Multinational oil companies such as Shell, Chevron, Eni, Total, Addax-Sinopec and Exxon Mobil, and the state owned NNPC continue to flare gas 24 hours a day, seven days a week, causing environmental damage as well as health and human rights impacts for local residents. Shell has flared gas for over five decades and according to official statistics, is still among the worst offenders, along with Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and Eni. 

Platform gave its analysis of flaring trends to IRIN. The IRIN report also quotes Nnimmo Bassey from Environmental Rights Action / Friends of the Earth Nigeria and Shell official Tony Attah, who blames the problem on militancy and claims that gas flaring will “take a few more years to end”.

NIGERIA: Gas flares still a burning issue in the Niger Delta

DAKAR/PORT HARCOURT, 8 March 2012 (IRIN) -

Despite longstanding laws against gas flaring – the burning of natural gas during oil extraction – in Nigeria, and shifting deadlines to end the practice, the activity continues, with serious health consequences for people living nearby.

In the Niger Delta, where most of the flaring takes places, residents living near gas flares complain of respiratory problems, skin rashes and eye irritations, as well as damage to agriculture due to acid rain.

They are also forced to live with constant noise, heat and light that can lead to sleep deprivation which can degenerate into systemic insomnia. Since flaring involves carbon dioxide and sulphur outputs, in the longer term the heart and lungs can be affected leading to bronchitis, silicosis, sulphur poisoning of the blood, and cardiac complications, said a Port Harcourt doctor, Nabbs Imegwu.

“Extreme long-term exposure can predispose one to, or cause, skin cancer,” he added.

Continue reading here.

A global coalition of NGOs, human rights monitors, academics and analysts have joined Platform in sending a letter to the Board members of Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Nigeria which holds Shell to account for its role in recent human rights abuses in Nigeria. Below is a short extract from the letter:

Today the US Supreme Court hears Kiobel v Shell, a case that alleges Shell aided and abetted human rights violations and crimes against humanity committed by the Nigerian military against the Ogoni people from 1992 onwards. Twenty years later, Shell’s operations in the Niger Delta continue to be linked to human rights violations committed by government forces and other armed groups, as well as result in extensive environmental devastation.

As the Nigerian government increases military spending and deploys more forces in the Delta and across Nigeria, there are clear risks that Shell will repeat the same mistakes, become complicit in human rights violations and fail to resolve some of the underlying issues of ongoing repression and pollution.

A recent report by Platform recommends that Shell and other stakeholders address the root causes of conflict by cleaning up pollution, de-militarising the Delta and providing adequate remedies to the individuals and communities affected. In this letter, we, the undersigned, hold Shell accountable for its conduct and its inaction on these issues; challenge Shell’s stated commitments to human rights and “high ethical standards” and emphasise the need for urgent action.

The letter is available to download or read below.

Three of the world’s biggest private oil companies face landmark legal actions this February. Here is a brief run down of the main cases, what they are about and why they matter.

1. US v BP

At the centre of the legal fallout from BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in April 2010 is a  complex civil trial which begins on 27 February. The trial will determine who is to blame, how much should be paid in damages and penalties and who should pay them. BP is one of a number of defendants, alongside Transocean (owner and operator of the rig) and Halliburton. There are over 120,000 claimants involved, from Gulf Coast fishers to the US government, and a massive 72 million pages of documents. The trial, heard before a Judge Carl Barbier without a jury, is expected to last all year.The future of the UK oil company could yet unravel in the legal vortex surrounding the Gulf of Mexico spill, with still more cases being added to this sizeable civil claim. According to the Guardian, charges of gross negligence over the accident, which claimed the lives of 11 workers, have not been ruled out. On 14 February, BP lost a separate case brought by share holders on the New York Stock Exchange. A District Court in Houston found that BP must face charges of fraud for misrepresenting its ability to address a major oil spill.

