EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Our Cry for Cheap Oil Is Crude and Deadly
The Niger Delta should now be an oasis of riches. But the people live with nothing
When you cry for cheaper oil, do you know what you are really asking for? Gordon Brown has just shown us. He has unwittingly exposed the pipeline that runs from your petrol station to the poisoned people of the Niger Delta. The more you howl for cheap oil, the more they will be Shell-shocked into submission.
To understand, you need to know the story of the Niger Delta, a once lush land of mangrove swamps at the base of Nigeria. In the late 1950s, in the final days of British imperial rule, Shell's local subsidiary discovered it lay on top of vast pools of oil. Britain immediately became its number one user, with the US close behind. In the long decades since, more than $200bn worth of oil and gas has been pumped from beneath the Delta people's feet.
So you would imagine the Niger Delta must now be an oasis of riches, with its 30m people bathing in wealth. But no: they live with nothing and die by the age of 40. While the lifeblood of twenty-first century techno-life is pumped from their land, they live in the Stone Age, with no schools, no hospitals and barely any electricity. They have felt three effects from the petrol. Their land has been poisoned by oil spills; the fish they lived off have been turned into stunted, toxic rarities; and when they ask for compensation, they are shot at.
Here's just one everyday story about how that feels, unusually well documented because some journalists happened to be there. In October 1998, there was a leak of raw petroleum near one Delta village. Somehow - a stray cigarette, perhaps - a spark hit it, and a huge fireball whooshed up to incinerate over 700 people.
Three years later, the journalist Greg Campbell went back to see some of the victims. They had received no medical treatment. Christiana Akpode, a 24-year-old mother, could barely walk; her legs were forced into a permanent kneel. Campbell explained: "Her legs are hard to look at: from the shin to the knee, her legs are little more than red and purple scabs bleeding white pus. She scratches this section incessantly. Her days are spent warding away flies from the open wounds." As the journalist left, she pleaded: "You should kill me."
The people of the Niger Delta have not watched this destruction of their homeland - for us - passively. They signed petitions, went to the oil barges to ask for a fair share of the proceeds, and refused to co-operate with the oil companies. The response? According to Human Rights Watch, the Nigerian military - hungry for its own hefty cut of the cash - beat, tortured or killed them, sometimes with the active help of some of the oil companies.
For example, in 1998, more than 100 ordinary villagers went to one of Chevron's barges to ask peacefully to speak to the company's managing director. They were told to wait.
They saw helicopters approaching, and assumed they were Chevron spokespeople - until the gunfire began. Two of them were shot dead. Others were taken away and tortured. The rest managed to flee. A Chevron spokesman admitted the corporation flew in the Nigerian soldiers who did the shooting - and that the protestors they murdered were unarmed.
Peaceful protests had been swelling in popularity since the early 1990s - so the movement's leaders were seized. The head of the local Internal Security Task Force, Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Okuntimo, made clear why, in a 1994 memo that was later leaked: "Shell operations are still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken," he wrote, including "wasting targets ... especially vocal individuals." (Shell claims the memo is fake, and if it is real they find it "abhorrent".) One of the arrested leaders, the playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa, said: "This is it - they are going to execute us. For Shell." In his final plea before he was hanged, he asked: "Why should the people on oil-bearing land be tortured?"
After that, silence. The people were too terrified to act. But two years ago they tried a new tactic. Non-violent resistance got them massacred, so some turned to violent resistance. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend) emerged from the mangrove swamps to vandalise oil pipelines and kidnap oil industry workers. "We are not communists or even revolutionaries," their spokesman explained. "We are just extremely bitter ... We are people who would rather be with our families raising our children, sending them to school. We want all this to be over, but what future do our children have?"
Mend has issued three simple demands. It wants $1.5bn in compensation already awarded to it by the courts for damage to the environment; a 50 per cent claim on all oil pumped out of their land; and the release of their captured leaders. That's it. A former oil worker hostage of Mend told Vanity Fair: "Their grievances are legitimate ... To be out in the swamp with no water or electricity, of course they're upset. They are looking through our fence at golf courses and tennis courts where the floodlights are on at midnight [when] they are without electricity for days."
