DAR ES SALAAM MARITIME INSTITUTE (DMI)

COURSE: BACHELOR DEGREE IN OIL AND GAS ENGINEERING

(BOGE 04)

MODULE NAME: ETHICAL CONDUCT AND ENGINEERING

PROCEDURES

MODULE CODE: OGU 08213

INSTRUCTOR: Eng. G.MELLA

TASK: GROUP ASSIGNMENT 01

GROUP NO: 10
GROUP MEMBERS.

N/s NAME REGISTRATION NO.

01. SETH PAUL SIMBEYE BOGE/21/014

02. HADIJA NURU BOGE/21/025

03. GLORY ANTONY BOGE/21/023

04. SULEIMAN ABDULKADIR BOGE/21/012

05. HERMAN EMMANUEL BOGE/21/009

QUESTIONS.

a) Describe Deepwater Horizon Disaster

b) Describe Shell Nigeria & Environmental Challenges

c) Describe Exxon Valdez Spill case

d) Explain BP Texas City Refinery Explosion (2005).

e) Describe Chevron Ecuador Pollution

f) Describe the Total Energies in Uganda – Land Acquisition Iues.

 a) Describe Deepwater Horizon Disaster

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This event occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, involved an explosion and fire on
the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, resulting in the deaths of 11 workers 17 injuries and a
massive oil spill.

The rig subsequently sank, causing a well blowout that released an estimated 4.9 million barrels
(134 million gallons) of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The incident caused a continuous flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days, becoming the
largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

The Deepwater Horizon, owned by Transocean and operated by BP, was drilling at the Macondo
Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico when a blowout occurred. This led to an explosion and fire on the
rig, visible for miles. The Deepwater Horizon ultimately sank, and a well-head began gushing
oil.

Fig: Fireboat response crews attempting to extinguish the blaze aboard the Deepwater
Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, April 21, 2010.
As seen from space by the Terra satellite on 24 May 2010

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

(i)Ecosystem Damage:

The spill devastated marine and coastal ecosystems. Over 1,300 miles of shoreline were
contaminated. Studies reported deformities in fish, mass die-offs of dolphins, sea turtles, and
seabirds, and long-term damage to coral reefs.

(ii) Use of Dispersants:

BP applied unprecedented amounts of the chemical dispersant Corexit to break up the oil. While
it reduced surface oil, it introduced toxic compounds into the food chain, affecting species like
blue crab larvae and migratory birds.

(iii)Economic Fallout:

The disaster severely impacted Gulf Coast industries, including fishing and tourism.
Approximately 25,000 jobs were lost, and many small businesses faced financial ruin.
Legal and Financial Consequences

BP faced extensive legal repercussions. In 2012, the company pleaded guilty to 11 counts of
manslaughter and other charges, agreeing to pay $4.525 billion in fines. By 2016, BP reached a
$20.8 billion settlement—the largest environmental damage settlement in U.S. history. Overall,
BP’s costs related to the spill exceeded $65 billion

b) Describe Shell Nigeria and Environmental challenges.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Shell Nigeria overview:

Shell Nigeria, a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch Shell, is one of the largest oil and gas companies
operating in Nigeria. It has been involved in exploration, production, and distribution of
petroleum products in the Niger Delta region since the 1930s. The company operates a joint
venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and plays a significant role
in the country's economy, contributing to government revenues and providing employment.
The company has contributed significantly to the Nigerian economy through oil exports, job
creation, and corporate taxes. However, its operations have also been a source of serious
environmental and social concerns.

The Niger Delta region, rich in oil and gas reserves, has experienced widespread environmental
degradation due to oil exploration and production activities, largely associated with multinational
companies like Shell Nigeria. While the company has helped develop Nigeria’s oil industry, this
progress has come at a high environmental and human cost.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

The Niger Delta is an ecologically sensitive area characterized by mangroves, wetlands, and
diverse wildlife. However, the region has faced extensive environmental degradation due to oil
extraction activities. Shell’s operations have led to numerous environmental challenges,
including oil spills, gas flaring, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity, significantly affecting
local communities and ecosystems.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES FACING SHELL NIGERIA

Environmental Challenges facing Shell Nigeria,

• Oil Spills.

