CU Amnesty hits back at Shell’s comments

Shell hit back at CU Amnesty’s protest, Shell Hell day last Thursday, saying that the campaign was based on ’unsupported allegations’ and ’superficial conclusions’. Amnesty’s campaign calls for Shell to clean up oil pollution in the Niger Delta which has polluted the land and water supplies the local communities depend on. Amnesty is also calling for Shell to stop gas flaring which has been illegal in Nigeria since 1984. The campaign was sparked by an Amnesty International report, ‘Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta’ released in 30 June 2009 (and available online) which provides detailed evidence on how many communities have been driven into poverty by Shell’s operations in the region.

Alice Ajeh, International Relations Manager of Shell stated that ‘much of the oil pollution is caused by sabotage’ and that the ‘Shell Peace and Development Commission’ (SPDC) is committed to stopping leaks as fast as possible. Sabotage only relates to one form of oil industry pollution – oil spills. Over the last 50 years the Niger Delta has also suffered from the discharge of waste, dredging of creeks and rivers, disposal of drilling waste, seismic activities and road construction that has blocked water systems. Sabotage is not a factor in any of these forms of pollution or environmental damage. The proportion of oil spills caused by sabotage, as opposed to corrosion and equipment failure, cannot be determined because the causes of oil spills in the Niger Delta have not been subject to any independent assessment or verification. In many cases the oil company has significant influence on determining the cause of a spill – even when a regulatory representative is present. As the company is liable for compensation payments if the spill is found to be due to corrosion or equipment failure, the practice of allowing companies so much control over the designation of oil spill causes creates a serious conflict of interest.

There are also examples where Shell and the courts have disagreed on whether a spill was caused by sabotage. In the case of a major oil spill at Batan in Delta State in 2002, Shell wrote to the Governor of Delta State claiming the spill was caused by sabotage. The letter was written two days before the oil spill investigation was done. Video footage (available on line) of the investigation – and the follow-up by a local NGO – does not correspond with Shell’s statements on causality. Independent investigation shows the cause of the spill to be equipment failure. Another example: the case of Shell v Isaiah (1997). The Appeal Court stated: ‘{it was} convinced that the defence of sabotage was an afterthought. The three defence witnesses were agreed on one thing, that is that an old tree fell on and dented the shell pipe … How could this have metamorphosed into an act of cutting the pipe by an unknown person? What is more, there is no evidence whatsoever in proof that the pipeline was ‘cut by hacksaw’.’

It is generally acknowledged that the majority of the oil spills prior to the mid-1990s were due to infrastructure problems. For example, most of the oil spilt by Shell between 1989 and 1994 was, by their own admission, due to corrosion or operational problems. Of the volume spilt, only 28% was attributed to sabotage. In 2007 Shell’s estimates had risen to 70%. The figure now given by Shell has increased to 85% (for pollution). While Amnesty acknowledges that sabotage and vandalism are serious problems, Shell has provided no support for its contention that there has been a threefold increase in sabotage in the last fifteen years.

Shell’s stock response is that we don’t understand the complexity of the situation in Nigeria. They blame militants for oil spills, and then blame them again for not allowing access to clean up. Shell has to acknowledge that their own actions have exacerbated this problem. Increased violence has emerged after years and years of Shell’s poor practice, including failure to prevent and clean up pollution, and a lack of transparency in investigation of oil spills and payment of compensation. For example, at Kira Tai in Ogoniland, where an oil spill occurred on 12 May 2007, the community told Amnesty International that Shell had accepted that corrosion was the cause of the spill – but the company had not properly cleaned up or paid compensation. Amnesty subsequently obtained the investigation report, which was signed by five Shell representatives, as well as the regulatory agency and the community. This confirmed the community’s account. However, when Amnesty representatives took the case to Shell they were told it was a case of sabotage, notwithstanding the official investigation report. Amnesty subsequently asked for evidence to back up why Shell changed the finding of the investigation. No information has been received.

When Amnesty International visited them, the community at Kira Tai had no idea Shell had changed the cause of the spill, and they were still waiting for compensation. When Shell talks about needing to understand the complex nature of the situation in the Niger Delta, the company must face up to the fact that it is this kind of behaviour that feeds community distrust and anger, and in turn fuels conflict. Communities frequently do not have access to even basic information about the impacts of the oil industry on their lives.

Shell is not solely responsible; there has clearly been a significant government failure over decades. Moreover, the actions of communities and armed groups are now a significant part of the problem of pollution. The way forward involves accountability and redress for the past. A lack of accountability for past abuses is, effectively, impunity. Moreover, unless and until oil-related pollution and environmental damage are addressed, the people of the Niger Delta cannot look to the future. They have to live with Shell’s past – its legacy of environmental and human rights harms.

The oil industry faces major security threats. There has been an increase in armed groups kidnapping oil workers and their relatives, including children, and attacks on oil installations. This urgently needs to be addressed appropriately. However, addressing insecurity in this complex environment requires a multifaceted approach – addressing root causes of problems, as well as the symptoms. The use of force by the government of Nigeria in response to threats to the oil industry in the Niger Delta, has all too frequently led to serious human rights abuses by both the Nigerian security forces and the armed groups operating in the Niger Delta. This exacerbates rather than addresses problems. In some respects conflict and armed violence are symptoms as much as causes of the human rights tragedy of the Niger Delta.

Amnesty also acknowledges that Shell has made some positive contributions in Nigeria, including provision of employment and the award winning AIDs programme. However, in human rights terms, positive action in one area does not absolve any actor of responsibilities for human rights harms elsewhere. Human rights abuses cannot be ‘offset’.

Shell has also stated that ‘to put it into perspective’, there are only 110 flares in an area the size of Portugal. A community living along side gas flares day and night is not going to care whether there are hundred elsewhere, they care about the fumes that dominate the air they breathe. Yes, $3 billion has been invested into gas gathering projects since 2000 and its brilliant that flaring has fallen by 60%. The reason Amnesty is stepping up the pressure on this is because, as Shell’s report released in May 2009 confesses, a lack of funding and security concerns has meant that projects begun in 2000 have now been stalled. A project to build facilities in the Forcados Yokri field was scheduled for completion in 2006, it was stalled because of security issues. It’s now sage and yet there are no funds available to continue the project. Gas flaring is illegal now. It damages the health of communities now. ‘Only 110 flares’ is 110 too many. Gas gathering projects in the Niger Delta should be a priority for Shell now. I think had Alice Ajeh lived next to one she might not be so chirpy.

CU Amnesty stands by their campaign for Shell to stop gas flaring (as a priority) and to clean up their operations in the Niger Delta.