World

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 16° London Hi 18°C / Lo 8°C

Visible from space, deadly on Earth: the gas flares of Nigeria

Shell's activities in the West African country are under scrutiny

By Daniel Howden in Yenagoa

A boy walks past the flame from gas flares near Port Harcourt in the Niger delta region of Nigeria

Reuters

A boy walks past the flame from gas flares near Port Harcourt in the Niger delta region of Nigeria

There is an ominous new arrival in the tropical forest outside Yenagoa in the southern Nigerian state of Bayelsa. It travels on black metal stilts above the green canopy before sinking into a concrete bunker where, when the bulldozers and cranes have finished work, millions of cubic feet of natural gas will be pumped before going up in smoke.

Shell's Opolo-Epie facility is the newest gas flare in the Niger Delta. And it gives the lie to claims from oil multinationals and the Nigerian government that they are close to bringing an end to the destructive and wasteful practice of gas flaring.

"This is environmental racism," said Alagoa Morris, an investigator with a local group, Environmental Rights Action, who regularly risks arrest to monitor activities at the heavily guarded oil and gas installations. "What we are asking for is that oil companies should have to meet the same standards in Nigeria that they do operating in their own countries."

The Opolo-Epie plant is set to join at least 100 other flares burning across the swamps, creeks and forests of this oil-producing region, filling the atmosphere with toxins, seeding the clouds with acid rain and polluting the soil.

The gas flares, some of which have been burning constantly since the 1960s, are visible from space. In a country where more than 60 per cent of the people have no reliable electricity supply, the satellite images show the flares burning more brightly than the lights of Nigeria's biggest city, Lagos.

Medical studies have shown the gas burners contribute to an average life expectancy in the Delta region of 43 years. The area also has Nigeria's highest infant mortality rate – 12 per cent of newborns fail to see out their first year.

The process of burning off unwanted "associated gas" brought up when oil is pumped out of the ground has been illegal in Nigeria since 1984. The government has set three separate deadlines for stopping the practice – the latest of which falls due at the end of this year – but still it continues.

While Nigerian officials are claiming record reductions in the amount of gas flared, independent oil and gas experts believe flaring is, in fact, reaching historic highs. Many observers attribute last year's much-trumpeted reduction to militancy in the Niger Delta which halved oil production.

"There is an obvious correlation between militancy, reduced oil production and reduced flaring," explained Joseph Hurstcroft, executive director of Stakeholder Democracy Network, a respected rights group working in the region. "The figures in the Delta are never clear but we are expecting to see an increase in flaring now that production is back up."

The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) claims to have reduced flaring to 1.9 billion standard cubic feet (bscf) per day, or 30 per cent of total production. But a confidential report by international energy consultants, seen by The Independent, puts the figure at 2.5 bscf, or 40 per cent of total production.

The scale of the waste is staggering. If put through a modern, combined-cycle power station, this quantity of natural gas could fuel about a quarter of Britain's power needs. It is equivalent to more than one third of the natural gas produced in the UK's North Sea oil and gas fields and would meet the entire energy requirements of German industry.

The pollution generated from this flaring has been measured at up to 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, with unknown quantities of the far more damaging greenhouse gas: methane.

What is going on in the Niger Delta is a "continuing economic, political and environmental disaster", according to Chris Cragg, an independent oil and gas expert. "It is one of the largest single pointless emissions of greenhouse gas on the planet, with obvious implications for climate change that will not only affect Nigeria, but also the rest of the world."

Nigeria boasts some of the largest reserves of sweet and easily refined crude oil anywhere on the planet. Despite the scale of its oil stocks, it has far larger amounts of gas and is sometimes described as a gas province with some oil attached. Historically, it was the high-value crude which drew companies to the swampy Niger Delta in the 1950s when no one was interested in natural gas. While other countries have since created markets and infrastructure to utilise the gas, Nigeria has lagged behind, with successive governments content to impose largely meaningless fines on an industry that provides 80 per cent of the nation's income and more than 90 per cent of its export earnings.