• Gas Flaring.

• Loss of biodiversity.

• Pipeline Vandalism and oil theft.

• Delayed Spill Response and inadequate clean up.

• Community relations.

• Soil degradation.

• Regulatory issues

• OIL SPILLS.

Oil spills are the most prominent environmental issue linked to Shell Nigeria. They result from
pipeline corrosion, operational failures. Frequent spills from aging pipelines and facilities lead to
soil and water contamination. Soil, rivers, and wetlands are heavily polluted, destroying
farmlands and aquatic life.

Examples include spills in Ogoni land and Bodo community.

Fig 1a. Ogoni land oil spills

2. Gas flaring.

Shell has been involved in gas flaring, the practice of burning off excess natural gas during oil
extraction. Despite Nigerian laws banning the practice, gas flaring continues in some Shell
operations, this contributes to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It releases harmful
gases like methane, CO₂, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), causing respiratory diseases,
acid rain and contributing to climate change.

Flaring is not only detrimental to the environment but also poses health risks to nearby
communities.

Fig 1b. Gas flaring, Niger Delta

3. Loss of biodiversity.

• The Niger Delta is rich in biodiversity. Oil exploration and production activities have led
to habitat destruction, threatening wildlife and plant species.

• Contaminated water bodies, crude oil spills pollute rivers, creeks, and wetlands, leading
to the death of fish, amphibians, and aquatic plants.

• Soil Contamination: Spilled oil seeps into the soil, making it infertile. This kills plants
and disrupts the food sources for herbivores

• Mangrove Destruction: The Niger Delta’s mangrove forests, which are breeding grounds
for fish and other species, are dying off due to oil pollution.

Fig 1c. Loss of biodiversity

4. Pipeline Vandalism and oil theft.

Sabotage and illegal tapping (bunkering) have led to further damages of infrastructures and
environmental degradation.

These incidents often go unaddressed for days or weeks, intensifying the damage which leads to
massive unmonitored oil spills.
Fig 1d. Pipeline vandalism

5. Soil degradation.

Oil Spills: Crude oil contaminates the soil, altering its physical and chemical properties. Oil
blocks air and water from penetrating the soil, killing beneficial microorganisms and plants.

Pipeline Leaks: Leaking pipelines release hydrocarbons into farmlands and forest soils.
Hydrocarbons and heavy metals make the soil more acidic, reducing crop yield.

Waste Disposal: Improper disposal of drilling muds and industrial waste pollutes the land.

Fig 1e. Soil degradation, Niger Delta

6. Delayed Spill Response and inadequate clean up.

• Shell has been criticized for delaying spill responses and implementing inadequate
remediation.

• Communities argue that clean-ups are superficial and do not restore their environment or
livelihoods.

• Shell Nigeria has often been criticized for taking too long to respond to oil spill incidents.

• In many cases, spills are left unattended for days or even weeks, allowing the oil to
spread further and cause more damage to soil, water bodies, and vegetation. This delay
violates Nigerian environmental laws, which require immediate response to spills.

• Prolonged exposure to pollutants leads to chronic health issues like skin infections,
respiratory problems, and cancer among local residents. Persistent oil residues damage
farmland and water sources, making them unusable for years.

• Example: Bodo Community Case.

7. Community relations.

• Shell operates in communities that are directly affected by its activities. Good relations
are essential for social license to operate, conflict avoidance, and sustainable
development. Historically, tensions have existed due to environmental damage, perceived
neglect, and lack of trust.

• Lack of Trust and Transparency Communities often feel excluded from decision-making
and uninformed about oil operations. Distrust arises from Shell’s delayed response to
spills and lack of accountability.

• Inadequate compensation Payments for oil spill damages are often delayed, insufficient,
or contested, many community members report not receiving any benefit despite visible
environmental harm.

• Shell has made various corporate social responsibility (CSR) pledges schools, clinics,
roads which are sometimes poorly implemented or abandoned.

8. Regulatory issues.

Nigeria has frameworks such as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act, the National
Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) Act, and guidelines from the Department
of Petroleum Resources (DPR, now under the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory
Commission). However, these laws are often poorly implemented. Regulatory bodies lack the
technical capacity, funding to enforce compliance, especially against powerful multinational
corporations like Shell. As a result, oil spills are often not cleaned up adequately or promptly,
and fines imposed are minimal compared to the environmental damage caused.

SOLUTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

1. Infrastructure Upgrades:

 Pipeline maintenance, regular inspections and upgrades of aging pipelines can reduce
spills. Implementing state-of-the-art monitoring technologies to detect leaks early is
essential.

 Emergency Response: Establishing robust response protocols for oil spills can mitigate
environmental impacts.

2. Gas Utilization:

 Gas-to-Power Projects: Investing in technologies to capture and utilize flare gas for
power generation can significantly reduce flaring and air pollution.

 Renewable Energy Initiatives: Exploring renewable energy projects can diversify Shell's
energy portfolio and decrease reliance on fossil fuels.

3. Biodiversity Conservation:

 Restoration Programs: Implementing ecological restoration initiatives can help

rehabilitate degraded areas and protect local wildlife.

 Sustainable Practices: Collaborating with local communities to adopt sustainable

agricultural and fishing practices can help preserve biodiversity.

4. Community Engagement:

 Stakeholder Involvement: Actively engaging with local communities to address their

concerns fosters trust and collaboration.

 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Investing in community development projects,

such as clean water access and education, can improve relations and enhance local
livelihoods.

5. Water Quality Monitoring:

 Regular Assessments: Conducting regular water quality tests can identify

contamination sources and facilitate timely remediation efforts.

 Water Treatment Solutions: Investing in water treatment facilities can provide clean
drinking water to affected communities.
6. Regulatory Compliance:

 Strengthening Regulations: Collaborating with the government to enhance

environmental regulations and enforcement can improve compliance.

 Transparency Initiatives: Increasing transparency in operations and environmental

reporting can build public trust and accountability.

CONCLUSION

Addressing the environmental challenges faced by Shell Nigeria requires a multifaceted

approach that includes technological advancements, community engagement, and adherence to
regulatory standards. By prioritizing sustainability and fostering cooperative relationships with
local stakeholders, Shell can mitigate its environmental impact and contribute positively to the
Niger Delta region.

REFERENCES

 Shell Nigeria. (2023). Sustainability Report. Available at: https://www.shell.com.ng

 Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). (2022). Annual Statistical Bulletin.

Available at: https://www.nnpcgroup.com

 Odukoya, J. A., & Afolabi, O. (2020). "Environmental Impact of Oil Exploration and
Production in Nigeria: The Case of Shell." Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 1-10.

 Ogbogu, O., & Chukwu, O. (2021). "Gas Flaring in Nigeria: Environmental and Health
Implications." Energy Policy, 149, 112-120.

 Amnesty International. (2021). "Nigeria: The True 'Cost' of Oil." Available at:
https://www.amnesty.org.

 Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN). (2020). "Oil

Spills in the Niger Delta: A Crisis of Accountability." Available at:
http://www.eraction.orgBooks:

 Watts, M. (2008). Curse of the Black Gold: 50 Years of Oil in the Niger Delta. Power
House Books.

 Okonta, I., & Douglas, O. (2003). Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil in
the Niger Delta. Sierra Club Books. News Articles.

 BBC News. (2022). "Shell to End Joint Venture in Nigeria Amid Environmental
Concerns." Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news
  The Guardian. (2023). "Communities in Niger Delta Demand Action on Oil Spills."
Available at: https://www.theguardian.

c) Describe Exxon Valdez Spill case

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Introduction

• In Overview of oil spill disasters

• Significance of the Exxon Valdez case

• Focus: environmental impact, corporate response, legal consequences

Map of spill Location

What Happened?

• Date: March 24, 1989

• Location: Prince William Sound, Alaska

• Incident: Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef

• Spill: ~11 million gallons of crude oil

Causes of the Spill

• Captain's alleged intoxication and absence

• Fatigue and understaffed crew

• Exxon’s safety management failures

• Inadequate Coast Guard response

Exxon Valdez stuck on Bligh Reef

Environmental Impact

• 1,300 miles of coastline affected

• Mass mortality of marine life

• Long-term ecosystem and livelihood damage

Oil-covered birds
Dead sea otters

Blackened beaches
Clean-up Operations

• Use of booms, dispersants, and skimming

• Over 10,000 workers and 1,000 vessels involved

• Harsh weather and remote location challenges

• Cost: Over $2 billion

Workers pressure-washing rocks

Clean up Operational
Legal and Financial Fallout

• Lawsuit: Exxon vs. U.S. and Alaska

• Punitive damages: $5B reduced to $507M

• Civil settlements and compensation

• Exxon’s PR and corporate image efforts

Protesters with signs: "Exxon Guilty”

Policy and Regulation Changes

• Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)

• Stricter liability for oil companies

• Double-hull tanker requirements

• Federal oversight of maritime safety

Oil tanker with double hull infographic

Lessons Learned

• Crisis preparedness is essential

• Corporate environmental responsibility

• Need for regulation and enforcement

• Influence on oil spill response policy

Current Status of the Area

• Some species still recovering

• Oil remnants found in isolated areas

• Improved local monitoring and restoration

• Legacy in environmental activism

Conclusion

• Pivotal environmental disaster

• Shaped environmental law and accountability

• Influence continues in modern policy

References

• NOAA, EPA, legal databases

• Scientific publications on environmental impact

• Court records and historical archives

d) Explain BP Texas City Refinery Explosion (2005).

 On March 23, 2005, a hydrocarbon vapor cloud ignited and violently exploded at the
isomerization process unit of the BP-owned oil refinery in Texas City, Texas. It resulted
in the killing of 15 workers, 180 injuries and severe damage to the refinery. All the
fatalities were contractors working out of temporary buildings located close to the unit to
support turnaround activities. Property loss was $200 million ($322 million in 2024).
When including settlements ($2.1 billion), costs of repairs, deferred production, and
fines, the explosion is the world's costliest refinery accident.

Texas City Refinery explosion and the destruction in the trailer west of the ISOM unit
ABOUT THE INDUSTRY

 The Texas City Refinery was the second largest oil refinery in the state, and the third
largest the United State with an input capacity of 437,000 barrels (69,000 m3) per day as
of January 1, 2000. BP acquired the Texas City refinery as part of its merger with Amoco
in 1999.
 ISOM UNIT

THE CAUSES

 Actions and errors by operations personnel were the immediate cause the accident.
 Latent conditions and safety system deficiencies influenced personnel actions and
contributed to the accident and collectively influenced the decisions and actions of
operations personnel.
 Safety system deficiencies created a workplace ripe for human error.

PERSONNEL ACTIONS AND ERRORS

 Required pre-start actions not completed

-Pre start up safety review not performed

 -Key malfunctioning instrumentation not required

-Malfunctioning pressure control valve not required supervisor signed off on startup
procedure that control valves had tested satisfactorily

-Functionality checks of alarms and instruments not completed

-Review of startup procedures by operators and supervisors not completed

 Night Lead Operator did not use startup procedure or record completed steps when
startup was partially completed on night shift

 Night Lead Operator left an hour before end of sh

 ISOM-experienced Day supervisor A arrived over time late did not conduct shift turnover
with night shift personnel

 Day Supervisor B was told that startup could not proceed because storage tanks were full
not communicated to ISOM operations personnel

 Day Board Operator closed automatic tower level control valve although procedures
required valve to be placed in “automatic” and set at 50 percent

 Day Supervisor left the plant due to family emergency as unit was being heated

LATENT ORGANIZATIONAL WEAKNESSES

 Work environment encouraged procedural noncompliance

 Ineffective communications for shift change and hazardous operations (such as unit
startup)

