Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts under ‘Environment’

OGONI HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH BUREAU INAUGURATED

Human Rights Watch Bureau Director – Chief Superintendent of Police, Chief Yaesu Neebee.

As part of a broader civil society mechanism to protect and defend every Ogoni person – child, man and woman against doctrines, policies and practices that infringe human rights and fundamental freedoms in Nigeria, MOSOP President/Spokesman, Dr. Goodluck Diigbo today February 3, 2012 inaugurated the Ogoni Human Rights Watch Bureau in Bori, Ogoni.

Headed by a retired Chief Superintendent of the Nigeria Police Force, Chief Yaesu Neebee as Bureau Director, and assisted by a retired Assistant Superintendent of Nigeria Police, ASP Lucky Nuataa, the body collaborating with two law firms in Nigeria, is to independently document human rights situation at the village or city level in a fair, impartial and competent manner.

Already, 17 city representatives have been recruited by MOSOP secretariat to coordinate activities at village level as grassroots monitors, while each village or city has 14 days to set up a grassroots center.

Former Chair Person of the 2010 Ogoni Referendum Committee, Ms. Christiana Nwiko is to serve as secretary of the Human Rights Bureau.

An oversight body – Ogoni Human Rights Board headed by Pastor Nelson Diginee, an experience activist minister is to work with representatives of Council of Ogoni Churches, Federation of Ogoni Women Association, National Youth Council of Ogoni, Council of Ogoni Traditional Rulers Association and the Ogoni Farmers Council as members. Other board members include representatives of the Ogoni Teachers Union and the Ogoni Technical
Association.

A number of Ogoni lawyers with offices in Ogoni and one law firm in Port Harcourt are to jointly provide pro-bono services. The Board is open to cooperation with other human rights institutions and groups in the effort to initiate follow-up measures on actionable reports presented by the Bureau.

The Bureau will cover all human rights issues and cooperate with MOSOP Peace and Security Council to end illegal and random land survey by Nigerian armed security forces.

In his message, Diigbo charged the body to act without fear or favor, and appealed to institutions and organizations, domestic and international that are genuinely interested in supporting human rights work in Ogoni to liaise with the Ogoni Human Rights Watch Bureau since it is a grassroots oriented body.

The Bureau Director, Retired CSP Neebee is a dedicated Community leader, and currently, a member of Gbam Bo-Ue Community Chiefs and Elders Peace Council in the Babbe Kingdom of Ogoni.

While in the Nigeria Police Force, he had served in many capacities, including as a trainer for International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on Human Rights in professional Policing Concepts, a lecturer and directing staff at the Police Training School, Nonwa in Rivers State.

He attended train-the-trainer course at the Central Planning and Training Unit Staff College, Jos. He was appointed to serve as the police officer in charge of Human Rights in Eleme Division in Rivers State, where he introduced enforcement of human rights as part of policing duties.

In his new role, CSP Neebee also has responsibility to plan and implement train-the-trainers programme for grassroots human rights assistants and build a respectful relationship between the Ogoni people and the security forces in matters concerning human rights.

The Human Rights Watch Bureau is a significant aspect of continual effort to structure and build institutions for Ogoni Central Indigenous Authority (OCIA).

Hon. Dum Ade John Budam

MOSOP Secretary General


Europe is too emotional about fracking, says Shell chief

Tom Bawden: Friday 03 February 2012

Shell’s chief executive, Peter Voser, called on Europe for a less “emotional” response to fracking, as he outlined plans to accelerate the oil giant’s use of the controversial technology used to release hydrocarbons from rocks.

Mr Voser said Shell would invest $6bn (£3.8bn) to appraise, explore and develop gas and oil reserves contained in rocks this year, as it looked to significantly expand the volume of hydrocarbons it produces.

About $3bn of the total will be invested developing sites in North America, which contain gas in shale and other rocks that is released by blasting a mixture of water, chemicals and sand into them at high pressure.

“I think it’s a very emotional discussion in Europe, it’s not very factual. We need to get back to analysis … . They should not take fast and emotional decisions,” Mr Voser said.

