April, 23 2012, 10:19am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7413 5566,After hours: +44 7778 472 126,Email:,press@amnesty.org
Shell's Wildly Inaccurate Reporting of Niger Delta Oil Spill Exposed
A major oil spill in the Niger Delta was far worse than Shell previously admitted, according to an independent assessment obtained by Amnesty International and the Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), which exposes how the oil giant dramatically under-estimated the quantities involved.
The spill in 2008, caused by a fault in a Shell pipeline, resulted in tens of thousands of barrels of oil polluting the land and creek surrounding Bodo, a Niger Delta town of some 69,000 people.
WASHINGTON
A major oil spill in the Niger Delta was far worse than Shell previously admitted, according to an independent assessment obtained by Amnesty International and the Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), which exposes how the oil giant dramatically under-estimated the quantities involved.
The spill in 2008, caused by a fault in a Shell pipeline, resulted in tens of thousands of barrels of oil polluting the land and creek surrounding Bodo, a Niger Delta town of some 69,000 people.
The previously unpublished assessment, carried out by US firm Accufacts Inc. found that between 1,440 and 4,320 barrels of oil were flooding the Bodo area each day following the leak. The Nigerian regulators have confirmed that the spill lasted for 72 days.
Shell's official investigation report claims only 1,640 barrels of oil were spilt in total. But based on the independent assessment the total amount of oil spilt over the 72 day period is between 103,000 barrels and 311,000 barrels.
"The difference is staggering: even using the lower end of the Accufacts estimate, the volume of oil spilt at Bodo was more than 60 times the volume Shell has repeatedly claimed leaked," said Audrey Gaughran, Director of Global Issues at Amnesty International.
Shell's oil spill investigation report also claims that the spill started on 5 October 2008 - while the community and Nigerian regulators have confirmed a start date of 28 August 2008.
What is not in dispute is that Shell did not stop the spill until 7 November - four weeks after it claims it began - and 10 weeks after the start date given by the community and the regulator.
"Even if we use the start date given by Shell, the volume of oil spilt is far greater than Shell recorded," said Audrey Gaughran.
Converting the amount into litres, Shell's figure is just over 260,000 litres, while the lowest estimate based on the Accufacts assessment, and using Shell's start date would be 7.8 million litres.
However, using the start date given by the community and regulator and the higher end of the estimate, then it is possible that as much as over 49 million litres of oil spilt at Bodo.
The publication of the independent assessment coincides with a global week of action in which people from across the world are calling on Shell to stop hiding from the devastating impact of its operations in the Niger Delta on people's lives and the environment.
The serious under-recording at Bodo also has wider implications: Shell repeatedly claims to its investors, customers and the media that the majority of the oil spilt in the Niger Delta is caused by sabotage.
The basis for this claim is the oil spill investigation process, which is deeply flawed and lacks credibility. The cause of spills, the volume of oil spilt, and other important parameters like the start date, are not recorded in any credible way.
Bodo is one example but Amnesty International and CEHRD have also exposed serious failings in other oil spill investigations.
Both organizations have repeatedly called for an independent process for investigation of oil spills, and an end to the system that allows oil companies to have such influence over the process.
Shell initially claimed to the media that 85 per cent of oil spilt in the Niger Delta in 2008 was caused by sabotage. The company later admitted that this figure did not include a major oil spill that was subsequently found to be due to operational failures.
Based on the new evidence obtained by Amnesty International and CEHRD about the 2008 Bodo oil spill more than half of the oil spilt in the Niger Delta in 2008 was due to operational failures - and possibly as much as 80 per cent. However, given the serious flaws in the oil spill investigation process, all oil spills would have to be subjected to independent assessment to obtain accurate figures.
"Sabotage is a real and serious problem in the Niger Delta, but Shell misuses the issue as a PR shield and makes claims that simply don't stand up to scrutiny," said Audrey Gaughran.
More than three years after the Bodo oil spill, Shell has yet to conduct a proper clean up or to pay any official compensation to the affected communities. After years of trying to seek justice in Nigeria the people of Bodo have now taken their claim to the UK courts.
"The evidence of Shell's bad practice in the Niger Delta is mounting," said Patrick Naagbanton, Coordinator of CEHRD. "Shell seems more interested in conducting a PR operation than a clean up operation. The problem is not going away; and sadly neither is the misery for the people of Bodo."
This week thousands of activists in more than fourteen countries - from Japan to Sweden, Senegal to the USA, as well as in Shell's home countries the Netherlands and the United Kingdom - are taking part in events and protests, including outside Shell's offices and petrol stations, calling on Shell to clean up its act in the Niger Delta.
The week will reach a climax when affected communities stage a peaceful demonstration outside Shell's offices in Port Harcourt in the Niger Delta.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
LATEST NEWS
Experts Worldwide Agree: US-Israel Attack on Iran a Clear Violation of International Law
"Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end."
Mar 03, 2026
Experts on international law throughout the world have concluded that the unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran that began on Saturday is illegal.
Adil Ahmad Haque, a Rutgers Law School professor, wrote an analysis for Just Security published on Monday that called the attacks by the US and Israel a "manifest violation of the United Nations Charter," which "prohibits the use of force against another State unless that use of force is authorized by the UN Security Council or is a necessary and proportionate act of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack."
Haque also argued that Iran, in responding to the attacks, violated the UN Charter by launching drone strikes against US allies throughout the Middle East, even though none of those nations had taken part in the US-Israeli operations.
"The United States, Israel, and Iran, have each violated international law," Haque concluded. "Hundreds of civilians have paid the price. Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end."
Marko Milanovic, a University of Reading School of Law professor, wrote at the blog of the European Journal of International Law that the US-Israeli strikes are "manifestly illegal" and "as plain a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as one could possibly have."
Milanovic also said that, leaving legality aside, the war would likely create a humanitarian disaster.
"Maybe, maybe, something good will come out of this... although I very much doubt it," he wrote. "It is far more likely that many innocent people are about to die, in Iran and possibly in Israel, and that their deaths will be for nothing."
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) condemned the attacks on Iran as illegal under international law and dismissed any claims by US and Israel that they were necessary to liberate Iranians from a tyrannical government.
"Claims that launching an unprovoked and illegal attack is about defending human rights ring hollow," CIEL wrote, "when military strikes have already killed hundreds of civilians and intensified suffering as violence escalates—particularly when those same human rights are flagrantly violated by the US and by Israel, both domestically and abroad. Bombs do not yield peace, democracy, climate justice, or human rights."
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard described the US-Israeli attack as "a grave threat to multilateralism and to the integrity of the international legal order."
Callamard also said the international community needed "to intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent further military escalation to avert additional civilian harm, and halt any further crimes under international law against populations who have already endured decades of repression."
Human rights organization DAWN demanded that the UN General Assembly call an emergency session to declare the Iran attack a violation of the UN Charter.
Omar Shakir, executive director of DAWN, said that the war is also illegal under the US Constitution, which states that the US Congress has the power to declare war.
"This war is patently illegal," Shakir said, "and it must be stopped."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corbyn Accuses Starmer Government of ‘Echoing Tony Blair’s Obedience to Washington’
"Blair dragged the UK into an illegal war that triggered a spiral of hatred, conflict, and misery," Corbyn said. "Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to follow in Blair’s footsteps."
Mar 03, 2026
As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer allows British bases to be used as part of the US-Israeli war against Iran, the former leader of his Labour Party says he's making the same mistake that another Labour PM made 23 years ago.
Jeremy Corbyn, the socialist member of Parliament who led Labour from 2015 to 2020, said on Tuesday that Starmer was "echoing Tony Blair’s obedience to Washington", referring to the then-prime minister's decision in 2003 to join US President George W. Bush's war in Iraq.
"Ignoring the wisdom of ordinary people who could see the catastrophe ahead, Blair dragged the UK into an illegal war that triggered a spiral of hatred, conflict, and misery. More than a million Iraqi men, women, and children paid the price." Corbyn wrote in a Tuesday piece for the democratic socialist publicationTribune.
