Anglo-Dutch major paid government forces who have attacked, tortured and killed Nigerians living in the creeks and swamplands of the Niger Delta.

“Basic company errors have exacerbated violent conflicts in which entire communities have been destroyed. Billions have been lost in revenues to the government and oil companies, sending shock waves through the global economy,” the report said.

“While primary responsibility for human rights violations falls on the Nigerian government and other perpetrators, Shell has played an active role in fuelling conflict and violence in a variety of forms,” Platform said.

It says Shell regularly assisted armed militants, in one case in 2010 transferring over $159,000 to a group credibly linked to militia violence. The report says Shell sided with clashing gangs, picking the more powerful group to help protect its oil infrastructure.

Shell denied the allegations, saying it respects human rights wherever it works but acknowledged that sometimes its actions caused tensions between communities in Nigeria.

The company said it would look into recommendations made in the Platform report.

“We have long acknowledged that the legitimate payments we make to contractors, as well as the social investments we make in the Niger Delta region, may cause friction in and between communities. We nevertheless work hard to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits of our presence,” Shell said in a statement in response to the report.

“In view of the high rate of criminal violence in the Niger Delta, the Federal Government, as majority owner of oil facilities, deploys Government Security Forces to protect people and assets. Suggestions in the report that SPDC (The Shell Petroleum Development Company) directs or controls military activities are therefore completely untrue.”

UN REPORT

The Niger Delta is a vast wetlands region in southern Nigeria where thousands of kilometres of waterways and creeks vein through communities where many live on less than $2 a day, despite the wealth beneath their feet.

Militant groups have carried out widespread attacks on oil infrastructure in recent years, at their peak in 2006 cutting out more than a third of the OPEC member’s oil production.

An amnesty in 2009 saw thousands of militants lay down their weapons and major sabotage strikes have been limited since, although community grievances still prompt unrest.

A United Nations paper earlier this year was critical of the widespread pollution Shell causes, and does not clear up in the Niger Delta.

Shell and other foreign oil firms operating in Africa’s largest oil and gas industry say the majority of oil spills are caused by sabotage or oil theft. Both the Nigerian government and Shell are investigating the U.N. oil spill evidence.

The company recently admitted liability for oil spills in the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta and faces damages which experts believe could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Shell has been operating in Nigeria longer than any other foreign oil company but it is in the process of selling four onshore oil blocks and has said it is not looking to expand its business in the country.

(Editing by James Jukwey)

SOURCE ARTICLE