Oil companies such as Shell, Exxon, Chevron and Agip argue that the absence of a domestic market, the imposition of price controls and the high cost of building infrastructure to capture and distribute natural gas have made it economically unviable to end flaring. They complain that they are forced to operate as minority partners in joint ventures with the NNPC, which consistently fails to provide its share of investment. The Nigerian government, which has a bill going through the Senate demanding an end to gas flaring at all facilities by 31 December, has in turn blamed the oil majors.

"You will never completely eliminate flaring," said Bent Svensson, of the global gas flaring reduction unit at the World Bank. He said the best that could be hoped for was the elimination of "continuous flaring" – the most damaging way to dispose of associated gas. "That is at least four years away and that assumes everything goes according to plan, and there have been plans and deadlines before," he added.

Shell told The Independent it had spent $3bn since 2001 on a "flares-down" investment programme and insisted that any new plants, including Opolo-Epie, used flares only for safety reasons. However, the company made an identical spending claim in a public report more than three years ago, suggesting it has either spent nothing in the last three years or that it overstated the level of that investment.

"The companies are not serious at all about ending flaring," said Nnimmo Bassey, a Nigerian environmental activist who chairs Friends of the Earth International. "They will never stop gas flaring until the oil wells run dry."

WHAT IS GAS FLARING?

*Geology dictates that some of the richest deposits of oil sit together with deposits of natural gas. Gas flaring is the practice of burning off that natural gas when it is brought to the surface in places where there is no infrastructure to make use of it. In the 1960s and 70s, "worthless" gas was continuously flared at oil wells from Texas to Saudi Arabia. At its peak, the practice pumped about 110 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year — about 0.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions.

Since then, the practice has been reduced, largely because companies have realised the commercial potential of the gas. Pressure to reduce flaring increased again when negative impacts of burning the gas became better understood and efforts began to reduce the CO2 emissions driving climate change. However, flaring is commonplace in Nigeria, where an estimated 40 per cent of gas produced is burned off – about 2.5 billion standard cubic feet per day. Worldwide, the gas lost to flaring could meet one third of the EU's natural gas needs each year.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Abif says:
[info]fiba_jt wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 12:13 am (UTC)
So much has been said about this and for so long! The oil corporations have been engaged
in this action for at least half a century now.

"The flares pump 400 million tons of CO2 annually into
the atmosphere. 13% of the gas flared in the world comes from Nigeria alone
and stands at about 23 billion cubic meters per year. This quantity is enough
to meet Nigeria�s energy needs and leave a healthy balance for export. Through this obnoxious act; the country has lost about $72 billion in revenues for the period 1970-2006 or about $2.5
billion annually.3 All these go up in smoke yearly, leaving death and
destruction in its path ". N. Bassey.

Quoting from yet another article: "The biggest need for that gas is in Nigeria. Nigeria is in the grip of a power generation crisis and the gas that is being burned could go a long way towards providing the electricity the country desperately needs in order to develop its economy". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7820384.stm)

Some key points:
Doctors have reported higher rates of cancer, children with asthma and a suggestion the burning gasses may be making residents infertile.
Royal Dutch Shell, the largest operator of onshore wells, has not commented on the claims that gas flaring affects the health of local residents.
Flaring takes place from thousands of well heads in an area the size of Britain.
About 40% of Nigeria's gas is flared as it is produced.

All boils down to bad governance and greedy oil companies.
Look at the DESTRUCTION of Canada
[info]greenred09 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 06:17 am (UTC)
All you have to do is look at the mess that oil companies have created in Canada, a country perfectly able to stand up to multinationals, to see how easy it is for Big Oil to pillage...

http://greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/north-america/canada/o-canada-dont-do-the-dirty/

All that matters to them is profit
(no subject) - [info]itkonlyyou31 - Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 02:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Gas flaring.
[info]sreyb wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 12:20 am (UTC)
It makes one wonder how many other criminal acts of such wilful waste and poultion on this magnitude are being carried out around the world. Unless I'm very much mistaken, I've never heard this mentioned on TV news or newspapers, why not! We hear enough about the motorist and many others being blamed for causing problems regarding polution. Where are the world leaders on this one. Sitting on their hands? or do they have their fingers in their ears. Or maybe they have them somewhere else! Posted by yet another misled human being, who is finally wakeing up at last.
The People of the Delta
[info]ambricourt wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 12:45 am (UTC)
Ambricourt

Not a word about the people who live in this vast delta. They have survived for centuries on the habitable marsh-like lands devising unique cultures rich in oral traditions. How do the Ogoni and others benefit from the vast oil and gas reserves?
Are Delta children dying of asthma and cancer so we can use THEIR petrol in OUR cars and power plants?

