Log in

View Full Version : Nigeria's oil spills worse than Gulf spill, also ignored



ÑóẊîöʼn
22nd September 2010, 20:46
LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell)


Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it

The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades

We reached the edge of the oil spill near the Nigerian village of Otuegwe after a long hike through cassava plantations. Ahead of us lay swamp. We waded into the warm tropical water and began swimming, cameras and notebooks held above our heads. We could smell the oil long before we saw it – the stench of garage forecourts and rotting vegetation hanging thickly in the air.

The farther we travelled, the more nauseous it became. Soon we were swimming in pools of light Nigerian crude, the best-quality oil in the world. One of the many hundreds of 40-year-old pipelines that crisscross the Niger delta had corroded and spewed oil for several months.

Forest and farmland were now covered in a sheen of greasy oil. Drinking wells were polluted and people were distraught. No one knew how much oil had leaked. "We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots," said Chief Promise, village leader of Otuegwe and our guide. "This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest. We told Shell of the spill within days, but they did nothing for six months."

That was the Niger delta a few years ago, where, according to Nigerian academics, writers and environment groups, oil companies have acted with such impunity and recklessness that much of the region has been devastated by leaks.

In fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month.

That disaster, which claimed the lives of 11 rig workers, has made headlines round the world. By contrast, little information has emerged about the damage inflicted on the Niger delta. Yet the destruction there provides us with a far more accurate picture of the price we have to pay for drilling oil today.

On 1 May this year a ruptured ExxonMobil pipeline in the state of Akwa Ibom spilled more than a million gallons into the delta over seven days before the leak was stopped. Local people demonstrated against the company but say they were attacked by security guards. Community leaders are now demanding $1bn in compensation for the illness and loss of livelihood they suffered. Few expect they will succeed. In the meantime, thick balls of tar are being washed up along the coast.

Within days of the Ibeno spill, thousands of barrels of oil were spilled when the nearby Shell Trans Niger pipeline was attacked by rebels. A few days after that, a large oil slick was found floating on Lake Adibawa in Bayelsa state and another in Ogoniland. "We are faced with incessant oil spills from rusty pipes, some of which are 40 years old," said Bonny Otavie, a Bayelsa MP.

This point was backed by Williams Mkpa, a community leader in Ibeno: "Oil companies do not value our life; they want us to all die. In the past two years, we have experienced 10 oil spills and fishermen can no longer sustain their families. It is not tolerable."

With 606 oilfields, the Niger delta supplies 40% of all the crude the United States imports and is the world capital of oil pollution. Life expectancy in its rural communities, half of which have no access to clean water, has fallen to little more than 40 years over the past two generations. Locals blame the oil that pollutes their land and can scarcely believe the contrast with the steps taken by BP and the US government to try to stop the Gulf oil leak and to protect the Louisiana shoreline from pollution.

"If this Gulf accident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention," said the writer Ben Ikari, a member of the Ogoni people. "This kind of spill happens all the time in the delta."

"The oil companies just ignore it. The lawmakers do not care and people must live with pollution daily. The situation is now worse than it was 30 years ago. Nothing is changing. When I see the efforts that are being made in the US I feel a great sense of sadness at the double standards. What they do in the US or in Europe is very different."

"We see frantic efforts being made to stop the spill in the US," said Nnimo Bassey, Nigerian head of Friends of the Earth International. "But in Nigeria, oil companies largely ignore their spills, cover them up and destroy people's livelihood and environments. The Gulf spill can be seen as a metaphor for what is happening daily in the oilfields of Nigeria and other parts of Africa.

"This has gone on for 50 years in Nigeria. People depend completely on the environment for their drinking water and farming and fishing. They are amazed that the president of the US can be making speeches daily, because in Nigeria people there would not hear a whimper," he said.

It is impossible to know how much oil is spilled in the Niger delta each year because the companies and the government keep that secret. However, two major independent investigations over the past four years suggest that as much is spilled at sea, in the swamps and on land every year as has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico so far.

