Posts under ‘Nigeria’

Published February 07, 2012 Dow Jones Newswires

SOURCE ARTICLE

FEBRUARY 6, 2012

LAGOS (AFP) – Shell raised the alarm on Monday over repeated damage to a key pipeline in southern Nigeria by what it said were thieves seeking to siphon off crude for sale on the lucrative black market.

The Anglo-Dutch oil giant said the Nembe Creek Trunkline had been hit by an increased number of attacks by thieves “barely 16 months after the old line was replaced due to repeated sabotage attacks.”

While highly organised crude theft — locally called “bunkering” — has long been a major problem in Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, authorities have warned that the practice has been on the rise.

It involves thieves tapping pipelines to siphon off oil either to be sold as crude or to be treated at makeshift refineries. The oil is often directed toward waiting vessels.

“On the 24th of December last year, the line was shut down because of leaks caused by two failed bunkering points, and since repairs were completed, more than 50 theft valves have been discovered,” a Shell statement said.

“In one case, some 17 illegal bunkering points were found within a distance of 3.8 kilometres.”

Mutiu Sunmonu, head of Shell’s Nigerian joint venture SPDC, said in the statement that “the level of crude theft at NCTL can no longer be tolerated.”

“It is difficult to sustain production in the circumstance as we have to shut down when a facility trips and fix the cause before restarting,” he said. “This happened three times just between the 26th and 30th of January.”

Shell resumed production on the line January 23 after repairs due to the December incident, which led it to declare “force majeure,” a legal term indicating it may not meet contractual obligations due to events beyond its control.

The line’s current daily output is 140,000 barrels per day, Shell said.

Shell says the vast majority of oil spills in recent years in the oil-producing Niger Delta region, badly hit by years of pollution, have been caused by sabotage, theft and illegal refining.

However, activists say Shell has not done enough to prevent such spills, and a UN report issued last year took Shell’s Nigerian joint venture to task over oil pollution.

The report said Shell’s procedures for control and maintenance of infrastructure had not been followed and spills had also not been sufficiently cleaned.

SOURCE ARTICLE

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

By Eduard Gismatullin – Feb 2, 2012 8:02 AM GMT

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA), Europe’s biggest oil company, expects to raise its dividend this year for the first time since 2009 as new projects generate more cash.

Shell plans net capital investment of $30 billion, with cashflow from operations in 2012-2015 expected to be as much as 50 percent higher than in the 2008 to 2011 period.

Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser said growth will be driven by more than 60 new projects, unlocking potential resources of more than 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent. That’s on top of 14 projects started in 2009-11, including Qatar’s Pearl gas-to-liquids venture.

“Our improving financial position creates an opportunity to increase both our dividends and investment levels,” Voser said today in a statement.

Net income fell to $6.5 billion in the fourth quarter from $6.79 billion a year earlier, The Hague-based Shell said. Excluding one-time items and inventory changes, profit missed analyst estimates.

Shell is the first of Europe’s biggest oil companies to report earnings. It will be followed by BP Plc on Feb. 7 and Total SA on Feb. 10. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest energy company by market value, reported fourth-quarter sales that fell short of analysts’ estimates earlier this week.

Shell posted adjusted earnings of $4.8 billion, compared with the $5.2 billion median estimate of 15 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

‘Substantial Undershoot’

“The overall result represents a substantial undershoot against a consensus which just three weeks ago was above $7 billion,” said Stuart Joyner, an analyst at Investec Bank Plc.

U.K. front-month natural gas prices are down about 20 percent since reaching a 2011 high of 67.80 pence per therm on Nov. 7. Milder weather in Europe and maintenance curbed Shell’s production by about 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent in the quarter, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

Shell will increase production to about 4 million barrels of oil equivalent a day in 2017-2018. Last March, it said daily output would rise to 3.5 million barrels this year and 3.7 million barrels by 2014.

Output fell 5.5 percent to 3.305 million barrels a day in the fourth quarter from the year-earlier period.

Profit was also curbed by maintenance at rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea. Shell shut the Bonga field in Nigeria after an offshore oil spill, the nation’s worst in more than a decade. A fire disrupted shipments from Shell’s Pulau Bukom plant in Singapore, the company’s biggest.

Shell made a loss of $278 million from its refining and marketing operations, compared with a profit of $482 million a year earlier. Crude-processing fell 17 percent as sales dropped.

Refining margins from processing oil into fuels such as gasoline and diesel on the U.S. Gulf coast fell 22 percent to $7.16 a barrel in the fourth quarter from a year earlier, according to BP Plc data.

Of the 31 analysts that cover Shell, 21 recommend buying the shares, nine have ‘hold’ ratings, and one advises investors to sell the stock.

Shell plans to increase the dividend by 2.4 percent to 43 cents in the first quarter from 42 cents announced in the fourth quarter.

