US embassy cable - 03ABUJA1638

UNCLAS ABUJA 001638 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EPET, SENV, EWWT, PHUM, PGOV, NI 
SUBJECT: A VIEW TO A SPILL: SHELL IN THE SPOTLIGHT 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED, NOT FOR PUBLISHING ON THE 
INTRANET OR INTERNET 
 
 
1. (SBU) During an early August visit to Port Harcourt, CRO 
met with the Center for Social and Corporate Responsibility 
(CSCR), a Port Harcourt-based NGO operating on a grant from 
Catholic Relief Services, to discuss CSCR's investigation 
into the major October 2002 oil spill at a Shell trunk line 
into Battan creek of the Warri area.  Two weeks earlier CSCR 
had met in Warri with senior Shell staff, including an 
External Relations Manager from London, to present CSCR's 
findings.  CSCR requested that Shell retract its earlier 
finding of "sabotage," compensate the community for the 
extensive damage caused by its sub-standard equipment, and 
apologize publicly to the seven"saboteurs" libeled by the 
company.  Shell agreed to provide compensation in the form of 
community development assistance to Battan, but postponed 
further action to a follow-on meeting to be held in Warri in 
mid-August.  That meeting was later postponed because of 
intensive Itsekiri-Ijaw fighting there. 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
 
2. (SBU) An October 20,2002 rupture in a 28-inch Shell trunk 
line conveying crude poured a huge volume of crude into the 
Battan creek of the Warri area.  According to CSCR, Shell 
pulled together a Joint Investigative Team (JIT) as is the 
practice in all ruptures or spills, which visited Battan 
within days of the spill.  Unlike the normal composition that 
would include the local community, this JIT was composed only 
of personnel from Shell, the federal Ministry of Environment, 
the Delta State Government, and the police.  The JIT then 
deemed the spill "sabotage" and publicized the names of seven 
Ijaw youth as "saboteurs."  The seven were subsequently 
picked up by the police.  Shell has a strict policy of not 
paying compensation to communities if a spill is determined 
the work of saboteurs, and brings in outside contractors to 
clean up so as not to allow the local community to benefit 
financially from sabotage. 
 
 
CSCR'S INVESTIGATION 
 
 
3. (SBU) Responding to the Battan spill, CSCR visited the 
site, spoke with the community (which had videotaped the 
results of the rupture) and was given access to the JIT 
findings, including photographs of the manifold.  According 
to a CSCR official, the gasket lining the manifold was far 
too old.  It corroded and collapsed, allowing a leak that 
produced great stress on the nuts and bolts holding the 
manifold together.  Ultimately the bolts popped and the 
manifold opened up.  With the manifold lying under 12 feet of 
water, saboteurs would have had to use diving equipment and 
still would have faced the likely impossible task of 
loosening the nuts and bolts in zero visibility as oil gushed 
out under tremendous pressure. 
 
 
4. (SBU) The CSCR official also claimed that Shell pressured 
the JIT members to come to the conclusion that sabotage was 
the cause of the spill, and that that the ample police 
participation in the JIT had intimidated the community from 
trying to get involved in the JIT's work.  While 
acknowledging that Shell, with over 6,000 kilometers of oil 
pipelines snaking throughout the Delta, is a top target of 
pipeline vandalization, the CSCR official alleged to CRO that 
Shell often cites sabotage as the cause for spills that 
actually resulted from pipe failure or natural accidents in 
order to avoid liability for the resulting environmental 
damage.  He said that Shell's pipes are over 30 years old, 
well past their prime by standards in an industry that seeks 
replacement of pipes in 15 years.  Several NGOs and other 
local observers accuse Shell of using aging equipment that 
would be barred in the developed world, while hiding behind 
the very real threat of sabotage to escape from liability for 
the damage these corroding pipes produce. 
MEECE