One report, compiled by WWF UK, the World Conservation Union and representatives from the Nigerian federal government and the Nigerian Conservation Foundation, calculated in 2006 that up to 1.5m tons of oil – 50 times the pollution unleashed in the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster in Alaska – has been spilled in the delta over the past half century. Last year Amnesty calculated that the equivalent of at least 9m barrels of oil was spilled and accused the oil companies of a human rights outrage.

According to Nigerian federal government figures, there were more than 7,000 spills between 1970 and 2000, and there are 2,000 official major spillages sites, many going back decades, with thousands of smaller ones still waiting to be cleared up. More than 1,000 spill cases have been filed against Shell alone.

Last month Shell admitted to spilling 14,000 tonnes of oil in 2009. The majority, said the company, was lost through two incidents – one in which the company claims that thieves damaged a wellhead at its Odidi field and another where militants bombed the Trans Escravos pipeline.

Shell, which works in partnership with the Nigerian government in the delta, says that 98% of all its oil spills are caused by vandalism, theft or sabotage by militants and only a minimal amount by deteriorating infrastructure. "We had 132 spills last year, as against 175 on average. Safety valves were vandalised; one pipe had 300 illegal taps. We found five explosive devices on one. Sometimes communities do not give us access to clean up the pollution because they can make more money from compensation," said a spokesman.

"We have a full-time oil spill response team. Last year we replaced 197 miles of pipeline and are using every known way to clean up pollution, including microbes. We are committed to cleaning up any spill as fast as possible as soon as and for whatever reason they occur."

These claims are hotly disputed by communities and environmental watchdog groups. They mostly blame the companies' vast network of rusting pipes and storage tanks, corroding pipelines, semi-derelict pumping stations and old wellheads, as well as tankers and vessels cleaning out tanks.

The scale of the pollution is mind-boggling. The government's national oil spill detection and response agency (Nosdra) says that between 1976 and 1996 alone, more than 2.4m barrels contaminated the environment. "Oil spills and the dumping of oil into waterways has been extensive, often poisoning drinking water and destroying vegetation. These incidents have become common due to the lack of laws and enforcement measures within the existing political regime," said a spokesman for Nosdra.

The sense of outrage is widespread. "There are more than 300 spills, major and minor, a year," said Bassey. "It happens all the year round. The whole environment is devastated. The latest revelations highlight the massive difference in the response to oil spills. In Nigeria, both companies and government have come to treat an extraordinary level of oil spills as the norm."

A spokesman for the Stakeholder Democracy Network in Lagos, which works to empower those in communities affected by the oil companies' activities, said: "The response to the spill in the United States should serve as a stiff reminder as to how far spill management in Nigeria has drifted from standards across the world."

Other voices of protest point out that the world has overlooked the scale of the environmental impact. Activist Ben Amunwa, of the London-based oil watch group Platform, said: "Deepwater Horizon may have exceed Exxon Valdez, but within a few years in Nigeria offshore spills from four locations dwarfed the scale of the Exxon Valdez disaster many times over. Estimates put spill volumes in the Niger delta among the worst on the planet, but they do not include the crude oil from waste water and gas flares. Companies such as Shell continue to avoid independent monitoring and keep key data secret."

Worse may be to come. One industry insider, who asked not to be named, said: "Major spills are likely to increase in the coming years as the industry strives to extract oil from increasingly remote and difficult terrains. Future supplies will be offshore, deeper and harder to work. When things go wrong, it will be harder to respond."

Judith Kimerling, a professor of law and policy at the City University of New York and author of Amazon Crude, a book about oil development in Ecuador, said: "Spills, leaks and deliberate discharges are happening in oilfields all over the world and very few people seem to care."

There is an overwhelming sense that the big oil companies act as if they are beyond the law. Bassey said: "What we conclude from the Gulf of Mexico pollution incident is that the oil companies are out of control.