Mend has so much support in the Deltas that it has now been able to disrupt oil pumping by 30 percent. This shooting up of the pipelines is one of the main reasons why oil prices have shot up across the world. There are two possible responses now. The first is to meet Mend and the Delta's demands: let the people have a fair share of their own oil profits. The second is to violently suppress the population with a renewed mass terror.
Enter Gordon Brown. Last week, he offered Britain's help to achieve the second option. He offered British troops to "train" Nigeria's "security forces" so they can "restore order" and get the oil flowing fast again.
Why did he choose this? Because compromise would take time and - if the people of the Delta really got to keep a share of the profits - it would cost. Oil prices here won't come down. That's no good: he is being screamed at by us to deliver cheap oil, whatever the human cost, today, tomorrow, and forever. He is reacting to pressure from you. Heroin addicts will rob grannies for their next fix; oil addicts like us will plunder Africa and the Middle East.
No doubt Brown will say the British soldiers would also provide human rights training to Nigerian soldiers. But the reason Nigerian soldiers are there is to suppress the local people so their oil can be seized. How do you slather human rights training on top of a mission like that?
An old woman from the Delta tries, in the new American documentary Sweet Crude, to talk directly to you. She says: "I'd like people all over the world to realise there's a segment of humanity suffering as a result of oil production - ordinary men, women, children. They should think about them and not think simply of energy. Think of us as people. That's more important than anything."
But while we are unrepentant junkies, howling for cheap petrol, will we be able to hear her?
--Johann Hari
©independent.co.uk
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

33 Comments so far
Show AllShell to Niger Delta:
"I drink your milkshake."
Eastern lives are too cheap and irrelevant to cause the West to change their "lifestyle!" Soccer moms need to drive their Escalades to pick up their toddlers and teenagers at the rate of 10 miles/ gallon at a price which will save her enough money to buy her Gucci handbag. Why should the eastern people get a share in the wealth of their natural resources? They're destined to serve for the pleasures of the people of the West.
Did someone mention that slavery was abolished a long time back by superior Western morals and ideals?
Thank you, Johann for this story. I will make sure my friends and family see this.
Take the needle out of their arms and put them on oil rehab.
This is right on the mark. Certainly not the only area to be devastated by our consumption crazed country. Yes! It's about people and the human spirit. Can we save ourselves?
I have for years boycotted Chevron, Exxon and Shell oil products. Our god, capitalism, has shown himself to be a short sighted, vicious, murderous greedy corrupt monster. Worshipping at his altar only turns us into his slave minions and ghouls.
Why Gas Prices Will Never Go Down No matter What:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs5-w6rA0v0
In the meantime, GOD IS SLOWLY BUT STEADILY PUNISHING AMERICA AND EUROPE TO ETERNAL DAMNATION WITH HIGHER GAS PRICES ! HASTA LA VISTA "CHEAP" OIL !
A couple of years ago, activist/author Arundhati Roy dropped out of the world solidarity struggle. One reason: she could no longer insist on peaceful, nonviolent protest against governments and their corporate masters. It was useless. The above article is one example of what she meant.
EXTREMIST Right Wing Conservatives aren't compassionate. Politics has NO MORALS. Politics has no compassion. Politics is leadership of constituents in their best interest and NON-constituents AGAINST their best interest. When people of the common population start discovering they are not conservatives and start sticking together, this type of destruction will not be able to happen, but as long as the left think they are conservatives, then the right will be able to take full advantage. This destruction is not the people in the United States fault, it is the Common Population not knowing who they are, wherever they are. When the liberal Common Population think liberal is a dirty word, this type of conservative destruction can easily happen, because the liberal power against conservative destruction has been subverted.
The cry for cheap oil also wrecks the health and ancient subsistence culture of the Inupiat villagers of coastal Alaska. Not as brutal as the effects in Niger Delta, the destruction is insidious. And these American citizens have been lied to, with forked tongue promises of clean technology, guaranteed clean up/recovery of ecosystem, and bribed with a community center and a few scholarships. The "footprint" would be nearly invisible. Don't forget oil revenues, which of course Nigerians couldn't dream of: that kickback means a lot to poverty-stricken villages with no running water and cabins requiring fuel oil and generators for electricity thru an endless arctic night, outboard and snowmachine engine fuel for gathering Native food in a land where a wilted carrot costs a buck, a bag of chips seven bucks.
