Chevron Ecuador Case | The Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit Trial & Chevron's Views & Opinions | The Amazon Post

FICTION:
“Chevron abandoned roughly 1,000 open-air waste pits…filled with life-threatening toxins such as chromium VI…”

FACT:
These pits were not filled with “life-threatening toxins” as alleged. Chevron has analyzed 306 soil samples for hexavalent chromium and 96% of them did not contain any chromium VI.  The highest concentration found in any soils sample was 0.13 mg/kg which is more than a thousand times lower than typical cleanup levels in the U.S. Furthermore, Texaco Petroleum did not use Chromium VI (as an “anticorrosive when perforating wells”) as is alleged.  Rather, Texaco Petroleum used a dispersant in some drilling muds called “Spersene” which contained 4-5% chrome lignosulfonate or chromium III. Chromium III is considered an essential nutrient and it is not a carcinogen.

“However, closer scrutiny of the lawsuit, including an evaluation of an allegedly independent investigation and the tendentious posture of the Ecuadoran court and president reveals a well-orchestrated smear campaign with false and misleading evidence and corruption at the highest levels of government in an attempt to pry money from an American oil company with deep pockets. … It is clear that Chevron, after a 19-year absence from the area following a certified remediation process, is being held hostage to a despotic government under the guise of environmental concerns.”
Read more »

“Several recent developments make it imperative for the United States to end the trade preferences it gives to the leftist government of Ecuador. On July 15, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said that in his new role as president of the Union of South American Nations, he will try to create a regional organization to shut down critics in the media. This frightening move against a free press came two weeks after Mr. Correa began efforts to shut down Ecuador’s Teleamazonas television network. On July 16, Ecuador’s state-owned Petroecuador oil company seized the oil fields of the Anglo-French Perenco Corp. This was despite a demand in May from an official arbitration body of the World Bank that the Ecuadorean government stop seizing oil. The expropriation of oil is nothing new. In 2006, Ecuador did the same thing to the American Occidental Petroleum Corp.”
Read more >>

“For starters, it [Chevron] wants the world to understand that the case was initiated by and is being led by a U.S. lawyer, Steven Donziger, with money coming from a Philadelphia law firm, Kohn Swift and Graf, on behalf of the plaintiff, a non-governmental organization called the Amazon Defense Coalition. Lawsuits like this can be securitized with investors anteing up in the hopes of striking it rich…”
Read more »

“A legal process involving a massive judgment in an Ecuadorean court and attempting to have it enforced in the U.S. would, at the least, take years. The Exxon Valdez saga dragged on for two decades, and the final settlement, after appeals, was about one-tenth the original.”
Read more »

“Chevron denies the allegations in the lawsuit, claiming Texaco performed a $40 million clean up of its operational sites in the 1990s, before it left Ecuador and that the government signed off on the cleanup efforts, releasing Texaco from any further liability. Any residual oil spills and pollution were caused by Petroecuador, the state-run oil company claims Chevron.”
Read more »

“But where were the Ecuadorian government and Petroecuador all these years when remediation at Lago Agrio was badly needed? During the 1970s and 1980s, when the pollution allegedly occurred, Petroecuador did nothing to provide suitable cleanup or social assistance for the Amazonian people. Between 2000 and 2008, 1,415 oil spills occurred in Ecuador under the sole authority of Petroecuador. Chevron-Texaco ceased operations in Ecuador in 1990, and today has no operations or assets in the Andean nation.”
Read more »

FICTION:
“Well, our clients never released Texaco.” – Steven Donziger, 60 Minutes, May 3, 2009

FACT:
The U.S.-based trial lawyers in the lawsuit against Chevron claim their clients never signed-off on Texaco Petroleum’s remediation, giving them standing to sue the company.

Mr. Donziger fails to mention, however, that this could have never been the case, because the remediation work was conducted on State-owned lands and was reviewed and approved on behalf of the plaintiffs, and every other Ecuadorian citizen, by Ecuadorian officials. According to the law, Ecuadorian officials represent all Ecuadorian citizens.  Otherwise any release would have required the individual consent of every Ecuadorian. Mr. Donziger also fails to mention that none of his 48 clients have filed claims for personal injury or property damage.

When the oil production concession between Texaco Petroleum and Petroecuador ended in 1992, Texaco Petroleum agreed to perform a $40 million remediation program to remediate sites mutually agreed to by both parties and the Government of Ecuador.

During the remediation, dozens of government inspectors, laboratory personnel, and State representatives reviewed the remediation and granted Texaco Petroleum, and all its respective principals and subsidiaries, a full and complete release from any remaining environmental liability.

In addition, four different lawsuits for environmental harm that were filed in 1994 by the municipalities of la Joya de los Sachas, Shushufindi, Lago Agrio and Orellana were settled in 1996. The jurisdictions of these municipalities cover the entire area of the former concession. All four settlements were approved by Ecuadorian courts therefore putting an end to any future environmental claim on those territories under the jurisdiction of such municipalities.

Click on map for larger image:

At the time, under Ecuadorian law, only the government had the right to bring claims for environmental impacts to the state-owned land where the oil operations took place.   Another problem for Mr. Donziger and his colleagues was that they could not file an American styled class action as they do not exist under the Ecuadorian law system.  So, according to press reports, they lobbied Ecuador’s legislature and convinced officials to write a new law to allow collective lawsuits for damages by private citizens when environmental harm had been caused.  In 1999, a year after Texaco Petroleum completed its remediation and was granted a full release by the government, the Environmental Management Act (EMA) was passed.

Still, the 1999 EMA cannot be applied retroactively to a matter already fully settled with the Government of Ecuador. Moreover, the EMA does not grant the clients of Mr. Donziger or any individual “the right” to unrestrictedly sue for environmental harm. This “right” can only be exercised to the extent that plaintiffs have sustained a direct harm (no such claim has been made or proven by any of the 48 plaintiffs). Thus, the plaintiffs are trying to improperly apply the 1999 EMA law in an attempt to extort a settlement from Chevron.