NACGOND - Joint Investigation Visit (JIV) at SPDC Cawthorne Channel 24” NCTL
info@nacgond.org
 +234 (0) 813 963 7150
e0f835e346d46266d05db3b446de5679.jpg
e8a054168c760c50fb093ee4ee79a1d9.jpg
540b2539c136c49fa0b0170a8ad70541.jpg
8a03704e4bb069a65666373db285f0a9.jpg
4ea2e47d6319645d4694fded0a24265f.jpg
f82daadcd083a27628dfa7c090aeb4b1.jpg
acc4d1a60ee39e616b5f4c12458e086f.jpg
Joint Investigation Visit  (JIV) at SPDC Cawthorne Channel  24” NCTL
Written by  Published in JIV
16
Mar

Joint Investigation Visit (JIV) at SPDC Cawthorne Channel 24” NCTL Featured

LOCATION: DATE:
Adamakiri Bonny February 11, 2014

Following the reported oil spill on the Moneygrand Cawthorne Channel at Adamakiri Creek on the of August 20, a JIV was scheduled to take place on February 11, 2014. There was a brief HSE session which was mainly on 3 hazard areas namely: personnel, equipment and the environment. The JIV team comprises of Government regulators-  NOSDRA, and Ministry of Environment. Also in the crew were NACGOND, SPDC consultants and contractors, and SPDC staff proceeded to the Aboloma Jetty from Shell Industrial Area to board speed boats to Moneygrand Cawthorne Channel. Arrival time at the Moneygrand Cawthorne Channel was 2:15pm. 

COMPOSITION OF THE JIV TEAM 

Representative of the following organizations were part of the JIV team:  

  • National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) 
  • River State Ministry of Environment (RSME)
  • Surveillance Contractors 
  • Community Representative 
  • Joint Task Force 
  • SPDC Staff and Contractors 
  • Right Of Way (ROW) contractor 

Objective of the visit:  To determine the cause of spill and the area impacted

Cause of spill:  SPDC alleged it was sabotage. However, it was disputed by NACGOND and the Ministry of Environment as the alleged theft point was detached without the knowledge of the regulators and before the JIV

Description of environment: Swampy and there are no visible oil spills. SPDC claimed to have done some containment but and the spills did not spread beyond the vicinity. However, there was no evidence of containment and no one could explain why the surrounding is not polluted as any spill site will necessarily be

Description of leaked point:  The alleged leak point is already detached  (See Figure 1)

Type of environment to which oil has spread:  Swamp and water. There is no spread of oil.

Type of containment: There is no visible containment even as SPDC claimed to have done some containment

Properties affected:  Effect of the spill is not very visible. SPDC claimed that their aim was to remove and oil theft point

 


Pipes alleged have been detached from the theft point

OBSERVATIONS/NATURE OF SPILL  

  • SPDC wanted to show an oil theft point and how it was removed in line with campaign it started last year.
  • This is not supposed to be an issue for a JIV
  • JIV due procedures were not followed as alleged theft points were detached based on SPDC instrument before the knowledge and involvement of the regulator
  • The alleged detached theft point was seen visible in the mud
  • The environmental impact is not very visible or clear
  • SPDC agreed and apologized to the regulators for not following the right JIV procedure
  • The immediate environment seems to have been cleaned as there was no much of the impact of the spills on the environment.

ENDORSEMENT OF THE JIV  

SPDC agreed with the regulators that JIV procedures were not followed. Though SPDC insisted that spills were as a result of third party interference. The representative of the Ministry of Environment is rather of the opinion that SPDC has no proof of sabotage on the pipeline as they have already removed the alleged theft points without the regulators. SPDC accepted that it was a grave mistake and promised to improve. Mr Harrison of the Ministry of Environment however expressed disappointment that this kind of breach of protocol continues to re-occur in spite persistent promises from SPDC to improve.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED  

The major problem encountered was that JIV procedure was not followed. SPDC had already made their conclusions that it was a third party interference that resulted in the February 3, 2014 spills. Alleged theft points were already detached and they seem to have done some surface cleaning of the area to show that the environmental impact was zero. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: SPDC should follow and adhere to JIV procedure  

CONCLUSION: SPDC should be transparent and follow and adhere to JIV procedures

(0 votes)
Last modified on Monday, 16 March 2015 17:18
NACGOND  
Login to post comments