A new daily investigation into the documents behind the battle over Shell, oil pollution and accountability in the Niger Delta

Tomorrow we begin something substantial.

Over the coming days and weeks, we will be examining a remarkable collection of documents concerning Shell’s operations in Nigeria, oil pollution in the Niger Delta, pipeline integrity, oil theft, environmental damage and what senior personnel inside the company knew about the problems confronting its operations.

And we intend to examine them one story at a time.

Not with slogans.

Not by pretending allegations are proven facts.

And not by accepting corporate explanations without examining the documentary record behind them.

Our starting point is material made publicly available by Nigeria’s Human and Environmental Development Agenda — HEDA Resource Centre.

Who is HEDA?

HEDA — the Human and Environmental Development Agenda — is a Nigerian non-governmental and non-partisan civil-society organisation whose work encompasses good governance, environmental sustainability, human rights and social justice.

It has been operating for more than two decades and has been active on environmental accountability in the Niger Delta, including questions surrounding pollution, extractive industries and the responsibilities of multinational oil companies.

In June 2026, HEDA publicised newly released Shell documents which it said raised serious questions about the management of environmental risks and pollution associated with Shell’s historic Nigerian operations.

Those papers are now publicly accessible through HEDA’s website.

And they deserve to be read.

Carefully.

What are these Shell documents?

The collection contains internal Shell material disclosed in connection with litigation concerning pollution in the Niger Delta.

That distinction is important.

These are not simply newspaper allegations about what somebody believes Shell may have done.

They include corporate documents, internal communications, technical material and management discussionswhich can be compared with Shell’s public statements, its operating standards and the allegations being advanced by Nigerian communities and campaign organisations.

Their existence does not mean every accusation against Shell is automatically proved.

Nor does an internal email necessarily provide the complete context surrounding a complicated operational decision.

But corporate records can tell us something extraordinarily valuable:

what people inside the organisation were saying when they were not writing press releases for the public.

That is why we are interested.

What we are going to do

Beginning tomorrow, we intend to publish one investigation every day based upon this documentary record.

Each article will concentrate on a particular issue.

Among the questions raised by the material are:

• What did Shell know about the condition of important Niger Delta pipelines?
• Why were large numbers of clamps apparently being used on sections of infrastructure?
• What did internal assessments say about ageing pipelines and replacement schedules?
• What happened when illegal oil connections were discovered?
• Were pipelines allowed to continue operating despite known environmental risks?
• How effective was Shell’s leak-detection capability?
• How reliable were investigations used to decide whether spills resulted from equipment failure or sabotage?
• What concerns existed internally about contractors, employees and oil theft?
• What were senior managers being told about pollution visible across creeks and mangrove areas?
• What did Shell estimate eventual decommissioning and remediation might cost?
• And how much responsibility remained when Shell ultimately moved to divest its Nigerian onshore interests?

Some of those questions may produce uncomfortable answers.

Others may turn out to be more complicated than the headlines suggest.

We intend to publish both.

We are not going to pretend sabotage did not exist

Any credible examination of Shell’s Nigerian history must acknowledge the enormous problem of crude-oil theft, illegal pipeline connections, sabotage and makeshift refining in the Niger Delta.

Shell has repeatedly argued that third-party interference has been responsible for a substantial proportion of oil spilled from its facilities.

That evidence must be considered.

But invoking sabotage does not end the inquiry.

It begins another one.

Once an operator knows that pipelines have been compromised, what does it do?

Does it shut them down?

Repair them?

Replace them?

Continue pumping?

What risks are considered acceptable?

Who makes those decisions?

And what happens to communities living beside the infrastructure while those decisions are being taken?

Those are questions corporate press releases cannot answer on their own.

Internal records sometimes can.

Shell will have its say

This series will not operate on the assumption that an accusation is a verdict.

Shell disputes important interpretations being placed upon the disclosed material.

The company has argued that extracts from internal documents can produce a misleading picture when divorced from the exceptionally difficult operating environment in the Niger Delta, including sabotage, organised oil theft and illegal refining.

Those responses matter.

Where Shell has offered a material explanation, rebuttal or alternative interpretation, we will report it.

Where something remains an allegation, we will call it an allegation.

Where litigation remains unresolved, we will say so.

Where we draw an inference from documentary evidence, we will identify it as an inference.

That is not deference to Shell.

It is how serious documentary investigation should be conducted.

But we will also call things what they are

Objectivity does not require timidity.

If an internal document reveals something extraordinary, we will say that it is extraordinary.

If corporate conduct appears difficult to reconcile with public assurances, we will examine the contradiction.

If people inside Shell were warning colleagues about environmental consequences, pipeline conditions or reputational risks, readers deserve to know exactly what those warnings said and when they were made.

And if the documents ultimately support Shell’s explanation on a particular issue, we will say that too.

The objective is not to manufacture a predetermined conclusion.

The objective is to expose the record.

One document trail. One investigation every day.

There is too much material here to compress into a single article.

Doing so would probably reproduce the very problem that makes large documentary releases difficult for the public to understand: sensational quotations appear, the story moves on, and the underlying evidence disappears into hundreds or thousands of pages.

We intend to do the opposite.

One issue.

One documentary trail.

One article.

Every day.

By the time this series is finished, readers should be able to see not merely isolated extracts but the much larger picture emerging from Shell’s own historical records and the evidence surrounding them.

Tomorrow we begin with perhaps the most fundamental question of all:

What happens when an oil company knows continued production could mean further environmental damage — and keeps the oil flowing?

The documents have something to say about that.

So will we.

The Shell Nigeria Files begins tomorrow.

Source note

The underlying Shell-document collection has been published online by HEDA Resource Centre, alongside reporting and analysis concerning the disclosed material. HEDA describes itself as a Nigerian civil-society organisation working on good governance, environmental sustainability and social justice.

This series is independently written from the source material. Publication of or reliance upon a document does not mean that every interpretation advanced by HEDA, campaign organisations, litigants or Shell is adopted by this site.

Site wide disclaimer also applies.

^*This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. ^*All created and supported by internet wizz, Nick Gill.