Protest Exposes Shell’s Grim Record on Human Rights

Last night Shell came face to face with its grim record on human rights in Nigeria at a corporate event for London’s bright young entrepreneurs. Protesters in haunting costumes from London Rising Tide stormed the Shell Live Wire event, unfurling a large banner and distributing leaflets to event attendees.

 

 

 

 

Watch the video by you and i films here:

The protest coincides with the 16th anniversary of the execution of writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists for their campaign against the environmental and social devastation caused by Shell and the Nigerian military regime. Continue reading

Own Up, Clean Up, Pay Up: Amnesty’s new report on Shell

Amnesty International today demanded that Shell immediately pay $1 billion towards an initial clean up fund for the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta, a scheme recommended by the UN this August.

A new report today published by Amnesty International and the Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD) has called on Shell to accept responsibility for the pollution caused by oil spills in the Niger Delta, and to begin by paying US$1 billion as an initial down-payment towards the clean-up.

Continue reading

BBC interviews Platform over Shell’s human rights abuses

Network Africa, the BBC World Service’s flagship programme broadcasting across the continent, interviewed Platform’s Ben Amunwa about the new report which implicates Shell in a decade of new human rights abuses in Nigeria. Shell declined to attend the interview.

For more Platform podcasts, visit our page for the remember saro-wiwa project on podomatic.

Legal analysis: Shell Nigeria lawsuits

Michael D. Goldhaber is an expert on human rights law and corporate accountability in the US. In his recent article in AM Law Daily, he offers up his views on the settlement between claimants from the village of Bodo and Shell over massive oil spills caused by the company in 2008-2009.

Royal Dutch Shell has been sued so many times over its conduct in Nigeria that its cases offer a laboratory experiment for human rights litigation.

After thirteen years of arduous U.S. alien tort litigation, Wiwa v. Shell resulted in a piddling $15.5 million settlement in 2009. Kiobel v. Shell has done even worse. Nearly a decade after the case was filed, it has succeeded only in abolishing the corporate alien tort within the Second Circuit, and if the U.S. Supreme Court accepts cert, it may do the same nationwide.
Continue reading

Gulfsands ends payments to Assad’s cousin – but continues supporting Syrian regime with $8 million every week

Documents revealed by the FT amid concerns raised by Avaaz show that

Gulfsands Petroleum, the London-listed oil and gas company, agreed to give a share of profits from its production activities in Syria to a company controlled by Rami Makhlouf, the first cousin of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

The company has also paid more than $1m in fees to Ramak, the Makhlouf family’s holding company, for services connected with its operations in the country.

Facing increasing public attention over its close relationships with the Syrian regime, Gulfsands today released details of its payments and engagement with Rami Makhlouf. This includes the 5.7% Al-Mashrek shareholding in Gulfsands, rental fees for an office in Damascus, and payments under the Ramak Services Agreement.

Ramak was apparently hired to “provide advice and to assist in identifying, evaluating and pursuing E & P opportunities in Syria, including in connection with the successful public tender for Block 26″. This is interesting, as Ramak is a holding company known best for its duty free stores, not for its expertise in the oil industry. However, the company is known for winning public tenders in Syria. Ramak was added to the Treasury Department’s Blocked Persons List precisely because of Makhlouf’s use of “access to high-level Syrian Government insiders to enrich himself at the expense of the Syrian people”.

Gulfsands claims now to have suspended all payments to the Makhlouf interests after EU sanctions imposed in May 2011. This is possible, but begs the question of why the company claimed in July 2011 that “business as usual” continued in Syria, with no reference to a severance of relations with a key partner. Today’s public statement came only in the context of increased questions in the media, undermining Gulfsands’ claims to be acting responsibly.

Today’s news release also gives the impression that Gulfsands has been complying with both EU and US sanctions:

“Gulfsands notes that the US and EU have imposed a number of sanctions against Syria and various named individuals and organisations. Gulfsands is fully compliant with all applicable sanctions”

This is a clever dodge – note the use of the word “applicable”. US sanctions are not applicable to Gulfsands – because it moved its headquarters from Houston to London. This enabled the company to continue payments to Ramak until now.

Under pressure, Gulfsands has distanced itself a little from Rami Makhlouf. But the company is pressing ahead with its record extraction levels. PLATFORM’s calculations show that Gulfsands is paying the Syrian regime between $4.5 million and $8.4 million in revenue and oil – every week. This provides Assad’s dictatorship a key capital lifeline to continue its attacks on the uprising.

Is Syrian propaganda tool and oil company Gulfsands dodging EU sanctions?

Propaganda tool?

London-based Gulfsands Petroleum is operating as a propaganda tool for the Assad regime. In an interview from last Wednesday, the company’s communications director Ken Judge made statements that

  • claimed Islamic extremists had infiltrated protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s 11-year rule.

Yet the Syrian uprising is evidently supported by a broad swathe of the country. Scaremongering about “Islamic extremists” who “infiltrate” protests is an attempt to affirm the dictatorship’s distortion. (“Syrian govt claims Islamic extremists infiltrate rebel movement“)

  • defended Syria’s “efficient bureaucracy”, which allowed Gulfsands to sign a 35-year contract with fiscal terms “the best of any country in the Middle East” in only eight days.

Signing a 35-year contract in eight days is not evidence some much of efficiency, but of a dictatorship and corruption. Good practice involves publishing contracts and debating them within parliament and the public sphere, not making major economic decisions wiGulfsands Director Kenneth Judgeth no public oversight, transparency or accountability.

  • described their experience of working in Syria with the Syrian Government as “tremendous. [...] And we see every evidence of that continuing right to this very day.”

This last is from an interview two weeks earlier.

 

Dodging sanctions?

Serious questions needs to be asked as to whether Gulfsands are currently ignoring EU sanctions. The company based on Cork Street near Piccadilly, has close ties to individuals and organisations under sanction. 5.8% of Gulfsands shares are held by Al-Mashrek Global Invest Ltd, a fund recognised as tied to public corruption in Syria and controlled by the Syrian tycoon Rami Makhlouf, a central figure in Assad’s regime and cousin of the president. These shares were issued in 2007 in a special deal to accelerate extraction in Syria.

Al-Mashrek has been subject to EU sanctions (an asset freeze and a travel ban) since June, with Rami Makhlouf also listed individually by the EU and the US.

Gulfsands also holds a “strategic partnership” signed with Rami’s main Syrian front company, Cham Holdings, described by Gulfsands as “one of Syria’s most important business groups.” Through Cham Holdings, Makhlouf has dominated the Syrian economy in recent years, taking advantage of no-bid tenders and his relationships with key ministers to become the richest man in the country. As a result, Rami Makhlouf himself is the top hate-figure in Syria alongside Bashar and Maher Assad, with protests (including this photograph) denouncing his role and attacks on Syriatel, owned by Cham.

When the Gulfsands-Cham deal was signed in 2007, Gulfsands Chairman Andrew West was excited about the benefits of being formally allied with Assad’s top business crony: “We are optimistic that, in partnership with Cham Holding, Gulfsands will be able to acquire direct and indirect interests in several potentially high-value energy projects which have already been identified in Syria and Iraq.”
Cham’s Chairman Nabil Kuzbari – now also under sanctions – added, “For some time now, we have enjoyed a close working relationship with Gulfsands’ management and directors”. The joint venture – created as an acquisition vehicle for energy assets – was widely recognised as providing Gulfsands with the”influence necessary to achieve its aims in the region.”

Despite the EU sanctions on Makhlouf and Al-Mashrek, Gulfsands continues “business as usual” in Syria and has offered no public statement explaining how it will end co-operation or payments to either.

This is unsurprising, as Gulfsands has a history of dodging sanctions. The company was itself once a Houston, USA, based oil company with American directors. When in 2008 the US Treasury Department designated Makhlouf as a person benefitting from corruption who “used Syrian intelligence officials to intimidate” and whose “close business associations with some Syrian cabinet ministers have enabled him to gain access to lucrative oil exploration”, Gulfsands chose to maintain its alliance with Makhlouf. With US imposed sanctions on companies and US citizens dealing with Makhlouf, the company upped sticks, moved to London and sacrificed both its CEO and CFO.

