Image source: https://www.oneworld.nl/achtergrond/shells-controversial-one-billion-oil-deal/
After three posts focusing on how climate change is detrimental to water supply in Africa, let me pose a question: What is another factor, besides climate change, that can influence a change in Africa’s water resources?
Did “environmental impacts from large multinational corporations (MNCs)” cross your mind? If no, do not fret, as I was in the same boat! It did not occur to me to consider how irresponsible behaviour from profit-maximising MNCs can influence environmental changes until I came across this notice by Amnesty.org. This notice calls for urgent action against the contamination of Nigeria’s water supply due to oil spills and the resulting price hike for clean, potable water.
Nigeria is located in West Africa and is in the Sahel region. It is also home to one of the world’s largest river delta, the Niger Delta. Because of the country’s abundance in oil and gas resources, it has led to the Royal Dutch Shell company investing in the country since the 1930s. Eventually, the Nigerian government took a stake in the company in the 70s, resulting in the formation of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) in April 1979. Under the SPDC, the government owned 55% under the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, whereas Shell owns 30% and remains the operator (Bousso,2018). While the presence of Shell brought positive economic growth in the developing country, where in 2012 it accounted for 98% of the country’s annual earnings (Akinbi, 2012), it also brought an onslaught of environmental issues. Due to the several and common oil spills in the Niger Delta, it led to the further contamination of groundwater resources that the locals rely on for their daily water supply.
So, what exactly causes these oil spills? Nwachukwu and Osuagwu (2014) states that at least 51% comes from the deterioration of oil pipelines and tankers, as well as the lack of functional equipment. This highlights that the oil spills could have been avoided by a large margin had the companies in charge regularly maintained the necessary infrastructures. Because of the irresponsibility and indifference, it has led to local communities taking the brunt of preventable oil spills. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that at least ten Ogoni communities were drinking from water supplies that were tainted with extremely dangerous levels of hydrocarbons (UNEP, 2011). For example, the Nissioken Ogale community located in western Ogoniland were drinking from wells that had over 900 times above the World Health Organisation guidelines for safe drinking water! It is proven that drinking oil contaminated water can severely harm human health (Ordinioha & Brisibe, 2013), where high hydrocarbon levels can result in the following negative impacts: (i) Kidney and liver failure, (ii) Poor reproductive system leading to high infant mortality rates (Hodal, 2017), (iii) Leukaemia, and (iv) Increased blood pressure and compromised blood clotting abilities (Nwachukwu and Osuagwu, 2014). These health issues add pressure onto poorer Nigerians, who may already be struggling in other aspects of life.
Additionally, these oil spills also affect industries that are very reliant on water, such as fish and crop farms. UNEP (2011) details that the fishing industry is suffering due to marine habitats being ruined and not being cleaned fast enough. Crop farms have also undergone the same fate, whereby oil contamination has resulted in arable land becoming wastelands (Inoni, Omotor and Adun, 2006). This is because when oil seeps into the ground, it kills off micro-organisms that are key agents in ensuring soil fertility. This leaves farmers less available land, forcing them to move in search for fertile soil. Besides losing their land, farmers have to seek watering alternatives, which adds onto the cost of maintaining their farms. Furthermore, poorer farmers may not even be able to afford to get their water treated, leaving them no choice but to use contaminated water for their crops. This results in a vicious cycle of being exposed to harmful impurities and having to spend unnecessarily to avoid health implications, which then adds to money and lifestyle stress for the Nigerians. Hence, the oil spills resulting from apathetic behaviour has led to both direct and indirect consequences that locals have to bear, at the expense of their wellbeing, and sometimes their life.
Therefore, it is important to think about how large scale MNCs can largely influence the environment in which they set up in. While Shell may have brought economic benefits and provided job opportunities for many Nigerians, the resultant environmental degradation was a price these mostly uninvolved locals have to pay.
This post is compelling. New oil developments have been found in the rift valleys of Kenya and Uganda - will they follow this path? One interesting point to note is that for every litre of oil brought to the surface from wells, there is typically two to three litres of contaminated water. Where does this water go? Might its disposal be the source of contamination observed in water supplies?
ReplyDeleteHi Richard! Sorry for the late response. Thanks for your comment, as even though I did my research for Shell in Nigeria, I did not know of these new African oil developments as well as how fracking can cause water contamination.
DeleteTo answer your first question, it is still unconfirmed if Kenya and Uganda will follow Nigeria’s path. However, this article: http://geographical.co.uk/nature/energy/item/919-africas-new-oil suggests that Kenya is open towards including oil production in their comparative advantage, allowing Tullow Oil (a British oil production MNC) to be in-charge. Their decision could have been influenced by the massive amounts of oil that can be fracked, which is approximately 1 billion barrels. On the other hand, the Ugandan government has been wary of Tullow Oil’s plans on oil production, to the extent of even blocking their operations. In fact, this article: https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1468837/tullow-oil-exit-uganda, released early this year, reported that Tullow Oil was going to exit by June 2018. However, this is due to Tullow Oil selling their operations to the much bigger (and perhaps more influential) oil production MNCs Total and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). Although this is just speculative, I believe that with the transfer in ownership may result in the Ugandan authorities eventually giving into the new MNCs overseeing oil production in the country. We can only wait and see, considering that the impacts will only unveil itself after a certain time period has passed.
For the second question, this tainted water is ideally recycled and reused for future fracturing operations, as this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-can-we-cope-with-the-dirty-water-from-fracking-for-natural-gas-and-oil/ suggests. This means that it would usually undergo some industrial cleaning in dedicated plants. In Nigeria, it is not explicitly clear where this water goes exactly, considering their political climate when Shell was at its peak. It could be possible this water was irresponsibly dumped for cost-saving purposes. However, this negligent act is not the sole cause for water supplies becoming contaminated. Other causes include sabotage from local protestors and/or thieves, as well as corrosion from age.
Awesome blogpost title! I remember several years ago, Texaco, now owned by Chevron, went through a lawsuit due to the water pollution it caused while drilling for oil in Ecuador. Have there been any public outcry towards the actions of large MNC's?
ReplyDeleteHi Stephanie! I'm glad you liked my blogpost title! :) And yes, there have been public outcries towards the action of large MNCs from all industries. Due to the inherent nature of MNCs being driven by profit-maximising goals, their actions in host countries always result in negative impacts. These can range from equality issues, labour exploitation, cultural erasure, political instability, and of course environmental degradation.
DeleteThe most notable example of public outcry against Shell's operation in Nigeria are the massive protests by the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) in Ogoniland, whereby their actions were strong enough to influence Shell to pull out of the region in 1993 due to "security concerns". This article by The Guardian goes into detail of the timeline of MOSOP's activism: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/28/amnesty-seeks-criminal-inquiry-into-shell-over-alleged-complicity-in-murder-and-torture-in-nigeria
It is a very eye-opening read and I suggest taking a look at it to really know how much blood Shell has on their hands.