EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Africa's Oil Spills Are Far From U.S. Media Glare
LONDON - Oil gushing from an undersea well in the Gulf of Mexico has damaged BP's reputation and share price but accidents involving other companies in less scrutinized parts of the world have avoided the media glare.
In this Dec. 22, 2005 file photo, people evacuate their homes by boat, as they pass smoke and flames billowing from a burning oil pipeline belonging to the Shell Petroleum Development Company, across the Opobo Channel in Asagba Okwan Asarama, some 50 kilometers (31 miles) southwest of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. (AP Photo/George Osodi, File) Investors have knocked around $30 billion off BP's value since an explosion at a drilling rig killed 11 people and began an oil spill the London-based major is struggling to plug nearly a month after the accident happened.
The U.S. media and political machine has turned its full force on BP and U.S. President Barack Obama has set up a commission into the leak which is sending an estimated 5,000 barrels per day (bpd) into Gulf of Mexico waters.
In contrast, the international media has largely ignored the latest incidents of pipeline damage in Nigeria, where the public can only guess how much oil might have been leaked.
The most recent damage in Nigeria, which has not been attributed to militant attacks that have preyed on Nigerian oil infrastructure for years, forced U.S. operator ExxonMobil to relieve itself of contractual obligations by declaring force majeure on its exports of Nigerian benchmark crude.
The light sweet crude is particularly well-suited for refining into gasoline and is regularly supplied to the United States, the world's biggest oil burner.
Exxon declined the opportunity to give details of the damage, clean-up or repair work.
An industry source, who declined to be named, said 100,000 bpd of oil had leaked for a week from a pipeline that has since been mended.
"If this (the BP spill) were in the Niger Delta, no one would be batting an eyelid," said Holly Pattenden, African oil analyst at consultants Business Monitor International. "They have these kind of oil spills in Nigeria all the time."
SHARE PRICE IMPACT
BP's share price has fallen around 18 percent since news of the fire at the drilling station on April 20, while Exxon shares were largely unchanged after the force majeure announcement.
The largest operator in Nigeria, Royal Dutch Shell has clashed with the Nigerian government for decades following numerous spills in Africa's largest energy producer.
Shell said in a statement on its website that its Nigerian joint venture cleans up oil spills as quickly as possible, no matter what their cause, but is sometimes delayed by security concerns or because some communities deny access.
The Anglo-Dutch major said the volume of oil spills in Nigeria for its joint venture was almost 14,000 tonnes last year, the equivalent of around 280 bpd, mainly because of militant attacks on facilities.
"It (the U.S.) is without doubt the worse place for BP to lose their political capital," said James Marriott, oil and gas analyst at environmental organization Platform.
"If the U.S. administration gets aggressive against BP, then it's a problem for them offshore, onshore in terms of shale gas, for conventional gas, refining, some cross-border projects with Canada and further afield."
In the United States, BP's massive spill and the risk of an environmental catastrophe could have implications throughout the industry as it has reopened the debate about deepwater drilling.
Analysts say, however, the world is hugely dependent on deepwater drilling to secure oil supplies.
The ExxonMobil force majeure relates to shallow offshore oil, but much of West Africa's crude production, like that in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, is deepwater.
Analysts say it is unrealistic to veto deepwater drilling if the world's oil needs are to be met.
"Perhaps in terms of health and safety regulation (things will change), but not in terms of drilling," said Angus McPhail of Wood Mackenzie consultants.
"It is not really feasible to stop drilling altogether as long as there is good demand for the product.... It would be total economic madness."
(Additional reporting by Barbara Lewis in London and Randy Fabi in Abuja; editing by Anthony Barker)
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...

9 Comments so far
Show AllNot just oil spills in or off Africa, but also oil spills off the coast of Australia too. The Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea didn't make much news stateside.
Montara spill is one of the best comparisons to the Deepsea Horizon spill. And even though there are similar events to compare, both in how the disasters might have occurred, and how the fixes are being implemented, very few journalists make a comparison.
Then again, the Reuters story is more about Africa being underreported, and not so much about oil spills in general. If the story was about underreported oil spills, then the journalist would also need to mention Montara of 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montara_oil_spill
What will it take to get us to all say, "That's it! I'm going to cut out my dependence on oil products by 80%."?
Of course, we've had our big party, now India and China want to party, and other "developing" countries, too. Even if the US were to cut oil usage back dramatically, how could we ask others to do the same after we have lived like kings for 70 years?
The irony here is the inference that American media, including Reuters is actually scrutinizing the Gulf disaster.
Busily downplaying the disaster by dutifully repeating low ball estimates of the oil spewing out? Yes.
Scrutinizing by asking tough questions of BP, NOAA, EPA, etc., no.
Connecting dots. We are the biggest per capita users of fossil fuels, we have the largest prison population, the biggest war budget,more SUVs and three car garages than the rest of the world combined and the number one category of pharmaceuticals sold in the USA is Anti Psychotics. End of the road? Filler up, one more time. I promise, I'll never do it again.
The message is clear, as the article states, to stop drilling, " it would be economic madness."
I wonder why ENVIRONMENTAL madness doesn't count?
We spill it over there so we do not have to spill it over here.
Exactly, and that's no joke.
The fact that there are only 8 comments in this thread (9, with mine) illustrates how disconnected Americans of all stripes are when it comes to what we consume and the damage it does, especially in far-flung places. When the disaster is over there, it's out of mind. When it's over here, well, how dare they?!
One might even call us...blind racists.
"It is not really feasible to stop drilling altogether as long as there is good demand for the product.... It would be total economic madness."
Anybody else see the irony?
If you do we see that this is the conclusive argument against the use of oil.
capitalism is always (unless strictily regulated) about externalizing cost: oil spills, pollutions, environamntal ravages.. toxic waste dump in other poor nations