Fracking has been steadily gaining momentum in the US in the past decade, dramatically reducing gas prices but generating a stream of accusations that it contaminates groundwater supplies.

Gas and oil companies are now turning their attention to Europe, where the industry is just starting out. In the UK, the sole fracking site, near Blackpool, has been closed for the past few months, pending a government review of the practice, after it was found to have caused earthquakes in the area.

Although Shell does not currently frack for oil or gas in the rocks of Europe and is focusing most of its attention on North America, it has acquired “acreage” in Germany, the Ukraine and Turkey.

Mr Voser said he does not expect fracking in Europe to become anything like as big as in North America, in part because the continent is more densely populated.

Mr Voser was speaking after Shell announced a 34 per cent jump in profits for 2011 to $28.6bn (£18.1bn) as high oil prices helped to push up sales by 28 per cent to $470.1bn.

PA

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED REUTERS ARTICLE

Avoiding fracking earthquakes: expensive venture

By Edward McAllister

NEW YORK | Tue Jan 3, 2012 6:50pm EST

(Reuters) – With mounting evidence linking hundreds of small earthquakes from Oklahoma to Ohio to the energy industry’s growing use of fracking technology, scientists say there is one way to minimize risks of even minor temblors.

Only, it costs about $10 million a pop.

FULL REUTERS ARTICLE

Never Say Never Again

John

An incomplete but nonetheless informative summary of historic catastrophic offshore events…might be of interest to your readers…

LINK TO FILE: NeverSayNeverAgain

Rivers without water

“No Shell person or NNPC has come here in respect of the report. But as I talk to you, they are drilling. The same Nigerian Army and police that are supposed to protect the Nigerian people will carry them to go and put more benzene (into the environment). If we take laws into our hands, you hear (restiveness) and violence.” The accusations have been put before Shell in an email for weeks, but the company did not respond.

Click to continue reading “Rivers without water”

Canadian firm Osisko halts Argentina mining project

John

Interesting that a Canadian company in Argentina is apparently far more responsive to local pressure than Shell in Canada, Ireland, Nigeria….

If Shell had taken a similar approach to Osisko, development of tar sands, Corrib, and shales would never have occurred. Perhaps Shell could learn something here?

(ARTICLE AND COMMENT SUPPLIED BY A REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR)

1 February 2012

Canadian mining company Osisko has suspended a gold mining project in Argentina after protests by locals.

Osisko said it would put its operation in north-western La Rioja province on hold if it did not get the backing of the local population.

Hundreds of people protested at the Canadian embassy in Buenos Aires last week, saying that the Famatina project would pollute the environment.

Osisko says it conducts environmentally responsible exploration.

Local residents, supported by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, had been holding a series of protests against the project.

Vocal opposition

On 2 January they barricaded the main road leading to the site, a blockade which still remains in place.

On Thursday, demonstrators marched on the governor’s office in La Rioja, demanding that Governor Luis Beder Herrera heed their demands to stop the project, or resign.

And on Friday, a delegation travelled to the Canadian embassy in Buenos Aires to make its opposition to the project known.

The protesters say mining of the Famatina mountain would require a million litres of water a day and the use of cyanide to extract precious metals.

Osisko said Famatina was still only an exploration project, with “no current plan, design or intent for any mining operations”.

The company said that the development of the mine was still highly hypothetical, since little was known about the amount, quality and location of its mineral resources.

In a statement published on its website, Osisko said it would prepare an information and consultation programme about the project.

It said that if “there was no social license for exploration and development around the Famatina project area, no work would be conducted”.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Call for Norwegian Government Pension Fund disinvestment in Shell

An eminent group of scientists and professionals have sent a collective communication to the Norwegian Government Pension Fund recommending disinvestment in the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell on ethical grounds.

By John Donovan

An eminent group of scientists and professionals have sent a collective communication to the Norwegian Government Pension Fund recommending disinvestment in the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell on ethical grounds.

The pension fund has already dis-invested in several mining and forestry companies “known to cause severe environmental and human rights related harm in their operations.”