To contact the reporter on this story: Eduard Gismatullin in London at egismatullin@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at wkennedy3@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Feb. 2, 2012, 2:39 a.m. EST

By Alexis Flynn

LONDON (MarketWatch) — Royal Dutch Shell PLC Thursday posted an 18% rise in adjusted profit for the fourth quarter, but Europe’s largest company by market capitalization still missed analyst expectations, as poor refining margins and lower natural gas demand crimped some of the benefits of higher crude prices.

“Our fourth quarter results were impacted by a sharp downturn in industry refining margins and North American natural gas prices,” said Chief Executive Peter Voser, adding that “the global economy and energy markets are likely to see continued high volatility.”

The Anglo-Dutch energy company said the clean current cost of supplies, a keenly-watched figure that strips out gains or losses from inventories and other non-operating items, was $4.85 billion in the three months ended Dec. 31, compared with $4.11 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010. This was below expectations of $5.16 billion in a Dow Jones Newswires poll of fifteen analysts.

Total oil and gas production was 3.305 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, a decline of 5% on the year as asset sales and the temporary shutdown of one of its biggest Nigerian fields affected output. Analysts were expecting production to decline 6.4%.

Net profit for the quarter totaled $6.50 billion, down 4% from $6.79 billion a year ago.

Group revenues were $119.13 billion, compared with $105.53 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Diluted earnings per share were 1.04 compared with $1.10 the previous year.

Shell B shares closed at 2,326 pence Wednesday. The stock rose 11% in 2011 despite volatile equity markets, buoyed by continued high oil prices and its improved financial performance.

SOURCE ARTICLE

“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.

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

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

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).

The “Rossport Five” were jailed at the specific request of the company, which had obtained compulsory purchase orders for the land in question – the first time in Irish history that such an order was granted to a private company. The five will remain in jail until they undertake not to obstruct the company. (SHELL)

The company stinks worldwide…

By John Donovan

This article focuses on an informative parliamentary debate about the Corrib Gas controversy held in the Houses of the Oireachtas, the national parliament of Ireland, on 6 October 2005. It does not appear to have been reported in any detail at the time.

Some very forthright comments were expressed about Shell.

The debate was held after the release from prison of the Rossport Five, activist landowners jailed at the specific behest of Shell. The activists held legitimate concerns on behalf of their families about health, safety, and environmental implications of the Shell led Corrib Gas Project.

Extracts from a related Guardian article: Shell meets its match in the Rossport Five

Suddenly, the issue became one of the biggest news stories of the year and, as the Irish Examiner called it, “a major public relations disaster for the Shell corporation”. The “Rossport Five” were jailed at the specific request of the company, which had obtained compulsory purchase orders for the land in question – the first time in Irish history that such an order was granted to a private company. The five will remain in jail until they undertake not to obstruct the company.

“Shell officials misjudged the situation if they thought to intimidate others by making an example of these men,” the Irish Times said. Indeed, July has seen huge rallies in support of the men in Co Mayo and in Dublin, the picketing of Shell garages nationwide, and round-the-clock blockades of the refinery construction site.

Some of the exchanges in the parliamentary debate were even more damaging to Shell and proved to be prophetic in mentioning Shell’s use of security forces against protestors in Nigeria. No doubt wondering whether such intimidatory tactics by the multinational might be imported into Ireland.

The following extracts are from the official record:

Brief extracts from opening statement by Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher)

It was a source of great regret to me that five Rossport men were committed to prison as a result of their opposition to the proposed pipeline.

The safety review of the on-shore, up-stream gas pipeline is now under way. It will be thorough and comprehensive and will be carried out by independent, internationally recognised experts.

Mr. Finucane:

I welcome the Minister of State’s statement which outlines the latest developments in regard to the Corrib onshore pipeline. Although it is quite a distance from Rossport, a public meeting on the issue was recently held in Newcastle West in County Limerick. The families of the Rossport men were represented and Dr. Mark Garavan, spokesman for the Shell to Sea campaign, spoke at length. It was an informative session and indicated how this issue has resonated with the public in that it seems a manifestation of the small man taking on a major multinational. Speakers at the meeting drew our attention to the unfavourable publicity for Shell some years ago in regard to its activities in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. It is ironic that the same company is involved in this controversy in which five people were imprisoned as a result of their stance on the proposed onshore pipeline. The action they took was a consequence of their genuine concerns.

Mr. Kenneally:

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the opportunity to speak on this issue. When we look back on the imprisonment on those who have become known as the Rossport five we will view the matter with regret. It should not be necessary for five citizens of the State to go to prison for 94 days to vindicate what they perceive to be their rights. Regardless of the sequence of events and the legal niceties responsible for their three month stay in an Irish prison, it should not have happened here in this enlightened third millennium.

We can talk about principles and principled stands all day and discuss the relative claims for the safety of the installation and the power of multinational companies but who would favour a gas pipeline pumping unknown quantities of explosive material at unknown explosive pressure not much more than 100 yards from people’s homes? This was not just a blind protest on the part of disgruntled residents. Their arguments were logical. I cannot confirm that they were correct but they did raise reasonable doubts about safety and the appropriateness of the industry being there at all, such as the inadequacy of the soil through which the pipeline will run and several other arguments worth investigating.

I have evidence of a quantified risk assessment carried out on Shell’s behalf in Australia approximately five years ago in which there was a fundamental flaw in the design which was missed in the quantified risk assessment. Had the Government authorities in Australia not spotted the fundamental flaw an offshore rig would have been constructed and had an entirely predictable and [264]likely event happened hundreds of people could have been killed. A quantified risk assessment is done on the data supplied by the client, in this case by Shell, and it is not independent. If there is to be a safety review, it is desperately important that the first brief of the company must be to know whether this is inherently safe or whether there are margins of uncertainty because it is a unique project.

Mr. Norris:

I listened to Senator Mansergh’s contribution with great interest and in response to his last comment I would say that Shell really needs to revise its entire ethos and modus operandi. The company stinks worldwide, but we were not sufficiently aware of this fact and we have let them away with potential murder in this country. If, as Senator Mansergh also said, international business will look at what is happening here, then let them look. Let them see that Irish people and the Government have standards. It seems extraordinary that five decent, respectable people in the community were sent to jail at the instigation of Shell Oil. These men did not have to go to jail but they were pushed into that position by the company. It also seems extraordinary that they were jailed while trying to defend their own homes, welfare and possibly even their lives, which should be a constitutional imperative.

Should we feel secure because Shell is involved? I do not think so. If we look at the company’s track record internationally, we can see it is good at spin. It bought into things like National Geographic and it sponsors environmental programmes on television, while simultaneously destroying the environment in places such as Nigeria. Its modus operandi although subtly changed from Nigeria is in essence precisely the same and reveals a complete contempt for local people as long as it can get the Government on its side and its PR merchants in with the spin.

Let us consider the record in Nigeria. Shell Oil was complicit in the fact that the Nigerian Government hanged nine environmentalists for protesting peacefully in 1995. The tribunal that convicted the men was a joint effort between Shell and the Nigerian Government. These people protested because of the enormous amounts of oil spillage in their territory against which they were totally unprotected. Between 1976 and 1991 some 2,976 oil spills occurred in the Niger delta. A World Bank investigation found that the levels of hydrocarbon pollution in Ogoniland were more than 60 times the US limits. This was confirmed in 1997 by a Project Underground survey which found petroleum hydrocarbons in one Ogoni village’s water source at 360 times the limit set for the European Community. This is the respect for the environment that Shell Oil has in Nigeria.

Let us consider how Shell copes with this situation. In Nigeria as in Ireland there is a rebellious local population. Shell uses the local existing institutions to hand. In Ireland there is a complacent Government and requirements are placed on judges to make certain decisions. I do not criticise the Judiciary in that it is working with what it has. Shell contributes to the military funding in the areas where it needs to suppress the people. Shell has admitted that it has paid directly for visits to two villages in Ogoniland. These visits were as a result of a peaceful demonstration by the local inhabitants. It has also admitted purchasing weapons for the local police force which guards its facilities. Many people believe that Shell’s [268]involvement in the military aspect is much greater.

Bearing in mind that the police are partly funded by Shell Oil, a classified memorandum from a police leader in this area described his plans for “psychological tactics of displacement-wasting”. This is what Shell is doing in the west of Ireland; it is displacing the people. The memorandum further stated: “Shell operations are still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken.” It is prepared to be ruthless militarily and it is prepared to be ruthless in its involvement in the courts. Let us consider what it did in the trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa. We now know that two significant witnesses in that case were suborned by Shell with offers of money and employment in the Shell group.

I am not just some left-wing crank talking about this matter. The United Nations Special Rapporteur’s report on Nigeria published in 1998 accused both Nigeria and Shell of abusing human rights and failing to protect the environment. It condemned Shell for a “well armed security force which is intermittently employed against protestors”. This is what we are dealing with. This is the heart of darkness.

Mr. Kitt:

We should listen again to what people are saying. I hope that Shell will explain some of the issues which it is not explaining. Senator Norris made an important point regarding Shell’s involvement in Nigeria. In 1985 I was a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. We intended to visit Nigeria with a Trócaire delegation to visit the Ogoni region, but the Nigerian Government prevented us from going there, or even into Nigeria, because of our wish to go to the Ogoni region. There was no support from Shell, which I found very disappointing. While one cannot blame Shell for all the problems in the Ogoni region, the company has a case to answer with regard to environmental matters. That is one of the reasons the people in Rossport were so concerned that the pipe was coming through their area, very close to houses. They were worried about health, safety and environmental issues and knew that Shell did not have a very good track record in those areas.

RELATED ARTICLES

Corrib – Ireland’s Last Offshore Development for a Generation

SHELL TO SEA SUPPORTER BECOMES PRESIDENT OF IRELAND

‘The Pipe’ Norwegian premiere

Gardaí investigate alleged death threats to Corrib whistleblowers