 Malfunctioning instrumentation and alarms

 Poorly designed computerized control system

 Ineffective supervisory oversight

 Insufficient staffing

 Lack of human fatigue-prevention policy

 Failure to establish effective safe operating limits

 Inadequate operator training for abnormal and startup conditions

  Ineffective incident investigation management system

 Ineffective lessons learned program

 No coordinated line management self-assessment process

 No flare on blow down drum

 No automatic shutdown system

 Key operational indicators and alarms inoperative

 Ineffective response to serious safety problems and events

 Focus on injury and illness statistics, not process safety

 Poor implementation of process hazards analyses and management of change (MOC)

processes (efficient to USQ)

 Ineffective follow-up on audits reports

 Problem reporting not encouraged

 Inadequate implementation of OASHA process safety management regulations

 Inadequate OSHA inspections and enforcement

 Gas in applicable industry standard

AFTERMATH

 In 1999, the Amoco refining planning department proposed eliminating blowdown

system that to the atmosphere, but funding for this plan was not included in the budget

 In 1992, OSHA Issued a citation to Amoro for unsafe design of similar pressure-relief
systems at the plant. However, Amoro successfully persuaded OSHA to drop
requirements in API recommended Practice 521

SKETCH TO SHOW DESTROYED TRAILERS WITH THE BLOW DOWN

 In 1993, the Amoro Regulatory Cluster project proposed eliminating atmospheric blow
down systems, but again, funding was not approved.

 In 1995, a refinery belonging to pennzoil suffered when two storage tanks exploded,
engulfing a trailer of killing five workers. The conclusion was that trailer not be located
near hazardous materials. However, BP ignored the warnings, and they believed that
because the trailer were most of the deaths happened was empty most of the year, the risk
was low

 Despite Amoco’s safety standard No. 6, which prohibited new atmospheric blow down
systems and called for the phasing out of existing ones, in 1997, Amoco replaced the
1950s-era blowdown drum/vent stack that served the raffinate splitter tower with an
identical system, instead of upgrading to recommended alternatives that were safer.

 In 2002, engineers at the plant proposed replacing the blow down drum/vent system part
of an environmental improvement initiative, but this line-item was cut from the budget,
due to cost pressures

 Also in 2002, an opportunity to tie the ISOM relief system into the new NDU flare
system was not taken, due to a Us dollar 150,000 incremental test.
  During 2002, BP’s clean streams project proposed converting the blow down drum to a
flare kno tank, and routing discharges to a flare. When it was found that a needed relief
study of the ISOM system had not been completed due to budget constraints the clean
streams project proposed adding a wet/dry system to the ISOM instead.

 Between 1994 and 2004, at least eight similar cases occurred in which flammable vapors
were emited by a blow down drum/ vent stack. Effective corrective action was not taken
at the BP plant

RESULT

 As a result of the accident, BP said that it will eliminate all blow down drums/vent stack
systems in flammable service. The CSB meanwhile, recommended to the American
Petroleum Institute that guidelines on the location of trailers be made.

 OSHA ultimately found over 300 safety violations and fined us dollar 21million the
largest fine in OSHA history at the time

LEGAL ACTIONS

 BP was charged with criminal violations of federal environmental laws, and has been not
in lawsuits from the victims’ families.

 The Occupational safety and health administration gave BP a record fine for hundreds of
safety violations.

 In 2009 imposed an even larger fine after claiming that BP had failed to implement safety
improvements following the disaster

SUBSEQUENT INCIDENTS

 On July 28, 2005, a hydrogen gas heat exchanger plan the reside hydrotreater unit
ruptured.

 On August 10, 2005, there was an incident in a gas-oil hydrotreater that resulted in a
community order to shelter.

 On January 14, 2008, William Joseph Gracia, 56, a veteran BP operations supervisor,
died following head injuries sustained as workers prepared to place in a service a water
filtration vessel at the refinery’s utracracker unit.
  On September 21, 2010, an incident in the pipestill 3B unit left two workers with serious
steam burns

REF ERENCES

 https://en.wikipendia.org
 https://www.csb.gov
 U.S Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) Final Report
 CSB Investigation Digest (20th anniversary Edition)

e) Describe Chevron Ecuador Pollution

Introduction

• Between 1964 and 1992, Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) operated oil fields in
Ecuador's Amazon.