These questions should be asked and, until answered, boycotts of all known Shell products initiated.
Re: The People of the Delta
[info]fiba_jt wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 01:11 am (UTC)
Totally agreeable! Shame on Shell!
Re: The People of the Delta
[info]phantomflinger wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 01:23 am (UTC)
If anyone remembers what happened last time and the lasting image of partially built bridges and blocks in Lagos, the Nigerian government steps very carefully around the oil giants simply as they know that like the time before, they will get corn-holed if coming across as too demanding.

But surely it makes economic AND environmental sense to bleed off the gas, pipeline or container it away for domestic or export use, into plants that can clean up the emissions from this, thus removing the harmful aspect from the local community.

Perhaps they are doing it on purpose, cheap energy would thus enable Nigeria to develop itself into a higher industrial nation, thus empowering it and making it more self sufficient, a land wasted by toxins, a populace kept poor and dying is far more what the corporations would like to see as they can't be too choosy on the deals they are offered.

It seriously does not make any sense in this day and age to burn off this huge amount of energy to little use.
Flaring Gas
[info]il_767 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 03:56 am (UTC)

Nothing new, Algeria & Libya been doing it for decades.
Moral bankruptcy
[info]david_fta wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 05:23 am (UTC)
At the very least, this gas could be used as transport or cooking fuel, or used for power generation. Could it not also be used to power photovoltaic panel production plants, or municipal water purification plants?

Is it a moronic brute that lets these oil companies do this, or is it that oil companies are run by brutal morons?

Re: Moral bankruptcy
[info]eb_nezer wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 06:00 am (UTC)
Behind everything is as vast corrupt network that sells out the health and welfare of the delta people with backhanders to key Nigerians who join the corrupt Russian oligarchs to buy multi-million pound houses in Mayfair. Shell is one of the three major companies with BP and Total that will reveal their obscene profits with oil rebounding to $85 per barrel. While BP's little mishap in the Gulf threatens an entire coastal and fragile gulf environment Shell and others are defending their indifference to the flare burn off in Nigeria following a pattern of cynical disdain for the welfare of the local people. Only the bottom line is important to these loathsome corporate scum.
Re: Moral bankruptcy
[info]lee_ji_me wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 07:36 am (UTC)
nothing is MORE OBCENE than the BLACK AFRICAN ELITE who sell their people out and use the money coming into these lands form their own pockets. if African governments were not corrupt then they could channel the immense wealth from all this but no, it goes straight into swiss bank accounts of super rich BLACK AFRICANS, the west need the resources, they pay big bucks for developing that land - where does the money go????
The facetious answer is simple
[info]fourpie wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 05:45 am (UTC)
The facetious answer is simple: Stop buying petrol and oil. Almost as bad as saying stop buying food isn't it?
Re: The facetious answer is simple
[info]jammin65 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 06:07 am (UTC)
It's shameful and then we wonder why people pick up guns.Total abuse of innocent peolple in their own land leaving them with nothing ,but poverty,death and pollution.
WHERE'S THAT NICE MR GORE?
[info]sidsnot wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 06:26 am (UTC)
I must write a note to myself. Switch off the light in the downstairs loo or I will be responsible for the death of the planet.
Re: WHERE'S THAT NICE MR GORE?
[info]midwinter1947 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 12:03 pm (UTC)
What an utterly crass posting, sidsnot.
Re: SSnot
[info]welshmaninmilan wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 04:26 pm (UTC)
Hear, hear!
The cost of ceasing gas flaring
[info]ratman1951 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 06:47 am (UTC)
The corrupt Nigerian government controls all aspects of oil production and gas flaring. They are the ones that want the oil production at minimum cost so they can continue stealing the profits from Nigerian oil sales. To install gas cleaning and compression facilities in Nigeria would raise the price of their oil. So are you in the UK willing to have a petrol price nearer to �2 per litre ? How many of the sanctimonious critics of Shell would agree to living with aviation fuel costs so high that they could not afford to fly ? But don't worry Shell is trying to sell off its concession areas in Nigeria so it's likely the Chinese will move in and then let's see how they treat the local environment - not a good record so far. And Chinese oil production will not be available to the UK so again your petrol price will rise. So you have a choice - criticise the corrupt government and their NNPC or force Shell out and cut down on your flying and driving.
Gas Flaring
[info]celinajanina wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 06:47 am (UTC)
Those scientists that have come forwards with new scientific breakthroughs to bring us zero point energy have been either rubbed out or their families threatened or their workshops destroyed.
The inventions that can save our planet are being suppressed.
Boycott shell
[info]alexweir1949 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 06:57 am (UTC)
Simple solution. British consumers should boycott all shell outlets until the nigerian flaring is stopped and the gas processed and consumed properly. By the way, i worked 2005 with uganda ministry of energy on a world bank project. There was corruption at the jinja storage terminal and shell were somehow involved. It seems that shell have a track record in corruption. Nick clegg take note. Alex weir. Harare
If Shell were honest....
[info]ronjb wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 07:02 am (UTC)
and actually had spent �3bn on a gas generator for the local people, imagine what a PR coup that would have been for the image of oil companies.

sadly it's all under the table payments, killing people who try to stop the damage (Ken saro-wiwa?), blatant lies about going green (BP?) and massive 'donations' to political parties to turn a blind eye to what's going on.

Welcome to capitalism.
here we go again
[info]lee_ji_me wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 07:33 am (UTC)
here we go again, western companies raping Africa for resources and all under the permission of black african corrupt governments who get the pay off money into their own accounts. Next time Comic Relief asks the ordinary British person to send �20 for impoverished African children, don't send it. why should people of Britain this tiny island with no resources have to bail out a super rich continent as Africa, rich with a million resources.Don't blame Shell for developing, blame the terrible corrupt governments of Africa who allow it to happen and do not use the BILLIONS that could build infra structure, medical facilties, school etc etc, what a goddam CORRUPTION. Sickening.
Northern hemisphere �green� hypocrisy?
[info]patriotbrit wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 08:03 am (UTC)

Is the �developed� world�s governmental drive to restrict citizen�s movement and avoid building the additional road networks that are so badly needed (and without which millions of tons of fuel are needlessly wasted every day in traffic jams) etc. etc., merely another aspect of control freakery when the wholesale atmospheric pollution by mega-business is allowed to continue and increase?

The �every little helps� drive to enforce the switch to dim light bulbs and increasingly draconian penalties for not following the mind boggling regime of recycling would appear to be paying lip service to "environmentalism" when the sky over China and Nigeria (and a host of other countries) is increasingly black with real pollution (NOT CO2, which as many people know is the stuff of life for plants and is at a historically low/moderate level on a geological time scale) and the seas and oceans (still the Earth's principal source of oxygen production) are increasingly polluted by any manner of toxic waste in a wanton and uncontrolled way.

Do our politicians think we are so na�ve as to believe they are �addressing the problem� by beating up �their� citizens for miniscule effect to the environment (but increasing erosion of liberty to the individual) while putting the really effective global action in the �too difficult to try� file�?
Environmental Racism
[info]allenn007 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 08:21 am (UTC)
For corruption read the oil companies.

In Africa esp. Nigeria. And there was Trafigura in the Ivory Coast dumping toxic waste on the local population.

In the Niger Delta, oil has done nothing for the people there. Most are still living in poverty amidst an environmental disaster.
The Governments are corrupt but the oil companies are complicit and control everything globally including Governments.

In the 'developed' world it's called lobbying and even induce governments to go to war (Iraq, Afghanistan). In the developing world it's called bribery and corruption by paying off local and national leaders as in Nigeria.
A world wide problem
[info]leonore1935 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 08:43 am (UTC)
I have seen this flaring in China a major polluter, I have heard that it is not economic to make use of the gas. How can it be economic to waste energy in this profligate way, in an energy hungry world? Not to mention the CO2 contribution and the pollution to the local areas.
Up in smoke. And heat. And GHGs
[info]junkkmale wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 09:19 am (UTC)
Never grasped why such energy was not of value.
It's not pollution
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 09:25 am (UTC)
"The pollution generated from this flaring has been measured at up to 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, with unknown quantities of the far more damaging greenhouse gas: methane." Neither of these chemicals is a pollutant in any meaningful sense, and neither of them has any particular local impact. They just blow away and mix with the general atmosphere. Whether or not they produce any significant global warming may be disputed, but at least, it certainly has no specific impact on Nigeria. The atmosphere is a commons.

The assertion at the start of the article of "flares burning... filling the atmosphere with toxins, seeding the clouds with acid rain and polluting the soil" is not supported by any subsequent evidence whatever, so we may take it as being pure journalistic puffery.

True, a lot of energy in this methane is being wasted, which is bad. One supposes that this would offer a great opportunity in Nigeria for some company to exploit the methane to produce power and sell it locally. But this is not the responsibility of the extractors. Actually Africa is full of great opportunities that are not exploited, for various obvious reasons. Since Nigeria cannot even refine enough gasoline and diesel for local requirements, there is no reason to think that any step change in efficiency will occur any time soon.

Putting the infrastructure in for capturing the gas and sending it to foreign markets is a very costly business indeed, and I am sure the companies know their own business best, when they decline to make the investment.

Re: It's not pollution
[info]therealsomniac wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 10:36 am (UTC)
Politicians with money sticking out of their holes. (Lou Reed)
Re: It's not pollution
[info]welshmaninmilan wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 04:50 pm (UTC)
I'm sure you are right thomas goodey. No oil company worth their salt would do anything to harm the environment deliberately, would they. Not for the sake of not bothering. They surely MUST be right, eh? Otherwise market forces would make them sit up and take notice. Surely, eh? Of course they would. Just as we all know that the oil industry is making life for those little African children soooo much better, eh? Pollution? Pollution is just a fancy of the communist/liberal tree-huggers that want us all to live in mud huts again, eh? Of course it is. Nothing wrong with a bit of smoke, eh? A bit of smoke never hurt anyone, did it. Everyone knows that. Pass me another cigar, will you...

It's not pollution
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 04:56 pm (UTC)
Why don't you address the actual issues I mentioned in my original post?

By the way, shipping natural gas to another country for consumption is not practicable (as it is for propane and butane). Realistically, it can only be transported by pipeline. So this methane must be used locally (which they don't seem capable of doing) or not at all. If it is not to be used productively, obviously it is better to flare it off than just to release it, at least from the greenhouse-gas point of view (if you believe that).
Re: It's greed.
[info]welshmaninmilan wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 05:12 pm (UTC)
Because, thomasgoodey, you are not raising any points that are open to rational answer. You are parroting the usual stuff about oil companies need to make a profit at the expense of anyone that might happen to be living in the area as though they have a god.given right to steal and plunder whatever they might want to in order to make a profit.

I realise that your belief in profit at all/any cost is going to make this impossible to comprehend but there are many people - the majority here in fact - that would agree that the of raiding another country in order to plunder the resources without any thought or care is the work of a criminal. You are, no doubt, quick to defend the oil companies as merely working at the behest of a small number of corrupt criminals in government, but you fail to grasp that if there was no oil company willing to raid and plunder there would be no problem. Yes, of course it isn't going to be a profitable enterprise for the oil companies to make some use of the gas - but that is because the technology to make the best use of the full 'product' has not yet been developed. Why not wait? What is the rush to extract the oil and damn the consequences?

I might remind you, also, that the gas currently being flared off is not just methane. Read the article again - with open eyes and a receptive (non-Tory) mind this time.
Re: It's not pollution
[info]garyansorge wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 10:51 pm (UTC)
Thomasgoodey;

"By the way, shipping natural gas to another country for consumption is not practicable (as it is for propane and butane)"

,,,and just where do you think propane, butane, pentane come form? They're part of the "natural gas" that provides the pressure to force oil out of the ground.