If the campaign is successful, which focuses on Shell’s horrendous track record in Nigeria, Royal Dutch Shell would be the first oil and gas company the fund would exclude from its portfolio.

The joint recommendation, sent last Friday, is printed below.

January 27, 2012                                          via email: postmottak@etikkradet.no

Professor dr. juris Ola Mestad, Chairman
Council on Ethics
Norway Government Pension Fund
Etikkrådet for Statens pensjonsfond utland
Postboks 8008 Dep
0030 Oslo, Norway

RE: Recommendation that the Norway Pension Fund exclude holdings in Royal Dutch Shell due to the severe environmental and social harm caused by Shell’s long-term negligence in the Niger Delta, Nigeria

Dear Chairman Mestad,

We, the undersigned conservation scientists and professionals from around the world, write to you today asking you to take action on a matter of significant importance regarding corporate social responsibility and ethical investment.

We are aware of the laudable ethical standards your Council on Ethics has established with which to screen all investments made by the Norway Pension Fund, in particular its environmental standards.  We commend you for the previous divestments the Fund has made in mining and forestry companies known to cause severe environmental and human rights related harm in their operations.

We note that Section 2 of your Guidelines for the observation and exclusion of companies from the Government Pension Fund Global’s investment universe states, (inter alia):

3) The Ministry of Finance may, on the advice of the Council of Ethics, exclude companies from the investment universe of the Fund if there is an unacceptable risk that the company contributes to or is responsible for: a) serious or systematic human rights violations, such as murder, torture,
deprivation of liberty, forced labour, the worst forms of child labour and other
child exploitation;
b) serious violations of the rights of individuals in situations of war or conflict;
c) severe environmental damage; d) gross corruption; e) other particularly serious violations of fundamental ethical norms.

(4) In assessing whether a company shall be excluded in accordance with paragraph 3, the Ministry may among other things consider the probability of future norm violations; the severity and extent of the violations; the connection between the norm violations and the company in which the Fund is invested; whether the company is doing what can reasonably be expected to reduce the risk of future norm violations within a reasonable time frame; the company’s guidelines for, and work on, safeguarding good corporate governance, the environment and social conditions; and whether the company is making a positive contribution for those affected, presently or in the past, by the company’s behaviour.

Chairman Mestad, Jan. 27, 2012

Page 2.

In this regard, some members of our group and associates have worked for years on the impacts of oil production in the Niger Delta, and we conclude that Shell has for decades caused severe environmental and social harm in the region.  Evidence of this includes, but is not limited to, a history of repeated oil spills at Bomu Manifold, Korokoro flow station and Ejama-Ebubu in the minority Ogoni region of the Niger Delta (See Ogoniland Environmental Assessment, UNEP 2011).  Further, Shell is well aware of the damage it continues to cause, and has not taken necessary action to remedy the continuing problems. We feel Shell’s long-term negligent behavior in the Niger Delta satisfies the Fund’s standards for exclusion as set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of your Ethical Guidelines referenced above.

Although Shell is clearly required by Nigerian law (as well as its own corporate policies) to conduct its oil and gas production, transportation, refining, and export operations with best available international standards, it has knowingly and consistently violated this requirement in Nigeria for decades.    Shell is required to meet these high standards in oil infrastructure integrity, spill prevention, prevention of third party damage, monitoring and maintenance of facilities, spill response, spill restoration, and financial compensation.   However, Shell repeatedly ignores such requirements for regular inspection and maintenance of oil facilities, upgrading pipelines and production facilities to best available standards, and prompt and effective response to oil spills (See Double Standards: International Standards to Prevent and Control Pipeline Oil Spills, Compared with Shell Practices in Nigeria, Steiner, 2008/2010).

To begin to address these issues, some of the signatories to this letter organized and conducted the first preliminary environmental damage assessment of oil impacts across the Niger Delta in 2006, in collaboration with many Nigeria scientists and communities, and found the Delta to be one of the most severely oil-impacted ecosystems in the world (Niger Delta Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Project – Phase I Scoping Report, Nigeria Conservation Foundation and IUCN/CEESP, 2006).   The 2006 study estimated that the average volume of oil spilled in the Niger Delta each year equaled that spilled by the Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989 – officially reported to be about 220,000 barrels.  It is our conclusion that most of this environmental injury in the Niger Delta is due to the largest and oldest petroleum producer in the there– Royal Dutch Shell.