"It is clear that BP has been blocking progressive legislation, both in the US and here. In Nigeria, they have been living above the law. They are now clearly a danger to the planet. The dangers of this happening again and again are high. They must be taken to the international court of justice."


Fucking hell. I seriously wonder what it would take to clean up such a titanic mess, because we cannot simply leave such things be even if we were to stop extracting oil immediately.

DWI
30th September 2010, 13:25
Most of these "spills" are deliberate sabotage caused in attempts to steal the oil. Nigeria should rather compensate the West for the stolen property.

ÑóẊîöʼn
30th September 2010, 13:40
Most of these "spills" are deliberate sabotage caused in attempts to steal the oil.

You can't steal what was yours in the first place.


Nigeria should rather compensate the West for the stolen property.

Or maybe the oil companies can stop ripping off Nigeria?

DWI
30th September 2010, 13:49
You can't steal what was yours in the first place.
True. But while the oil belongs as much to oil companies as to gangs of bandits (is there a difference: you decide!), the oil companies will put it to much more productive use, and not spill oil everywhere in the process. Or at least try not to.


Or maybe the oil companies can stop ripping off Nigeria?I find it hard to get mad at oil companies, really. They're putting a lot of investment into the country, and do an awful lot of good for everyone else. I get the "Nigerians live kinda near the oil, so they should receive all the revenue" argument, I just don't find it particularly convincing. At most one could argue oil revenues should be distributed equally to all mankind, but then why would anyone bother to extract it? At best, it would mean far less oil was extracted than now, resulting in large decrease in the quality of life for all.

ÑóẊîöʼn
30th September 2010, 14:35
True. But while the oil belongs as much to oil companies as to gangs of bandits (is there a difference: you decide!), the oil companies will put it to much more productive use, and not spill oil everywhere in the process. Or at least try not to.

It is true that international oil conglomerates have better extraction technologies as well as the capability if not necessarily the willingness to do so in a less environmentally damaging fashion than a bunch of small family operations that use buckets and spades.

But cui bono? Certainly not the average person in Nigeria, it seems. There is a massive disconnect between the resources that oil companies can acquire as a result of their explorations, and the standard of living that people in oil-exporting countries can have.

Seeing as the people of Nigeria actually have to live there and experience first-hand any environmental issues brought about by oil extraction and processing, it seems only fair to me that they should get the lion's share of the benefit.


I find it hard to get mad at oil companies, really. They're putting a lot of investment into the country, and do an awful lot of good for everyone else.

It strikes me that any "investment" oil companies are putting into the countries they exploit is either mis-aimed, mis-managed, insufficient or some combination.


I get the "Nigerians live kinda near the oil, so they should receive all the revenue" argument, I just don't find it particularly convincing.

Why not? Most of the effects of resource exploitation are geographically localised.


At most one could argue oil revenues should be distributed equally to all mankind, but then why would anyone bother to extract it?

Because it's in demand? I don't see how I (or anyone else for that matter) would stop using oil or oil-related products simply because I received a cheque from all the oil companies.


At best, it would mean far less oil was extracted than now, resulting in large decrease in the quality of life for all.

Nuclear power and bio-gas can replace most of the functions that oil currently fulfills, and do so with less environmental impact.

DWI
30th September 2010, 14:59
It is true that international oil conglomerates have better extraction technologies as well as the capability if not necessarily the willingness to do so in a less environmentally damaging fashion than a bunch of small family operations that use buckets and spades.

But cui bono? Certainly not the average person in Nigeria, it seems. There is a massive disconnect between the resources that oil companies can acquire as a result of their explorations, and the standard of living that people in oil-exporting countries can have.

Seeing as the people of Nigeria actually have to live there and experience first-hand any environmental issues brought about by oil extraction and processing, it seems only fair to me that they should get the lion's share of the benefit.
For sure individuals should receive compensation for any material damage done to them. That wouldn't amount to much, though. There's no reason why merely living near a profitable business entitles you to the profits. Working for it, maybe, but just living nearby?