2. Kiobel v Shell

Filed in 2002, this case charges Shell with complicity in human rights abuses and crimes against humanity in the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta between 1992 and 1995. Shell is accused of aiding and abetting the Nigerian military to commit violations a widespread and systematic campaign of torture, extra-judicial executions, prolonged arbitrary detention, and indiscriminate killings constituting crimes against humanity. Dr. Barinem Kiobel was among the 9 Ogoni activists executed by the Nigerian military regime on 10 November 1995, with the alleged collaboration of Shell. Esther Kiobel, Dr. Barinem’s widow, is one of the claimants. For more details and documents visit the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Wiwa v Shell an earlier lawsuit founded on the same allegations was settled out of court in June 2009 for $15.5 million (see the videos below).

On 28 February, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether or not corporations can be held liable in the US for complicity in human rights abuses committed overseas. The Supreme Court’s decision will have major implications for corporate accountability. If successful, corporations will continue to face liability under the Alien Torts Statute in the US. But Kiobel would still have to be re-heard before any judgement on liability is made.

Complicity has continued to be a problem for Shell in Nigeria. Shell’s involvement in recent human rights abuses in the Niger Delta was revealed in Platform’s 2011 report, Counting the Cost.

3. Brazil v Chevron:

Brazillian prosecutors have filed a case for civil damages against Chevron and subcontractor Transocean over pollution offshore. On 7 November 2011, Chevron spilled an estimated 3,000 barrels of oil 230 miles off the coast of Rio de Janeiro after Transocean’s drilling work caused cracks in the sea floor. Chevron executives could face criminal charges and penalties of up to $11.6 billion.

It’s uncertain when the case may start, but the short term impacts have already proved significant. The Brazillian regulator, ANP, has suspended Chevron’s licence at the site of the spill at Frade field, causing a 15% decline in the company’s rate of oil extraction. The case against Chevron could establish important environmental restrictions for deepwater drillers seeking to exploit Brazil’s emerging oil and gas boom.

According to reports in This Day, it could take 30 days before Chevron drills a relief well to put out the fire. In this video, Chevron Nigeria’s Executive Director Supo Shadiya refuses to provide even an estimate of when the disaster will end:

“I can’t give you a guess as to when we will be able to put out the fire.”

Chevron’s casual attitude towards the ecological impact of the disaster has been widely criticised. Chevron has dismissed local environmental concerns:

“There’s no known scientific basis to really talk about damage to the environment.”

However, the dead fish washing up on the nearby beach is one indication of a potentially serious environmental impact from the explosion and fire. Locals also report that 82 people have been poisoned from eating contaminated fish. There is an urgent need for independent and transparent monitoring of the disaster.

Chevron says it is providing “food” to the local community in Bayelsa State. Yet this is a poor substitute for proper environmental management and mitigation measures.

In this guest blog post, Professor Anna Zalik of York University Canada explores how governments and multinationals criminalise protest and gloss over the environmental injustices of oil extraction.

Q: What does the Canadian Government’s fury at opponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline have to do with the Nigerian ‘legaloil’ campaign?

A: Both positions are about justifying private profits and criminalizing protest.

The Nigerian government raised fuel prices on 1 January 2012, an act that led to a national strike and widespread protest among a mass movement, at times identifying as Occupy Nigeria. For about a decade the oil multinationals in Nigeria have tacitly endorsed a campaign, supported through industry consultants, to describe their production as “legal”. This use of the term ‘legal’ aimed  to counter the call for ‘resource control’ among a youth insurgency movement which partly supported itself off the trade in contraband oil. Like a range of social and environmental rights organizations in Nigeria and internationally, the youth insurgency in the Delta rose from opposition to the social and ecological  injustices that secured private-industry contracts to lift Nigerian oil.  During the height of the Ogoni movement and following Ken Saro Wiwa’s judicial murder in 1995, there was widespread consensus that the partnership between the Nigerian State and the multinational oil industry was ‘unjust’ regardless of whether or not it was ‘legal’.

In the aftermath of the Saro Wiwa’s execution, the Niger Deltan movements became increasingly militant. Escalations in the ‘oil war’ in the Niger Delta from 2004 onward were accompanied by a campaign by the oil industry operating in Nigeria to reframe their activities as socially-responsible and to label resistance movements criminal. In contrast to the sympathetic portrayal of the Ogoni uprising in the 1990s, or the 2002 “Women’s sit-in” against Chevron (in which a group of women threatened to disrobe on a platform), armed militia activity in the Delta came to be depicted internationally as a kind of ‘competitive thuggery’.

Part of the strategy for criminalizing protest involved the transnational oil companies pathologizing Niger Deltan unarmed protest not only externally and internationally, but also in the minds of those most subject to the ravages of oil extraction. Some residents of the Delta’s riverine region would refer to any facility takeover or shutdown as ‘violence’, a view promoted by industry in its emphasis on avoiding work stoppages and outlawing demonstrations. Mainstream media and policy analysts played a role in this criminalization, through the use of terms like terrorism to describe the deepening ungovernability of the region. Ultimately, if a key tactic of unarmed resistance movements – like blockades – became known as ‘violent’ protest, civil disobedience – which garnered international sympathy -would become an ineffective strategy: it is unsurprising that the Niger Deltan resistance movements became increasingly radicalised.

The web site Legaloil.com promotes the discursive and material criminalization of the oil bunkering trade in the Nigerian context – equating it with conflict diamonds. The legaloil website was established in 2002-3 when control of the contraband trade was said to have slipped increasingly out of the hands of the military and oil industry employees that previously directed it, into those of the armed youth that formerly served as their henchmen. Legaloil.com functions as a directly ‘global’ intervention that presents data concerning bunkered shipments (the source of which is hard to verify or monitor, but becomes ‘real’ once presented as graphs and tables), tracks threats and attacks on installations, and endorses chemical fingerprinting as means to distinguish between licit and ‘illicit’ oil. The site also seeks to present its data, and its proposals, as legitimated by Nigerian sources. Indeed, to be successful internationally, the ‘legal oil’ label requires reshaping the way exploitation in the Niger Delta is understood locally and globally so that ‘abusive’ relations of extraction come to be associated with bunkering activities, rather than the (state-sanctioned) operations of multinational oil companies so criticized in the 1990s.

Yet despite such efforts, the armed strategy of the Niger Deltan insurgency was partially successful in transferring resources to its leadership, although not to the average Niger Deltan or Nigerian.  The Deltan insurgency has been subdued since the  rise to the presidency of a Niger Deltan, Goodluck Jonathan, an outcome that would have been unthinkable a decade earlier. But as international attention to resistance in the Delta waned, so has international attention to corporate malpractice there. In the past month, Shell and Chevron operations in Nigeria have seen two major ‘accidents’, neither of which have received much attention in the global media.  Unfortunately, despite such business-as-usual in terms of the oil industry’s effects, some former insurgent leaders in fact supported Jonathan in critiquing the mass protests against the removal of fuel subsidies. Key Niger Deltan activists have endorsed Occupy Nigeria, however.

The Canadian government has endorsed a parallel campaign to Legaloil.com so as to whitewash the tar sands, in reaction to a transnational movement opposing its social and ecological impacts. The Harper government has relied on Ezra Levant (Canada’s answer to Rush Limbaugh) and his poorly informed, orientalist book to try to rebrand the tar sands as Ethical Oil. This campaign persists despite serious accidents whose costs are absorbed by Canada’s Indigenous people. A recent example is the oil spill on Lubicon territory in Alberta last May which was hushed up in the national media just days before the federal election.

Opposition to Canadian tar sands expansion, as in the case of support for Niger Deltan environmental rights groups in the 1990s, is both domestic and international. Western Canadian aboriginal groups, social justice and environmental movements have come out in droves to speak against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline in hearings, acts that Canada’s government has labeled tainted by ‘foreign money’.  This week, a staff person of a far-from-radical Canadian environmental NGO signed a sworn affidavit concerning how the Canadian Prime Minister’s Office had described them as an ‘enemy of the people’ to their main funder. Opponents to tar sands expansion, it would seem, are increasingly “illegal”, according to Harper’s government.

Ultimately the protesters in Canada, like the Nigerian mass movement calling for a repeal of the fuel price hikes, call for a combination of resource and ecological sovereignty. They demand that restrictions on, and distribution of, oil and gas industry profits are made in the name of the public justice. They protest the ‘legally’ mandated extractive profiteering, of private industry-state partnerships in oil, gas and mining – profiteering which is increasingly understood as corporate theft of common property.

