Shell’s Continued Operations Amid Environmental Warnings in Nigeria
Newly uncovered corporate documents reveal that British oil multinational Shell operated one of its major oil pipelines in Nigeria for years despite internal warnings regarding environmental risks and infrastructure concerns. These documents, obtained by the BBC through ongoing litigation, include emails, technical assessments, and internal presentations indicating that Shell executives consistently voiced concerns about the safety and condition of the Nembe Creek Main Line (NCTL), a vital pipeline transporting crude oil from inland fields to export facilities.
This revelation emerges against the backdrop of intensifying scrutiny over decades of environmental pollution in Nigeria’s Niger Delta, where repeated oil spills have caused severe damage to wetlands, mangroves, and local fisheries. The documents were made public as part of legal actions initiated by communities affected by pollution from over 100 oil spills between 2011 and 2013. These communities are now seeking $1 billion in damages, comprising $250 million for compensation and $750 million for environmental remediation.
Pipeline Controversy Intensifies
The Nembe Creek mainline, stretching 96.5 kilometers, runs close to the 45-island riverside Bir community, linking inland oil fields to export terminals. Sold by Shell last year, the pipeline represents one of the company’s largest oil transportation assets in Nigeria, capable of carrying approximately 150,000 barrels of crude oil daily. However, it has become a hotspot for leaks, vandalism, and crude thefts.
A recent visit to the Bir community highlighted ongoing environmental issues, including alarming reports of underground emissions of toxic gases affecting residential areas and local waterways. Residents are particularly concerned about the disappearance of vital mangroves and aquatic species such as crabs, fish, and periwinkles from their ecosystem. Future investigations by PREMIUM TIMES are anticipated to provide deeper insights into the region’s environmental conditions.
Past Concerns Raised by Executives
Concerns about the pipeline’s safety date back nearly 20 years, with email exchanges in October 2008 exposing disagreements among senior executives regarding the pipeline’s operational viability outside Shell’s technical guidelines. At the time, Shell’s technology vice president, Marcus Dror, cautioned that a major attack on the infrastructure could necessitate a halt in production. Dror also questioned the adequacy of safety measures and pointed out potential vulnerabilities in the pipeline.
Despite these warnings, Shell’s regional vice president at the time, Anne Pickard, defended the decision to continue operations, stating it was in the best interest of both people and the environment, even though she acknowledged the risks involved.
Internal Findings and Risk Classifications
In 2012, internal assessments flagged various sections of the pipeline as “red,” the highest risk classification, owing to widespread illegal drilling activities linked to oil thieves. Under Shell’s protocols, such a classification necessitated immediate corrective action. Nevertheless, executives continued operations, hypothesizing that closing the pipeline could lead to illegal connections in other locations. In response to the risky conditions, Shell emphasized the challenges posed by oil theft, illegal refining, and extremist activity in the region.
Concerns Over Audits and Cleanup Initiatives
Internal communications from February 2013 reveal that Shell staff were apprehensive about conducting audits related to pipeline integrity management, fearing potential legal repercussions from the findings. Shortly after, Shell initiated a covert internal review, codenamed Project Madrid, aimed at assessing pollution control measures. Reports indicated that about 100 illegal refineries operated in the area, severely affecting approximately 9,000 hectares of land and water. Following a temporary pause in operations due to these issues, the pipeline resumed functioning in 2013.
Shell’s Defense of Its Operations
In response to the recent document disclosures, Shell contended that the information does not accurately capture the complexities of operating in the Niger Delta. A company spokesperson pointed out that the documents were presented without crucial context regarding the organized crime environment prevalent at the time. Shell attributed much of the pollution to large-scale oil theft and illegal activities, stating that it has invested significantly in monitoring and spill response initiatives. The company also claimed that some community members were involved in oil theft activities, a statement that representatives from the Bir community have vehemently denied.
Legacy of Environmental Challenges
Operating in Nigeria for decades through its subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), Shell has faced significant criticism for environmental degradation and legal disputes, despite generating substantial revenue for the nation. According to the United Nations, Shell has been linked to the spillage of at least 13 million barrels of oil across approximately 7,000 incidents since it began exporting Nigerian crude oil in 1958. Environmental activists, including prominent figures like Ken Saro-Wiwa, have long called for accountability from multinational oil companies in the Niger Delta. Recent years have seen legal victories, including a landmark 2021 Dutch court ruling mandating compensation for Nigerian farmers impacted by oil pollution.
While Shell recently announced an intention to increase investments in Nigeria, citing improved policy stability in the energy sector, this move has drawn criticism from environmental advocates who argue that unresolved pollution and liability issues continue to pose significant challenges. The Nigerian government has yet to publicly address Shell’s assertions concerning the security situation’s role in exacerbating environmental damage in the region.