Because it's in demand? I don't see how I (or anyone else for that matter) would stop using oil or oil-related products simply because I received a cheque from all the oil companies.I didn't say people would cease to demand oil, but cease to supply it. In other words, why would you buy shares in an oil company if all the profits are already given away to randoms for doing nothing?

ÑóẊîöʼn
30th September 2010, 15:41
For sure individuals should receive compensation for any material damage done to them. That wouldn't amount to much, though. There's no reason why merely living near a profitable business entitles you to the profits. Working for it, maybe, but just living nearby?

Now here I think you are simply being dishonest. Twice I've mentioned that oil extraction and processing has an adverse environmental impact, and this is true even during normal operation - which means one cannot reasonably sue for damages in such circumstances.

Furthermore, even if the Nigerians could present a case, there's no reason to believe anyone worthwhile would pay attention to it.

Now, if someone else is carrying out industrial activities in one's local environment, a natural sense of justice demands that some compensation happens as the result of any environmental damage. In other words, if your mining operation dumps waste in the river that I fish from, I can reasonably demand that you either feed me or give me the means with which to feed myself, since I risk injury or death by fishing from the river which you polluted.


I didn't say people would cease to demand oil, but cease to supply it. In other words, why would you buy shares in an oil company if all the profits are already given away to randoms for doing nothing?

As has been proven countless times before, and as you have just proven now, a shareholder system puts profits above all else and is therefore the least socially responsible method of managing an organisation.

Industrial activities must be structured so that it is in the interest of all to avoid excessive damage to the environment. The capitalist price system has thus far proven incapable of providing such a structure.

An alternative must be found.

DWI
30th September 2010, 17:38
Now here I think you are simply being dishonest. Twice I've mentioned that oil extraction and processing has an adverse environmental impact, and this is true even during normal operation - which means one cannot reasonably sue for damages in such circumstances.

Furthermore, even if the Nigerians could present a case, there's no reason to believe anyone worthwhile would pay attention to it.

Now, if someone else is carrying out industrial activities in one's local environment, a natural sense of justice demands that some compensation happens as the result of any environmental damage. In other words, if your mining operation dumps waste in the river that I fish from, I can reasonably demand that you either feed me or give me the means with which to feed myself, since I risk injury or death by fishing from the river which you polluted.
Even if you provided recompense for real damages (I agree that should be done), it wouldn't result in most of the oil profits going to Nigerians. Given the banditry, it could even be a net benefit to the oil companies. Maybe it's different in countries without a working legal system (Nigeria is presumably based on the English common law, so I don't know whether that is the case here), but there is no especially large damage inherent to oil extraction. It's just pumping liquid from place to place.


As has been proven countless times before, and as you have just proven now, a shareholder system puts profits above all else and is therefore the least socially responsible method of managing an organisation.
Not really. Shareholder system provides people with oil. Your proposal would destroy industrial civilisation. I don't think it's ideal, but of the two options, it's preferable.

ÑóẊîöʼn
30th September 2010, 18:59
Even if you provided recompense for real damages (I agree that should be done), it wouldn't result in most of the oil profits going to Nigerians.

Yes, that's the problem, isn't it?


Given the banditry, it could even be a net benefit to the oil companies. Maybe it's different in countries without a working legal system (Nigeria is presumably based on the English common law, so I don't know whether that is the case here), but there is no especially large damage inherent to oil extraction. It's just pumping liquid from place to place.

Naive ignorance. There's a whole lot more to oil extraction and on-site processing - including prospecting, boring exploratory wells, boring the actual wells, and then prepping them for commercial exploitation - than just "pumping liquid from place to place". All the processes involved in the exploration and extraction of oil produce waste products which, even with careful safeguards, find their way into the local environment. Waste products such as drilling fluid, drill cuttings, and stray oil in addition to any pollution produced by the machinery itself.

Don't be fooled. Fossil fuels are a dirty business.


