EKOS Communications, Inc.

I see that the price of oil is once again on the rise. As of today, light sweet crude is fetching slightly more than $60 US a barrel.The increase has been attributed to the continuing decline in the US dollar and to increased violence in Nigeria.

As I've learned in recent months, oil comes in many grades depending on such things as viscosity (how easily a fluid flows) and impurities (primarily hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide). Light sweet crude has high viscosity and low impurity content, making it less expensive to refine, most often into gasoline. Not surprisingly it is in high demand globally. It is also running out.

Which brings us to Nigeria - one of the world's largest oil producers and yet one of poorest of the poor countries. For decades foriegn companies, such as ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron, have plundered the Niger Delta generating unimaginable profits for themselves and revenue for this country. Just recently, the president of the Nigerian Association of Petroleum Explorationists revealed that Nigeria had recevied some $400 billion over the past 50 years from the development of this precious resource, and yet abject poverty continues to plague it's citizens. He angrily stated that the country had "squandered" its richness. (1)

Little wonder that there has been a history of unrest and protest directed at foriegn-owned companies and the corrupt political leaders who are getting very rich because of them. Increasingly the protest has become violent. Only a few days ago, a British oil worker was killed, along with two Nigerian soldiers and one armed militant, in an aborted hostage-taking from a supply ship in the Niger Delta region.

According to Ike Okonta writng for the Pambazula News (a weekly forum for social justice in Africa), Shell recently aggravated the situation intensely; it "approached the US military in early March to see if it could intervene in the delta." (2) Just two years ago, at Globe 2006, a Shell Canada representative assured me that the company had cleaned up its act in Nigeria considerably, adhering to high standards in social justice and environmental responsibility. Which of these two perspectives is true?

Unfortunately I do not have the financial means to travel to that flashpoint region to see for myself. Nor am I sure that it would be wise thing to do so even if I had the money for travel, etc., given the high degree of violence directed at foreigners. So how am I to know which perspective to accept as being closer to the truth as I see it?

For the moment, I'm tending to believe Fahamu, the organization that Okonta writes for, as I've found much supporting evidence on the web. "...multinational oil companies investing in the Niger Delta are failing to respond adequately to serious human rights abuse in that region" proclaims Human Rights Watch. (3) Says Plant Matt of Politcal Cortex (Brain Food for the Body Politic) Royal Dutch Shell in May of this year withheld compensation to people living in the Niger Delta ordered by a lower court for environmental pollution caused by their operations.

There's nothing on the home page of Shell to reveal any involvement in Nigeria. However, if you query their search function with the words "Niger Delta", 155 results appear (at least that's what I got this evening). The top hits proudly declared the company's involvement with the Bonga Deepwater Project and it's excellent track-record with social and environmental programs such as remediation of degraded industrial sites, elimination of continuous flaring and development of cordial relationships with host communities. (4)

Is it possible that Shell's version could be closer to the truth? Yes, definitely. Howerver, where is the weight of evidence in this case?

I'd have to say against them. Very credible agencies are giving evidence that clearly indicates that what the Shell Canada representative told me two years ago was not true and remains untrue. The Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility, supported by the World Council of Churches and 130 other shareholders, put the following shareholder resolution forward at Shell's 2006 Annual General Meeting this past May. That the company:

"collaborate with local stakeholder communities" before any exploration and development;

subject all of its acquisitions and operations to independent social and environmental impact assessments;

"institute rigorous policies in risk assessment and community consultation" and

"ensure proper oversight" be an executive committee whose responsibility is to ensure that the policies are being implemented.

Shell would also have to report to the shareholders at its annual general meeting in 2007 on progress made towars fulfilling these directives.(5)

The resolution was soundly defeated with 83% of the shareholders voting against it and 6% for it. The others withheld voting on the matter.(6) That the majority of shareholders voted this way only furthers to deepen my suspicion about the veracity of Shell's messaging. Why would they not want to be open, transparent and honest? What could they be hiding? Or, trying to avoid?

I'm compelled by the evidence to conclude that Shell has not substantially cleaned up its act in Niger Delta, contrary to what their representative told me.

So how can I hold him and his company accountable for misleading me and for the apparent abuses they continue to inflict on the people and ecosystems of the Niger Delta, and to the country as a whole?

One thing, from here on, I'm no longer going to patronize their outlets, if I can at all help it.

And I'll write a letter to Sir Mark Moody, the senior executive, possibly CEO, of Royal Dutch Shell who I have also interviewed at Globe (along with Anita Burke who was, at the time, Senior Advisor - Sustainable Development and Climate Change and who has since left the company and started a consultancy practice), asking for some answers to my pointed questions.

Well, it's getting very late. I want to get back to my journal writing. Still a few more ideas I want to jot down before I call it a day.

Until the next time,

Reference:

(1) Shosanya, Mohammed. "Nigeria: Nation Earns $400 Billion Oil Revenue". Daily Trust. Posted November 16, 2006. Retrieved Nov. 24, 2006 from http://allafrica.com/stories/200611160928.html

(2) Okonta, Ike. "Niger Delta: Restoring the rights of citizens" Pambazuka News. Posted Nov. 9, 2006. Retrieved Nov. 25, 2006 from http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/38222

(3) "Oil Companies Complicit in Nigerian Abuses" Human Rights News. Posted feb. 23, 1999. Retrieved Nov. 25, 2006 from http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/02/23/nigeri804.htm

(4) Shell Home Page. http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=home

(5) "Royal Dutch Shell plc Shareholder resolution for the Annual General Meeting 2006 Supporting Statement" Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility. Retrieved on Nov. 25, 2006 from www.eccr.org.uk/docs/0603_shell_resolution_statement.pdf

(6) "Shell AGM Vote, and ECCR Comment" The Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility. Posted: n.d.. Retrieved Nov. 25, 2006 from http://www.eccr.org.uk/news_main.html