CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

CASE # 5 SHELL OIL IN NIGERIA

Prepared by:
12/1/14
A. BACKGROUND 2 points

Give a brief description of this case. Include:

1. A little about the company, country, government, or other institution that is involved and
how it normally operates.
This article gives an in depth look at some of the struggles that the people of Nigeria in
the delta communities faced in the late eighties and early nineties due to oil and gas
exploration by the Shell corporation. We see corruption of government, shady business,
and deaths all due to the high demand for oil in the area. Ken Saro-Wiwa who was a native
Ogoni, but had become a successful author saw the struggles of his homeland and tried to
help. With a group of Ogoni tribal chiefs Saro-Wiwa drafted and signed an Ogoni Bill of
Rights. The policies they put in place would have benefited the community, but the
military which was full of corruption and becoming rich at the hand of Shell found it
problematic, and eventually Saro-Wiwa and some of the other chief were wrongfully
accused of murder and hung.

2. A succinct description of the problem in this case. You are required to identify one
or more problems.
The main issue here was there was no negotiation between Nigeria and Shell. Instead the
military was put in charge and corruption followed. We did not see any part of the
Negotiation process followed here, and that is what essentially led to corrupt people
getting rich, a whole community suffering, innocent people dying, and finally Shell
coming out of it will a bad reputation. I know it would have prolonged the process but if
Shell would have used some preparation, spent time building relationships, exchanging

good information, used a bit persuasion, and finally came up will a common agreement a
lot of the carnage that followed could have been prevented.

B. PEOPLE 3 points

Tell:
1. who the main characters in this case are (must be at least 2), Shell oil (Brian Anderson)
Nigeria Government (General Sani Abacha) Nigeria Military (Major Paul Okuntimo).
These three make up the Shell group. MOSOP (Ken Saro-Wiwa)
2. who they work for or represent, General Sani Abacha-Nigeria Government, Brian
Anderson-Shell Oil, Paul Okuntimo-Nigeria Military, Ken Sar-Wiwa-MOSOP
3. their vested interest in this case that is, what they each want to or need to win Sar-Wiwa
has the interests of the Ogoni people and their rights. All the others involved interests are
in the money that Shell oil production will make them.
4. each negotiators strength, advantage, or point of leverage (at least one, no more than 4),
The Shell groups strength is that they are operating within the laws and rights laid out by
the Nigerian government.
MOSOP has the power of the people and human rights. They are also supported by
environmental activists.
5. each negotiators weakness, disadvantage or vulnerability (at least one, no more than 4),
Shell groups weakness is that they have greed, and are in bed with a corrupt government.
Also, they are in a business that is always surrounded by politics.
MOSOPs weakness they going against the Nigerian Government.
6. what each negotiators style seems to be and whether it seems to be effective.

They should both go into this with a collaborative approach, so they can both come away
to help their cause.

C. ISSUES 3 points

Based on the problem you defined in A. above and the people you described in part B. above,
answer these questions about issues:
1. Could a negotiation be useful in resolving the problem? Yes
2. If so, who should negotiate? Why?
How Shell can continue to produce their product, and also give back to the community.
3. If so, what should be negotiated? (You should list at least two issues.) Why?
How much of the kick back will be given to the Ogoni people to help better their
community. Shell will continue to produce but also be involved.

D. LIKELIEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME 2 points

Choose one of the following as the likeliest possible outcome of a negotiation between the
parties and explain why this is your choice.
1. Competitive: Win/lose describe how at least one negotiator could win all points and at
least one negotiator could lose all points. Evaluate this as desirable or not.
I feel the likely outcome is competitive because money and power are involved. Also you
have a corrupt government that does not care about anyone else, so they dont care about
a win-win approach.