Posts Tagged ‘Niger Delta’

Published February 07, 2012 Dow Jones Newswires

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

“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

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

Judd-Leonard Okafor

12 January 2012

The environmental group, Friends of the Earth Nigeria, says the oil corporation Royal Dutch Shell must be held accountable for pollutions from its facilities, stopping it from causing further pollution and ensuring it deploys appropriate technology to deal with spills.

The group’s stance came after Senate committee on environment and ecology summoned the company, along with the environment ministry officials and two agencies in the wake of a 150km wide spill from a facility belonging Shell at Bonga, some 120km off the Nigerian coast

The two agencies are the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency, NOSDRA, and National Environmental Standards and Regulation Enforcement Agency (NESREA).

At the height of the spill, Friends of the Earth said it didn’t “expect anything meaningful” to come out of the summons, calling it “cosmetic.”

Philip Jakpor, media head at Friends of the Earth Nigeria, said, “We must hold these corporations accountable. They must not pollute our environment, they must deploy the same technologies that are effective that they use in other parts of the world here. There must not be double standards. And if they are liable to prosecution, you should go ahead and prosecute them.”

The group said it didn’t believe NOSDRA would be able to independently verify Shell’s claim that only around 40,000 barrels of oil leaked into the ocean.

“Most times the information that is made public is actually information from the same industries that do the pollution,” Jakpor told Daily Trust. “So, in this case we don’t believe their claim. We believe it would be far, far more than that.”

Independent bodies who monitored the spill hinted the amount of oil dumped in the ocean could exceed Shell’s claim.

But the Senate committee which summoned NOSDRA and the three other parties expressed doubts as well about whether the agency is equipped to handle the job.

The committee chairman Bukola Saraki said NOSDRA lacked vessels and now “relies almost exclusively on the grace and benevolence of the oil companies, in this case, Shell.”

Meanwhile, the oil company insisted last week it successfully completed cleanup of spill from the Bonga offshore oil field, resuming production there on January 1.

The company’s manager in Nigeria Mutiu Sunmonu claimed satellite and aerial imagery confirmed the leak “could not have reached coastlines in the eastern Niger Delta, as some media articles have suggested.” In updates the company posted on the net, he said the images of the spill reported came from a third party spill, “which appeared to be from a vessel, in the middle of the area that we had previously cleaned up.”

Copyright © 2012 Daily Trust. All rights reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

06 Jan 2012

By John Iwori

As efforts to curtail the oil spill at Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company’s Bonga Facility continues, the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) has described the incident as a national disaster.

Describing it as the worst oil spillage to hit the country since 1998, the management of Nigeria’s apex maritime regulatory body called for urgent assistance for the affected community, whose waters have been polluted.

According to the management of the agency, which is the eye of the global maritime watchdog, International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in Nigeria, millions of aquatic life forms, which the people of the affected communities depend upon for survival, have been destroyed as a result of the oil spill.

Director General of NIMASA, Mr. Ziakede Akpobolokemi, stated this at a briefing in Lagos to give an update on the effect of the Shell’s Bonga facility.

Akpobolokemi, flanked at the briefing by top officials of the agency, including the Executive Director, Maritime Safety and Shipping Development, Dr. Ishiaku Shekarau, said the management of the agency has been informed by Shell about the incident and the need for a joint visit to the facility.

He stated that the joint visit would comprise NIMASA and other government officials as well, and noted that the source of livelihood of the affected communities, especially fishing, has been greatly affected due to the impact of the oil spill.

The NIMASA Director General said besides the negative impact on peoples’ means of livelihood, they no longer have potable water to drink as their source of water has been polluted by the oil spill.

“Further to the report of the preliminary investigation conducted by the agency in respect of Bonga Oil field on December 21, 2011, NIMASA representatives were at the leak location assisting in the rescue effort of the victims of the coastal community within Delta and Balyesa states, namely Aage and Orobiri one and two communities. They used boats from Warri to scrutinise these areas.

“At age community it was the discovered that the oil spill has affected the entire community coastline. At Orobiri one and two the aquatic environment was completely devastated by the spill impact. Water samples are collected from these communities. We were informed by these communities that other government officials and state personnel had earlier visited the area as well,” he said.

He said if Shell was sure that there was spill from third party as earlier alleged, “why are they making frantic effort to get to these almost inaccessible communities.”

“As our technical crew approached these communities, the first thing that greeted them was the sight of coastline demarcated by oil leak and petroleum fumes. The community informed us that the spill drifted to this location on December 21, 2011”, he noted, adding that the community has embarked on personal effort to clean the affected area.

As part of the agency mandate, he told reporters that officials of the agency had carried out an over-fly of the area to observe the extent of the spread of the spill and the danger posed to marine flora and fauna.