Infamously pledging to Bush, "I will be with you, whatever," Blair helped to promote the false claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. And despite a lack of support from the United Nations, he joined Bush's "coalition of the willing," committing 46,000 British troops to the war.
"This was the last time a Labour prime minister blindly backed the wishes of the US and its warmongering president," Corbyn said. "Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to follow in Blair’s footsteps and drag us into a catastrophic, illegal war."
Unlike Bush, US President Donald Trump has not yet put boots on the ground in Iran, instead waging a destructive campaign of aerial bombings and missile strikes that have taken out the nation's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other senior Iranian officials.
As of Monday, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), a US-based monitor of human rights in Iran, reported that at least 742 civilians had been killed since Saturday by US and Israeli attacks, with nearly 1,000 injured and more than 600 deaths still under review.
While Starmer has stressed that the UK "had no role" in launching the war, he has lent credence to the questionable case the US and Israel have made to justify it, including emphasizing that Iran "must never have nuclear weapons."
Iran has always contended its nuclear program was not for military purposes, and it had no desire to produce a nuclear weapon. Prior to Saturday’s strikes, reports indicated that Iranian negotiators had offered to give up the nation's entire stockpile of enriched uranium.
And though he has accused Iran of launching "indiscriminate strikes" across the Gulf, Starmer has been reticent to criticize similar actions by the US and Israel, which have had vastly larger death tolls, including the bombing of a girls' school that reportedly killed 165 people, most of them girls between ages 7 and 12, and attacks on several hospitals.
One day after the first strikes were conducted, and following mounting pressure from Trump, Starmer announced that he'd given the US approval for "specific, limited defensive" use of three Royal Air Force (RAF) bases—Fairford in England, Akrotiri in Cyprus, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean—in order to destroy Iran's missiles "at source" after a drone hit Akrotiri, causing minimal damage.
However, Starmer continued to claim that the UK had learned the "mistakes of Iraq," and "will not join offensive action now."
Corbyn said that Starmer's insistence that bases would only be used "defensively" was merely "meaningless vocabulary that reveals Starmer’s contempt for the intelligence of the British people."
In Parliament on Monday, Starmer said that "the use of the bases is to allow the US to use its ability to take out the ability of Iran to launch the attacks in the first place."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday used similar reasoning to justify launching the war, explaining that Iran was likely to retaliate against a planned Israeli attack and that it therefore posed an "imminent threat" to US personnel even though that threat was contingent on Israel attacking first.
Corbyn described the idea of a "preemptive strike" as a contradiction in terms. "Under this convoluted reasoning," he said, "almost any attack on anybody can be classified as a defensive measure. Starmer’s words are Newspeak—and cannot shield his government from complicity in the devastation ahead."
Like in the United States, the British public has expressed low support for American and Israeli actions against Iran. According to a YouGov poll published on Monday, 49% disapprove of US military action, compared to 28% who support it. Fewer than 1 in 5 Labour voters said they supported it.
Voters also said they oppose their government's involvement. Compared with just 32% of Brits who said they supported letting the US use British bases, 50% said they opposed it.
"For too long, Britain has blindly followed the US as it indulges in disastrous imperial fantasies," Corbyn said, noting the UK's continued support for Israel over two years of US-sponsored genocide in Gaza.
Corbyn is now an independent MP who co-founded a new political party after being thrown out of Labour in 2020 over dubious accusations of antisemitism, which he has alleged stem from his strong criticism of Israel.
"It’s time to forge a different path. Now is not the time to try to rescue a ‘special relationship’ characterised by impunity, genocide, and war," he said. "Now is the time to forge an independent foreign policy based on international law and peace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's Not What F*cking Happens to Them—It Happens to Us': Graham Platner Emerges as Potent Anti-War Voice
"It is the American people who are asked to make the sacrifice," said the Senate candidate. "It is never those in power. It is never those with wealth. It is always asked of us."