Not really. Shareholder system provides people with oil. Your proposal would destroy industrial civilisation. I don't think it's ideal, but of the two options, it's preferable.

So much wrong with this. For a start, just because something works, such as the capitalist shareholder system, does not mean it is the best possible system. Shareholder companies are capable of absurdities that no appeal to the laws of physics or human psychology can easily explain away.

Secondly, "my" proposal? Don't you mean your strawman of my position? My position was that Nigerians are being unfairly compensated for the damage that is being done to their environment, a statement which you seem to agree with. But you make the completely unwarranted logical leap that because I say that the Nigerians are being unfairly compensated, therefore every single human being in the world must be compensated.

I suppose I should have leapt on it earlier, so here goes; just what the fuck gave you such an absolutely absurd notion? My position was based on environmental damage, which is geographically localised and therefore it is easy to determine who should be compensated. You've completely ignored this, and instead waffled on about legal systems or whatever, as if that had anything to do with it.

DWI
1st October 2010, 01:21
Naive ignorance. There's a whole lot more to oil extraction and on-site processing - including prospecting, boring exploratory wells, boring the actual wells, and then prepping them for commercial exploitation - than just "pumping liquid from place to place". All the processes involved in the exploration and extraction of oil produce waste products which, even with careful safeguards, find their way into the local environment. Waste products such as drilling fluid, drill cuttings, and stray oil in addition to any pollution produced by the machinery itself.

Don't be fooled. Fossil fuels are a dirty business.
Sure, you have to drill holes to put the pipes in. You have to build pumps. There's nothing inherently dangerous or messy about any of this, no more than just regular construction. Oil wells have even been built inside US cities:

http://www.clui.org/lotl/v33/images/spring2010/urbancrude_tour9_600.jpg
This one in LA was still working recently.


So much wrong with this. For a start, just because something works, such as the capitalist shareholder system, does not mean it is the best possible system.
Well sure, I even said it wasn't the best possible system in my opinion either, just preferable to distributing oil revenues to everyone without any need for investment.


Shareholder companies are capable of absurdities that no appeal to the laws of physics or human psychology can easily explain away.

Secondly, "my" proposal? Don't you mean your strawman of my position? My position was that Nigerians are being unfairly compensated for the damage that is being done to their environment, a statement which you seem to agree with. But you make the completely unwarranted logical leap that because I say that the Nigerians are being unfairly compensated, therefore every single human being in the world must be compensated.

I suppose I should have leapt on it earlier, so here goes; just what the fuck gave you such an absolutely absurd notion? My position was based on environmental damage, which is geographically localised and therefore it is easy to determine who should be compensated. You've completely ignored this, and instead waffled on about legal systems or whatever, as if that had anything to do with it.
Ah, then we may have been talking past one another. Giving the revenue to everyone in the world just seemed to make more sense to me than giving it to everyone in Nigeria. I mean, that country's border is a quite arbitrary cut-off. If you mean just to compensate specific individuals whose property has been damaged, to the value of that damage, then I don't see the disagreement you have with the private property/shareholder system.

ÑóẊîöʼn
1st October 2010, 06:46
If you mean just to compensate specific individuals whose property has been damaged, to the value of that damage, then I don't see the disagreement you have with the private property/shareholder system.

I'm a communist, of course I have an issue with private property and the shareholder system. :rolleyes:

DWI
2nd October 2010, 17:55
I'm a communist, of course I have an issue with private property and the shareholder system. :rolleyes:
Yet in this case, you completely agree with its answer on what to do with the oil money, and got angry when I said you supported equitably distributing the profits to all mankind...?

ÑóẊîöʼn
2nd October 2010, 19:02
Yet in this case, you completely agree with its answer on what to do with the oil money, and got angry when I said you supported equitably distributing the profits to all mankind...?

Because "everyone gets paid the same" is a strawman of communism. Most communists I'm aware of think that money should be abolished.

In which case, money becomes meaningless data in computers or useless pieces of metal and paper.