He also said the agency’s team is currently at the spilled location to assess the response efforts to ensure strict compliance with relevant regulations.

He added that the agency was in contact with Shell and the Nigerian Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to prevent further degradation of the marine ecosystem.

SOURCE ARTICLE

James Kimer on January 4, 2012.

As the second largest energy company in the world after Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell has been a major player in Nigerian oil and gas from the beginning, overseeing the first commercial export of oil from the country in 1958 from the Oloibiri Field.  Their success over the years has been notable, with operations are spread over 30,000 square kilometres in the Niger Delta, including more than 6,000 kilometres of flowlines and pipelines, 86 oil fields, 1,000 producing wells, 68 flowstations, 10 gas plants and two major oil export terminals at Bonny and Forcados.

But after a number of accidents, attacks by militants, and political scandals, is Shell’s honeymoon with Nigeria coming to an end?  Some recent events and transactions indicate a shift in the Dutch company’s strategy in the country, opening a window of opportunity for new operators.

The past year has battered and bruised Shell’s operations in Nigeria, with both environmental issues and political risk increasing.  Just this week, the company was forced to conduct emergency repairs on a sabotaged trunkline pipeline in Nembe Creek, Bayelsa State, where more than 200 barrels of oil were siphoned off by thieves, forcing Shell to cut production by 70,000 barrels a day during the repairs.  Sabotage and theft by militant gangs is currently on the rise following a brief lull since its height in 2005, while the company reportedly suffers the loss of between 70 to 200 barrels of oil stolen per day.

In December 2010, Shell also experienced its worst oil spill in Nigeria in the past decade, as more than 40,000 barrels of crude oil was spilled at the offshore Bonga Field (the accident being caused by tanker mishap instead of the usual sabotage).  According to a report in the Washington Post, “Some environmentalists say as much as 550 million gallons of oil poured into the delta during Shell’s roughly 50 years of production in Nigeria — a rate roughly comparable to one Exxon Valdez disaster per year.”

As a result, political pressure against Shell has also been mounting from civil society.  The Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth (ERA/FoEN) has been on the offensive since the spill at Bonga Field, issuing statements demanding that the government secure independent verification of spillage data while enforcing clean-up payments.  The company’s environmental and human rights record has been under scrutiny at the highest levels, with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) issuing a harsh report in August 2011 that examined the ecological and public health ramifications of oil spills in Ogoniland.  One of the UNEP report’s key findings included the following:  “Control and maintenance of oilfield infrastructure in Ogoniland has been and remains inadequate: the Shell Petroleum Development Company’s own procedures have not been applied, creating public health and safety issues.”

Even before all these issues came about, there were indications that Shell may be scaling back its exposure to Nigerian energy.  Shell is the 30% owner of the joint venture Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), which also features major stakeholders such as the state-owned NNPC with (55%), TotalFinaElf (10%) and Agip (5%), which together is responsible for a whopping 50% of all oil production in the country.  However in November 2011, Shell completed the sale of its shares in two major oil producing blocks (OML 26 and OML 42), while at the same time they are working to close ongoing deals to sell their stakes to three other blocks (OML 30, 34 and 40).

Representatives from the company are keen to express that these sales do not represent the beginnings of an “exit strategy.”  According to statements made by SPDC Managing Director Mutiu Sunmonu to NEXT Newspaper, “what we are doing is consolidating our operations to strengthen even our future in Nigeria. We are in Nigeria for the long haul. Some of these assets are of more value to indigenous companies than the multinationals. The sale of marginal oil fields is an exercise aimed at growing indigenous capacity in the upstream oil and gas industry.”

However, it appears that in fact the divestiture strategy is aimed at offloading the most vulnerable assets  in the company’s portfolio – the ones located onshore, and therefore susceptible to attacks, kidnappings, theft, and sabotage, indicating a declining confidence in the state’s ability to maintain law and order in the Delta region.  In recent years, Shell has experienced a steep decline in production among its onshore assets in Nigeria.  In 2009 Shell CEO Peter Voser said that due to violence in the Delta region, production has slacked to 120,000 barrels per day from the previous 300,000 barrels per day.

“The overall security situation is still very fragile, the government had some success with their amnesty programme and we are looking now towards the next few weeks to see how this influences the whole security situation,” Voser told Reuters. “But it would be by far too early to say that it has improved. We are still dealing with the same kind of issues.”

Two years later, it looks like Shell might be losing patience.  The sale of these marginal fields such as OML 40, referring to oil and gas assets that have yet to be developed due to difficult location, infrastructure, and access, are bringing about a sharp increase of participation by indigenous companies.  New players in the Nigerian oil sector include Mike Adenuga’s Consolidated Petroleum, Femi Otedola’s African Petroleum (AP) Consortium, Elcrest, and Neconde Energy.  There are other indigenous companies which are actually backed by international finance, such as Oando (China), Perenco (Afren – a Nat Rothschild entity), and Equinox Group (Gazprom).

