Go to hell, Shell

accreditation
0:00
play article
Subscribers can listen to this article
Members of environmental movement Extinction Rebellion and of climate justice advocacy organisation African Climate Alliance recently picketed outside Shell’s head office in Bryanston. Photo: Tebogo Letsie
Members of environmental movement Extinction Rebellion and of climate justice advocacy organisation African Climate Alliance recently picketed outside Shell’s head office in Bryanston. Photo: Tebogo Letsie

VOICES


The corporate drive for profit frequently takes the form of psychopathic monomania. But among the many horsemen of the corporate apocalypse, Royal Dutch Shell has a particular record of infamy.

Shell is responsible for more of the human-generated emissions that are accelerating the climate crisis than most countries. However, until recently, it was not, like states, required to abide by the Paris Agreement.

In May this year, a Dutch court changed that and compelled Shell to cut its emissions by 45% from 2019’s levels by 2030, and ruled that Shell was a threat to the right to life.

Shell has known since at least 1988 that its profit model is a direct threat to humanity on a planetary scale. In that year, when global heating was not an issue of general concern, Shell commissioned an internal research project into the planetary consequences of its carbon emissions.

The research predicted a doubling of carbon dioxide levels by 2030 and, as a result, a temperature rise of 2°C and a sea level rise of at least 1m.

It noted that the temperature increase could lead to the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, resulting in a planetary rise in sea levels of 5m to 6m, which would entirely submerge low-lying countries.

READ: Human rights organisations lose bid to stop Shell from seismic exploration of Wild Coast

Despite knowing this, Shell continued to poison the planet. Last year, the company planned to increase oil and gas production by 38% by 2030.

Death in the Delta

Shell is most notorious for its devastation of much of the Niger Delta, which is now one of the most polluted places on the planet. Shell has been drilling in the delta, home of the Ogoni people, since 1958 and there is a long history of opposition to the devastation that the company has wreaked there.

In 1970, Ogoni leaders charged Shell with “seriously threatening the wellbeing and even the very lives” of their people. As dissent escalated, so did repression. In 1987, following a peaceful demonstration against Shell, an attack by the notorious Nigerian Mobile Police (Mopol), popularly known as “kill and go”, left 350 people homeless. Matters came to a head in the 1990s after sustained mass protest was met with vicious repression. In 1990, Shell requested the presence of Mopol in response to a protest against the company. About 80 unarmed demonstrators were murdered and 496 houses were either destroyed or severely damaged.

In the same year, writer Ken Saro-Wiwa led the formation of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (Mosop). Speaking during a television interview in the UK, he lamented: “The Ogoni country has been completely destroyed by the search for oil … Oil blowouts, spillages, slicks and general pollution accompany the search for oil …

What used to be the breadbasket of the delta has now become totally infertile. All one sees and feels around is death.

Environmental degradation has been a lethal weapon in the war against the indigenous Ogoni people.”

The Nigerian activist whose death shamed Shell

Saro-Wiwa was jailed without trial for several months in 1992. In January the following year, Mosop mobilised about 300 000 people, said to be a quarter of the Ogoni population, in protest against Shell.

The Nigerian state, which had degenerated into a military dictatorship under the control of Sani Abacha, responded with a military occupation of the region.

Saro-Wiwa was arrested on trumped-up charges in May 1994 and repeatedly subjected to torture as part of a broader campaign of repression led by the notorious Paul Okuntimo, then a lieutenant colonel in the army. Okuntimo was reported as having said that “he was doing it all for Shell …

But he was not happy because the last time he had asked Shell to pay his men their outstation allowances, he had been refused – which was not the usual procedure.”

By June, Shell had been forced out of the delta by a peaceful uprising, and its international reputation was in crisis after repeated allegations that it had colluded with the military in abuses of various kinds, including massacres.

Saro-Wiwa and eight others were executed in November. There was global outrage. Activists in Europe firebombed fuel stations and, in many countries, including South Africa, there were boycotts of Shell petrol stations and demands for disinvestment in the company.

It initially denied complicity in the execution of the Ogoni Nine. However, on the eve of a trial scheduled to take place in New York, US, in 2009, Shell agreed to pay a settlement of $15.5 million [R246 million] in response to legal action.

It was accused of having conspired with the Nigerian state to capture and hang the men, and of collaborating with the army to capture, torture and kill other protesters.