I worked at the first NGL (Jubail Berri Natural Gas Liquids) plant built in Saudi Arabia in 1978. It was prefabbed by Flour in San Diego, California, every piece numbered. The plant was tested, then reduced to its constituent components and shipped to Arabia, where it was loaded on flat bed trucks and transported into the desert, where it was re-assembled. Since there was no connection to the electrical net, the plant was first started by running "raw" natural gas to one of three Westinghouse 501D gas turbo generators. Once the plant was up and distilling and liquifying the gas, the purified gas was then routed to the remaining two turbo generators while the first had its' turbine blades replaced. This was necessary because Saudi natural gas has a lot of sulphur, which when burned, produces sulphuric acid that etched the turbine blades.

Today, Saudi Arabia is one of the largest exporters of Liquified NAtural gas on earth. I see no reason, other than short sighted money grubbing, the same could not be done in Nigeria.

Of course, as gas pressures fall, oil recovery will decline. Perhaps they should just pump the gas back into the wells.

Saudi Arabia hasn't flared gas(other than in an emergency, such as when the NGL plant goes down) in over 20 years.

That's progress.

Gary 7
Re: It's not pollution
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 at 09:27 am (UTC)
Sorry - confusion of terms - I take the term "natural gas" as meaning what comes in the pipelines to British houses, which is almost pure methane. But you are using "natural gas" to mean methane, or propane, or butane, whatever. I bow to your superior expertise.

And how do you work that out anyway? It's greed that causes all this natural gas evolved from the wells in Nigeria to be thrown away, burnt? How would that satisfy greed? Are you saying that it would be an overall loss-maker to catch it and bottle for export the portion that can be liquefied and sell the remainder by pipeline to local industry? Surely the problem is lack of greed! Or rather - and this is my analysis - simply lack of local organization, and inertia.
Re: It's not pollution
[info]garyansorge wrote:
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 at 11:43 am (UTC)
Greed is: sticking a pipe in the ground, capturing and selling the easy to access oil and discarding the more expensive to process gasses.

Berri NGL plant probably cost about a billion dollars to build. For the Saudi arabs, it was obviously just an investment in an upstream profit generator. Of course, they had an imperative to maximize their total long term return but it was some western expert that pointed this out to them. Once the longer term profit capability was delineated, the Saudi Royal family ran with the ball.

GAry 7
It's not pollution
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 at 11:59 am (UTC)
So why is discarding the more-expensive-to-process-gases greed, if it would be profitable to process them? Every profit requires investment! Greed would be taking every penny of profit that could be garnered in any way. This neglect to harvest the blow-off gases is the opposite of greed: it's laziness (perhaps) and/or official obstruction (more probably). I am sure that the oil companies have good reasons for everything they do, and certainly greed is not a spur that impels them to miss any profit opportunity.
criminals
[info]nabuco0 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 10:10 am (UTC)
It is a shame that big oil can do what they do and that governments can tolerate this and on the other hand scare us to death with a lie as "climate change". Justice??
Re: criminals
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 10:26 am (UTC)
how can peace and love and universal benevolence play a part in this?
Eco-Fascist Hypocrites ?
[info]brossen99 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 10:35 am (UTC)
I believe that Shell were the leading corporate multinational backing Brown's position on " carbon trading " etc when he went to Copenhagen, bunch of environmental hypocrites the lot of them ?
Gas flaring
[info]lambofkent wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 10:58 am (UTC)
Apart from the increased CO2 production and the waste of gas, flaring must be a contributory factor in the incidence of cancers. ALL burnt products seem to contribute to this condition, not just tobacco smoke. Even burnt toast is suspect !
Gas Flaring
[info]gordon123 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 11:32 am (UTC)


In the late 1970's Shell Expro was ordered by the UK by the UK Government to stop flaring gas as a normal operation from all UK offshore installations. Failure to comply would have meant a compulsory shut down down of production operations. Gas processing and export/injection facilities and export pipelines were installed on each facility Each installation was given a flaring consent for a set volume of gas to account for plant start-up and emergencies when gas flaring is unavoidable. I cannot help wondering why the Government of Nigeria does not make the same restriction on Shell. Someone more cynical than I might just conclude some some very large brown envelopes have been been delivered by Shell to Nigerian Oil Ministers
Ecocide in action.
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 11:55 am (UTC)