The company does not set out the potential impact of EU sanctions in its annual report published in April 2011. The “Principal Risks and Uncertainties” leaves the issue untouched, an irresponsible lack of rsik assessment towards its shareholders.

Oil companies, possibly including Gulfsands, have also raised the issue of demanding compensation for sanctions. This creates an economic disincentive to further sanctions on oil exports or sales.

Gambling on repression

In his interview, Kenneth Judge sees no issues with aligning his company with the regime. Beyond that, the company is seeking to profit from instability, from its preparedness to work with a dictatorship that tries to cling to power:

“We’re a little further on the front foot in looking for new business opportunities elsewhere in the MENA region. And we are working quite earnestly to try to take advantage of perhaps the nervousness of some companies, or the inability of some companies, to finance themselves in the Middle East at the moment.”

The company’s main political concern in its annual report is that a “host country seeking to expropriate assets or change the terms of existing contracts.” But Gulfsands directors feel this is covered as “In the case of Syria we have successfully developed such relationships through Mahdi Sajjad as a result of our longstanding presence in the country.”

Rami Makhlouf will have given the Gulfsands board further reassurance with his statement that

“We will sit here. We call it a fight until the end. [...] They should know when we suffer, we will not suffer alone.”

Drilling as usual

Ken Judge also stated

“Whilst security is maintained at these facilities, we will remain able to operate our business.”

This is relevant, as parts of Syria’s oil infrastructure have begun to be targeted by the popular uprising, as people have realised that the crude produced by Gulfsands and Shell is the lifeblood for Assad’s regime. Gulfsands is relying on the Syrian military – now responsible for over 1,500 killings in recent months – to keep people away from the oil fields and pipelines.

Judge is happy to boast that at this point of crisis, Gulfsands is drilling and pumping at record levels:

“Having just returned from Syria with my colleagues, as I was there all last week, we’ve continued our activities whether they are in Damascus or in the field in the north east, uninterrupted throughout this period that you’ve seen on television or in the press. Without interruption, without interference or any consequence to our production, which has reached record levels. So in recent days we’ve been setting record levels of production for the company, and we’re actively working on projects to expand that production up to 24,000 barrels a day, in the second half of this year.”

Twelve wells are to be drilled in 2011, bringing extraction up to 33,000 barrels per day by 2012.

Gulfsands’ operations are concentrated in BLock 26, in the far north-eastern corner of Syria. This is the predominantly Kurdish part of the country, where the local population has long been subject to discrimination and repression.

The struggle for justice in Ogoni

Here is a heartfelt comment piece in The Guardian on the local reaction in Ogoni to Shell’s oil spill payout.

Shell has admitted liability but has a long way to go to make amends

Oil spills destroyed my village in Nigeria and decades of environmental and social injustice are still to be addressed.

By Patrick Naagbanton

Shell’s admission of liability for two massive oil spills in 2008-09 in my village of Bodo in the Niger Delta is a step forward in the long struggle for corporate accountability. An impoverished village that yesterday lay in ruins has today felt a welcome glimmer of hope and justice.

We are happy with the news that Shell could be forced to clean up the environmental devastation it has caused and to pay more than $400m in compensation. But our jubilation is overshadowed by more than five decades of environmental and social injustice yet to be addressed.

Bodo village is a fishing community in the minority Ogoni region of the Niger Delta. Shell was forced out of Ogoni in 1993, following mass protests led by writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was executed on 10 November 1995 alongside eight other campaigners. Shell’s vast network of oil wells, pipelines, flow-stations and gas flares remained in Ogoni and are an everyday reminder of what we have suffered.

Many of Shell’s rusty, leaky pipelines date back to the 1970s and have been poorly maintained ever since (see pages 31-36 and 43 of Friends of the Earth Netherlands report). It was equipment failure that caused Shell’s high-pressure Trans-Niger pipeline to rupture on 28 August 2008, gushing an estimated 2,000 barrels of oil per day into Bodo for weeks. The land and water was covered in thick layers of crude. Shell was also responsible for a second spill from the same pipeline on 2 February 2009.

Oil spills have effectively destroyed my community. Local farmers and fishers were forced to abandon their traditional ways of life. Bodo Creek is, ecologically speaking, dead. The fish that were not killed by the heavy pollution now reek of petroleum and cannot sustain a village population of 69,000 people. Shell has violated our basic human rights to food, water and livelihood. The compensation Shell offered us – £3,500 plus bags of rice and sugar – was insulting and wholly inadequate. Continue reading

Breaking: Delta Activists Respond to UNEP Report

Below is a press release from ERA/FoE Nigeria, in response to UNEP’s publication – in the last half hour – of its report on the ecological impact of oil spills in Ogoni. Local activists argue that UNEP’s recommendation for a $1 billion fund for restoration in Ogoni is a token.

4 August 2011

UNEP Report: ERA seeks $100 bn for Niger Delta

With yesterday’s release of the report of a two-year study by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) has called for the creation of a $100 billion Environmental Restoration Fund for the Niger Delta.

ERA/FoEN in a statement issued in Lagos welcomed the report and said that the Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland, despite its short comings, has not only vindicated it worst fears about the state of the environment in Ogoniland and the entire Niger Delta, but also showed Shell’s atrocious breach of minimum requirements of the Environmental Guidelines and Standards for Petroleum Industries in Nigeria (EGASPIN) and its own standards.

Continue reading

The Biggest Oil Spill in the World

PLATFORM featured on Channel 4 News this evening, providing analysis on two current news stories – the revelations of the full extent of environmental devastation in Ogoni land contained in the UN’s new report, and Shell’s admission of liability for two recent oil spills in Bodo, Ogoniland. Campaigner Ben Amunwa helped provide background research as the story rapidly unfolded.

Also, Shell’s spills in Nigeria were the top story on BBC World News, which featured a lengthier analysis from PLATFORM.

Earlier in the day, PLATFORM’s analysis was also quoted in msnbc.com’s report on the same story, available here. The article covered Shell’s double standards in Nigeria, and the potentially ground-breaking implications of the company’s admission of liability for the 2 recent oil spills in Bodo.

In the court case filed in Britain, Shell conceded liability and agreed to proceed under the jurisdiction of the English courts last month, [Lawyer, Dan] Leader told msnbc.com.

The two spills in 2008 and 2009 at Bodo, Ogoniland, devastated the 69,000-person community, Leader said.

“The mood music is changing — oil companies are going to have to start no longer employing a double standard for the developing world and apply the same standards for America and Europe,” he told msnbc.com.

Protest groups have increasingly tried to seek compensation against western oil companies in the firms’ home jurisdictions.

Ben Amunwa of the British group PLATFORM, which monitors international energy companies, said that depending on the compensation that is decided in this case, the agreement could usher in a flood of claims from communities in the region.

“The potential in this decision is that Shell could face a mountain of claims,” Amunwa explained.

The lawyers and rights groups have said the amount of oil in these two spillages alone was approximately 20 percent of the amount that leaked into the Gulf of Mexico following the BP  disaster.

“BP did more in 6-months for the U.S. communities than Shell has done in 50 years for the Ogoniland,” said Amnesty International’s [Audrey] Gaughran.

Shell to blame: Nigeria oil spills case creates media storm

Shell’s environmental devastation in the Niger Delta came under heavy scrutiny today, as global media attention focused on the company’s admission of liability for two devastating oil spills in Nigeria in 2008-9.

Here is a round-up of press coverage so far. Current estimates suggest that Shell could pay our over $410 million (£250m) in compensation.

FT: Shell’s Nigeria pay-out could top £250m

BBC: Ogoniland oil spills: Shell admits Nigeria liability

Reuters: Shell faces first Nigerian oil spill claims in UK

Continue reading