• The operations led to extensive environmental damage and health issues among local
communities.

Chevron Ecuador
Extent of Environmental Damage

• Over 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater dumped into unlined pits and rivers

• Approximately 17 million gallons of crude oil spilled

• Over 900 unlined waste pits left behind

Environmental Damage

Health Impacts on Local Communities

 • Cancer rates increased by 130% compared to other regions

• Mortality risk is 260% higher in affected areas

• Miscarriages are 150% more frequent

Health Impacts on Local Communities

• Legal Battle Timeline

• 1993: Lawsuit filed by 30,000 Ecuadorians

• 2011: Ecuadorian court orders Chevron to pay $9.5 billion

• 2018: Tribunal rules in Chevron’s favor citing fraud

Chevron’s Defense and Counteractions - Chevron claims a $40 million cleanup was completed

• - A 1998 agreement with Ecuador absolves it of liability

 • - Plaintiffs accused of fraud in 2011 verdict

Global Reactions and Protests

• - Environmental and human rights groups condemn Chevron

• - Protests held worldwide in New York, London, and more

Current Status

• - Communities continue to suffer health impacts

• - Legal battles continue over enforcement

• - Corporate accountability remains debated

Conclusion

• The Chevron Ecuador case exemplifies environmental justice challenges.

 • It underscores the need for international accountability mechanisms.

References

• - BBC News

• - Amazon Watch

• - The Guardian

• - Vanity Fair

• - Wired Magazine

f) Describe the Total Energies in Uganda – Land Acquisition Iues.

INTRODUCTION

• Total Energies is a global multi-energy company that produces and markets energies: oil
and biofuels, natural gas and green gases, renewable and electricity.

• Our more than 100,000 employees are committed to energy that is ever more affordable,
cleaner, more reliable and accessible to as many people as possible. Active in more than
130 countries, Total Energies puts sustainable development in all its dimensions at the
heart of its projects and operations to contribute to the well-being of people.

Total Energies in Uganda

• Total Energies has been present in Uganda since 1955 through its marketing operations
and has more 200 stations countrywide. Total Energies EP Uganda is an upstream
 affiliate which is leading the development activities towards production in the Tilenga
project area - Contract Area 1 (CA-1) and License Area 2 North (LA-2N) within the
Albertine Region.

• Among the East African nations with newly discovered oil deposits is Uganda. The
Ugandan government collaborated with foreign businesses, such as the French oil and gas
firm Total Energies, to exploit these resources.

• Two significant projects being led by Total Energies are:

• 1. The Tilenga Project: This is an oil extraction project in western Uganda's Albertine
Graben region.

• 2. East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Long and heated, this pipeline would carry
crude oil from Uganda to Tanzania's port of Tanga for export.

It is anticipated that these projects will boost government revenue, provide jobs, and
stimulate economic growth. But they also entail acquiring vast tracts of land, which has an
impact on thousands of people.

To make room for these developments, numerous families have had to leave their homes and
farms. This has raised questions regarding the acquisition of the land, the timeliness and fairness
of the compensation, and the effects on the environment and people's livelihoods

Project scope

1. Tilenga Project:

 This is an oil extraction project in western Uganda's Albertine Graben region.

 It involve drilling more than 400 oil wells across 31 well pads in the Albertine Graben
region of western Uganda, close to Lake Albert. The oil from these wells will be
collected and processed at a central location known as the Central Processing Facility
(CPF), which can handle roughly 190,000 barrels of oil per day.

 The project is controversial because it is located in an environmentally sensitive area,

close to the Murchison Falls National Park.
. The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP Project):

 This is a 1,443-kilometer pipeline that will transport crude oil from Hoima, Uganda, to
Tanga Port, Tanzania. It will be the world's longest heated crude oil pipeline, and the oil
will be kept warm throughout the pipeline to facilitate long-distance flow.