Photos courtesy of Morris Alagoa at ERA/FoE Nigeria.

The rig has now completely collapsed under the intense heat of the flames. Chevron is still “finalizing plans for a relief well to fight the fire”. But these pictures show no sign of the company’s efforts to monitor the impact of the fire or protect local fishers.

The local community, which relies on fishing as a primary means of livelihood, has drawn attention to the ecological impact of the disaster. Below is a deformed dead fish observed near the site.

The company has so far dismissed the impact on local livelihoods, claiming that “no impacts to the beach have been reported.” However, the disaster appears to be having devastating consequences for marine life. As ERA reports from the Koluama River:

“There were dead fish floating and some in throes of death; struggling to stay alive.”

Chevron has been criticised for its lack of transparency over the incident. Locals have been kept in the dark about Chevron’s emergency response plan, the risk to the local population and any information about efforts to control the fire and limit the environmental damage. Chevron has also been silent about what the worst case scenario and what this means for its stakeholders.

Reuters reports that:

Local people reported a loud explosion on the rig early on Monday. “I heard a really loud bang and there was a fire,” local village chief Young Fabby, 55, said by telephone.

A statement from civil society groups, NAGCOND (National Coalition on Gas Flaring and Oil Spills in the Niger Delta), demanded greater transparency from Chevron and an immediate response from the Nigerian government:

NACGOND is shocked by the news of the blowout and fire on the KV Endeavour, and is worried by the sheer frequency of these incidents within the oil industry in the Niger Delta. We extend our condolences to the colleagues and family members of those injured or missing.

We are aware that this is already a major incident with potential for disastrous impacts on the local environment, ecology and livelihoods of communities in the region.

We call on Chevron to immediately release all information that it has on the present situation and likely developments in coming days.

We call on the Federal Government to make an immediate assessment of the situation, and to mount a vigorous response to attenuate the consequences of the fire. If the situation is as grave as we fear it is, then we ask that government should work with both Chevron and, if necessary, the international community to mobilize an effective response.

We urge both Chevron and the FG to immediately inform communities living in close proximity to the site, and in the region of the actual situation and also afford them a realistic assessment of the risk that this incident poses moving forward.

The incident is just the latest in a long run of major offshore oil spills in Nigeria by Shell, Chevron and Exxon Mobil. Last month, a ruptured pipeline at Shell’s Bonga platform spilled an estimated 40,000 barrels into the sea and threatened the livelihoods of dozens of local fishing communities. Oil companies have a legacy of over 55 years of environmental devastation onshore in the Niger Delta. Chevron is one the largest oil operators in Nigeria, producing an estimated 524,000 barrels per day in 2010, second only to Shell.

Brazil lawsuit

Chevron is also facing a $10 billion lawsuit for a recent pollution incident in Brazil, Bloomberg reports. On 7 November 2011, Chevron spilled 3,000 barrels of oil 230 miles off the  coast of Rio de Janeiro after subcontractor Transocean’s drilling caused cracks in the sea floor.

Brazilian authorities have said they may prosecute employees, shut operations and exact more than $10 billion in fines after the leaks at the Frade field.

Brazil has imposed multi-million dollar penalties on both companies for their inadequate responses to the spill, and suspended their operating licences.Some governments are taking a more robust approach to offshore regulation since BP’s Gulf of Mexico disaster. For an industry that has remained conveniently out of sight for decades, the political pressure comes as an unwelcome surprise. Nansen Saleri of Quantum Reservoir Impact LLC, told Bloomberg:

“Those countries who choose to go on a very punitive path at the end will suffer the negative consequences themselves,”

With respect to Saleri, who incidentally worked for Chevron (1974-1992), and has been involved in drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa, it is unlikely that investors will be walking away from an estimated 5 to 8 billion barrels of oil in Brazil’s newly discovered Tepi field, in the so-called “pre-salt” oil basin. The Brazilian government is right to require higher environmental and safety standards and to punish those companies in breach. A $10 billion fine is probably one of the most effective means of ensuring that the highest standards are met and deepwater disasters are prevented from happening again.

Will Nigerian regulators do the same? As I’ve argued elsewhere, the token penalties currently imposed by the Nigerian government have little or no impact on multinationals with notoriously low standards. Companies have exploited lax regulations for decades, and local communities have suffered the consequences. Serious penalties that are properly enforced could stem the tide of daily oil spills, regular accidents and safety breaches. Multinationals and their subcontractors should be made to bear the cost of their own mistakes. Ultimately, regulation could also save lives.

Click on the image to view the full video from NTD

Shell’s major oil spill at the offshore Bonga facility in Nigeria is threatening the livelihoods of at least 13 different coastal communities, reports Reuters. As thick crude oil continues washing up on Nigeria’s shoreline, Shell is denying responsibility and claims that “non-Bonga oil” from a third party spill is to blame. A local resident from Bisangbene told the Vanguard newspaper that Shell’s Bonga spill had ruined livelihoods in the fishing village. Mr. Goodnews Gereghewei said:

our occupation is predominantly fishing and our fishermen have withdrawn from the sea because of the massive oil spill due to fear of being roasted alive since they fish mostly at night with local lamps.

The oil spill has coated beaches “in a film of black sludge with a rainbow tint,” sparking angry local protests.

So far, the environmental impact has also killed fish, contaminated drinking water and damaged local fishing boats. Nigerian officials have suspended fishing off the coast due to the threat of heavy oil contamination from Shell’s Bonga spill. Fishers from Akwa Ibom in the eastern Niger Delta have also been affected. A second leak has also been confirmed on Shell’s onshore Nembe pipeline.

Nigeria’s oil spill agency, NOSDRA, says that Shell’s Bonga oil spill “is likely the worst in a decade.”

Peter Idabor of the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency told The Associated Press on Thursday that oil from the spill in Shell’s Bonga field has spread to roughly 100 nautical miles. Idabor said he expects oil to begin washing ashore on Nigeria’s southern coast later Thursday.

Some of the largest recorded oil spills in Nigeria have been offshore marine spills like Bonga. Fisherpersons (rather than regulators) are usually on the frontlines of oil spill detection.[1] Regular spills have devastated the basic human rights of local communities who depend upon fishing for their livelihoods. According to some commentators, Nigerian ‘Bonny light’ crude is believed to spread especially thinly on the surface of water, resulting in a quicker, wider radius of contamination than heavier forms of crude.

Shell’s appalling record of oil spills in Nigeria dates back over 50 years and has shown no signs of improvement. In November 2011, NOSDRA Director General Peter Nduka was quoted as saying that:

Shell Petroleum Development Company alone had a record of 513 oil spills over the last couple of years and that the spills were yet to abate.

NOSDRA: taking a stand?

Once described as a “muzzled watchdog”, the Nigerian agency responsible for tackling oil spills has in the last few months shown potentially significant bite.

NOSDRA’s task of monitoring and responding to incessant oil spills in the Niger Delta is not an easy one. A small, under-resourced team of Nigerian inspectors cover a network of onshore pipelines and oil facilities that stretch over an area the size of Portugal, not to mention the expanding and largely unregulated offshore platforms, rigs, floating production and storage and offloading vessels (FPSOs) and oil tankers.

Effective egulation of offshore facilities is well beyond the capacity of Nigeria’s inspection regime. Oil giants like Shell and Exxon-Mobil with substantial offshore facilities operate without adequate oversight and repeatedly cause marine pollution with impunity.

The vast scale of Nigeria’s oil infrastructure is just one of NOSDRA’s many challenges. The regulator depends for transport on the same oil companies they are supposed to police. Political obstacles also remain. Turf wars with the Department for Petroleum Resources and state oil company, NNPC, have stunted NOSDRA’s effectiveness. Moreover its powers to enforce environmental regulations are limited to relatively token fines.

But NOSDRA may be renewing efforts to enforce higher standards on an oil industry known for over 50 years of environmental devastation in the fragile Delta region. Since October, NOSDRA has slapped substantially higher fines on major (and minor) players in the industry and heavily condemned corporate practices. In theory at least, Shell should face a steep fine for its latest spillage from Bonga.