In 2006 our group recommended to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) that it conduct a comprehensive environmental damage assessment of oil impacts in the Delta.  Subsequently, UNEP did conduct an assessment of oil contamination in Ogoniland (part of Shell’s operating area in the Delta), and published its final Ogoniland Environmental Assessment last year (UNEP, 2011).  The UNEP report agreed with our 2006 assessment, confirming that the region has been continuously and severely damaged by oil.   Again, this is Shell’s operating area.

Chairman Mestad, Jan. 27, 2012

Page 3.

It is evident to our group, and many others working and living in the Niger Delta, that Shell has consistently violated its legal and ethical obligations in Nigeria, it is well aware of this continuing problem, it knows how to correct the problems, and yet continues to operate negligently and with impunity.

And it is clear that Shell’s behavior in the Delta does not constitute isolated and infrequent accidents.  Rather, the company’s willful negligence has continued over several decades.  Mr. Chairman, we feel it is time the international community takes a strong stand against such ongoing corporate malfeasance.

Thus, we were delighted to see the Council’s Annual Report 2009 state the following:

The Council is also going to investigate more closely the Fund’s investments in coal mines in light of the many accidents in this industry, and is as well as looking into oil pollution in the Niger Delta in light of the many oil spills in the region over a prolonged period and the impact this may have on the environment and human health (emphasis added).

Clearly, it would be unethical for the Norway Fund to continue “profiting” from its investments in Shell, while Shell is “profiting” from its continuing negligence regarding the environment and people of the Niger Delta.

We applaud your investigation of environmental and social injury caused by oil operations in the Niger Delta. By way of this letter, we respectfully encourage the Council on Ethics to recommend full divestment and exclusion of all holdings of the Norway Government Pension Fund in Royal Dutch Shell, Plc. and its subsidiaries, due to the consistent and severe environmental and social harm caused by Shell’s negligent oil and gas operations in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.

We recognize that this would be the Fund’s first exclusion of holdings in the petroleum sector, and as such, feel this would send a powerful message to the petroleum sector globally.  We also feel divestment by the Norway Fund will provide strong motivation for Shell to improve its environmental and social performance in Nigeria and globally.  Such action would similarly motivate other companies operating in the Delta in which the Fund is invested.

Please do not hesitate to contact any of us if you need other information.  We would also invite the Council on Ethics to conduct a fact-finding mission to the Delta if you so desire.

We look forward to your decision on this important issue.

Chairman Mestad, Jan. 27, 2012

Page 4.

Respectfully (in alphabetical order),

Gordon Abiama, Director, Africa Centre for Geoclassical Economics, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Niger Delta, NIGERIA

Pastor Innocent Adjenughure, Executive Director, Institute for Dispute Resolution, Niger Delta Study Group on Extractive Sector (NIDESGES), Delta State, NIGERIA

Ben Amunwa, Researcher, Platform, London, UK

Nnimmo Bassey, Environmental Rights Action (ERA), NIGERIA

Dr. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, President, Paul K. Feyerabend Foundation, SWITZERLAND

Dr. Bram Büscher, Associate Professor of Environment and Sustainable       Development, International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University NETHERLANDS

Dr. Crystal Fortwangler, Anthropologist, USA

Ken Henshaw, Programmes Manager, Social Action, NIGERIA

I. Herbert, Sustainable Environment and Economic Resources (SEERs), USA

Janet Howitt, Environmental Safety Group, Gibraltar, UK

Kira L. Johnson MSc, Conservation Biologist, USA

Sandra Kloff, Consultant, Marine and Coastal Management, NETHERLANDS

Ronald Leger, CANADA

Janaki Lenin, Writer, INDIA

Father Père Félicien Mavoungou, Commission épiscopale Justice et Paix Brazzaville, REPUBLIC OF CONGO

Akpobari Celestine Nkabari, Ogoni Solidarity Forum-NIGERIA and Social Action, NIGERIA

Chairman Mestad, Jan. 27, 2012

Page 5.

