Cat among the pigeons

Ooooh, this is going to be fun.

So, following Amnesty and all sorts of environmental groups pointing to the horrible pollution from the oil business in the Niger delta, the UN (UNEP, the environmental peeps) does a big report on who is to blame for it.

The result is that it\’s not Shell or the Government, it\’s the locals who cut into the pipelines to steal the oil.

90% of it, anyway.

Those environmental groups don\’t like this at all.

This will, I am sure, run and run.

15 thoughts on “Cat among the pigeons”

  1. The shock disclosure was made by Mike Cowing, the head of a UN team of 100 people who have been studying environmental damage in the region.

    About as shocking as Christmas to anyone who knows anything about the Nigerian oil business.

    Here’s a prediction: the focus of the protest groups will switch from the spillage of oil to the flaring of gas. A few times I’ve heard somebody or other complain that the opcos flared their gas instead of capturing it or selling it locally, without realising that the flaring of associated gas was standard practice pretty much the world over until only about 10 years ago (with some Nigerian fields having been operating since the 1970s). Nowadays all the majors minimise flaring as much as possible, both for economic and environmental reasons.

  2. Oh, and let’s hope all oil production in the Niger Delta is henceforth shut down and all those employed in the region – or about to be employed – are assigned to projects elsewhere.

  3. But of course it’s Shell’s fault. They built the pipelines in the first place, so it’s only natural that when local, poor people – who cannot have any responsibility for their actions because they’re local poor people – cut the pipes, the builder of the pipe is to blame.

  4. Wouldn’t any of the above contributors be the slightest bit sceptical about the report concluding largely in Shell’s favour when it was paid for by them?

  5. @ Gutbucket

    No because “The shock disclosure was made by Mike Cowing, the head of a UN team of 100 people who have been studying environmental damage in the region”

    and as we all know the UN is incorruptible and a fantastic blueprint for world government.

  6. Who else would have paid for it? Everyone other than the Shell had an interest in blaming the company for any and all spills/damage/etc and would receive no advantage from a report that let them off from even a fraction of the blame.

    I imagine that now they have an interest, (lowering the amount that is blamed on anything other than the company), they will conduct their own studies.

  7. Apparently its an insult to Ken Saro Wiwa and others.

    Because the truth is an insult????

    Everyone with even a passing knowledge of Nigeria knew the result before the study began. Why do you think Shell was happy to pay for it. Only those who think the truth should bend to ideology are now weeping into their soya milk.

    Flaring is a big problem in Nigeria, but in an environment where the locals sabotage pipelines, solving it is a little more difficult.

  8. “That’s an entirely predictable narrative, in which case why did they accept the funding?”

    It’s stated in the article. The head of the UN team said:

    “We believe that it is correct that Shell [Nigeria] fund the study, as this is in compliance with the internationally accepted norm of the ‘polluter pays’. No party … will be able to influence the science.”

  9. On the principal that the polluter pays, I assume that Shell will be sending in the bailiffs to the dirt poor villages to ransom the poor piccaninnies(?) to get their money back. This will be widly reported in certain areas of the MSM.

  10. Translation:

    “We believe that it is correct that Shell [Nigeria] fund the study, as this is in compliance with the internationally accepted norm of the ‘ accused pays’ prior to us finding him guilty as hell. No evidence … will be allowed to influence the results, and anyway, they ain’t getting their money back”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *