Thomas Broadhead questions why the Nigerian environmental crisis is being ignored.

IN MAY 2010, the Gulf of Mexico was the focus of the world’s press. Rightly so; 5 million barrels of oil in an area of such beauty and ecological interest is no laughing matter. The publicly catastrophic consequences of the blowout had the potential to influence fundamental change. Effective use of the global community’s collective conscience could have applied public pressure for reform in regulation of oil drilling practices. The swarms of press helicopters circling the Gulf of Mexico presented a unique opportunity, but widespread exposure of the oil industry’s malpractice never followed.

Despite the findings of the US federal report, stating that the “cost or time-saving decisions ... were contributing causes to the blowout,” the matter never made it to political debate. Cut corners during and in the aftermath of oil drilling practices are rife; quite baffling considering the wealth of the oil industry and toxicity of the product. The consequences are devastating, and invariably far from the lenses of the press.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster is a tea party in comparison to the meal that has been made of the Niger delta. For decades, Royal Dutch Shell’s catastrophic mishandling of oil in the region has not only had unimaginable environmental consequences, but has condemned the area to all-out oil warfare. From a company that boasted $7.2bn profits for the third quarter last year, expecting them to clean up their own foul mess is a reasonable request. Absolutely no regard has been shown for the needs of communities in the region. Instead, Shell’s cosy relationship with the Nigerian government granted them military muscle to quieten the voices.

Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other figurehead protesters were executed in 1995 for protesting against the oil damage caused by Shell to their native Ogoniland. The witnesses who testified against the nine protesters reportedly admitted later to being bribed by Shell and the Nigerian Government, with offers of jobs at Shell. In 2009 Shell settled out-of court with victims’ families in a case accusing it of complicity in the murders, paying out $15.5m dollars.

Despite the international community’s recognition of the tragic injustice suffered by Ken Saro-Wiwa, the very same vehicle that stood before rolls on, even accelerating. In late August 2011 nine separate oil spills were responsible for 1-2 million gallons of oil caking the Niger delta; a more recent major spill from just over two weeks ago, possibly the worst oil spill in a decade, highlighted another cut corner in oil giant circles.

Shell has blamed the oil spill on sabotage, a frequent explanation. Whether or not the truth, the lure for locals is somewhat understandable, considering both the extreme poverty and the pains suffered at the hands of oil companies. Considering Shell’s impressive profit margins, the withdrawal of contracts for local pipeline security is inexcusable. Equally culpable is the operator’s non-existent maintenance of wells and valves. Shell pays oil spill fines to the Nigerian government, convenient, considering the nature of the relationship, but account sheets detailing the use of this money are hard to come by.

The unanswered question is, how can companies such as Shell go unregulated, causing a cacophony of social and environmental turmoil? If even a modest slice of the company’s profits were directed towards investment in and inclusion of communities, clean-up of contaminated land, and in more diligence towards protecting the environment, the situation could be very different. Recent UN studies suggest that the Niger delta would take upwards of 30 years and $1bn to clean up; a lot for locals, but Shell made $7.2bn in just three months last year.

Remember Ken Saro-Wiwa when perusing the Shell graduate recruitment stand at the next careers fair. That prospective ‘respectable’ career may then leave a slightly sour taste; rightfully so.

Will the Canadian government learn lessons from Nigeria as it rallies to support the lucrative Keystone XL pipeline? One piece of evidence lies therein; the fact that vouching for support is necessary shows that companies and governments are far less enthusiastic when a nation with greater media accessibility is concerned. Not least of all, incidents in the public eye threaten the all-important share price.

The argument is not against oil, or capitalism for that matter. It is against ‘respectable’ corporations and governments being above any moral or formal jurisdiction; their decisions causing avoidable, long term devastation and suffering for the sake of maximisation of already astronomical capital gain. What level of disaster will it take to bring the oil companies’ practices under serious scrutiny?