New report exposes Shell’s environmental crime in Nigeria

By Omolade Adegbuyi

Exclusive documents have revealed how Shell, the oil giant managed Nigerian oil spills
Execs from Shell parent company directly involved in operations of Nigerian subsidiary.

The docoments exposed lies associated with a decade of legal arguments that the parent company had no involvement.

The once concealed emails raise serious questions over the company’s liability for environmental damage

The newly released emails from Shell reveal how its senior executives tried to shift blame and avoid responsibility from devastating oil spills that caused widespread environmental damage in Nigeria.

The mails raised serious questions about Shell’s legal liability, after its lawyers have spent a decade arguing in court that oil spills and environmental damage caused by operations in Nigeria were the sole responsibility of its subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC).

The documents – including email correspondence, internal memos, presentations and reports – show that not only were senior executives of then parent company Royal Dutch Shell aware of the environmental damage, but were directing subsidiary management how to respond. This included knowingly leaving illegal pipeline connections in place to keep production running and mounting a public relations campaign to deflect public scrutiny.

The company has faced widespread criticism over its operations in Nigeria, including a 2023 commission describing an “environmental genocide” that has been “devastating for the health, livelihoods, way of life and wellbeing of individuals and local communities”.

A large spill in the Billeand Ogale communities of the Niger Delta is currently the subject of a class action filed by lawyers Leigh Day in the English High Courts. The explosive documents were brought to light when a group of campaigners noted their existence during these legal proceedings and requested their release.

The not-for-profit organisations who sought the release of the sensitive documents from the company included Nigerian human rights organisation HEDA (Human & Environmental Development Agenda) and Hawkmoth.

Executives named in the recent documents include Shell’s then Executive Vice President for Sub-Saharan Africa Ann Pickard, who is now a Director of Australia’s Woodside Energy; Royal Dutch Shell Board Member Malcolm Brinded, Shell International E&P Donald Jacobsen; and, Vice Shell International’s President of Corporate Security, James Hall.

Revelations from the documents include:
Between 2008 and 2013, Shell struggled to effectively manage spills and environmental damage from theft and tampering to its pipelines and infrastructure. Documents reveal that senior management were aware of possibly hundreds of illegal connections to the pipelines, which the company allowed to remain in place because it would cause the least amount of disruption to production.
Documents reveal the direct involvement of RDS executives in SPDC operations, despite the company spending a decade arguing in court that the parent company did not control the subsidiary and therefore assumed no legal liability for harm caused. This includes Ann Pickard reprimanding a subordinate for questioning her decision not to shut off a pipeline while it would be repaired. “You have just exposed us significantly in your official disagreement as technical manager without legal privilege… I don’t think we are saying we can’t deal with it, I am saying it’s a choice, both involve risks, and I have decided at this time, the lower risk to both people and environment, is to try and keep operating in the mode that is described.”
RDS executive Ann Pickard gave approval for SPDC to continue operating its pipelines despite them needing immediate attention to remove illegal connections which could cause leaks and spills. RDS approved its subsidiary to operate outside the group-wide technical integrity standards for health, safety and environment. Pickard attempted to cover up the decision by marking emails “legally privileged”.
Malcolm Brinded emailed Ann Pickard, admitting that practices in Nigeria were different from other places in the world where the company operates, “If we had an oil leak onshore in other countries I suggest we might (have to) find other solutions.”
Documents show RDS senior executives led “an urgent coded project,” called ‘Project Madrid’, to manage oil thefts from the pipelines of its subsidiary. The project highlights how directly involved RDS executives were in the operations of the subsidiary, with meeting minutes revealing that: “This project has defined new operating envelopes which determine when, and when not, SPDC can continue its oil operations in the face of heavy oil theft”.
A Project Madrid steering group update asked whether parent company management would be “comfortable to continue producing, KNOWING that further environmental damage WILL occur?” 
Personnel from the subsidiary expressed concerns to the parent company about the results of an audit of SPDC’s assets: “We all know this cannot have a good outcome. I have no doubt that this will come out as UNACCEPTABLE, in which case we may be very exposed in disputing any oil loss claims from the Government or compensation claims from the community”. He concluded that the audit, “could potentially do more harm than good” and asked recipients to reconsider whether it should go ahead.
The documents reveal RDS had a unit called the Business Integrity Department that investigated SPDC staff or contractors who were potentially complicit in oil thefts. “Colluding staff and contractors” was discussed and an action point agreed to “investigate the alleged staff / contractor involvement in crude theft; explore the use of internal ‘traps’ to detect who and how these persons may be involved”.
Senior executives discussed a public relations campaign run by the parent company that would shift the public narrative, highlighting how Shell was the victim of oil thefts from its pipelines, to counter claims that the company, “was complicit, basically because we are not removing the bunkering points (illegal pipeline connections)”. Executives discussed plans to work with a London-based think tank and an investigative reporter on stories about oil thefts.
An internal presentation listed different scenarios resulting from decisions to managing production while conducting repairs. The presentation stated that continuing to operate as it was amounted to a: “Less principled stand and harder to defend in court of public opinion, (and the company would be) continued to be seen as “knowingly polluting”; Does this ever become “painful enough” to drive change?; Won’t stop refining at all.”

Shell’s global corporate security team investigated methods to protect its pipelines, including whether lessons could be learned by how Israel approached protecting potable water supplies.

In a 2016 witness statement filed at the start of ongoing legal proceedings, Royal Dutch Shell’s then company secretary Michiel Brandjes stated that: “Royal Dutch Shell is a holding company, not an operating company” and that, “neither [RDS’s] Board nor its Executives ever intended to or acted in a manner which would suggest RDS has “assumed responsibility” for those matters at operating company level. RDS does not exercise operational “control over (Health, Safety, Security & Environment) practices of SPDC’s operations in Nigeria”.

Reacting to the document release Olanrewaju Suraju, Chair of HEDA Resource Centre, said:

“These documents confirm what our communities have known for decades, that Shell knowingly misled communities and courts while the Niger Delta was left to suffer.

“For ten years they hid behind legal fiction and now their own emails and internal documents prove it: they knew environmental damage would occur and they chose to keep polluting.

“Every day Shell escapes accountability is another day our people pay with their health, their land, and their lives. Divestment from onshore operations is not an excuse to abdicate liabilities with these revelations.”

–