IMPROPER ABANDONMENT OF OIL WELL-HEAD, AND THE POLITICS OF GAS FLARING (Part 1)

There are about 603 fields in the Niger Delta. Over 55 per cent of these are onshore, while the remaining is in the shallow waters (less than 500 metres). Of these fields, 193 are currently producing while 23 have either been closed down or abandoned. Across the Niger Delta, abandoned drill locations (including well stubs) numbering well over several tens of thousands.

A large number of exploratory wells were drilled on land, swamp and offshore locations. The practice then was the use of Water Based Mud (WBM) and bigger holes. At the land sites, earth materials were borrowed from offsite locations to the drill sites for civil work construction. Large borrow pits were created as a result.

Improperly abandoned oil wells, improperly abandoned facilities, and abandoned oil sumps are all potential sources of safety hazards. Prior to current abandonment procedures, oil wells were cut off below ground and capped. However, this procedure may not comply with the current abandonment standards.

This information is intended to encourage investigation of oil operating companies to ascertain compliance to industry standards and procedures in respect of abandoned/ suspended oil wells in Rivers, Bayelsa, Ondo, Edo, Akwa Ibom states and Niger Delta Region in general. Our objectives include:

To safeguard human health, safety and environment.

To ensure that the abandoned oil wells are properly abandoned to comply with the industry standards and best practice.

To guide against the potential consequences of abandoned oil wells failure and the resultant incidents.

To ensure compliance with industry standard procedures.

To ensure oil operating companies create a resource data base for their abandoned oil wells in Niger Delta Region.

CONCERN TO COMMUNITIES

-          Most of the oil wells were probably abandoned without proper evacuation procedures.

-          Some of the abandoned oil wells might be poorly plugged and could lead to disaster if failure occurs.

-          Poorly plugged abandoned oil wells could blow up without warning.

-          Nonchalant attitude might have been exhibited during the plug back of the wells without compliance with acceptable safety standards.

-          Gradual failure could result if the abandoned oil wells were not properly plugged over time.

-          Some abandoned land oil wells are not secured with parameter fence and are exposed to human trespass and interaction.

-          Poor education and lack of awareness of the community people of the dangers of abandoned oil wells.

-          Security problems that may arise should there be incident due to failures.

SOME ABANDONED OIL WELLS IN NIGER DELTA OF RIVERS AND BAYELSA STATE

14 Oil wells Ogoni land, SPDC

2 Oil wells at Afam, Oyigbo LGA, SPDC

2 Oil wells at Egberu, Oyigbo LGA, SPDC

3 Oil wells at Kuruma Tai, Tai LGA, SPDC

6 Oil Wells at Tua-Tua, Tai LGA, SPDC

3 Oil wells at Idu- Obosiukwu, ONELGA, ELF

2 Oil wells at Idu- Osobile, ONELGA, NAOC

The above areas where oil well heads have been improperly abandoned depends on the geological foundation of the area, else this can also be a quick time bomb that may brew crisis in the region.

DANGERS OF ABANDONED OIL WELLS

Abandoned oil wells are dangerous because very few of them are really properly capped or retired. Most of these oil wells were not probably abandoned with proper evacuation procedures and very few of them ever get checked after abandonment. So pressure that builds up from gases in the earth and shifting earthquakes can cause oil and gas to come back to the surface, even on an oil well that had been capped. This causes spills and emissions that could harm air, land and water body.

Improperly capped wells have the potential to leak methane gas which poses an explosion hazard. There is a danger that leaking gas combined with the oil could create an inferno. There is the potential incident of spillage or blowout resulting to disaster. Apart from threatening aquatic lives, spills could lead to destruction of natural vegetation and flora as well as the soil.

The effect on human health and community environment cannot be over emphasized. There is also the cost effect of payment of compensations and resettlement of the human inhabitants where necessary. It is therefore necessary to secure these wells and other facilities to comply with the industry standards and best practice to guide against the potential consequences of their failures, which our community is already prone to.

ABANDONED OIL WELLSI NCIDENTS IN RIVERS STATE

Bodo-West Oilfield spillage.

Yula oilfield, spillage

Bomu oilfield fire incident

Afam, oil well fire incident.

OIL WELL ABANDONMENT

Apart from the human and environmental threat of Gas Flaring in the region; justice haven been denied, the issues of proper decommissioning of dry Oil-Wells have not be given sufficient attention, and international legislation guiding proper Abandonment, Decommissioning, remediation, reclamation and consolidation has not be adhered to strictly. In a layman terms, it means that several flow stations such as prominent in Diebu Creek Flow Stations , dry oil wells were not properly decommissioned and land reclaimed for arable and aquatic uses as seen and practiced in the developed countries of the world such as the United State of America (USA), UK, Germany, France etc.

In an interview conducted by The Foundation of Ijaw Liaison Legacy (FILL) in collaboration with Society of African Reformers (SOAR), it was discovered, that with the ongoing agitations by various Ijaw Oil communities. It was evident that another kind of conflict may ensue, and a violent agitation may emerge if issues of this utmost consideration are not attended to. As peace loving Ijaw communities, it will be recalled that under the aegis of FILL/SOAR, few communities collaborated to draft a proposal for the development of the region; at least with the ecological trust funds, in which its use is absent in the region, and has in the past voted unanimously to confront both local, state and federal government, and the Multinational Oil Companies to develop the area, but unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears.

Haven researched on several Abandoned Oil Wells which are Methane Gas Prone; Most Oil Multinational does not follow current international standards in decommissioning, remediation, reclamation and re-vegetation procedures. Research conducted indicated poor policy standards in the decommissioning, remediation and re-vegetation process, which makes the Multinational Oil Companies automatically liable in the violation of internationally accepted environmental policies. In all the sites visited, a pictorial view shows that that the casings of the Oil Wells were not properly removed, or the pipe were poorly capped with cements to prevent possible escape of Methane and other rare Gases (it is not surprising, then, that these attractive forces are easily overcome by thermal energy, so that melting and boiling occur at very low temperature at m.p. - 1830, b.p. - 161.50).

CHEMICAL BRIEF OF METHANE GAS

Methane is colourless and, when liquefied is less dense than water (sp.gr. 0.4). As reiterated by chemical scientist, and in agreement with the rule of thumb that "like dissolves like", it's only slightly soluble in water, but very soluble in organic liquids such as gasoline, either, and alcohol. It should be noted that methane is an end product of anaerobic ("without air") decay of plants, that is, of the breakdown of certain very complicated molecules. As such, it is the major constituent (up to 96.85%) of natural gas. It is the dangerous firedamp of coal mine, and can be seen as marsh gas bubbling to the surface of swamp.