Mar 03, 2026
As the death toll in the US and Israel's assault on Iran rose to nearly 800 on Tuesday and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle pushed for the passage of a war powers resolution to stop President Donald Trump's "horrific war of choice," US Senate candidate Graham Platner, a Democrat from Maine and a combat veteran, is speaking out loudly against another war of choice by the United States.
In a new video posted on social media, Platner noted that his 2026 rival, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), recently said the US should attack Iran only "as a last resort"—something that did not come to pass, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who admitted Monday that the US and Israel waged war due to an "imminent threat" posed by the fact that Israel was planning an attack that Iran was likely to retaliate against.
Platner said Rubio's comments pointed to "quite possibly the most ridiculous excuse for starting a war" and warned that the situation is "spiraling out of control" before emphasizing that Collins "has the power to stop this."
Collins has been named as a potential Republican "yes" vote for the War Powers Resolution that Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has said he'll bring to the Senate floor this week.
"Sen. Collins, I'm just going to ask you straight up," said Platner. "You voted to send me to Iraq. Did you not learn anything from that experience? You need to stand up. The American people do not want this war."
Polling out Sunday showed that just 25% of Americans support the US attack on Iran, and Platner's comments to Collins were just his latest in which he tied Trump's war to the unpopular wars in which Platner himself fought and lost numerous friends.
"They are willing to sacrifice the lives of young American men and women and the lives of Iranian civilians simply to protect their political interests," Platner said at a campaign event in Brewer, Maine on Monday, accusing Trump of waging war partially to distract the public from the Epstein files.
"I cannot think of a more reprehensible act," he said. "I cannot think of a more unpatriotic act, of a more un-American act, than to send our sons and daughters off to die, to kill, to bring immense violence to innocent civilians abroad simply because you're afraid you might lose the midterms. It is disgusting."
Thank you to all who joined us in Brewer yesterday to fight to stop this senseless war.
Full remarks and video below.
*********
First, I want to say thank you to Food and Medicine for having me. The work of Food and Medicine, the Eastern Maine Labor Council, quite frankly,… pic.twitter.com/mi3BqmyuGl
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) March 2, 2026
He continued:
It is the American people who are asked to make the sacrifice. It is American families who have to bury their dead sons and daughters. It is American friends who have to watch their best friends come home from a war and struggle for years with physical and mental trauma.
That is who bears the brunt of all of this. It is never those in power. It is never those with wealth. It is always asked of us. And that is why we need to only wage war when the American people know it is actually in their best interest. And if it isn't, we do not do it. This war needs to end. And it needs to end now.
[...]
Watching people who do not know the realities of war, watching people who know nothing of the horror that comes with this kind of violence, people who could not even imagine what it feels like in the pit of your stomach when you hear that one of your friends has been killed; or watching one of your best friends be ripped apart by explosives; watching people who have no idea what any of this looks like or feels like celebrate this, disgusts me. And then watching them turn around and tell us that these sacrifices are just "what happens." We just need to be prepared for more casualties, because that's "what happens." It's not what fucking "happens" to them. It's what "happens" to us.
Platner emphasized that the ongoing assault on Iran "is only possible because we have had a Congress that for decades has abdicated its responsibility, its constitutional responsibility, in making war," and demanded that the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force be repealed and that Congress go further than the War Powers Resolutions that have been proposed to to rein in Trump's attacks in the Middle East as well as Latin America.
"We need a truly reformed War Powers Act, where we really pull the power back," said Platner. "We need to know why military force is used right off the bat. And it needs to be approved by Congress right off the bat. The Constitution is clear about who is supposed to have the power of waging war in this country. It is the body that is most representative of the American people because it is the American people who have to bear the brunt of combat."
He closed his remarks with a moment of silence for the American service members and hundreds of Iranians who have been killed in Iran in recent days.
"Working people in this country, working people in Iran, working people around the world have everything in common with each other," said Platner. "All of our needs are exactly the same. And we are used as pawns in the games of the powerful and the wealthy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


