Shell's Silent Exit: Evading Accountability in the Niger Delta

Earlier this year, Shell plc finalized the controversial sale of its onshore subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), to the Renaissance Group, despite the public rejection by the national authority NUPRC and widespread protests from civil society and frontline communities in the Niger Delta.

A responsible exit is a key part of a just energy transition: one that ensures oil companies do not simply walk away from the harm they have caused. Genuine transition means addressing past damages, supporting community resilience, and restoring ecosystems before moving on.

Both ENDS, together with Nigerian and international civil society, have repeatedly urged Shell and the Nigerian Government for a responsible divestment, one that ensures corporate accountability, environmental restoration, and fair compensation for impacted communities living amid vast oil pollution for over 70 years.

Here is what Shell didn’t answer and why it matters:

1. No word on who will pay to clean up oil pollution

Shell did not address our first question: Are there any agreements between SPDC and Renaissance regarding the costs of decommissioning or environmental remediation activities related to SPDC assets?

For communities that have lived through oil spills, gas flaring, and poisoned drinking water for decades, this is not a technicality—it’s a matter of justice and survival. Shell’s silence strongly suggests there may be no environmental remediation plan. The failure to disclose or even acknowledge the existence of such plans raises concerns that Shell is divesting without securing clean up obligations, effectively leaving the burden to the Nigerian government and vulnerable local communities.

2. Failure to disclose legally required environmental studies

Shell failed to respond to a direct question about whether it conducted Environmental Evaluation Studies (EES), legally required under Nigerian environmental regulations since 2022, and whether those studies would be made public.

Instead, Shell refers to general policy documents such as its business principles, code of conduct and annual report, none of which address the actual request for the EES or S&P Global Report reportedly behind theNUPRC rejection of the SPDC sale.

As a member of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), Shell is expected to uphold high standards of transparency and disclosure, so its failure to release these documents undermines the creditability of Shell’s divestment process, leaving both stakeholders and affected communities in the dark.

3. Blaming others for oil spills and pollution

When asked how Shell plans to address the public health impacts of pollution in the Niger Delta, the company once again blamed “illegal refining, sabotage and crude oil theft”,a well-worn narrative repeatedly challenged by independent studies, journalists and local community monitors.

Importantly, last month’s UK High Court ruling in Alame v Shell opens the door for Shell to be held legally accountable for oil spills, even those caused by third-parties, if it can be shown that the company failed to take adequate measures at the upcoming trial. Meanwhile, Nigerian civil society organization HEDA has also launched legal action against SPDC, arguing that Shell is using the sale to evade liability for environmental and human rights abuses.

Shell’s ESG Commitments Ring Hollow

Shell claims to have "robust procedures" for managing litigation risk and “respect for human rights” embedded in its policies. But these claims fall apart when the company cannot answer basic questions about clean-up, legal compliance, and the health of the communities affected by its operations.

By divesting without transparency, failing to disclose required environmental assessments, and denying responsibility for the widespread Niger Delta pollution, Shell is actively undermining its own ESG commitments, eroding the trust of shareholders, regulators, and frontline communities.

What Responsible Divestment requires and Shell Must do now

A responsible exit cannot mean walking away from decades of oil-related devastation. We are calling on Shell to:

• Publicly disclose any agreements with Renaissance related to environmental remediation and decommissioning;

• Disclose the legally required Environmental Evaluation Studies, and the S&P Global report that informed NUPRC’s rejection decision;

• Commit to funding long-term environmental clean-up and public health support in affected Niger Delta communities.

Read the complete response from Shell (pdf)

Both ENDS stands in unwavering solidarity with the people of the Niger Delta. A just energy transition demands real accountability, and there can be no responsible exit without clean-up, compensation, and justice.