Imperatively, if methane is needed in pure form, it can be separated from the other constituent of natural gas (such as crude oil) by fractional distillation through hydrocarbonic cracking of its hydrocarbon-Alkane chains. Most of it, of course is consumed as fuel without purification. This means that during the drilling of crude oil, all that is present in the Alkane-Aliphatic compounds of Hydrocarbon is Methane soiled Gas. At the expiration of the drilling, or perhaps the life span of the oil well; traces of Methane is still present as the byproduct of anaerobic manifestations, which includes its reactive nature with the halogenations with Iron/casings segments (X2 F2 > Cl2 > Br2 (> I2).

Quite specifically, it is rumoured by archaeologist and by some theories that, the origin of life go back to a primitive earth surrounded by an atmosphere of Methane, water, ammonia, Thick clouds of Nitrogen, and Hydrogen. This means that Methane (CH4) belonging to Aliphatic group of hydrocarbon family, under alkane analysis.

When methane swells up, and there is high level of O2, there is an Oxidation reaction taking place deriving the following Methane reaction:

CH4 + 2O2 ---- (flame) --à CO2 + 2H2O + Heat (213 Kcal/mole) - Combustion

This means that when oil is dried up completely, with the transition state reached, a new generation of Carbonium ion is created and different nature of methyl epilates within the earth beds, escaping through the narrow curvatures of pipes, even though if they are properly capped.

PROCEDURES FOR PROPER ABANDONMENT

With regard to international standards, a rig is deployed to pull out pipes to definite kilometres from the earth, due to the presence of large oil valves which are sometimes several kilometres below the sea level. Or most likely, facilities could be developed to tap the methane gas present in some pipes for other economic uses. In Diebu Creek, an SPDC flow station, several visible oil wells heads, haven reach their life span are not properly decommissioned. This in the nearest future may disrupt peace and security in the area, as well as serve as a landmine in the eruption of uncontrolled agitation by Oil-Bearing communities in the region, starting with Diebu creek flow station in Oyeregbene of Bayelsa state.

Careful reports by SOAR showed that, there were more than 30 abandoned Oil well Heads in Diebu Creek axis and other communities in Bayelsa state, as they were not properly decommissioned and land reclaimed. Within the Niger Delta region of Rivers and Bayelsa State respectively, 40 Dry and un-decommissioned Oil wells are visible. With available seismic reports of these sites indicates that Methane can contaminate underwater life, should it escape into the estuary level of the sea.

Below is an international policy in properly decommissioning a Dry Oil Well (DOW), those policies required in addressing land/sea sites:

Onshore:

1. Demolition of existing camp/concrete structures.

2. Removal of existing well heads

3. Backfilling of existing pits (including large borrow pits)

4. Leveling of entire drill site to match natural contour level

5. Spreading of native humus soil and re-vegetation with native plant species

And Offshore:

1. Ensuring that they are completely plugged and abandoned using a more cost-effective approach such as the use of highly compressed sodium bentonite

2. The wells should be cut below mud line and removed, that is, when highly compressed sodium bentonite (Zonite) for plugging well stubs.

TREMOURS

Technically, if dry oil wells are not properly abandoned / decommissioned through remediation and reclamation in the case of onshore sites, it may lead to tremours, bombardment with the presence of high gaseous methane gas that could narrowly escape into the atmosphere causing explosion during bush burning, or some other environmental hazards. The fire outbreak at Obama flow station in 2001 and the attendant injury to the surrounding communities; which caused severe earth tremours and the raptures of the earth bed-wave. The affected communities included:

1. Ombuikiri community

2. Iwokiri Community

3. Sounkiri and Ologoama Communities

4. Akakumama community

5. Akribe Family and Akakumama Community

6. Solomon Family and Akakumama Community

7. Kariyai Family and Kariyaikiri Community

8. Owili Family and Emina-Ama Community;

These were the annexure communities and families that drafted a suite against the Nigerian Agip Oil Company (NAOC), and it was reported that up till date no relief materials or compensation has been received by these communities and families, yet they continue to suffer the consequences of Oil Companies' Monstrous and barbaric activities that have in all indications threatened the existences of the communities’ inhabitants and their immediate environments - a means for their survival. It is therefore a belief that NAOC's intransigence and their unholy treatments of the wellbeing of the communities in this particular researched case study stems from the company's knowledge about the Nigerian socio/economic condition, particularly Nigerian bankrupted legal system which is fraught with avoidable delays and huge financial implications. These indices are obvious obstacles in the ability of the impoverished host oil communities to effectively champion their legal rights and compel the NNPC joint venture partners operating in their areas to recognize and carry out their obligations.

CANALIZATION

Before now it was known that host oil-bearing communities lies in arable cum aquatic landmass, where its peoples involves both in subsistence agriculture and fishing as the means sources of livelihood; this was before the advent of crude oil exploration and exploitation. With the SPDC, AGIP and NNPC in various oil bearing communities in the region, the sources of livelihood to our people were deprived. Gas is still flared in its high intensity, and with the acidic and thermal effects on plants, roofs and other water lives, productivity began to reduce. Waters are polluted with crude oil deposit in the water which affects fishes and aquatic lives, the effect of the gas flared caused acid corrugation to the roofing sheets thereby lowering the lifespan from 25-30 to 3-5 years. Apart from the above explanation given, the acid rain effects on plants are adverse. With the initiation of heat and thermal intensity, etiolating can occur with plants redundancy.

The Community which was once a visible mangrove land was canalized, with arable land used for agriculture being dredged in order to accommodate large Oil Wells Servicing Boats. With regard to the international standard, when these oil wells are dried up, remediation such as refilling and reclaiming site is carried out with recent international environmental standards and EIA carried out consecutively. With the negative effects of the MNOCs activities in my communities and its surrounding communities housing flow stations and improperly decommissioned oil well, the MNOCs is liable of a criminal charge by national and international court on failures to meet with the standard environmental and industrial practices. It is on this ground that we are demanding that several in-depth canals be remediated and land reclaimed for agricultural and other uses. For peace and tranquility to reign in the communities and in the region, our canalized land should be reclaimed and remediated to ensure security, prosperity and posterity of our generation yet unborn. A visit and a thorough investigation of our community indicated that it is now situated in an island, causing erosion and other ocean prone problems.

The common practice with regard to international environmental standard is that the people be relocated, that is, if remediation and reclamation is going to be expensive, such as those in Finima, Bonny Island.

ECOLOGICAL TRUST FUND FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION)

The genesis of the ecological trust fund is towards the development of those areas that are poorly developed, as it is required in a decent rural/community/village or towns. Such as a standardized health care centres, Primary and Secondary schools, Electricity, Portable water, civic centres, town halls, modern roof coverings and other benefits as stipulated in the utilization of the ecological trust fund.

It is pertinent that since the inception of crude oil exploration in marginalized communities in the early 50's, and when ecological trust fund was passed into law by the Obasanjo's administration, it positive effects in terms of development has not been benefited by host communities. It is in this light the affected communities are stressing their discontent with how the trust fund is being utilized for community transformation. To digress a little bit, the north do not produce oil, yet the ecological trust fund is now being used to declare state of emergency in major villages in the North in terms of development and healthcare, while most communities in the Niger Delta region has no developmental focus, where its communities’ growth platform are unattended to.

In more than 288 communities visited, there were no visible and decent housing units, some and nearly all the necessary amenities to life is lacking, which is part of the Niger Delta question. The complexity is that, the presence of SPDC, AGIP, NNPC and other Multinational Oil Companies has caused more harm than good. It has worsened the standard of living of the communal people; it has shortened the only means of their survival through the pollution of their fishing waters, and the canalization of its arable shore-lands for sustainable agriculture. Health care is zero, as primitive medicine is still being applied to treat ailments.

The questions to be asked are:

1.      What are the civic responsibilities of these Multinational companies in the region?

2.      What is the function of government in the JVC agreement and the GMOU with MNOCs towards Host Oil-Bearing Communities' development?

3.      How have the actions of the court in regard to addressing the underdevelopment in my communities, with the suit brought before it by the communities or its representatives against the MNOCs and the government? And has other area of interest dues alleviating the economic woes of the communities been tackled and executed by the Executive arm of government?

4.       Why is the deplorable condition of the people still within the benchmark of 0-1.33% when more than 32% of the crude oil from Bayelsa comes from these communities and its neighbouring clan-communities?

Certainly these are the questions that need to be answered on a moral and economic grounds, without these issues being resolved, the fear that the Government and MNOCs commitment to develop the area will serve as another backup to derail justice towards deprivation and marginalization of most Niger Delta communities, even though the Amnesty program tends to be providing dramatic solutions to the agitation of the region; as several other communities have taken the MNOCs and Government to court as they oftentimes were denied the treasure of the law as it favoured them.

On these conditions, these communities have given AOGPC/SOAR their full mandate, thus making their case before the ICJ on the ground that they believe that their suit may be dismissed in the Nigerian court, as it is evidence in several other court judgments such as Ewerekhan vs. Shell and FGN (AGF) (April. 2005).

RESEARCHED RECOMMENTATION

Oil and Gas Operators should embark on abandonment and remediation/restoration programs to address all abandoned/ suspended wells cutting across land, swamp and offshore environments and a full stop to Gas Flaring. A well is abandoned when it reaches the end of its useful life or is a dry hole. A suspended oil well may be due to marginal production of less commercial value. A well is properly abandoned when:

1.      The casing and other equipment is removed and salvaged.

2.      Cement plugs are placed in the borehole to prevent migration of fluids between the different formations.

3.      The surface is reclaimed.

In other words with the earth movement as it tilts, the core sometimes may experience strange tremours as a result of the methane swells albeit the valve corks of pipes (drill holes) several Kilometres underground. When Methane (CH4) over-swells, it form acidic effervescent which melts its surrounding rock-beds (hard earth cores (Fe2). These cores forms into molten magmas, through further swells escape upward the bar-cores/sea-level causing earth tremours through rock cracking by heat/thermal effects on Earth-pillar beds, hence either volcanic eruption or earth quakes through upper layer tear may occur, thereby endangering the lives and properties in our communities and several others. The geological possibility is that such effect expands by its thermal nature to other underlying earth beds through contraction and expansion towards its regional outlay by the earth movements.

Some communities have experienced these underground bombardment/tremours in the past, and though its effect were not adverse, yet there is a likelihood that our communities are not safe until there is a "project decommissioning, remediation, revegetation, and refill of all canals" in the Diebu Creek Flow State by NNPC/SPDC, and Sagana River owned by Agip. These are some of the issues which if various communities seek redress in the Nigerian Court may be dismissed and lacking merit, and if on the contrary justice prevailed, no responsive and responsible government authority will be deployed to attend to the resolution of the marginalization, deprivation and violation of the fundamental human rights; perpetuated against these communities by Multinational Oil companies, Governments and its officials; when it may be a decision reached by the court will be carried.

Therefore it on this premise that the Association of Oil and Gas Producing Communities has applied to sue:

i.                    The Federal Government of Nigeria (1st Respondent).

ii.                  Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria,

iii.                Nigerian Agip Oil Company, Totalfina (ELF), and other Multinational Oil companies not here mentioned respectively as (2nd Respondents).

iv.                The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation NNPC (3rd Respondent)

v.                  The Attorney General Of the Federation of Nigeria (4th Respondent)

To the International Court at Hague, Netherland of Scandinavia on a series of the aforementioned petition amongst others that has been filed and submitted to the ICJ for cross examination.

The federal government and oil operators based on this research should not wait for failure to occur before ensuring compliance with the existing international laws and industry standards and best practice. A good knowledge of these abandoned/ suspended wells and their proper evacuation shall save the nation of their potential consequences in the near future.

In a research conducted (Peter Idialu, Jimoh Ainodion, Lanre Alabi, ChevronTexaco Nigeria Limited), in mid 2002, the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Special Adviser on Petroleum Matters gave a directive that all Oil and Gas Operators should embark on abandonment and remediation/restoration programs to address all abandoned drill locations cutting across land, swamp and offshore environments, as was reiterated by the then Honourable Minister of State, Federal Ministry of environment Dr. Imeh.

GAS FLARING

The overall effects of the study of Gas Flaring in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni communities respectively can be applicable to other bio-degradable, environmentally hazardous and toxicity of other oil bearing communities across the Niger Delta region of Rivers, Bayelsa and Delta state respectively; where Gas is flared by Multinational Oil Companies. Because geographically, the belt of Niger Delta houses similar and characterized nature of Gas Flaring in all communities, since in terms of terrain, most communities have similar environmental features. It was however noted that, with the scientific reports conducted in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni communities (see Attached Copy), the study indicated that it can be used interchangeably to forecast effects in other communities in other Niger Delta Ijaw communities where evidence of effects can be collated and sampled.

The adverse effects of Gas Flaring, toxicity level of the emission and on human health and environment namely eye and skin irritations, the impact of acidic and corrosive rain on the accelerated rusting of corrugated roofing sheets and damages to vegetation. These were represented by oral testimonies collected from community residents in all the communities situated near the Gas Flared sites. In our communities, it is a known fact that there is early leakage of our zinc roofs, there is stunted and abnormal growth of crops, with redundant manner of planktons, grasses and other flowers without bearing nourished fruits; and certain strange skin diseases; there is also the presence of Nitrogen gases which attracts parasitic fleas such as sand fleas etc. With the above brief analysis, although it has not been scientifically and medically proven, yet could be the effects of acid rain and radiation from Gas Flares.

As part of the aspiration, the government, through the NNPC, has targeted 2008 as the flare-out date when all gas flaring is expected to stop in all oil and gas fields in Nigeria. With government and its attendant insincerity and deception, Gas Flaring was allegedly stopped in 2003 with government's commitment by his servant (Dr. Imeh) in 1999 conference in Abuja. 2008 has come and gone, 2015 is coming, yet we have no tangible framework in the adherence to stopping gas flaring.

However, with the evident we gathered, it was discovered that; the country's natural gas reserves is put at more than 166 TSCF (trillion standard cubic feet), with her current gas production put at 12 billion scf, which is the associated gas (AG) produced in the course of crude oil production. Current flare figure is put at about 63% of the 2 billion scf daily production of AG in response to government's gas monetization efforts, which had included gas-flare penalties, incentives and tax credits to encourage gas-based projects, virtually all the major players are sure to beat the year 2008 flare-out date. In all of these, the government within its policy has not deemed it fit to compensate and commensurate through developmental projects in communities where these gas are flare, and we believe that this was an act of fraud perpetuated against my community by the FGN, as my community has not directly benefited from the penalty monies.

Nigeria presently stands in the not too highly esteemed position of being the country that flares the most gas in the world. This status has come to be because of the decades of relentless and unchecked gas flaring by unscrupulous oil and gas industry operating in Nigeria, and other factors, such as: the lax regulatory regime, many years of corrupt governments in Nigeria which indulge the oil companies in their flaring, lack of gas utilization infrastructures, lack of ready markets for the commodity amongst others.

Another factor seems to be that most Nigeria's have been almost obvious of the value of natural gas itself and the attendant adverse effects of natural gas flaring. This is possibly one of the reasons why such abject wastefulness of highly valuable resources has been condoned for so long. To many people it would appear that this gas is of no value, and that the oil and gas industry are justified in continuing to it off, but the truth is the contrary.

Nigeria, as a nation gets most of its revenue from the export of oil and indeed the oil and gas industry has enjoyed steady growth and development since oil was first discovered in Oloibiri in 1956. On the other hand, flagrant flaring of gas has been the order of the day. Oil companies in Nigeria led by Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) continue this practice unabated and without conscience for it unwholesome negative effects. They are driven by their lust for profit, which they no doubt consider to be more important than the health and livelihood of those living in the oil producing areas.

There is a general agreement that gas flaring should stop, and in lieu of this, President Olusegun Obasanjo and the Major Multi-national oil producing companies in Nigeria, appear to have agreed to end gas flaring by the year 2008. to achieve this end, the government and the oil companies have initiated various projects, still it seems that much has not been achieved and these projects namely: Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG) venture and the West African Gas pipeline (WAGP) been criticized. However, it must be pointed out that these projects stand a chance at reducing gas flaring if properly utilized.

Also in an attempt to reduce gas flaring, Government has introduced several penalties over the years for the amount of flared by the oil companies. It was first fixed at 0.50 Naira per million cubic feet (MCF), but effective from January 1998, the present fee was fixed at 10 Naira per MCF, which at November 2003 exchange rate was equivalent to US $ 0.076 per MCF. This fine is however grossly insufficient compared with what obtains in developed countries where the fine is about $10, thereby discouraging oil companies over there from flaring of gas.

Although this anomaly called Gas flaring has been a scourge on the environment for close to five decades, definitions on the subject matter are not as extensive. Most authors are quick to criticize the trend, few proffer useful explanations and although a number of definitions can be found, some of them have faulted with technicality. However, a good definition of Gas flaring was given in a newspaper Article, which featured in the Guardian, as ''gas flaring is the burning off of gas found in association with oil in the course of oil production activities''. The Article went on to explain that ''flaring of association Gas from oil production activities is like setting a match to an enormous container of lighter fluid and they are so hot that nothing will grow near them. This gas that is flared is known as Associated Gas (AG), which is found mixed with oil. Oil companies do not like to find gas mixed together with their oil. They prefer to find Non Associated Gas (NAG), which is not mixed up with oil. Therefore, when oil companies encounter Associated Gas, they are quick to burn if off, so that they can get to their much prefer choice (oil). They do this despite other alternatives as re-injecting the gas back into the ground5, using it at the field to generate electricity or using it to produce Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPO), which can be used for cooking. This is because flaring of Natural Gas comes at virtually no cost to them, while to take the alternative would involve sizable costs.

Another good definition obtained from Exxon Mobil's website reads thus: "Flaring is the burning of natural gas that is produced along with oil during oil production". In an article title: "Nigeria: Grantees Campaign against Gas Flaring" by Tracy Kirkland , the following was said "gas flaring occurs when the natural gas associated with oil deposits is burnt off before the crude oil is refined". She further explained that, oil companies routinely flare gas for safety purposes, or where no infrastructure exits to bring the gas to market. In other Article title, "Gas Flares, Oil Companies and Politics in Nigeria" by Chijioke Evoh, which threw more light was shed on Gas Flaring.

He had this to say, "Associated gases are routinely flared in the course of processing oil. Flaring is a means of safely disposing of waste gases through the use of combustion. With an elevated flare the combustion is carried out through the top of a pipe or stack where the burner or igniter is located".

In an article by Stan Shewuhuk, titled "Gas flaring a mounting environmental concern in Western Canada" another definition reads as follows: "flaring is the controlled burning of the waste natural gas associated with oil production". Also another author, Ike Okonta, in his article "Dance those flares to silence illuminates gas flaring thus: when crude oil is struck and brought to the surface, it usually comes up with gas. This in oil industry parlance is known as associated gas. While the oil burn in the atmosphere". Another Article defines Gas flaring a bit technically in these words. "Flaring is the burning of gas on drilling platforms when testing new wells, and on production platforms outside normal process operations (for example, process start-up and emergency shut-down).

In an Article title: "World Bank: over 150 Billion Cubic Meters of Gas Flared annually, Gas flaring was explained in the following words: "when crude oil is brought to the surface from several kilometers below, gas associated with oil extraction usually comes to the surface as well. If oil is produced in areas of the world, which lack gas infrastructure, or a nearby gas market, a significant portion of this associated gas may be released into the atmosphere, un-ignited (vented) or Ignited (flared).

From the above definition, it is necessary, that a distinction be drawn between flaring and venting. Flaring entails the burning of natural gas; while venting occurs when gas is simply released into the atmosphere without burning. An article defines flaring as the burning of gas that cannot be conserved, and, venting as the release of gas into the atmosphere. These two terms are not synonymous, although they are often used as though they are. Now that a better understanding of gas flaring has been achieved, the next thing to consider is the starting point of gas flaring in Nigeria.

GAS FLARING: HOW IT ALL BEGAN

Gas flaring dates back to 1956, about 50 year ago, when oil was first discovered by Shell D' Arcy (now SPDC) at Oloibiri (in what is now Bayelsa State). This practice of flaring Associated Gas was fuelled by British double standards. The British while allowing incessant flaring of gas to take place in Nigeria subsequently took a very different approach towards flaring their own gas when North Sea production started in the 1970's. During the period preceding Nigeria's independence in 1960, the then secretary of state for the colonies, Lord Home was called upon to address the flaring as: those giving advice to the Nigerians (i.e. the British) could be reproached.

The official response given was devoid of any worry and it reads thus

"Until there is this worthwhile market and until there are facilities (e.g. pipelines and storage tanks) to use the gas, it is normal practice to burn off this by - product from the oil wells".

However, the British, back on their own turf, set their face firmly against flaring North Sea gas, with the result Gas flaring was reduced from over 90%, which was the flaring rate at the Crude Oil production) to round 2%. This was achieved over the span of 25 year. Meanwhile, as a result of British double standards and a number of other factors, Nigeria went on to become the '' WORLD's BIGGEST GAS FLARE; flaring an estimate of 2.5 billion cubic feet of gas daily and losing a staggering 2.5 billion U.S. dollars yearly to Gas flaring. At the time the oil industry was born in the Niger Delta, the British knew of the practice of Gas flaring and were well aware of its unacceptability, yet they practically endorsed it with their lack of concern. They were interested in the enormous gain to be made from exploiting Nigeria's vast Crude Oil reserves, and thus were not too eager to spend money on what to them were '' uneconomic methods of using gas''.

The reverse was however the case, back at their own home and their attitude towards Gas flaring is aptly expressed in the following official note:

Natural gas has commonly been treated as waste product by the oil companies. Last year for example over 500 million cubic feet a day was flared in Libyan (six) oil fields alone - well over 15% of total U.K. consumption. We have set our face firmly against such waste of a precious resource in the U.K. continental shelf however.

To support this position, a general prohibition to flare UK gas without Ministerial consent was included in Section 12 of the Energy Act 1976.

The Minister of Petroleum during the passage of the bill, made the following comments:

“we would not want extensive flaring at home in the same way as extensive flaring takes place for example in Middle Eastern countries. It is not always in the immediate economic interest of the company not to flare. The clause is mainly for conservation reason but partly...for environmental reasons as well. It is not true to say that industry would never flare because it is in its own interests not to flare. It may not appear in the immediate economic interests of a company at that particular time without capital investment to use flared gas, but it may well be in the interest of the nation that the secretary of state may refuse an exemption to flare gas in a specific case”.

This shows clearly that the British were prepared to refuse a permit to flare gas even though it was in the oil company's interest, as they were determined not to become like other countries where excessive gas flaring was order of the day. They were bent on conserving their Natural gas and did in fact; recognize that Gas flaring was detrimental to the environment. Ironically, the same British, through Shell, are responsible for flaring large volumes of gas in Nigeria. This is also one of the reasons why Shell is being accused of operating double standards. From all that has been said so far, it is thus evident that Gas flaring in Nigeria was instigated by British double standards and they were indeed the Chief catalyst of what geared Nigeria into decades of wasteful flaring.

THE ADVRSE EFFECTS OF GAS FLARING: CASE STUDY (NIGER DELTA)

The Niger Delta is the area in which, majority of oil and gas related activities take place in Nigeria and as a result of this; it is also the area that has suffered most, the attendant environmental pollution and degradation that arises from these activities. Gas flaring is one of such sources of pollution, and is carried out by Oil companies in Nigeria, at the highest rate worldwide. The negative effects of Gas flaring are not limited to the environment only as it is also detrimental to human and animal life, as well as the economy. Studies have shown that Gas flares contain poisonous gases, which are fatal to crops, causes breathing problems in humans and cause acid rain, during the rainy seasons.

So therefore, for the purpose of discussion under this head, gas flaring and it effects will be shown from three viewpoints thus:

(A) Its Effect on the Environment

(B) Its Effect on Humans

(C) Its Effect on the Economy

The third head is included, because Gas Flaring also affects the economy, in terms of all the additional revenue that would have been realized if the Gas was properly utilized and not burned off.

(A) ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The effects of Gas flaring under this heading are multi faceted. Firstly, it is said to contribute to climate change. This effect, has received the most attention and corrective action worldwide. In January 2004, the UK Government's chief scientist was quoted a saying the following: "Climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, most serious even than the treat of terrorism. Burning (flaring) of Gas leads to the emission of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. Also, venting of gas, which occurs without burning, is said to release methane, which is considered to be more lethal than carbon dioxide. These greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) when emitted into the atmosphere tend to trap heat in the atmosphere, instead of allowing it radiate back into space. This has led to the warming up of the world and is projected to get much, more badly during the course of 21st century. Climate change is particularly grave for developing countries, and Africa as a whole is regarded as highly vulnerable with limited ability to adapt.

The Nigerian Government has even expressed the view that temperature in West Africa has increased over the past decade from 0.2 to 0.3 degree centigrade. Also, the continuous spate of gas flaring, which is being carried on in the Niger Delta, is said to contribute the further desertification of Northern Nigeria. This will arise because of a gradual decline in rainfall in that area.

Flaring contributes more emissions of green house gases (ghg's) than all other sources in Sub-Saharan Africa combined. This has grave implications for the climate conditions in Nigeria. Other countries of the world also contribute their fair share of green house gases (ghg's) and as a result of this fact, the Kyoto Protocol was created. This protocol was agreed to in 1997 under the UNFCC (United Framework Convention on Climate Change) and it imposes legally binding emission cuts on developed country parties. The Kyoto protocol is an agreement among industrialized Nations of the world to reduce emissions of various green house gases over a certain period of time, by harnessing the forces of the global market to protect the environment40. More than a hundred and seventy nations have ratified the treaty. Nigeria also agreed to the Kyoto protocol on 10th December 2004 and it came into force in February 2005.

Another environmental effect is that of acid rain. Residents in the Niger Delta have complained that acid rain corrodes their corrugated roofs, which are mostly made from metal. This acid rain poisons their lakes and streams, and also damages their vegetation. It is also said to accelerate the decay of building materials and paints. What's more, after a rainfall in the Niger Delta, oily hue is often seen collected on rainwater. Several scientific studies have been carried out to substantiate the above claims. For example, in the mid nineties, an ERA team, led by Oronto Douglas, conducted a social impact survey of Iko; a community in the Delta, where Shell had been flaring associated gas for over two decades. It was discovered that Shell had located the flow station from which gas was flared near the homes of local people, and as a result, farmlands had been devastated, the nearby river had been polluted, and the roofs of the house, destroyed by acid rain. The inhabitants themselves were found to be suffering from aliments as a result of the poisoned air and the poisoned river they had been exposed to.

Another study that was intensive enough, a research from the Institute of Oceanography University of Calabar, showed that rain water samples at Ekpene Obo town of Esit Eket Local Government Area, situated close to gas flares in Akwa Ibom State, contained high levels of acidity resulting in corrugation of roofing sheets. The main source of the acids were said to emanate mainly from Mobil Producing Nigeria's gas flaring operations at nearby onshore and offshore locations.

This observation that gas flaring in Nigeria causes acid rain is backed also by the U.S government's Energy Information Administration, which states the following:

The continued process of gas flaring has not only meant a potential energy sources - and source of revenue has gone up in smoke, but it is also a major contributor to air pollution and acid rain.

Flaring is also to create soot, which is deposited on nearby land and buildings, visibility damaging vegetation next to the flare. The most noticeable, yet generally ignored effect of the flares is light pollution. This type of pollution turns night into day and is a predominant feature in many oil-producing regions, where gas flaring is carried out. Local villagers were made to believe that the towering flames resulting from gas and oil burning are inevitable consequences, or environmental risks of oil production. Gas flaring also causes noise pollution and the constant heat being emitted from the flare sites make hard the soil of farms adjacent to it. Also, because of the high intensity of these flare, wildlife and game are usually scared away. It was also reported that snails, which used to be picked by the inhabitants of neighbouring communities in their farms, became extinct. Instead what they found to pick on their farms were the empty shells.

B) HUMAN EFFECTS

Gas flaring also affects human beings in a variety of ways. Human effects used here, necessarily implies health effect. This is because they are exposed to the cocktail of toxic substances, which come with flaring. Although no comprehensive study is known to have been carried-out into the health impacts of gas flaring on communities in the Niger Delta, these communities believe that flaring is damaging their health, reducing crop production and damaging their homes. Despite the absence of such studies, Environmental Rights Action (ERA) still holds that Gas flaring is harmful to the people, cattle and the environment.

Gas flaring has been said to cause breathing problem amongst humans. There have also been allegations that it causes poor vision, cough and skin diseases. It is also said to cause respiratory problems in younger children, asthma attacks and cancer. These ailment are used by a mix of toxins (e.g. smoke also called: particulate matter), benzene, sulphur dioxide, toluene etc), which are emitted during flaring 63. To substantiate this claim, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has said the following:

Many scientific studies have linked breathing particular matter to a series of significant health problems, including aggravated asthma, increases in respiratory symptoms like coughing and difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, decreased ling function and premature death

Additionally, the U.S. EPA has also stated that exposure to benzene causes acute leukaemia and a variety of other blood related disorders in humans.

World Bank Information, on the adverse effects of particulate matter, suggests that gas flaring from Bayelsa, alone, would likely cause on a yearly basis, 49 premature deaths, 4,960 respiratory illness among children and 120 asthma attacks. Exposure to such ailment and toxins on such grand scale as is had in the Niger Delta is said to be a violation of their Human Rights.

C) ECONOMIC EFFECTS

Aside from effects on the environment/host communities, animals, plant life, and human health, Gas flaring also impact grossly on the economic of a Nation, in terms of the loss of funds and revenue which it could have realized if it had conserved Gas instead of flaring same. Nigeria provides an appalling example of such a loss. Oil companies in Nigeria flare an estimate 2.5 billion cubic feet of gas everyday and this action, amounts to the loss of revenue, estimated at 2.5 billion U.S. dollars yearly. Nigeria was also reported to have lost over 20 billion US dollars to gas flaring in a span of 20 years. If one was to calculate the volume of natural gas that has been flared in Nigeria, from the start of the oil industry in the 1950s, it will become glaring that Nigeria has lost much more than $20bn, stated in that report. The Nigeria Government is currently in a position where large amounts of its gas are still being flared away and it has remained unable to do much about it, notwithstanding its various gas utilization projects and the deadlines, which it had fixed for stopping of gas flaring.

Despite the fact that the Nation is richly blessed with vast oil and gas revenues, it is still a poor country, with about 66% of its population living under the poverty live (which is less than 1 US dollar a day - Transparency International 2005) what is more is the fact that the country and the local communities have not benefited from the vast profits realized from the proceeds of oil sales. According to ERA, this oil has been sold abroad for billions of dollars and has benefited only the Multi-national Oil Companies and the corrupt local elite.

GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS ON GAS FLARING

(NIGERIA'S GAS FLARING PHASE-OUT INITIATIVE)

Nigeria's national response to safe-guard and enhance air quality standards and atmospheric protection, could be seen in the policy thrust, legal/legislative and institutional arrangements put in place over years. These are instituted by the government pursuant to Nigeria's obligations under the international instruments and initiative to which she is a member. These are highlighted below

THE NIGERIA'S POLICY THRUST ON ATMOSPHERIC PROTECTION

The Nigeria's policy thrust for the proper and efficient regulation of air standard and natural gas conservation is contained in the National policy on the environment (NPE) and the Nigeria National Agenda 21, published by the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMENV) the policy recognizes that atmosphere is very vital for the survival of man and other living animals, and that clean air is essential for health environments. Accordingly, government was committed, to inter alia:

i.                    Designating and mapping National Air control Zones and declaring air quality objectives for each designated Air control zones;

ii.                  Promoting regional cooperation aimed at minimizing the atmospheric transportation of pollutants across international boundaries.

iii.                Sustainable (Oil and Gas) exploitation strategy to be adopted nationally will seek to evolve a realistic national conservation policy that ensures optimum economic returns from oil and gas exploration and production, while ensuring adequate provisions for strategic reserves and taking into consideration the welfare of the local inhabitants of the oil and gas producing areas.

iv.                Monitor air emissions and gaseous wastes (CO, CO2, NO, N2s, CH4, SO2, etc.) discharged at production platforms, refineries, petrochemical and gas processing facilities, through continual air quality sampling, as well as through daily visual checks for leakages around tanks pumps pipelines and transfer points.

v.                  Promote conservation and restoration of natural formation pressure through elimination of gas flaring and the production of greenhouse gases;

vi.                Promote complete utilization of produced Associated Gas, reduced gas flaring and the production of greenhouse gasses.

This is considered as a very commendable staring point as indicating the government's sense of duty, social responsibility and sensitiveness to people's environment and health concerns. For the policy to benefit the people however, it has to be properly implemented.

THE POLICY FOR NATION GAS CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

The Nation Gas Policy (NGP) first reviewed in 1995 inter alia required subsequent production sharing contracts (PSC, S) signed with oil companies to include gas utilization clauses. Gas producers are to carry gas filed optimization studies on their respective concessions, while the Nation petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS) would be responsible for overall optimization planning of gas field development. Incentives were also offered under the Associated Gas Utilization Fiscal incentives as an effort to put in place investment required to transport gas to interested third parties.

A further review to the said policy was made as the process of deregulating the oil and gas section of Nigeria's economy was taken when the National Council on privatization (NCP) endorsed the National policy on oil and gas. The policy, which covers all aspects of the oil and gas industry, is geared towards securing for the country maximum sustainable value from the strategic industry. The (NCP) said the policy also contracts and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing the operations of the upstream sector.

Again, the research examined the operations of the refineries, pipelines, depots and retail outlets and recommended full deregulation of the downstream sector of the oil and gas industry. Issues of corporate social responsibility, health, safety and environmental responsibilities of all stakeholders, as well as the need to review, amend and harmonize the various laws and regulations governing the industry with a view to producing all-encompassing petroleum legislation for the nation were also well articulated in the document.

THE GAS FLARING PHASE-DEADLINE: THE YEAR 2008

The common wisdom in Nigeria is that the proper and effective tacking of the gas flaring problem is necessary for the successful harnessing and developing of Nigeria's gas resources, As noted earlier also, not only that gas flaring has badly stigmatized Nigeria before the international community, it has been one of the causes of grave environmental degradation and social crises in the Niger Delta region. Hence, gas flaring has been subject of incessant complaints by individuals and group among the inhabitants of the region as well as international non-governmental organizations. The combination of the above and other factors, associated with gas flaring in the Nigeria Delta, it became a subject of numerous litigations against the Federal Government and the multinational oil companies operating in the region.

It is thus the policy of the Government to pursue a phase elimination of gas flaring by the year 2008. 1985 was initially promoted as feasible to end gas flaring. In 1966 however, 2008 was agreed initially with the SPDC and other Operations. Since then however, unfolding socio-political and economic development in the country have caused changes and inconsistencies in government and the oil companies' position about the flare phase-out deadline. Early in the year 2000, in view of the renewed "huge investment" of the government to the flaring phase-out project through the NLND, the government though to end the flare by 2003, while the companies thought 2006 would be more realistic. A compromise was then struck, and it was agree that flares would go off by 2004. The government later though it cold indeed achieve zero flares only by 2006. But, in its 2001report, the SPDC restated its "commitment to ending the unnecessary flaring by the year 2008". It appears therefore that the 2008 date had actually been of the agenda of the oil companies for a very long time, much earlier time that it was announced. In a lecture the SPDC even came up with a program for the phased implementation of the 2008 flaring phase-out deadline.

One striking point indicative in this graph is that up to 2000, 99% of the gas produced by Shell in Nigeria was flared! By 2008 however, it is expected that the gas flaring would 100% be eliminated.

Whether 2008 is a realistic date for flares to terminate or not depends on the Government's commitment and political will, the SPDC and particularly the prospects of the various LNG projects. Already, the past experiences of postponements of the earlier deadline have shaken the confidence of the populace in the government even for the 2008. The question is whether the FG could compel the MNOCs to live up to our expectations even as the SPDC had hinted its inability to end gas flaring from the field by the 2008 deadline? SPDC had cited funding problems to complete project aimed at gathering the flaring gas from oil fields as contributing largely to the postponement. It said the contribution by the NNPC to cover its 55% equity in the joint venture, recorded by 2005 a shortfall of $4 billion over an eight-year period. Thus, the Shell declared: "construction of (gas gathering facilities).will only be completed by the end of 2009, which means that gas flaring from the relevant flow stations will not be eliminated until that time.

It is gratifying however, to note that both the National Assembly (NA) and the Executive recently are re-stating the Nigeria's commitment and resolve to end the flaring by the deadline. The author is of the view that in order to build or restore some public confidence in the government on this issue, the NA should more seriously first address the funding death as claimed by SPDC. NA and the government should note that all economic theories agree that provision of public good (including clean environment) is the primary responsibility of the government, and should not be left to private sector (SPDC or other oil companies). Let the funding issue be properly addressed, and the SPDC will then be left with the reasonability for explaining any failures or delays on the technical aspects of the gas flaring problem. This should be done sooner than later.

THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The Petroleum Act, 1969 (PA), and the Petroleum (Drilling and Production Regulations 1969. The two principal statues regulating the Nigeria's petroleum exploration and production (E&P) section generally are the Petroleum Act 1969 (PA), and the Petroleum (drilling and Production) regulations 1969 (PDPR) made pursuant thereto. While the PA doe not contain any provisions on gas utilization, the PDPR under Regulation 42, merely required the operators to:

.not later than five years after the commencement of production .submit to the Minister, any feasibility study, program or proposal for the utilization of a natural gas, whether Associated; with oil or not, which has been discovered in the relevant areas/region.

There was not a single indication showing that the above provision was ever implemented by the Multi-National Oil Companies (MNOC) or enforced by the government in any event, the law itself was inherently fatally followed as it makes no provision for sanctions against non-compliance. This thus contributed to its ineffectiveness. Indeed the two statues above enacted in 1969 are clearly dated law. They require an overhaul, revision and updating to meet up with current developments in the global oil and gas exploration and development industry. The review should incorporate provisions not only requiring zero flares but also general environmental and social responsibility on the part of both government and the oil companies engaged in oil and gas exploration and development.

ASSOCIATED GAS RE-INJECTION ACT AND THE REGULATION

A subsequent legislation, in 1979, the associated gas Re-injection Act was promulgated ostensibly to fill up some of the vacuum left by earlier legislation. It set the limit of October to April 1980 for the oil companies to develop gas utilization projects and to stop gas flaring by 1984, or face fines. In 1984, the Associated Gas Reinjection (Continued Flaring of Gas) Regulations amended the existing legislation to provide for limited exemptions for flaring in certain circumstances. This was further strengthened in 1985) against the oil companies for each 1000 standard cubic feet (scf) of gas flared. This amount being too meager, even at that time when the Nigeria Naira was still strong did not provide any incentive to induce the companies reduce flaring. These fines thus had to be raised by government in January 1998 to US$11 for every 1000scf of gas flares. Then there can the Associated Gas Re-injection Act 2004 and the Associated Gas Re-injection (Amendment) Act 2004 which obligated all oil producing companies in the country to submit detained plans for gas utilization. It also prohibits the flaring of associated gas without the written permission of the petroleum Resources. All these were not enough as deterrent to the oil companies flaring the gas.

THE NATIONAL GAS DRAFT BILL (NGDB)

Federal Government has constituted as technical committee on the implementation of the downstream natural gas sector reform. The committee will work out the details and run checks on the natural Gas Draft Bill (NGDB) which is currently going through processes in the National Assembly. The committees will also critically the sections of the bill that relate to taxes and fiscal terms and advise government on the best options for the industry to be on fast track. Other legislation in the pipeline include t he Downstream Gas Act (DGA) which would be aimed more at ensuring liberalization of the gas already received federals executive council approval and has been forwarded to the National Assembly for consideration.

THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (FEPA) ACT 1988/92

The Federal Environmental protection Agency (FEPA) Act, which established the FEPA, has been the principle framework legislation for environmental management in Nigeria. This Act incorporated most of the Nigeria's national commitments under UNFCCC and other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). It also incorporated most of the government's policy and commitments on environmental management as enshrined broadly in the NPE and NA21.

Under Section 17(1) of the FEPA amendment Act of 1992, the FEPA was empowered to:

Establish more criteria, guidelines' specifications and standards to protect and enhance the quality of Nigeria's air resources and to promote the public health or welfare and the normal development and productive capacity of the nation's human, animal or plant life...

This provision seeks to establish and regulate on the minimum essential air quality standards for human plants, and animals control of concentration of substances in the air that may result in damage or determination of property of human, animal or plant health, prevent and combat all forms of atmospheric pollution. Specifically, FEPA was empowered to employ the "use of appropriate means to reduce emission to permissible level". It has been noted earlier that in a re-structuring programme in 1999, FEPA was up-graded to a full-fledged federal ministry.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) ACT

Another law, which is very important, is the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (degree No. 86 of 1992) which by its section 2(2) require that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be carried out: 'where the extent, nature or location of a proposed project activity is such that is likely to significantly affect the environment". Such EIA must also be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act Section 2(1) of the EIA Act, also provides the following:

The public or private sector of the economy shall not undertake or embark on or authorize projects or activities without prior consideration, at an early stage, of their environment effects.

By virtue of this law, therefore, environmental impact assessments are compulsory in certain cases, including oil and gas fields' development and construction of oil refineries, some pipelines and processing and storage facilities.

Section 4 of the EIA Act prescribes, the minimum content of an EIA, to include the following:

a.       a description of the proposed activities;

b.      a description of the affected environment including specific information necessary to identify and access the environmental effect of the propose activities;

c.       an identification and description of measures available to mitigate adviser environmental impacts of proposed activity and assessment of these measures; amongst others.

The World Bank has said the following regarding the relationship between gas flaring regulations and EIA requirements:

With the implementation of Decree No. 86 of 1992, EIA's have become an integral part of the planning process and are mandatory for the development of oil and gas fields. Permits to flare, are therefore, now granted in the context of EIA procedures, which are overseen by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA0 and the DPR. FEPA's EIA guidelines for Exporting and Producing (E& P) projects 1994 State that mitigating measures to pressure air quality must specifically include the minimization of venting during production.

Flowing from the statement above, a ministerial permit may not be granted; if an EIA procedure carried out shows that a proposed activity (whether in connection with oil or gas) would have detrimental effects on the environment.

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) is the body in which jurisdiction over EIA a matter is vest. It however shares this role with the Ministry of Petroleum, which acts through the environmental branch of the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR). It is said to have a clear and unacceptable conflict of interest in that it is the same Ministry of Petroleum which grants certificates permitting continuous flaring by oil companies, that will also supervise the carrying out of EIA procedures which aims to expose environmentally harmfully activities (such as Flaring Environmental Rights Actions (ERA) in their report has stated concerning the above conflict of interest that, no confidence can be had in the enforcement of gas flaring regulations, and in the adequacy of EIA procedures, for as long as the Ministry of Petroleum continues in its dual roles.

FEPA is charged with the responsibility to issue standards for water, air and land quality, and it also makes regulations which govern environmental standards in the oil and other industries. The DPR, in exercise of its jurisdiction, issues also a set of environmental guidelines and standards for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria and these standards overlap with and in some cases differ from those issued by FEPA. However, according to Human Rights Watch, the specific standards set are comparable to those in force in Europe or the US.

In Nigeria, there is in practice little enforcement of the requirements to carry out EIA's either by FEPA or by the DPR's regulatory arm, the Petroleum Inspectorate, and virtually no quality control over the assessments are carried out.

Also, with both FEPA and the DPR issuing environmental standards, oil and gas operators are subjected to both provisions without any clear precedence of one over the other. This conflict in jurisdiction between both bodies is presently being addressed and it will be a wiser option to resolve all conflicts in favour of FEPA, because of the Ministry's conflict of interest. It is worth nothing that, neither FEPA nor the DPR has implemented anti-flaring policies for natural gas waste from oil production, nor have they monitored the emissions to ensure compliance with their own regulations.