REPORT: Shell Knew It Was Polluting the Niger Delta but Chose Profit Over Safety
Internal company documents disclosed during court proceedings in the United Kingdom suggest Shell exempted its Nigerian subsidiary from global safety standards.
The documents also suggest the company knowingly continued operating pipelines riddled with illegal taps after weighing the financial cost of shutting them down.
The documents were made public as part of a lawsuit filed by communities in Bille and Ogale, Rivers State. Amnesty International — in partnership with some other Civil Society Organisations — analysed the documents and published the findings on Wednesday.
Amnesty International’s report, titled Nigeria: Lifting the Lid: Internal documents expose Shell’s negligent oil operations, was produced through a partnership with The Corner House, HawkMoth Legal, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Human & Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre), Kebetkache Women Development & Resource Centre, Miideekor Environmental Rights Initiative, ReCommon, and Social Action Nigeria, SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations).
The documents show Shell’s internal discussions on oil theft, pipeline safety, pollution and decision-making in the Niger Delta between 2008 and 2016.
SHELL EXEMPTED SPDC FROM ITS GLOBAL SAFETY RULES
One of the most important disclosures is that Shell’s parent company approved exemptions that allowed the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) to continue operating pipelines that should have been shut down or repaired under the company’s own global safety standards.
According to the documents, Shell revised its Design and Engineering Practice for SPDC in 2009. The changes allowed temporary repair clamps to become permanent fixes on leaking pipelines. They also allowed pipelines with illegal tapping points to remain in use, provided the taps were not actively leaking.
In 2012, Shell approved another exemption. Managers had argued that removing all illegal connections would require “considerable system downtime”.
As a result, the company exempted SPDC from parts of its Health, Safety, Security and Environment (HSSE) standards. This allowed pipelines, including the Nembe Creek Trunk Line (NCTL), to continue operating despite hundreds of illegal taps feeding crude oil to nearby illegal refineries.
Per the report, those exemptions were in place until the end of 2018.
SHELL KEPT OIL FLOWING DESPITE INTERNAL WARNINGS OF POLLUTION
The analysis also stated that Shell managers knew continued production made pollution worse in the community. One internal presentation warned that an “ever increasing number” of illegal connections had been left on pipelines. It said this was increasing both crude oil theft and environmental damage.
After flying over the Bille area in February 2013, SPDC’s General Manager told colleagues that the pollution had become severe, the documents showed.
“We observed the situation from Krakama to Awoba to be extremely bad, with free phase oil covering many of the creeks,” the email stated. He added that, although he was not recommending shutting down the NCTL, he also could not support continuing operations unless the situation improved quickly.
‘ARE WE COMFORTABLE TO CONTINUE PRODUCING?’
Another presentation prepared for senior executives asked a direct question:
“Are we comfortable to continue producing, KNOWING that further environmental damage WILL occur?”
The presentation was part of “Project Madrid”, an internal strategy set up to tackle widespread oil theft in Nigeria. The documents show Shell considered three options. The first option involved short shutdowns while continuing production and tolerating ongoing oil theft.
The second proposed months of repairs to remove known theft points. The third called for a years-long overhaul that would address the root causes of crude oil theft.
The documents say the first option was the cheapest. However, they warned it could leave Shell open to accusations that it was “knowingly polluting” the environment. The third option was considered the most effective but would have a “material impact on revenues”.
SHELL WEIGHED ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AGAINST LOST REVENUE
Financial estimates in the presentation put the cost of shutting the Nembe Creek Trunk Line for one year at about $194 million in lost production. Shutting the Trans Niger Pipeline for the same period was estimated to cost about $427 million.
A later strategy paper suggests Shell chose the least disruptive option. It allowed production to continue on what the company described as a “stop-start basis”.
AUDITS REVEALED FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE
A 2011 internal audit found that attacks which happened on repeat on pipelines had created a big maintenance backlog. The audit further noted that Shell did not know the locations of more than 1,600 repair clamps installed on its pipelines.
Separate technical reports said SPDC did not have effective real-time leak detection. This meant many pipeline spills would not trigger the company’s monitoring systems. Another audit found that staff were not properly equipped to tell whether spills were caused by corrosion or third-party interference.
This then casts doubt on how accurate the company’s spill classifications were. These classifications determine the compensation the affected communities are entitled to under Nigerian law.
The documents also suggest Shell left part of the old Nembe Creek Trunk Line filled with crude oil years after it had been replaced because funds were not approved to decommission it. Internal emails warned that six operational spills had already occurred on the abandoned pipeline. Staff predicted more would happen unless it was properly decommissioned.
BACKGROUND
The documents were produced and analysed during a long-running lawsuit filed in the United Kingdom by communities in Bille and Ogale. The communities accuse Shell of years of pollution from its operations in the Niger Delta.
Shell has consistently denied operating its Nigerian infrastructure negligently. The company says most spills in the region were caused by sabotage, crude and illegal refining. Shell has also argued that its parent company did not control the day-to-day operations of SPDC.
The court case is ongoing. The allegations contained in the disclosed documents have not yet been finally determined by the court.
Credit: Source link
Comments are closed.