Oil and gas companies' corporate social responsibility: Policies and HIV initiatives in Nigeria

This dissertation study describes the health and HIV related initiatives of multinational oil and gas companies that operate in Nigeria, perceptions of oil and gas company employees, oil and gas company leaders, and key informants from government, public health, community and the Nigerian business coalition on HIV. A mixed method approach was used. Study participants include employees and leaders that worked for multinational oil and gas companies operating in Nigeria and key informants residing in Nigeria. The oil and gas companies that were sampled all had initiatives in place that were consistent with accepted recommended best practices for companies responding to HIV. All of the companies provided comprehensive health and HIV services to employees and dependents; all had HIV initiatives in the community and had formed partnerships with government or NGO/civil societies. Study participants shared the perception that corporate social responsibility was integral to the oil and gas companies conducting business in Nigeria due to the economic gains of the companies from the country/communities and because of the negative impact that oil and gas exploration activities had on communities. Themes identified that played a role in oil and gas companies' response and how decisions were/should be made were: 'business interest', 'social or government influence', 'pressure to respond', and 'community factors'. The study produced information that can be used to inform and guide oil and gas companies' health and HIV initiatives in Nigeria.^

A comparative analysis of Texas and Louisiana Oil-field NORM Waste Policy

NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) Waste Policies for the nation's oil and gas producing states have been in existence since the 1980's, when Louisiana was the first state to develop a NORM regulatory program in 1989. Since that time, expectations for NORM Waste Policies have evolved, as Health, Safety, Environment, and Social responsibility (HSE & SR) grows increasingly important to the public. Therefore, the oil and gas industry's safety and environmental performance record will face challenges in the future, about its best practices for managing the co-production of NORM wastes. ^ Within the United States, NORM is not federally regulated. The U.S. EPA claims it regulates NORM under CERCLA (superfund) and the Clean Water Act. Though, there are no universally applicable regulations for radium-based NORM waste. Therefore, individual states have taken responsibility for developing NORM regulatory programs, because of the potential radiological risk it can pose to man (bone and lung cancer) and his environment. This has led to inconsistencies in NORM Waste Policies as well as a NORM management gap in both state and federal regulatory structures. ^ Fourteen different NORM regulations and guidelines were compared between Louisiana and Texas, the nation's top two petroleum producing states. Louisiana is the country's top crude oil producer when production from its Federal offshore waters are included, and fourth in crude oil production, behind Texas, Alaska, and California when Federal offshore areas are excluded. Louisiana produces more petroleum products than any state but Texas. For these reasons, a comparative analysis between Louisiana and Texas was undertaken to identify differences in their NORM regulations and guidelines for managing, handling and disposing NORM wastes. Moreover, this analysis was undertaken because Texas is the most explored and drilled worldwide and yet appears to lag behind its neighboring state in terms of its NORM Waste Policy and developing an industry standard for handling, managing and disposing NORM. As a result of this analysis, fourteen recommendations were identified.^

A review of the Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program at ExxonMobil Corporation

ExxonMobil, a Fortune 500 oil and gas corporation, has a global workforce with employees assigned to projects in areas at risk for infectious diseases, particularly malaria. As such, the corporation has put in place a program to protect the health of workers and ensure their safety in malaria endemic zones. This program is called the Malaria Control Program (MCP). One component of this program is the more specific Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program (MCCP), in which employees enroll following consent to random drug testing for compliance with the company's chemoprophylaxis requirements. Each year, data is gathered on the number of employees working in these locations and are selected randomly and tested for chemoprophylaxis compliance. The selection strives to test each eligible worker once per year. Test results that come back positive for the chemoprophylaxis drug are considered "detects" and tests that are negative for the drug and therefore show the worker is non-compliant at risk for severe malaria infection are considered "non-detect". ^ The current practice report used aggregate data to calculate statistics on test results to reflect compliance among both employees and contractors in various malaria-endemic areas. This aggregate, non-individualized data has been compiled and reflects the effectiveness and reach of ExxonMobil's Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program. In order to assess compliance, information on the number of non-detect test results was compared to the number of tests completed per year. The data shows that over time, non-detect results have declined in both employee and contractor populations, and vary somewhat by location due to size and scope of the MCCP implemented in-country. Although the data indicate a positive trend for the corporation, some recommendations have been made for future implementation of the program.^