At first many bought into it and supported drilling on land, (though wary of drilling offshore in whaling areas or in migratory bird territory). But now as they asthmatically breathe the yellow, sulfurous air, see their cancer rates soar, see sickened caribou, hunt in vain for vanishing animals, and see no signs of a cleanup, many realize they have been duped. The "footprint" is suddenly that of a giant, and platforms are everywhere they said they wouldn't be.
And now big oil will drill everywhere, off every heretofore protected coast. Mining will be next, stripping the entire Arctic of its minerals. American consumers will go for it, worried to a frenzy about their rapidly shrinking pie: the future be damned, ancient cultures be damned, geese and fish be damned, poorest of the poor be damned.
Read more about these villagers in my novel "Flight of the Goose" ~ http://www.lesleythomas.alaskawriters.com
Crying for cheap oil is not the problem. It is stealing it at a much lower price and with less care for the environment than the people sitting on the oil ( or any other resource) would require in a fair exchange.
It seems this need to externalize all the costs like economists routinely do to figure profit and loss is as stupid in practice as it obviously is in theory.
Having giant armies marching around creating death, destruction, refugees, and civil unrest is only an external cost if you are a nimrod like Phil Gramm.
There is plenty of domestic oil. The problem is the oil companies and the false sense of inevitability bred by a slavish devotion to a bogus idea called "the free market".
Corporations did not exist in the early years of this country without limiting charters from the states in which they operated because they were viewed as dangerous entities. Business and financial interests long ago overwhelmed the public interest and set the corporation loose to prey upon populations all over the world.
We the people have been taught to identify our interests with the interests of corporate predators. The result is that these predators seek oil in unregulated environments, poor countries with weak, corrupt governments, because it is more profitable than acquiring the resource in this country. We the people would impose too many costs on the predators.
That is why the oil fields of the Bakken, the region in Montana and N. Dakota that is perhaps the largest field in the world, is not tapped. Or Gull Island in Alaska, or the OCS.
We do not lack for oil. We lack a knowledge of the public interest and we suffer a failure of the public will to pursue its own interest. We invite the oil companies to lie to Congress by obliging their wish not to testify under oath.
They control the market and engage in a whole range of deceptions. There is no free market for energy, not of any type. It is strictly controlled, and we along with it.
We have been intentionally addicted to oil and systematically denied the opportunity to develop alternatives, of which there are many. We have been prevented from using fuel efficient cars from the very start because this would limit demand for oil and thus profits for the cartel. We have been denied the use of electric cars.
We have the wherewithal to stop this energy tyranny by putting the corporations back in their boxes. We can force these beasts to perform in the public interest by requiring them to be re-chartered and forcing them to submit to oversight. Their product is, after all, a key national security asset and they must not be permitted to misuse their power as they do to harm the general welfare and the welfare of poor people in weak states.
They are a clear and present danger ( the oil cos ) to the general welfare and the national security interest of the US. And act of Congress could reign them in overnight and bring the cost of oil down to less than a third of its present cost at the same time their power to suppress the development of non-oil energy sources could be stopped.
It is a matter of public will.
It won't happen, of course, before we are all driven into penury. But it is a distinct possibility if there were truly a public uprising and awakening of a sense of the public interest.
They fear this above all, of course, which is why they will never rest until the uprising in South America, led by Hugo Chavez Frias, is put down.
Do I want cheap oil? You bet I do! But we don't need to set up drilling rigs in the Niger Delta and wipe out the people who live there. In fact, we don't need to fill the wilderness areas and coastal areas with oil pumping equipment. As I've written before in these C.D. discussions, the problem is not insufficient supply--the problem is unregulated speculation in the petroleum market.
Over the years, I have always made an effort to conserve energy (driving as little as possible, etc.) simply to control expenses. But nowadays I can't do much more in the way of driving less. I can't afford a hybrid car. There's already a full-size, all-electric, zero-pollution, highway-capable car available that would totally eliminate the need for gasoline--but it costs $45,000. I'm a displaced worker who has been downsized too many times (I now earn less than I did eight years ago). So I probably can't afford an 850 kilowatt wind turbine, either. And the homeowners association isn't going to let me put one of those 80-ton, 150-foot-high things in my yard anyway.
