NOSDRA differs with Bayelsa govt on Nembe oil spill, absolves Aiteo

By Nneka Nwogwugwu

The National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) has disagreed with Bayelsa State Government on the cause of oil spill at Santa Barbara wellhead in Nembe local government area of the State.

Speaking during an investigation visit to the leak site on Thursday, Bayelsa State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Biriyai Dambo (SAN) had alleged that the oil spill, which ravaged Nembe and wrecked havoc on the communities’ marine economy, was not caused by sabotage.

Justifying his opinion in an interview, Mr. Dembo argued that the spill was caused by “equipment failure” and negligence on the part of Aiteo.

NatureNews reports that Aiteo is Nigeria’s leading indigenous oil major and operator of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation/Aiteo Joint Venture (JV), Oil Mining Lease (OML) 29.

However, in a clear departure from the views expressed by Bayelsa Attorney General, NOSDRA has absolved Aiteo of the alleged equipment failure or negligence over the oil spill.

Engr. Ismail Baba-Ahmed, who representated NOSDRA at the post-spill Joint Investigation visit to the leak site, attributed the unfortunate incident to criminal acts of sabotage.

‘’If you look at the pressure, it is very unlikely that the pressure will remove those valves. When we were there, I asked the engineer that killed the well the circumstances of the thread that held the valves before he killed the well”, said Engr. Ismail.

Continuing, he said the site engineer responded that “the threads were intact. This is because if those valves were pulled out under pressure the threads are supposed to have worn out”.

‘’So, there was no way the internal pressure would have removed those valves. The most likely cause of the spill is human external influence, he reasoned.

Corroborating the NOSDRA argument, Aiteo also confirmed to NatureNews that the leak showed high pressure and was certainly due to acts of sabotage by criminal elements.

NatureNews notes that Aiteo had raised a team comprising members from its internal well operations experts as well as a foreign firm, Boots & Coot, to hasten the well kill operations

This, according to sources close to the operator, was in addition to the earlier mobilisation of the Clean Nigeria Associates (CNA), a Nigerian coalition, as part of the attempt to halt the leak which was said to comprise about 20 per cent oil and 80 per cent gas.

Meanwhile, Petroleum Industry Regulators have signed off the oil spill on Aiteo incident form as a result of third party interference.

Present at the investigation visit were the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, NUPRC (DPR), National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency, NOSDRA, (a parastatal of the Federal Ministry of Environment), National Petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS) and the Bayelsa State Ministry Of Environment.

Others were, Opu Nembe Community, Nembe LGA and Aiteo Eastern Exploration and Production Company.

Sources close to the investigation team confirmed to NatureNews that Bayelsa State was represented by nine stakeholders while three experts were nominated by the Honorable Minister of Environment, Chief Sharon Ikeazor.

The regulatory representatives who took turns to inspect the well head held that the incident was due to a third party interference while Bayelsa State Ministry Of Environment, Opu Nembe Community and the Nembe local government representatives alleged that it was due to equipment failure.

NatureNews gathered that the three regulators however signed off the statutory JIV forms as “third party interference” while the nine representatives from the state government declined to endorse the document for both the regulators and the operator.

With the onsite evidence gathered during the SBAS 01 JIV held on the 22nd of December, 2021 in conjunction with initial findings during the well kill and securing operation, NatureNews was reliably informed that the following deductions were made by the team:

1. That the well was shut in and without any leak prior to the incidence.
2. That unknown persons removed the two side outlet valves at the annulus.
3. That there was no sign of equipment failure around fittings that attach the valves to the wellhead at the point of replacing the valves.
4. That there was no pressure in the annulus when these valves (which are interconnected) where removed, hence the ability to remove the second one after removing the first.
5. That a hole was drilled on the long string via the opening left after removing the side out valves as discovered during the well kill operation. The long string being found to be communicating with the annulus.
6. That the well flow from both sides of the annulus opening was from the long string via the hole drilled on it after removing the side outlet valves.
7. That the well head is rated to 5,000psi which is well above the maximum shut in tubing pressure.
8. That the wellhead undergoes periodic first and second line maintenance to replace any damaged parts.
9. That the well control incidence could not have been due to equipment failure considering all the points raised above.