Internal documents reveal Shell executives repeatedly raised concerns over the integrity of a major Nigerian pipeline years before widespread pollution incidents triggered lawsuits and international scrutiny.
British multinational energy giant Shell continued operating one of its major oil pipelines in Nigeria for years despite internal warnings about environmental risks and infrastructure concerns, according to newly disclosed company documents.
The documents, obtained by the BBC through ongoing litigation in the United Kingdom, include emails, technical assessments and internal presentations showing that Shell executives repeatedly expressed concerns about the safety and condition of the Nembe Creek Trunk Line (NCTL), a key pipeline transporting crude oil from inland oilfields to export facilities.
The revelations emerge amid renewed scrutiny of decades of environmental pollution in Nigeria's Niger Delta, where repeated oil spills have devastated wetlands, mangroves and fishing communities.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
The documents were disclosed as part of legal proceedings brought by communities around the creeks and mangroves of the Niger Delta, who seek to hold Shell liable for pollution linked to more than 100 oil leaks between 2011 and 2013.
The affected communities are seeking $1 billion in damages, including $250 million in compensation and $750 million for environmental remediation.
Pipeline at the centre of controversy
The 96.5-kilometre Nembe Creek Trunk Line runs near the riverine Bille community -- a cluster of 45 islands -- connecting inland oilfields to export terminals.
The pipeline, which Shell sold last year, was among the company's largest oil transport infrastructure assets in Nigeria, with the capacity to transport about 150,000 barrels of crude daily. However, it repeatedly suffered leaks, vandalism and crude theft.
A recent visit by PREMIUM TIMES to the Bille community showed residents grappling with new environmental concerns, including reports of subterranean emissions of toxic gases within residential areas and surrounding waterways.
Community members said mangroves and aquatic species such as crabs, fish and periwinkles are increasingly disappearing from surrounding ecosystems.
A forthcoming PREMIUM TIMES investigation is expected to provide deeper insights into the environmental conditions in the area.
2008 warning: Executive raised concerns
According to the report, concerns about the pipeline's safety date back nearly two decades.
An October 2008 email exchange revealed disagreements among senior executives over whether the pipeline should continue operating outside Shell's normal technical guidelines.
Markus Droll, then Shell's technical vice-president, warned that another major attack on the infrastructure could force production shutdowns.
"If there is another massive explosive attack tomorrow... then we could well find ourselves in the situation of simply having to close the production down," he wrote.
Mr Droll also questioned whether sufficient safeguards were in place and warned that sections of the pipeline could already be compromised.
"I don't agree that funding can be an issue," he wrote. "Sorry if I sound like a broken record on this -- but the approach makes me -- as your Technical VP -- pretty uncomfortable."
Ann Pickard, Shell's regional executive vice-president at the time, responded by criticising him for not marking the email "legally privileged", warning that his comments could expose the company legally.
She nevertheless acknowledged the decision was difficult but argued continued operation posed the "lower risk to both people and environment."
2012: Internal assessments flagged risks
A confidential 2012 document obtained by the BBC showed Shell categorised sections of the pipeline as "red" -- the company's highest-risk classification -- due to widespread illegal tapping points created by oil thieves.
Under Shell's own standards, such classification required either immediate shutdown or corrective action.
Despite this, executives reportedly authorised continued operation, arguing that shutting the pipeline would simply lead to additional illegal connections elsewhere.
Shell told the BBC that decisions were made within a difficult operating environment characterised by large-scale crude theft, illegal refining and militant activities.
Audit concerns and clean-up plans
In another internal exchange from February 2013, senior staff discussed conducting an audit into pipeline integrity management and oil theft responses between 2009 and 2012.
Vincent Holtam, then general manager for onshore assets at Shell's Nigerian subsidiary, reportedly warned against the review.
"I have no doubt that this audit 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 wrote.
The documents do not indicate whether the audit was eventually conducted.
A month later, Shell initiated a confidential internal review codenamed Project Madrid to evaluate pollution management options.
The internal presentation estimated that about 100 illegal refineries operated around the pipeline corridor and that pollution affected approximately 9,000 hectares each of land and water.
It also showed clean-up teams responding to 18 reported spills linked to an estimated 60 illegal bunkering points.
The records do not indicate which remediation option executives eventually adopted, although pipeline operations resumed after temporary shutdowns in 2013.
Shell's defence
Shell maintains that the documents do not fully reflect the operating realities in the Niger Delta.
"The documents selected are presented without the critical context of the operating environment in the Niger Delta at the time," a company spokesperson told the BBC.
"In isolation, they do not reflect the challenges of working against the backdrop of widespread organised criminality."
The company argues that large-scale oil theft, sabotage and illegal refining activities caused much of the pollution and says it invested heavily in surveillance, spill response and infrastructure protection.
Shell also said members of the Bille community participated in oil theft activities -- an allegation community representatives have repeatedly contested.
Long history of environmental damage
Shell has operated in Nigeria for decades, primarily through its subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC).
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
While its operations have generated substantial revenues for Nigeria, they have also attracted criticism over environmental degradation, litigation and community conflicts.
According to the United Nations, at least 13 million barrels of crude oil have spilled across approximately 7,000 incidents since Shell exported its first shipment of Nigerian crude in 1958.
Campaigners have long sought accountability from multinational oil companies operating in the Niger Delta.
Among the most prominent critics was writer and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who led campaigns against pollution in Ogoniland before his execution by Nigeria's military government in 1995.
Recent years have seen several court victories against Shell, including a landmark 2021 Dutch court ruling ordering compensation payments to Nigerian farmers affected by oil pollution.
A PREMIUM TIMES investigation published last year also found persistent hydrocarbon contamination in several oil-producing communities, including Ogoniland, where residents reported losing access to farmlands and fishing waters because of repeated spills linked to oil infrastructure.
Despite these challenges, Shell earlier this year signalled plans for expanded investments in Nigeria, citing improved policy stability and stronger leadership in the country's energy sector.
The announcement triggered criticism from environmental advocacy groups, who argue unresolved pollution and accountability issues remain widespread.
The Nigerian government has yet to publicly respond to Shell's claims that weak security conditions contributed significantly to the environmental damage.