 The pipeline passes through 10 districts in Uganda and affects thousands of people along
its routes.

 Since Uganda lacks access to the sea, EACOP is crucial because the pipeline enables the
oil to go through Tanzania to reach global markets.

Land Acquisition issues

 For the Tilenga and EACOP projects, which impacted nearly 19,000 people, Total
Energies and the Ugandan government required roughly 6,400 hectares of land. Roads,
the lengthy pipeline route, and oil drilling sites all required the land to be removed.
  As compensation, affected individuals were given the option of new homes and land or
monetary payments. Despite Total Energies' claims to adhere to worldwide norms for
fairness, many people continued to experience issues like insufficient compensation,
payment delays, and inaccurate information.

 These difficulties sparked questions about the methods used to acquire the property and
treat people.

Key Issues in Land Acquisition

• Delays and Inadequate Compensation: Many people involved in the project

experienced protracted delays—up to three or five years. When they did receive
payments, it was typically insufficient to restore their livelihoods or purchase comparable
land. Those who refused were intimidated or threatened with legal action, and others
were coerced into accepting low offers.

• Limited Access to Replacement Land: Many people forced to relocate were not given
the option of replacement land, despite the fact that this is supported by international
norms. More delays were experienced by those who requested land rather than money,
and some even lost their land due to court orders without receiving the promised
replacement.

• Disruption of Livelihoods and Cultural Site: Many people's livelihoods were ruined by
the land purchase process, especially farmers who depended on their land for both
revenue and subsistence. Furthermore, there was cultural and spiritual suffering as a
result of the encroachment on sacred sites, particularly those that were important to tribes
like the Bagungu people.

Total Energies’ Mitigation Measures

Total Energies adopted the following actions to lessen the issues brought on by land acquisition:
• Resettlement houses: More than 200 new homes with power, water, and toilets were
constructed for families who had lost their homes.
• In-kind and monetary assistance: offered individuals an option between cash or a new home
or piece of land as payment.
• Programs for livelihood restoration: These gave people farming training, equipment, and
seeds to enable them start making a living

again.

• Vocational training: This helped people discover alternative sources of income by teaching
them skills like carpentry and tailoring.
• Community meetings: More than 20,000 sessions were held to speak with people and learn
about their issues.
• Grievance mechanism: Provide a way for people to file grievances and receive assistance.

Ongoing Concerns and Criticisms on the projects

Even after some support, many people and organizations still have concerns about the projects:

• Unfair compensation and delays: According to numerous families, they have yet to receive
full or equitable payouts.

• Loss of livelihoods and land: People are having difficulty finding new farmland or providing
for their families.

• Environmental risks: There are concerns about pollution and harm to animals because the
pipeline travels close to protected places like Murchison Falls.

• Cultural impact: Some tribes were compelled to abandon their ancient homes and cemeteries
without showing them the respect they deserved.

• Absence of accountability: Human rights organisations claim that the treatment of impacted
individuals is not sufficiently monitored.

• Financial backlash: As a result of these worries, a few banks and insurance providers have
withdrawn from the EACOP project
Conclusion

• In summary, there are significant differences between TotalEnergies' stated statements

and the actual experiences of the impacted communities. Despite the company's emphasis
on compensation and compliance, many people still experience delays, insufficient
support and cultural upheaval. To solve these problems, more openness is required, along
with timely and equitable restitution and consideration for regional customs and holy
places. To guarantee equitable treatment of communities and the true upholding of
international norms, independent monitoring is essential.

REFERE NCES

 Human Rights Watch, 2023 – Land loss & compensation issues in Uganda

 The Guardian, 2025 – Displaced people speak out on oil projects

 Total Energies, 2025 – Project progress and compensation updates

 Business & Human Rights Centre, 2023 – Lawsuit over Tilenga & EACOP impacts

 Total Energies Uganda, 2023 – Resettlement housing efforts

 350Africa.org, 2024 – Community protests on land rights