(Signatures continued)

Abiri Oluwatosin Niyi, Sustainable Nigeria, NIGERIA

Faith Nwadishi, Publish What You Pay/Koyenum Immalah Foundation, NIGERIA

Legborsi Saro Pyagbara, International Advocacy Officer, The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) NIGERIA

Alfredo Quarto, Executive Director, Mangrove Action Project, USA

Dr. Kristin Reed, author of Crude Existence, USA

Geert Ritsema, International Affairs Coordinator, Friends of the Earth, NETHERLANDS

Paul Siegel, Conservationist, Dakar, SENEGAL

Richard Steiner, Professor, University of Alaska (ret.) Oasis Earth, Anchorage Alaska, USA

Dr. Makere Stewart-Harawira, Associate Professor University of Alberta, Edmonton, CANADA

Rev. David Ugolor, African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (ANEEJ), NIGERIA

Dr. Geert van Vliet, Economist, CIRAD, FRANCE

Weirt Wiertsema, Senior Policy Advisor, Both Ends, NETHERLANDS

Nicholas Winer, Just Conservation, SPAIN

Sakhalin-2 News

Gazprom Expansion of Sakhalin-2 LNG Plant May Cost $7 Billion

January 30, 2012, 5:20 AM EST

By Jake Rudnitsky

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) — OAO Gazprom and its partners in the Sakhalin-2 project may decide on expanding their liquefied natural gas plant this year, to add supplies by 2018, said Andrey Galaev, the venture’s chief executive officer.

An expansion may cost $5 billion to $7 billion based on preliminary estimates, Galaev told reporters today in Moscow. Depending on changes in oil and gas prices, the construction cost may drop as low as $3 billion or climb as high as $8 billion, he said.

A decision should be made this year to reach a window for supplies in 2016 to 2018, before global LNG production capacity rises, according to Galaev.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc holds 27.5 percent of the project after agreeing to cede control of Russia’s first LNG plant to Gazprom in 2006. Mitsui & Co. has 12.5 percent and Mitsubishi Corp. owns 10 percent.

–Editors: Torrey Clark, Stephen Cunningham

To contact the reporter on this story: Jake Rudnitsky in Moscow at jrudnitsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Voss at sev@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Putin call to ‘cut Gazprom stake’

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has called for the government to reduce its stake in state-owned companies, including gas monopoly Gazprom, according to a report.

Steve Marshall and newswires 30 January 2012 13:41 GMT

Meanwhile, Russian Energy Minister Sergey Shmatko said all outstanding issues with production sharing contracts signed with companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell on Sakhalin projects in the country’s far east have now been resolved.

The PSAs were signed in the 1990s but Russia subsequently backpedalled as it felt the terms were too favourable to foreign players and sought to renationalize its oil and gas sector.

Shell was forced to relinquish control of the Sakhalin 2 project to state-owned Gazprom in 2007, while Russian officials have threatened to revoke ExxonMobil’s operator status on Sakhalin 1 over the past two years.

FULL ARTICLE

Published January 30, 2012 Dow Jones Newswires

MOSCOW –  Russian Energy Minister Sergey Shmatko said Monday that all major issues have been resolved regarding production sharing agreements, or PSAs, that were signed in the 1990s with companies such as ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA).

“The issue of PSAs has been settled for good,” Shmatko told government officials and company executives at a meeting in Moscow.

Russia invited international oil majors such as ExxonMobil, Shell and Total SA (TOT) to secure lucrative PSAs in the 1990s, but later turned sour on those partnerships, which it felt were too favorable to the oil companies.

Some minor issues regarding higher efficiency and development of infrastructure still remain, Shmatko said.

“But today, we have no fundamental problems,” he said.

ExxonMobil and Shell signed PSAs in the 1990s to become operators of large projects off Russia’s Pacific coast, but pressure mounted on both during the past decade as Russia sought to renationalize its oil and gas industry. In 2007, Shell was forced to cede control of its Sakhalin-2 project to state-run gas giant OAO Gazprom (GAZP.RS).

Over the last two years, Russian officials have voiced threats to revoke ExxonMobil’s operator status at the Sakhalin-1 project, and have on some occasions delayed approving ExxonMobil’s budget.

Under PSAs, companies shoulder all investment costs but can recover them from the sale of oil or gas before having to share revenue with the government.

Besides Sakhalin-1 and Sakhalin-2, Total operates a smaller PSA project, the Kharyaga field in northern Russia.

Shmatko said Monday that no new PSAs are under consideration. At the end of 2010, he said favored a “renaissance” in PSAs to attract foreign investments, as Russia seeks to open new difficult production regions.

Copyright © 2012 Dow Jones Newswires

Nigeria to Ask for Compensation From Shell on Bonga Spill

By Vincent Nwanma – Jan 29, 2012 10:36 PM GMT

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg)– Nigeria will “soon” ask for compensation for an oil spill from Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA), Europe’s largest oil company, President Goodluck Jonathan said.

A spill last month from the 200,000 barrel-a-day Bonga field off Nigeria, which produces nearly 10 percent of Nigeria’s crude, led Shell to stop production from the facility, the company said on Dec. 21. The export line at Bonga leaked almost 40,000 barrels of crude during a tanker loading, according to Shell estimates, making it Nigeria’s worst offshore spill in more than a decade.

Nigeria will be asking for compensations “with a view to reaching an amicable solution to the problem,” Jonathan said in a meeting with Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary- general, on the sidelines of the 18th African Union Ordinary Session of the heads of state and governments in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital, according to a statement e-mailed today.

A phone call by Bloomberg to Shell’s office in Lagos, Nigeria, after hours was unanswered, and there was no answer at the mobile phone number of a company spokesman

To contact the reporter on this story: Vincent Nwanma in Lagos at vnwanma@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dulue Mbachu at dmbachu@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Profits at Shell set to anger drivers

Published on Sunday 29 January 2012 00:00

HIGHER annual and quarterly profits from oil heavyweight Royal Dutch Shell are this week expected to ignite the fury of hard-pressed drivers who continue to face near record prices at the petrol pump.

But the figures are likely to spell good news for investors as analysts raise the prospect that Shell, which boasts one of the largest dividends on the FTSE, may recommend an increase in the pay-out.

Although both full-year and quarterly numbers will be released, the City will focus on profits for the last three months of 2011, which are expected to be about 20 per cent higher compared to the same period in 2010.

However, analysts forecast they will be roughly 27 per cent below the third quarter as oil prices remained relatively flat over the final three months of 2011. That followed steep price gains earlier in the year driven by the political turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa.

The City spotlight on Thursday will also be on whether Shell confirms progress in getting American regulatory permits to explore an eventual potential oil bonanza off the Alaskan coast.

Jason Kenney, oil analyst with Santander, said: “Shell is a cash machine, but not really a growth entity. The ambitions [for Alaska] are still there, however.

“It [Alaska] will be a big exploration opportunity when it gets the full go‑ahead, with identified targets [for oil exploration].”

Analysts at broker Charles Stanley believe Shell “should have room to increase the [Q4] dividend”. It cites cash flow of $45 billion (£28.6bn) generated in 2011 compared to capital spending of $27bn and dividends of $10bn in the first three quarters. The broker forecasts rival BP, which reports the following week, will peg its fourth-quarter dividend at seven cents.

Santander forecasts an underlying profit at Shell, on a current cost of supplies basis, of $4.9bn, up from $4.1bn in the same quarter of 2010.

For the full year, the bank’s broking arm expects profits will have gone up to $24.7bn from $18.6bn in the previous 12 months.

While Shell’s exploration and production division is expected to have boosted profits to more than $5bn in the final three months of its financial year, up 52 per cent, it is thought the downstream – refining and marketing – arm may have fallen to a loss of between $180m and $210m.

Refining and petrochemical margins have been under pressure throughout the whole energy industry, partly on lower chemical volumes and the weakness of the euro.

BP, which reports on 7 February, is also seen as having boosted earnings as it continues to put the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster behind it.