But the reasons motivating Shell’s divestitures may be more complex than the challenges of violence, insecurity, and public scrutiny.  After all, the company has survived some of the roughest periods of Nigerian history, including the murder of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa by the Abacha regime, which resulted in a $15 million lawsuit settlement.  In 2008, attacks by militant groups such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) had reached such heights, that Shell was forced to steeply cut production, driving global oil prices to record highs well above $120 a barrel.  And yet, despite these harsh circumstances, the company persevered and held on up to the 2009 amnesty, which helped production recover.

The problem for the company may be bigger than just oil spills, theft, and attacks, as some observers point to the pending passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), which would revolutionize the tax and royalty structure for international oil companies doing business in Nigeria, carving out a sphere of participation in production and exploration (as opposed to simply regulation) for parastatal companies.  First proposed in 2008 by the presidential administration of Umaru Yar’Adua, the PIB is a complex, 100-page document that has been repeatedly stalled in the legislature due to controversy and disputes over its contents and purpose.  According to the former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja, Nasir El-Rufai, international oil companies such as Shell stoutly oppose the passage of the PIB and are actively lobbying against it because the bill contains new royalties structures for offshore production (because the Nigerian government forfeited these rights in a 1991 agreement).

And while the PIB remains stalled, much-needed foreign investment is put on hold.  According to one analyst interview by The Financial Times, “The wait for the adoption of the PIB is very damaging. It’s why the big new investments have been put on hold. The impact becomes exponentially more problematic [because] if reserves don’t get replaced, there is the risk of production capacity in Nigeria dropping for the first time in 30 years.”

As demonstrated by the overwhelming protests and public outrage over President Goodluck Jonathan’s decision to remove the fuel subsidy at the New Year, there is a strong social aspect to the country’s economic policies concerning the energy sector.  For most citizens, who live on less than $2 a day, the fuel subsidy was seen as the only way that the oil wealth was shared – and, with its removal, there could be increased public support for the passage of the PIB that aggressively targets the traditional energy players with higher taxes and more difficult conditions.

For the moment, public anger is directed toward President Jonathan and a small group of advisers.  But if this pressure translates into real political costs for the administration, it is possible to imagine President Jonathan finding a scapegoat in the foreign oil companies, and satiating voters with promises to pass the PIB and enforce payments on environmental clean-up costs.  If that’s the case, Shell’s divestitures may accelerate, while local companies – which are in no way more accountable – will take over more and more critical onshore production fields, posing an unknown risk to global energy supplies.

SOURCE ARTICLE

SOURCE WEBSITE

By Elisha Bala-Gbogbo – Jan 3, 2012 5:25 PM GMT

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) shut oil flows of 70,000 barrels a day from the Nembe Creek Trunkline in Nigeria due to a leak caused by the theft of crude.

The pipeline, which supplies the Bonny export terminal, was halted Dec. 24. Shell is working on completing repairs before the end of the month.

“What is really worrying about this leak is that it happened on a facility which was commissioned in October 2009 to replace an old line which was repeatedly targeted by crude oil thieves,” Tony Attah, Shell’s vice president in charge of health, safety and environment, said today in an e-mailed statement.

Nigeria is Africa’s largest oil producer and the fifth- biggest source of U.S. imports. Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Total SA and Eni SpA run joint ventures with the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. that pump about 90 percent of the country’s crude.

More than 200 barrels of crude that leaked after oil thieves installed two valves near a manifold on the pipeline have been cleared up, Shell said.

Europe’s largest oil company shut its 200,000 barrel-a-day Bonga field last month after it leaked less than 40,000 barrels in the country’s worst offshore spill in more than a decade.

Shell on Sept. 26 said it shut 25,000 barrels a day of crude from its Imo River field because of oil theft. The company on Aug. 23 declared force majeure, a legal clause that allows it to miss scheduled deliveries for circumstances beyond its control, on its Bonny Light crude exports after multiple pipeline incidents. The company shut its Adibawa pipeline on Aug. 22 after saboteurs cut crude lines, causing spills.

Attacks by armed groups targeting the oil industry cut more than 28 percent of Nigeria’s crude output from 2006 to 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Attacks subsided after thousands of militants campaigning for more local control of the delta’s energy resources accepted a government amnesty and disarmed in 2009.

To contact the reporter on this story: Elisha Bala-Gbogbo in Abuja at ebalagbogbo@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Antony Sguazzin at asguazzin@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE