Shell Singapore charged over October and December 2024 Pulau Bukom oil leaks

Shell Singapore’s four charges under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act concern two separate leaks at its Pulau Bukom facility in 2024. For each incident, the company faces an alleged discharge offence and an allegation that it did not report the incident immediately. The charges were brought on September 22, 2026; they do not establish guilt. 35

October 20: A slop pipeline leak

A hole in a land-based pipeline allegedly allowed about 40 tonnes of oily mixture to enter Singapore waters. Shell described the material as slop, a mixture of oil and water, and said it had overflowed from a holding area into the channel between Pulau Bukom and Pulau Bukom Kechil. 310

The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) said the leak occurred at about 5:30am and that it was alerted at about 1pm. A separate account of the charge places the alleged discharge at around 8am. The available accounts do not resolve the difference between those times. 256

Shell placed containment booms and deployed clean-up craft; MPA also sent vessels to respond. Authorities later said the channel clean-up, including work on oil-stained infrastructure, had been completed. 2523

December 26–28: A leak from a different system

The December incident involved an oil-processing unit, not the October slop pipeline. The later charges describe approximately 485kg to 956kg of oily mixture entering Singapore waters over several days. 155

Shell discovered oil sheens at about 9:30am on December 26. It informed MPA at around noon and the National Environment Agency (NEA) at around 1:15pm, according to a government parliamentary reply. Shell shut down the processing unit on December 27 to investigate. By December 28, authorities said no further leak into the cooling-water discharge channel was observed and clean-up of the offshore sheens was complete. 81324

Initial statements estimated that a few tonnes of refined oil products had leaked with cooling water. That differs from the smaller range specified in the later charges; the available accounts do not establish that the estimates measure exactly the same thing. 135

What remains unresolved

Reporting on the proceedings also described a separate NEA prosecution and Shell’s request for more time to respond. The available details do not reliably establish the precise NEA charge, how the court dealt with Shell’s request, or the penalty applicable to each offence. Those points should not be treated as settled outcomes. 35