I read so much in these discussions about the evil, greedy, capitalist pigs, but if we don't take appropriate steps to control energy costs, the working class will not be able to afford to get to their piddly, low-paying jobs. They'll end up like slaves, chained together, pulling the rich people's coaches around.
And the people living in the Niger Delta will still be getting treated like scum.
First comment wins the discussion so far. :)
I have thought for a while that we should invest in research to try and power our vehicles *directly* with the blood of poor/brown people. I know that middlemen like Shell would still find a way to take the profit from the people who the product originally belonged to, but it might at least throw them off track briefly, allowing the donors to make a little bit--enough to buy something nice for themselves, at least.
ncycat: Do you drive? Where do you get gas? Going on this...
http://www.betterworldhandbook.com/gasoline.html
...I quit Mobil (except for emergencies) a long time ago, and now usually buy from Valero. I should really look for an ARCO near where I live though.
This article described one aspect of cheap oil, the other is the planet's climate.
I am always bowled over when hear "progressives" clamor to address climate change, then call for cheaper oil. Do you have any idea how contradictory those two demands are? They belie a breathtaking ignorance of the most basic economic principles. The current high oil prices are the best thing yet for our environment. They need to be higher.
What do you propose for reducing consumption instead?
I'm no fan of "free markets" often they have terrible outcomes. I'd rather price of fuels be raised through taxes that go to the common good rather than big oil's pockets, but for now, using market forces to reduce consumption is going to have to do.
The worst thing for environmental progress right now would be for gasoline to go back down to the prices of a year ago.
Free Markets are the solution to every problem the world currently faces...I am in favor of Alternative Fuels but they are at least 20 years from fruition...in the meantime lets drill
Free Markets are the solution to every problem the world currently faces…
As long as they are regulated free markets you are correct. Unregulated "free markets" lead to the mess we are in. Lets not be quite so ready to drill.
"regulated free markets"
Oxymoron.
So Big Oil kills people, sometimes with the overt assistance of liberal democracies; always with their complicity. What else is new?
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested...Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1935. Twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Ok...Minimally regulated free markets...yes...you do have to have some control and accountability
But not drilling is what caused this mess...I love the environment but resources can be utilized with minimal impact on everybody
lol, SnowWolf was serious??
jakenewton July 15th, 2008 10:48 am
"regulated free markets"
Oxymoron.
Not at all, its what makes markets truly free.
"Not at all, its what makes markets truly free."
Regulation? No:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
"Free Markets are the solution to every problem the world currently face"
What a ridiculous bumper sticker void of logic. Tell me how "free markets" are the solution to every problem when wealth concentration is through the rough and increasing? A "free market" with huge differences in wealth is private tyranny. If you and people like you own the vast majority of land and resources (and most financial wealth, and most of the world is indebted to a minority of rich creditors and countries, whose central banks are controlled by these same elites) and most of the world owns nothing, you don't have a situation where free markets will perform a fraction as efficiently or as justly as claimed. If you own what people need to stay alive you might not be able to force them to work for you for a certain wage, but if there is a monopoly on their means to survival people will have one true option, agree to the terms of the capitalist or starve to death. That is the true "freedom" in a "free market" with huge differences in wealth. Thank god for post-modernism, where ideology (except the orthodoxy) and class conflict is a thing of the past.
"Free market" authoritarians also can never answer how the "free market" can handle environmental issues. NO ecological information is included in prices, in national indices like GDP or in standard economic theory. If they were the costs of everything would go up and there would be calls for wealth re-distribution. People might even thinking about expanding the access to, or socializing, the means of production. Every time you consume a resource there is a price attached, there are fewer resources available for others once you've consumed it and so it's a cost. Consuming things like oil has additional costs, since the consumption results in pollution, and the source is finite in amount. All of this is missing in prices. Pollution, over consumption, things like soil erosion, are missing in national indices. We ASSUME that consumption equals wealth, the costs of that are ignored. How can the "free market", which has never really existed, solve this problem?