• Indian oil firm, SEEPCO,[2] which is listed on the NYSE was fined N68 million ($413,000) for failing to report an oil spill from its facilities in Okpai-Oluchi, in Delta State. According to NOSDRA, the oil spill lasted for 136 days, causing severe pollution. Only after the local community petitioned the government, SEEPCO conducted a Joint Investigation Visit to the site on 9 July.
• Nigerian State owned Pipeline and Products Marketing Company Limited (PPMC) was fined N21.5 million ($130,000) for failure to report a spill in summer 2011 and non-compliance with the law.
• Italian oil major Agip was fined N1 million ($6,000) for failing to immediately contain recover and clean up an oil spill from its gas plant at Obrikom Omoku in Rivers State. The impacted site was further polluted when the oil spill caught fire.

These fines are still relatively tiny and will not provide an effective deterrent against pollution by oil giants. Under current regulations, a single payment of $7,000 to NOSDRA completely discharges oil companies from having to clean up major oil spills. Such token fines would be unthinkable in the US or UK, but companies like Shell have exploited the lack of oversight for decades.

Statutory fines for pollution in Nigeria are simply not commensurate with the long-term damage caused by oil spillage and high costs of remediation. Estimates of the total cost of cleaning the Niger Delta vary from between $20bn – $500 billion, and the UN says that the process could take up to 30 years.

Nigerian regulators need real powers, but the Petroleum Industry Bill is set to further weaken an already chaotic system. Until Nigerian the government clamps down on polluters and diversifies its policies and economy away from heavy dependence on oil, the onus is on home states such as the UK, EU and US governments to fill the void and hold corporations like Shell and Exxon-Mobil to account through judicial mechanisms and government sanctions.

Envisat ASAR image analyzed by SkyTruth (http://www.skytruth.org) - data courtesy European Space Agency

The Bonga oil field, one of Shell’s largest offshore oil facilities was shut down on Tuesday 20 December after a massive oil spill. The cause? It appears to be a combination of human error and / or equipment failure. What the BBC describes as “leak during a transfer of oil to a tanker” led to a reported 40,000 barrels of crude oil spilling into Nigerian waters.

Sattelite images show a clearly identifiable slick that measures 356 square miles. Digital scientists Sky Truth have published the shocking images which show an enormous mass of crude oil afloat in the Gulf of Guinea. [UPDATE 22 Dec: The AP reports that the oil spill is "moving to the coast" where it could impact heavily on local fishing communities.]

Skytruth also provided detailed measurements of the visible oil slick:

it is about 70 km (45 miles) long, 17 km (10 miles) wide at it’s widest, and covers 923 square kilometers (356 square miles) of ocean

This is a major spill, even by Shell Nigeria’s shocking standards. In August 2011, Shell was heavily condemned by the UN for failing to comply with basic industry measures and covering up the extent of the pollution in the Niger Delta. Fifty years of oil pollution could take up to 30 years to clean up, according to UNEP.

This latest spill casts serious doubt over the viability of Shell’s offshore drilling programme. Shell has held up Bonga and other “ultra-deepwater” facilities in Nigeria as being safe and secure operations that use cutting edge, clean technology. That a spill of this magnitude could occur despite the technology deployed shows that Shell’s deepwater drilling poses severe risks to the environment.

Deepwater drillling activity has expanded aggressively across the West African rim and poses substantial threats to the coastal environment. In more remote and inhospitable regions like the Arctic, where Shell and other companies are planning to drill next summer, the consequences of a deepwater spill could be even more catastrophic.

North Sea Troubles:

Earlier in August 2011, Shell was responsible for causing the worst oil spill in the area in the UK North Sea for over a decade. A leak in a pipe between an oil well and the Gannet Alpha offshore platform spilled 1,300 barrels of oil into the sea. Shell has yet to clear the remaining oil trapped inside the 4 kilometre subsea pipeline. The company may face a criminal prosecution following an investigation by the Department for Energy and Climate Change. Gannet Alpha is 113 miles (180km) off Aberdeen.

A damning investigation into rusty, ageing rigs in the North Sea by the Express newspaper revealed an appalling level of risk on board Shell’s oil platforms. Bill Campbell, ex-group auditor for Shell International and safety campaigner said:

data showed there were 85 gas releases and 443 dangerous occurrences last year. “The probability of an undesirable event is extremely high,” he said.