ALYSSANDRA NICOLE DALIUAG

BSA 3

CASE STUDY- SHELL AND OGONI PEOPLE

Introduction
For more than five decades, Oil has been Nigeria's primary export. Shell accounts for
approximately half of the country's oil production. The environment has been hit by
frequent oil spills and gas spills, resulting in a decrease in biodiversity. Since the late
1980's, the military, sponsored by the oil companies Shell, has been carrying out public
protests against persecution and repression. Those who violate human rights or fail to
comply with environmental standards, such as Shell, have been unpunished, and global
norms and enforcement mechanisms for regulation of petroleum companies have been
imposed. The Ogoni had faced destructive consequences since the 1950s, as a
consequence of the presence of the Shell Oil Company in Ogoniland, Nigeria, and
discrimination against the government in Nigeria, which favored the interests of the
petroleum company rather than of the local community.

Background
Ogoni communities are mainly located in the Niger Delta State river territory of
Ogoniland. They have historically relied on agriculture, fishing, palm oil growing and
salt production to trade with their neighboring communities. Ogoni is also a livestock
farmer, especially goats, sometimes, although the Niger delta land is not ideal for large-
scale livestock. Ogoni communities are deeply dependent both on their livelihoods,
their land and water resources, as well as spiritual and religious activities focused on
the river. Fishing in the river and farming on industrial scales are widely practiced.

Findings
Over fifty years of oil exploration and production in Nigeria, Africa's top oil
producer, has caused damage on the environment. The Nigeria Delta is located to the
world's largest oil fields. Nigeria was a wealthy country prior to the discovery of oil. Oil
drilling has had a destructive impact on the ecosystem since Shell began operations. Oil
spills, deforestation, and gas flaring have depleted the land's natural resources,
threatening the Ogoni people's traditional farming and fishing livelihoods. Oil
operations also damaged drinking water and agricultural land, killing wildlife and
undermining subsistence farming and fishing industries.
People's sources of income from fishing and farming were eroded as a result of the
oil operations, and gas flaring resulted in continuous air and noise pollution, leading to
respiratory disorders and cancer in the surrounding towns. Instead of protecting the
people, the government is complicit in Shell's cruel campaign, which has resulted in
thousands of deaths and forced tens of thousands of people from their homes.
Community disagreements, violence, and despair are some of the societal
consequences, which lead to militancy and a decrease in the tourism and hospitality
industries.
Since the company began operations, there have been several spills in the soil and
local water, both of which have been tainted with carcinogens, posing a serious hazard
to the public and causing respiratory difficulties and cancer. The oil disaster has had a
significant impact on everyone, particularly children. The youngsters consume
contaminated fish and vegetables and drink, bathe, and cook with polluted water.
Today, the river is devoid of fish, the groundwater is contaminated, and even
precipitation is corrosive. Ogoni villages have been denied access to clean water, food,
and air in favor of Shell's economic interests. People are suffering and dying as a result
of the oil drilling in the area.
The Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) was founded, and it
rapidly began advocating for Ogoni communities to have more control over oil and gas
resources. They want economic prosperity as well as autonomy in terms of culture,
religion, and the environment. Activists created an Ogoni Bill of Rights, which claimed
six billion dollars in damages for past oil output and four billion dollars for
environmental damage from the Nigerian government. They also staged a number of
nonviolent protests. Shell retaliated by funding a vicious terror campaign, providing
daily rations to Nigerian army forces stationed in Ogoniland in order to suppress the
Ogoni people.
Shell's treatment of the Ogoni people creates a number of ethical concerns, including
environmental degradation, harassment, and human rights breaches when they silence
them, force them to do what they want, and threaten them with military action. Finally,
unethical leadership occurred when the government chose to side with the Shell firm
and ignored the Ogoni people's concerns, putting their health in jeopardy due to
pollution produced by the oil leak and acid rain.
 Discussions
The corporation should not have abused the Ogoni land's natural resources and
should have devised a realistic action plan for preserving and maintaining the
environment's beauty. They should have cleaned up the oil spills in the area because
they harmed people's livelihoods and depleted natural resources on land and in water.
Local towns should be allowed to build their own lawful refineries, which would create
jobs, reduce pollution, and spur economic development. Furthermore, the crude should
be sold at a domestic price rather than an international price.
They should have been accountable for assisting the community in rebuilding and
cleaning the area in order to restore livelihood activities and protect the environment's
natural resources. Shell kept denying participation in the killings of the ogoni. And they
provided only a settlement of $15.5 million. The settlement was defined as a
"humanitarian act," which was meant to make up for the loss of claimants, including Mr
Saro-family, and cover a part of their costs and legal duties. Some of the proceeds will
be placed in the Ogoni people's educational and social trust fund. The settlement would
"finance the trust and supply the complainants and the property which they represent
for their compassionate payments in recognition of the unlucky turn of events in the
Ogoni land, even if Shell was not involved in the violence. They should have offered
larger compensation and helped resolve the situation in the land of Ogoni; they should
have tried to restore the beauty of the land and to clean the rivers in order to allow the
people of Ogoni to re-exist. But they didn't they just gave them $15.5 million and let
them to do what they wanted.

Solutions
The best approach is by listening to the parties and trying to achieve an
agreement, the government could have done better to resolve the issue between Shell
and the Ogoni people. The people of Ogoni should not have ignored the shouts and
repressed them and should not have promoted the business of Shell by supplying them
with the military force used to injure the people of Ogoni. Had they listened before, the
harm might not have been so serious, and the people of Ogoni would not wait the
judgment they were entitled to for 13 years. According to what I've heard, a shell
business discovered the oil in Ogoniland and all they wanted to do was utilize it to
generate oil and put it to good use. They hoped to earn money while also contributing
to the country's economy. Because the entire region was thoroughly poisoned and
damaged, the firm should have been responsible for cleaning up the oil. I also
understand the Ogoni people's cries for help, because not only is their livelihood
threatened by the oil spill, but their health is also jeopardized by the pollution caused
by the shell company's gas flaring. In addition, the community worked its hardest to
solve the situation by forming a peaceful movement dedicated to ending resource
mismanagement and oppression.

Alternatives
The shell company should have been looking for other alternatives to produce oil
without damaging the environment or livelihoods of individuals, such as heating and
electricity generation by using gas. They might have used it to generate energy to assist
the Ogoniland instead of flaring gas that would have led to pollution and acid prey. In
addition, flared gas reinjection might have been employed in secondary oil recovery,
including the injection of petroleum and gas gas into existing wells to re-establish the
pressure for decreased natural formation and keep outputs. This self-supporting cycle is
very cost-effective, since waste is minimized and process efficiency is increased overall.
The usage of liquefied natural gas is another alternative (LNG). The safe and cost-
effective alternative to gaseous flaring is gas liquefaction and storage. After purification
operations, liquefied natural gas can be retained for industrial and domestic use. You
can get the oil without putting people at risk.

Recommendations
Shell could therefore utilize many approaches to reduce oil spillages, such as the
deployment of leak detection technologies, the development of safety institutions
supported by the industry and the setting of targets for spillage reduction. As for
Nigeria, the clean-up initiative in Ogoniland should be steeled up, which seeks to
restore the project's sleep. The devastation was done to the Ogoni country and people's
life. There are no lives that have been lost, so I suggest that Shell prevent further
damage as documents released in the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
show that the UNEP has not properly implemented 'emergency measures' and has not
been effective in the trillion dollar clean-up project launched by Nigeria's government
in 2016. We have now improved our technology and machineries.