True, Gordon123 - from which police and military oppression is financed and maintained. The Ogoni have not been taking this lying down (well said, Ambricourt). This is ecocide in action.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/12/pope-trial-law-equality-leaders

A talk on 'drilling and killing' by Oronto Douglas, former attorney to Ken Saro Wiwa...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEhhiKJDUTM&feature;=PlayList&p;=5C12238872653E9E&playnext;_from=PL&playnext;=1&index;=8

[info]nightside242 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 12:02 pm (UTC)
Surely if Shell just gave this gas to the locals to use for energy, it would solve most of their problems? The militant groups quite rightly want a share of the profits and resources going to the Nigerian people, and a tiny, tiny portion of the profits Shell makes would make all the difference to these desperately poor people. Are Shell just being bloody-minded in refusing to give up just a tiny ounce of their vast wealth? Their stance makes no sense.
Case for a just 'Militancy'?
[info]chrisclarkgold wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 12:53 pm (UTC)
This might get taken down by the moderators, but consider, people throughout the world are clearly powerless to act to influence the Nigerian Government. With peak oil coming soon no government could dare challenge Nigeria for fear of economic unrest, and it could actually be true that Shell & Co might might not be able to find ways of selling off the gas because of the Government's resistance.

With masses of energy been uncontrollably burned (I don't buy the ratman and thomadgoodey lines at all), the least unpalatable line of defence left for the planet would appear to be if the Delta militants succeeded in making extraction impossible.
gas flares
[info]janye1 wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 02:05 pm (UTC)
We waste resources today; we have none left for tomorrow.
Dutch campaign against gas flares
[info]marlijnd wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 02:28 pm (UTC)
Since Shell is a Dutch company, the Dutch environmental organization Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) where I work also has a campaign against gas flaring in Nigeria. Today, we distributed leaflets with information about gas flaring to Shell employees at several Shell-locations, because we think they also need to be aware of their company's behavior abroad. We've been addressing this issue for years, and Shell keeps coming up with lame excuses, while in fact, they could stop the flaring right now, if they wanted. Today, one of their 'issue managers' told us that they are indeed trying very hard.....but we know that not one single flare has been put out in 2009 or 2010. And, as the article above points out: they've even lit knew ones! This is really unbelievable, and we will continue our campaign, since it's obviously very necessary...It's good to see that the media are also paying attention to this issue.
Marlijn, Friends of the Earth Netherlands
WOW!!
[info]corporatelies wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 02:59 pm (UTC)
And our populations in the west are so brainwashed that they keep bringing up China as the main cause of greenhouse gas emmissions as well as the worlds biggest polluter when we have a couple of big western oil companies laying waste to foreign countries under the cover of our governments as well as our media? hypocrites.
Re: WOW!!
[info]lee_ji_me wrote:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010 at 07:07 pm (UTC)
yes I agree with you and why doesn't SHELL and BP and all those companies only agree to develop oil and give big bucks for it, by forcing those corrupt governments in Africa to build up the countries. people shout down China, and yes,it is a mess in many ways but at least people get EDUCATION, WATER, FOOD, HEATING and a slice of the pie.
[info]babad wrote:
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 at 01:47 pm (UTC)
What do you expect...When a nation handles a talent (natural gift) with a tenancy tenure. The result will be like that of a car passing through a village. The fleeing/passing car is never part of the village community, ti will only leave in its wake - pollution, noise and/ or even kill the inhabitants.
Do we really treat the oil as a talent?
Do we really know that as in the biblical distribution of talent - we will be asked (individually and collectively) to give account.?
An Apology will not be accepted by the GIVER
BabaD
Environmental Racism
[info]chinaks wrote:
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 at 04:03 pm (UTC)
The multinationals -- particularly Royal Dutch Shell and the Nigerian State must be held responsible for this corporate malfeasance and 'ecocide'.Many of these multinationals act with impunity in the 'developing world' and must be stopped by every means possible.

Most popular in World News


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date