Shell is pushed to explain its role in $1.1bn Nigerian corruption scandal
The British-Dutch group paid a huge fee to develop an offshore oil block. Wherever the money ended up, the loser is Nigeria
Ben van Beurden, the new head of
Shell, faced a packed room of global investors on Tuesday at the oil
group's annual shareholder meeting. In post since March, the 56-year-old
Dutchman can expect probing questions about cash flows, capital
efficiency, investment projections and so forth.
The list is unsurprising; with investors, it all comes down to the money. How is their capital being spent, what returns is it making and when can they expect to see the profits? It's curious, therefore, that it took a charity, rather than an investor, to inquire about Shell's role in a $1.1bn corruption scandal in Nigeria.
"Investors need to know what's at stake," says Brendan O'Donnell, oil campaigner at the UK-based non-profit Global Witness, which tabled a query at the annual meeting in The Hague. "Shadowy deals are not just bad for people in developing countries, they're bad business."
The case in question refers to a licencing payment that the Nigerian subsidiaries of Shell and Italy's ENI made in 2011 to develop a lucrative, offshore oil block. The money allegedly ended up in the bank account of a private firm, Malabu Oil and Gas, owned by Nigeria's former oil minister, Dan Etete, now under criminal investigation for his involvement in the affair.
Shell has sought to distance itself from the scandal. The British-Dutch company says it paid the Nigerian government, not Malabu, and that it acted lawfully "at all times". Exactly how much Shell and ENI knew about the final destination of their payment remains unclear, however. Global Witness cites court evidence which suggests that Shell negotiated directly with Etete. The company denies the claim.
Regardless of who paid what to whom, there is one clear loser in the whole affair: the Nigerian public. After nearly six decades of oil exploration, the West African petrodollar state has become a watchword for corruption and missed developmental opportunities. The recent abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls by terrorist militia demonstrates the lawless, fragile existence that faces many everyday Nigerians.
Alice
Powell, communications coordinator for Publish What You Pay, a
coalition of non-profit groups, says: "Had the payment been disclosed,
Nigerian civil society could have asked questions about how the money
was spent and where it ended up. Instead, citizens lost out on just over
$1bn that could have gone on health or education."
International policymakers will be paying close attention to the case as well. Last year, the European Commission passed a directive requiring listed companies to disclose project-level payments, such as those made by Shell and ENI for Oil Block OPL 245 in Nigeria.
The measure reflects similar legislation in Canada and the US - although companies such as Exxon, Chevron and Shell have successfully appealed against the legality of the latter. In a lawsuit presented by the American Petroleum Institute, the oil majors argue that it would harm their competitive advantage (as state-owned oil companies are exempt).
Similarly, Big Oil objects to the new European Union disclosure rules on the grounds that certain governments contractually block them from disclosing project payments. The list includes the likes of China and Qatar. "Companies will effectively be obliged to choose whether to break the law in the EU [European Union] or to break it somewhere else," a Shell spokesperson claims.
At present, Shell is among those pushing to prevent the Securities and Exchange Commission from reintroducing tough disclosure requirements – a step that Global Witness interprets as "lobbying to weaken laws" on transparency. Again, it's an accusation that the oil major rejects. Instead, it points to the fact that it voluntarily discloses its total payments (pdf) to national governments in 14 key markets. The figures include a $4bn tax and royalties' bill in Nigeria in 2013.
So, coming back to the investors in the room, why should they insist that Shell goes further and reveal project-level data? The answer comes back to money. "For investors, project-level information can help them better gauge risk and avoid nasty surprises down the line", says Powell at the Publish What You Pay coalition. A costly case in point is the recent call by Nigeria's House of Representatives to cancel Shell and ENI's exploration contract.
Not all investors are deaf to demands for greater revenue transparency. In a recent letter to the SEC, a group of financial institutions representing $2.85tn in assets under management said project-level disclosure was in keeping with "changing dynamics" in the oil sector – by which they meant the diminishing opportunities for exploration and the consequent need to search for oil in ever more "challenging governance and business environments".
Despite the huge sums at stake, it remains rare for shareholders to request revenue data on a project-by-project basis, says Giuseppe van der Helm, executive director of the Dutch Investors Association for Sustainable Development. "But if investors want to follow the money, the financial streams, then it's important to get a grip on how payments are made at an individual project level."
• This article was amended in 20 May 2014 to change the value of assets under management to $2.85tn not $2.85bn.
The role of business in development hub is funded by Business Call to Action. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
The list is unsurprising; with investors, it all comes down to the money. How is their capital being spent, what returns is it making and when can they expect to see the profits? It's curious, therefore, that it took a charity, rather than an investor, to inquire about Shell's role in a $1.1bn corruption scandal in Nigeria.
"Investors need to know what's at stake," says Brendan O'Donnell, oil campaigner at the UK-based non-profit Global Witness, which tabled a query at the annual meeting in The Hague. "Shadowy deals are not just bad for people in developing countries, they're bad business."
The case in question refers to a licencing payment that the Nigerian subsidiaries of Shell and Italy's ENI made in 2011 to develop a lucrative, offshore oil block. The money allegedly ended up in the bank account of a private firm, Malabu Oil and Gas, owned by Nigeria's former oil minister, Dan Etete, now under criminal investigation for his involvement in the affair.
Shell has sought to distance itself from the scandal. The British-Dutch company says it paid the Nigerian government, not Malabu, and that it acted lawfully "at all times". Exactly how much Shell and ENI knew about the final destination of their payment remains unclear, however. Global Witness cites court evidence which suggests that Shell negotiated directly with Etete. The company denies the claim.
Regardless of who paid what to whom, there is one clear loser in the whole affair: the Nigerian public. After nearly six decades of oil exploration, the West African petrodollar state has become a watchword for corruption and missed developmental opportunities. The recent abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls by terrorist militia demonstrates the lawless, fragile existence that faces many everyday Nigerians.
Advertisement
International policymakers will be paying close attention to the case as well. Last year, the European Commission passed a directive requiring listed companies to disclose project-level payments, such as those made by Shell and ENI for Oil Block OPL 245 in Nigeria.
The measure reflects similar legislation in Canada and the US - although companies such as Exxon, Chevron and Shell have successfully appealed against the legality of the latter. In a lawsuit presented by the American Petroleum Institute, the oil majors argue that it would harm their competitive advantage (as state-owned oil companies are exempt).
Similarly, Big Oil objects to the new European Union disclosure rules on the grounds that certain governments contractually block them from disclosing project payments. The list includes the likes of China and Qatar. "Companies will effectively be obliged to choose whether to break the law in the EU [European Union] or to break it somewhere else," a Shell spokesperson claims.
At present, Shell is among those pushing to prevent the Securities and Exchange Commission from reintroducing tough disclosure requirements – a step that Global Witness interprets as "lobbying to weaken laws" on transparency. Again, it's an accusation that the oil major rejects. Instead, it points to the fact that it voluntarily discloses its total payments (pdf) to national governments in 14 key markets. The figures include a $4bn tax and royalties' bill in Nigeria in 2013.
So, coming back to the investors in the room, why should they insist that Shell goes further and reveal project-level data? The answer comes back to money. "For investors, project-level information can help them better gauge risk and avoid nasty surprises down the line", says Powell at the Publish What You Pay coalition. A costly case in point is the recent call by Nigeria's House of Representatives to cancel Shell and ENI's exploration contract.
Not all investors are deaf to demands for greater revenue transparency. In a recent letter to the SEC, a group of financial institutions representing $2.85tn in assets under management said project-level disclosure was in keeping with "changing dynamics" in the oil sector – by which they meant the diminishing opportunities for exploration and the consequent need to search for oil in ever more "challenging governance and business environments".
Despite the huge sums at stake, it remains rare for shareholders to request revenue data on a project-by-project basis, says Giuseppe van der Helm, executive director of the Dutch Investors Association for Sustainable Development. "But if investors want to follow the money, the financial streams, then it's important to get a grip on how payments are made at an individual project level."
• This article was amended in 20 May 2014 to change the value of assets under management to $2.85tn not $2.85bn.
The role of business in development hub is funded by Business Call to Action. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
-
6 7In 2002, I was one of the co-founders of the Publish What You Pay campaign. At that time, Shell was one of the most constructive of the oil companies in terms of our campaign to obtain disclosure of payments made by oil and mining companies to governments. This was because the company had bought into the idea that transparency of these payments could play a key role in mitigating large-scale looting of states, which though rich in natural resources, were nevertheless often desperately poor thanks to their kleptocratic elites. It is thus with regret that I note such a fundamental slide by the company in recent years to a role more aligned with sustaining an opaque shroud over such payments. And then there its involvement in the corrupt deal for the oil block OPL-245.Shell can make all the denials, which you have repeated in the article above that it likes, but the facts, as born out by publicly available court documents, tell a different story. They show that Shell officials spent on and off a year and a half in direct negotiations with Etete. We wait to see the extent to which the deal turns out to be illegal - But whatever that outcome, in the end of the day, the deal for OPL-245, leaves the companies in possession of stolen goods, whilst they simultaneously and knowingly monetised a state asset (the oil block) that was illegally expropriated by Etete. The US$1.1 billion that was paid did not go for the benefit of Nigerians whose asset this was. Despite 2 years of asking, Shell has failed to produce a credible answer to any of the specific questions we have asked them about this deal - and all the while, they have waged an aggressive campaign to kill off, or water down legislation in both the EU and the US that would require them to have disclosed these payments. If you are an investor, or perhaps you have a pension which is exposed to the risks associated with such predatory behaviour, you should worried. Please ask Shell what they have to hide and demand they go back to being genuinely progressive about transparency of their payments - rather than the current charade. Simon Taylor, Director, Global Witness, and co-founder of the Publish What You Pay Campaign,
-
1 2It’s great to see Global Witness in action, but shouldn’t there be Nigerians leading the charge on this issue?
At least I’d also like to know what home grown effort there is to put that house in order.
Advertisement
In kurulus osman season 3 in hindi Turgut realizes that the only solution is to run away and runs away with Kosses. Nikola begins to follow them into the forest. Turgut asks Kosses to return to his castle and bring soldiers to save kurulus osman season 3 in hindi. After a long war, the Mongols capture Osman. Nikola captures Turgut, but Kosses and his soldiers rescue him. Geyhatu says Osman will die soon and takes him away. Bala and Malhun ask the Beys for support to kurulus osman season 3 in hindi.
ReplyDeleteGeyhatu says the horses will run over the Turks. Osman says he is not afraid of death and waits for Geyhatu’s arrival. Alemshah realizes that Osman’s wives are trying to do something secretly and asks Gunduz to do something about it urgently. Gunduz agrees to banish Bala and Malhun from the tribe. Kosses attacks the Mongols with thenew soldiers he brought from the castle. Turgut uses this opportunity and saves Osman’s life kurulus osman season 3 in hindi.
Go and Watch the Latest Episode kurulus osman season 3 in hindi.
Only on our kurulus osman season 3 in hindi.