Did Shell prioritise profit over environmental damage in Nigeria?

Question

Accepted Answer

Shell Accused of Prioritising Profit Over Environmental Protection in Nigeria

Shell executives were aware that oil thieves were tapping pipelines in Nigeria but opted to continue production rather than shut down the affected lines, thereby prioritising profit over environmental protection. This assertion is detailed in a report by Amnesty International and a coalition of rights groups, which cites internal audits and emails. The report suggests that senior parent company officials were involved in decisions that led to continued environmental damage despite awareness of the issue.
Awareness of Environmental Damage from Tapped Pipelines

An internal presentation from 2013, which was part of a broader initiative known as Project Madrid involving senior officials, questioned the company's comfort level with continuing production given the certainty of further environmental damage. This indicates a documented awareness within Shell of the consequences of allowing tapped pipelines to remain operational. The Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), Shell's Nigerian subsidiary, was aware of rampant oil theft, which the report suggests was partly facilitated by corrupt SPDC employees.
Decision to Continue Operations on a "Stop-Start Basis"

Despite the knowledge of environmental harm and oil theft, the company decided to allow tapped pipelines to operate. This decision was reportedly made on a "stop-start basis," meaning operations would only cease when pollution levels exceeded a specific threshold. An executive's internal communication highlighted that Shell had an alternative course of action to halt pumping, which it chose not to take, ultimately creating what was described as a "monster."
Accusations of Offloading Sites to Avoid Liability

The report also touches upon a broader industry trend where oil majors have largely moved their operations offshore from Nigeria's onshore fields. This shift is attributed to factors such as militancy and oil theft, which are linked to environmental and economic crises. Shell and other companies are accused of divesting from these onshore sites, potentially to evade responsibility for the environmental damage they have caused over years of operation.
Shell's Response to the Allegations

In response to the report's findings, Shell stated that the investigation had "selectively referred to and quoted from documents in a way that creates a misleading impression." The company has also previously argued in court that it is not responsible for the actions of its subsidiaries, such as SPDC in Nigeria, claiming they operate independently. However, the involvement of senior parent company officials in Project Madrid, as cited in the report, challenges this assertion of operational independence regarding the decisions on tapped pipelines.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Did Shell prioritise profit over environmental damage in Nigeria?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends