1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO ... - Platform

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20. Upon visiting the site of the oil spill on 19 February 2009, the JointInvestigation Team concluded in Joint Investigation Report Incident No 2008-200261 that the oil spill had been caused by equipment failure. From 9December 2009 to 19 February 2009, oil again spilled continuously into thecreek. The Claimant estimates that the volume of the second spill was largerthan the first spill. The Claimant further avers that the method of calculatingthe volume of oil spilt and the estimates contained in the two aforementionedJoint Investigation Reports are entirely inaccurate and erroneous.21. Notwithstanding that the Defendant was provided with notice of the two spills,the Claimant avers that no or no adequate steps were taken to reduce the flow ofoil, to clamp and to contain the oil spills between 28 August 2008 and 7November 2008 and 7 December 2008 and 19 February 2008.General Nature of the Environmental Damage Caused22. As a result of the said oil spills, marine life has been devastated within the 9,230hectares of the creek and the mangroves have been largely destroyed. TheClaimant avers that the damage includes:22.1 A severe reduction of the abundance of marine life throughout theBodo creek. In particular, shellfish are no longer present in the Bodocreek and fish numbers have dramatically reduced;22.2 A dramatic reduction in the mangrove population of the Bodo creek. Itis estimated that 1,754 hectares of mangroves have been heavilyimpacted and 3,110 hectares have been moderately impacted. Themajority of the mangroves which were heavily impacted have died as aresult of their exposure to the oil;8
22.3 Contamination of farmland along the coastal areas, in turn affectingfarm production and yields due to the toxicity of the soil andgroundwater;22.4 High levels of hydrocarbons in water, sediment and tissue sampleswhich exceed the Nigerian legal standards and international standardsfor hydrocarbon contamination rates by a significant margin.23. In reliance on the forgoing averment the Claimant relies not least on thefollowing materials:23.1 In September 2009 a Post-Impact Ecological Assessment study of theoil spillages was carried out in the Bodo Creek in conjunction with theCentre for Environment, Human Rights and Development by EcolandResources Limited. The assessment found:23.1.1 The ecosystem had suffered from a “drastic reduction” inplant species diversity at both peripheral shorelines andinter-tidal zones of the creek.23.1.2 There was an immense reduction in the frequency,distribution and relative abundance of phytoplankton,periphyton, zooplankton and zoobenthos.23.1.3 The said oil spills had “a tremendous mortal and sub-lethalimpact on the biota studied”.23.1.4 Virtually all the notable fisheries of the Bodo creek were nolonger operational at the time the creek was assessed.23.2 In addition to the scientific data as to the impact of the abovementionedoil spills upon the Bodo creek, the Claimant will rely upon a9
Page 1 and 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM
Page 3 and 4: II. THE PARTIES5. The Claimant is a
Page 5 and 6: 11. Oil pipelines operated by the D
Page 7: including on radio stations and the
Page 11 and 12: suggesting that the incidents that
Page 13 and 14: 29.2. The Defendant was provided wi
Page 15 and 16: “to maintain all apparatus and ap
Page 17 and 18: Breaches of Nigerian Statutory Law3
Page 19 and 20: Negligence and Nuisance36. Further,
Page 21 and 22: 37.5. The Niger Delta Natural Resou
Page 23 and 24: V. LOSS AND DAMAGE40. By reason of
Page 25: Nigerian law. Alternatively, if the
Page 28 and 29: UNEP found contamination has reache

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO ... - Platform

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?