Its worse than that. Almost all the natural gas the comes up with the oil is "flared" stinking up the locals and contributing to climate change.

Pere Maas had an excellent article on the energy burden we place on other countries for refusing to allow development of oil reserves on our coastline and public lands. Perhaps we'd all be a little bit more mindful to the true cost of gas if we were expected to pay the heavy environmental and social costs of extracting crude oil in the US.

Why apologize for an article that is long overdue? Most drivers don't care or give much thought to origins of where their oil and gas for their cars-the evidence is in single passengers cars zipping by me as I wait at the bus stop each day. A majority of the cars that pass me have one occupant; I always wonder how many of them "need" to be using their car at that particular moment, or if they really could have gotten off their lazy butts and walked, rode a bike, or waited for the bus. And I've heard some of the most ridiculous excuses to justify what is most of the time sheer luxury travel.

The problems alluded to in that article are the result of poverty caused by poor governance, not oil per se. How different would it be if instead of having oil refineries and wells, you replace the rainforests with thousands of square miles of palm oil plantations and palm oil refineries? Why would they not be owned by large companies also (probably by existing oil companies) and destroy the environment?

Oil isn't the problem, our demand for liquid fuel is the problem and any individual who does not consume a great deal less than the average amount of it (about 690 gallons a year in America) by telecomuting, living close to work, riding a bike, or whatever, has no excuse for being self righteous. We are the ones demanding the liquid fuel, the government in the country where it is being extracted is primarily responsible for having it done right, but the blame is shared by all of us who consume the fuel. Blaming the oil companies for not taking matters into their own hands at the expense of profit is not the best way to approach it. Just a note. Riding a bus here in Seattle is equivalent in terms of fuel consumption to driving a car that gets 38 mpg, so choose your options wisely.

Poverty in a resouce rich country is usually due to extremely corrupt goverments whose sole purpose is to steal from their own people.

If we cut back on our driving, which I agree that we should, it probably wouldn't make a bit of difference in Nigeria.

The Norwegians seem to do quite well with their oil revenues. If the logic of us cutting back on oil consumption will help the Nigerians is sound then shouldn't the Norwegian economy skyrocket if we do consume less oil?

I have to agree with Robert that the problem here is not that the Niger Delta exports oil but that the government is so corrupt that very little of the revenue from that oil reaches the regions that produce it.

Oil, while not a sustainable source of income for Nigeria, should still be a boon for the developing nation, a source of much-needed revenue to fund development projects, to be invested in infrastructure and used to grow a sustainable local economy for when the oil runs out. That's what a responsible government would do, one that actually looked out for the needs of its people.

In reality, however, the Nigerian government, while recently 'democractically' elected, is still very corrupt and large portions of the oil revenue end up in the pockets of government officials. What's left over is rarely distributed fairly as tribal lines often dictate who gets the money creating a source of inter-tribal conflict and division within the country. That is the source of the conflicts like the one that destroyed Odioma that the New York Times article discusses.

So perhaps the Niger River Delta region would be better off if there were no oil there. Perhaps. It seems more accurate, however, to say that the Delta region would be better off if its government were actually responsible and utilized the oil revenues to develop infrastructure and the economy in this poor region.

Driving less or more efficienctly, while important for a whole host of other reasons (pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, avoiding peak oil crisis) would thus do little good for Nigeria. Exerting political pressure to get the government to invest in developing the Delta region or helping monitor fair elections or distributing aid to the region would do much more good.

As I said above, oil should be a boon for the Delta region .... should ...

Our driving doesn't make them poor. The corrupt governments that these people live under do.

It's not that their government is corrupt, Nigerians themselves don't trust anyone outside their own tribe, and will readily take advantage of any fool who comes along. That is the problem.

I've worked along side a Nigerian in my job for several years, and that was my experience; also he would discuss this phenomenon if asked.

When you buy commodities that come from nigeria, you vote for its model of governance: corrupt government, elite citizens and poor majority.

You also export environmental and social damage because you import a resource from a country where its extraction has high negative externalities.

We can't blame the nigerian people or government when we support their regime.

I think its high time that we bring a little democracy and freedom to Nigeria. Who's with me?!?

i agree with moo. the us supports horrible goverments so we can get what we want. our government is our responsiblity.

there is a documentary called 'drilling and killing" on democracy now about chevron in nigeria.

here's the link.