READ: Ocean lovers take Shell to court in a bid prevent it from seismic blasting on Wild Coast

One of the plaintiffs was Karalolo Kogbara. She lost an arm in 1993 after she was shot during a protest against the bulldozing of her village to clear the way for a Shell pipeline.

The company was also alleged to have supplied the Nigerian army with patrol boats, vehicles and ammunition, and to have co-planned military operations, including raids on villages.

Shell’s conduct in Nigeria has continued to elicit deep concern. In 2010, a US diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks showed that a top executive in Shell had told US diplomats that the company had seconded employees to key government departments and knew “everything that was being done in those ministries”.

The leaks also showed that Shell and the US state swapped intelligence, and that Shell shared a list of people it believed to be supporting the militants organising sabotage against the company in the Nigerian oil fields.

CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA - NOVEMBER 21: Protestors
Protestors at the V&A Waterfront on 21 November. Photo: Brenton Geach/Gallo Images via Getty Images

Successful legal action against Shell has continued. In 2015, seeking to avoid a case being heard in the London High Court, Shell agreed to pay £55 million [R1.162 billion] to 1 600 people in Bodo, a village in Rivers State, in compensation for the 2008 and 2009 oil spills that devastated their community.

In January this year, a Dutch court ordered Shell to pay compensation, to be determined at a later date, to Nigerian farmers for oil spills in 2004 and 2005.

In August, Shell agreed to pay the Ejama-Ebubu community in the delta $111 million in compensation for a spill in 1970 that was said to have turned the rain black. Shell had first been ordered to pay compensation by a Nigerian court in 2010, but it spent years trying to appeal the ruling before it finally ran out of judicial road.

Despoiling the Arctic

In recent years, Shell has added to its global notoriety by drilling in the Arctic. It began looking for oil there in the 1980s, but started a major project in 2008. There was immediate and widespread opposition and, in 2010, after the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, then US president Barack Obama’s government imposed a temporary moratorium on offshore drilling.

Shell returned to drilling in mid-2012, but, after a series of mishaps, including an incident in which one of its ships almost ran aground, the company was barred from deep drilling. When it was able to return to drilling later in the year, a ship caught fire and a rig ran aground.

In 2015, after spending $7 billion, the company cancelled its Arctic drilling operations in the face of massive public pressure – including the forced shutdown of 53 fuel stations in London and Edinburgh, UK, by activists in 2012.

Greenpeace said: “Big oil has sustained an unmitigated defeat. They had a budget of billions, we had a movement of millions. For three years, we faced them down and the people won.”

But last year, Shell announced that it had applied to resume drilling in the Arctic in 2023.

Mendacity

Now that Shell has its eye on the Wild Coast, South Africans have every reason to be concerned and enraged.

Pam Ntaka, the company’s spin doctor, has said that Shell undertook “a full stakeholder consultation process” and would “take great care to prevent or minimise impacts on fish, marine mammals and other wildlife”.

But Shell is hardly an organisation with a record of honesty. On the contrary, it has a record of mendacity. The company lied about the scale of its oil reserves in 2004 and had to pay a total of $150 million in fines to the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Services Authority in the UK. After a lawsuit, it had to pay a further $450 million to shareholders.

Shell is also notorious for greenwashing. In 2008, the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK ruled that the company had misled the public when it falsely claimed in an advertisement that a $10 billion oil sands project in Canada was a “sustainable energy source”.

In Durban, well-respected and longstanding grassroots environmental activist Des D’Sa has called for a boycott of Shell and demanded that the company close shop and leave South Africa. A boycott is an excellent idea.

This article was first published in New Frame


facebook
twitter
linkedin
instagram

Delivering the 

news you need

+27 11 713 9001
news@citypress.co.za
www.citypress.co.za
69 Kingsway Rd, Auckland Park

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
In times of uncertainty you need journalism you can trust. For only R75 per month, you have access to a world of in-depth analyses, investigative journalism, top opinions and a range of features. Journalism strengthens democracy. Invest in the future today.
Subscribe to News24

E-Editions

Read the digital editions of City Press here.
Read now
Voting Booth
The CCMA has ruled that the dismissal of an employee for refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 was fair. What are your thoughts?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Results
It is her right to refuse
22% - 19 votes
She is a risk to others
49% - 43 votes
Mandatory vaccination ?
13% - 11 votes
No to mandatory vaxxing
17% - 15 votes
Vote