Also, capitalism (especially the monetary base and the financial markets) continuously expands. That's one way that class conflict is partially avoided. If you aren't doing well now the economy will grow and next year you might get a bigger share of the pie. What happens when we hit a wall and can't grow any longer (which is approaching)? When we've taken over all the eco-systems around the world, then what? Do we keep the ownership structure the same? A small group of nobles who control the means to survival for everyone (basically a reversion back to feudalism, only more tyrannical) or do we have a more collective system, since it would be far from a given that private ownership on the means to survival for everyone would be best?
Keep on telling yourself that about "free markets", just don't be surprised when reality comes and you have no answers.
jake,
For shining examples what free markets lead to, go to Guatamala, El-slavador, Nicaragua or Colombia, and soon, the United States. For examples of what mixed, regulated markets look like, go to Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, France...
Where would you rather live?
USAn,
I agree with what you're saying, the general point, but you fail to take into account the differences in consumption levels between the mixed economies of the industrialized countries and the poorer ones. We in the "West" consume five to six times the resources, per capita, there is a finite amount of resources in the world. So the poverty of the first group is directly correlated the wealth of the second group, if the first group ever increases their living standard the only way to not destroy the environment in the process is for us in the West to consume less. Not just energy, all resources.
There is no doubt however that any time a country gets close to "free market" economics it leads (without exception) to increased wealth concentration, poverty, environmental destruction and a hallowing out of democracy. The second group will alway do better than a country like the US in all of these, since they will be closer to economic democracy than the "free market" tyranny of the US.
"Where would you rather live?"
I never advocated free markets, I was just helping with how they are defined. I agree with some regulation but the devil is in the details.
"We in the "West" consume five to six times the resources, per capita, there is a finite amount of resources in the world."
And we also produce way more.
"We in the "West" consume five to six times the resources, per capita, there is a finite amount of resources in the world."
"And we also produce way more."
Way more...what? Weapons? Ultra-rich CEO's? Carbon emissions? McDonald's Happy Meals?
"And we also produce way more."
Well I would hope the hell so. If you monopolize resources in poorer countries, attack any democracies who dare enact policies that benefit its citizens and not Western investors, block any economic development (which isn't simply increased consumption or glossy macro economic numbers) especially development outside of the control of the West and if you ENCOURAGE financial inflation to control and eventually eliminate democracies I would hope you'd produce way more. There hasn't been a country in modern times who has developed without massive state development. Europe's legacy is statist development, something Japan, South Korea, the USSR, China, Chile and others copied in many ways. The "free market" exists in classrooms and in propaganda only, it hasn't existed in modern times. It's code word for allowing elites to monopolize what is created (which always involves massive socialization of costs) and being in opposition to economic democracy.
If the "third world" controlled their resources for their use and protected domestic industry (which we and the entire Western world did during development) our standard of living would plummet, theirs would increase and we'd have a leveling out of living standards. We are kept at this level by force and force only, that's why people like Chavez are such a threat. If he is successful he'll encourage others to control their resources and to use them for their benefit, and not ours. If that happens the game is over.
What a horrible situation this is. Thank you for this article.
Cheap oil? a delusion, the true cost of crude is astronomical.If Americans include the human ,environnmental ,and military costs...think 15-20 euros a litre in the long run."Free Markets", another oxymoron,like military intelligence.When was the last time you went to the market to get free stuff? You go to the market to buy stuff,and hopefully government has regulated a level playing field so that you don't get ripped off.In the case of U.S. oil companies they are not being adequately regulated by the oil people in the administration.The Bush cabinet are all making out like bandits,so there will be no change in the status quo.
I like the idea of biodiesel vehicles running on the rendered fat from tummy tucks ,liposuction and ass reduction jobs .My love handles alone could run my motorcycle a few thousand kilometers.
"Way more…what? Weapons? Ultra-rich CEO's? Carbon emissions? McDonald's Happy Meals?"
An extremely diverse set of goods and services as measured by a very high per capita GDP. Do you deny that?
"If you monopolize resources in poorer countries, etc. *snip*"
US GDP refers to the value of goods and services produced *in the US*, not in other countries. Same with other western industrialized countries.
The governments of poor countries often fail their people. Even still, nine times out of ten if the industry up and leaves those countries they would be worse off, not better.
But this is all besides the point, those activities would refer to the GDP of those countries, not that of the US.
Retail is dead! Long live second-hand and DIY markets!