Charles Stanley forecasts that BP’s fourth-quarter profits will have jumped 22 per cent to $2.2bn.

SOURCE ARTICLE

MOSOP may permit oil exploration in Ogoniland

TO VIEW THE COMPLETE DRAMATIC GRAPHICS FROM THE UK GUARDIAN ARTICLE ‘UNLOVEABLE SHELL – GODDESS OF OIL’ – CLICK HERE - TAKES SHORT TIME TO LOAD

Shell, which until 1993 was the major oil producing company in Ogoni, was forced to leave the area following widespread protest spearheaded by MOSOP over alleged human and environmental rights abuses.

Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:00 Kelvin Ebiri, Port Harcourt

HOPE for resumption of oil and gas exploration in Ogoni, has been rekindled by the new leadership of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP).

MOSOP Interim Chairman and Secretary, Professor Ben Naanen and Meshach Karanwi, said the new leadership would promote the sustainable and equitable exploration of the natural resources of Ogoni for the benefit of Ogoni people.

In a statement made available to The Guardian, they said “efforts would be made to reinforce the policy of dialogue and constructive engagement with the government and corporate entities on the above issues and especially in respect of job creation and economic development to alleviate the dire poverty in Ogoni.”

Shell, which until 1993 was the major oil producing company in Ogoni, was forced to leave the area following widespread protest spearheaded by MOSOP over alleged human and environmental rights abuses.

The MOSOP Provisional Council (MPC) also promised “to promote the protection of the environment and natural resources of Ogoni; in this regard the implementation of the United Nations Environment Program’s report on Ogoni.”

The MPC alleged that Ogoni “has not been fairly treated in the distribution of the dividend of the Niger Delta struggle which the Ogoni people pioneered and shall through dialogue ensure that the government corrects this situation.”

It noted that although the “MPC affirms the primary claim of every Ogoni person to membership of MOSOP, in order to deepen the process of reconciliation and inclusion, every effort would be made to extend a hand of fellowship to every Ogoni person in every walk of life.”

The duo called for “understanding and cooperation from Ogoni leaders in government, business and the professions.”

To enhance the pool of ideas, deepen the process of reconciliation and strengthen the organisation, MPC said it had decided to set up an International Advisory Committee comprising respected Ogoni men and women at home and in the Diaspora.

The Naanen-led MOSOP said it would ensure the promotion and the protection of the human rights as well as the language and culture of Ogoni people.

It added that “the MPC would not overstay its welcome and has irrevocably committed itself to handing over to an elected executive committee on January 4, 2013.”

Naanen and Karanwi commended the courage and wisdom of Mr. Ledum Mitee, former MOSOP President, in sustaining MOSOP’s principle as a democratic organisation.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Comment by Ogoni activist Dum-ale Tanee

I am calling this statement issued by MPC a total joke until I see their plan. They want to use MOSOP to accomplish what they cannot under OCG but the world is watching very closely. It is some of these people who signed MOU in secret for oil exploitation to start in Ogoni, thereby undermining the work of UNEP.

While I am in support of using our resources to develop ourselves, I think the MPC has not informed the people of what their plans are and how we are going to do it without falling back to the pre-MOSOP era.

Therefore, I am challenging all those who are behind this move to make public their plan if they have one or stop their madness.

The first thing I expect MPC to do is to take steps to reach out to the other faction and then make public the election process so that those who wish to participate can make preparations.

Also, in as much as I cannot question the intelligence of those behind this publication, I wish I can say that of their motives and integrity.

I do not think that Ogoni people can easily be tricked into opening up for oil production with the concept of “job creation and elimination of poverty” while their fundamental demands remain unattended.

Those people whose oil are still flowing as we speak in the Niger Delta hasn’t seen much change and they continue to cry and kidnap everyday because the laws that deprived them of the proceeds from our resources remain the same.

Even the minor changes that the government make as a result of our struggle are not implemented, so who are you guys fooling? Finally, while I wish you all a successful tenure, I hope you don’t create any problem that will lead to bloodshed in our land because our people know very well why we started this struggle and how we want to end it.