img01

Lawyers for the Government of Ecuador Engage in Revisionist History – Myth of Jurisdiction Exposed

DATE: Thu, Jan. 21, 2010 POSTED IN: Chevron Ecuador Blog Posts
Lawyers for the Government of Ecuador Engage in Revisionist History- Myth of Jurisdiction Exposed
“In a lawsuit filed Thursday, the plaintiffs say Chevron broke a promise Texaco Inc. made in 1999 to a New York federal court to abide by the Ecuadorean legal system if the court dismissed the environmental case.” – Wall Street Journal, 10/14/10
Chevron has never operated in Ecuador, a fact that cannot be disputed. Texaco’s role in oil operations in the country ended in 1992. Since then, Ecuador’s government owned oil company, Petroecuador, has been the exclusive operator of the oil fields and has amassed a deplorable environmental record.
The claim filed against Chevron on January 14 is erroneous and subsequent media statements by the plaintiffs are incorrect and misleading. Chevron did not agree to any stipulation concerning jurisdiction in Ecuador. In fact, Chevron was not a party to the prior New York action. American trial lawyers are once again distorting the record. To clarify, the case that was brought against Texaco in New York is totally different than what has been brought against Chevron in Ecuador. The case against Chevron in Ecuador does not seek an award for the 48 named plaintiffs. Rather, it seeks to force Chevron to pay for the remaining remediation work that the government of Ecuador has never performed. Under an agreement with the government of Ecuador, Texaco spent $40 million performing its agreed-upon share of the clean-up work. Texaco obtained full and complete releases after meeting all the requirements placed upon it by the government of Ecuador.  The remaining remediation work required is the exclusive responsibility of the government of Ecuador. The case against Texaco in New York was dismissed. Period.  It was not moved, transferred, or refilled. A brand new and totally different case was brought against Chevron in Ecuador. There are no stipulations from the New York action that cover a different claim against a different party in Ecuador. Texaco never waived its rights to seek the enforcement of valid agreements and contracts with the government of Ecuador. Texaco has never waived its rights to resist a verdict that is the product of fraud and a broken legal system.
It is important to understand that the two cases are very different. The case brought against Texaco in New York was about alleged personal injuries and alleged personal damages. The case against Chevron in Ecuador is exclusively about alleged damages to public lands. Of the 48 plaintiffs in the Ecuador case, there are no claims for personal injury or personal damages of any kind.

“In a lawsuit filed Thursday, the plaintiffs say Chevron broke a promise Texaco Inc. made in 1999 to a New York federal court to abide by the Ecuadorean legal system if the court dismissed the environmental case.” – Wall Street Journal, 1/14/10

Chevron has never operated in Ecuador, a fact that cannot be disputed. Texaco’s role in oil operations in the country ended in 1992. Since then, Ecuador’s government owned oil company, Petroecuador, has been the exclusive operator of the oil fields and has amassed a deplorable environmental record.

The claim filed against Chevron on January 14 is erroneous and subsequent media statements by the plaintiffs are incorrect and misleading. Chevron did not agree to any stipulation concerning jurisdiction in Ecuador. In fact, Chevron was not a party to the prior New York action. American trial lawyers are once again distorting the record. To clarify, the case that was brought against Texaco in New York is totally different than what has been brought against Chevron in Ecuador. The case against Chevron in Ecuador does not seek an award for the 48 named plaintiffs. Rather, it seeks to force Chevron to pay for the remaining remediation work that the government of Ecuador has never performed. Under an agreement with the government of Ecuador, Texaco spent $40 million performing its agreed-upon share of the clean-up work. Texaco obtained full and complete releases after meeting all the requirements placed upon it by the government of Ecuador.  The remaining remediation work required is the exclusive responsibility of the government of Ecuador. The case against Texaco in New York was dismissed. Period.  It was not moved, transferred, or refilled. A brand new and totally different case was brought against Chevron in Ecuador. There are no stipulations from the New York action that cover a different claim against a different party in Ecuador. Texaco never waived its rights to seek the enforcement of valid agreements and contracts with the government of Ecuador. Texaco has never waived its rights to resist a verdict that is the product of fraud and a broken legal system.

It is important to understand that the two cases are very different. The case brought against Texaco in New York was about alleged personal injuries and alleged personal damages. The case against Chevron in Ecuador is exclusively about alleged damages to public lands. Of the 48 plaintiffs in the Ecuador case, there are no claims for personal injury or personal damages of any kind.

Myth 5: Texaco Petroleum is solely responsible for the problems in Ecuador’s Oriente region

DATE: Fri, Oct. 23, 2009 POSTED IN: Chevron Ecuador Blog Posts, Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit Myths

Chevron is being blamed for a situation that is the sole responsibility of the Ecuadorian government and Petroecuador.

Petroecuador, Ecuador’s state-owned oil company, was the majority partner in the consortium with Texaco Petroleum. Today, Petroecuador still owns and operates the oilfields in the former Concession area as well as other fields in the Amazon. Petroecuador took over consortium operations in 1990 and became the sole owner of the consortium fields and installations when Texaco Petroleum’s concession contract expired in 1992. Since that time, Petroecuador has developed a widely acknowledged record of operational and environmental mismanagement, due to, among other things, widespread corruption, a lack of investment in, or proper maintenance of its equipment and installations, and numerous spills.

Petroecuador’s environmental record is alarming.  The company has been responsible for more than 1,400 spills between 2000 and 2008.  According to media reports, Petroecuador has spilled over 4.4 million gallons of oil at oil production and storage sites and along its various pipelines.

Meanwhile, Petroecuador has significantly increased the footprint of oil operations within the former consortium fields.  For instance, the company has drilled more than 400 new wells since taking over while the consortium operated 321 wells.  Likewise, Petroecuador has constructed more than 270 new reserve pits in the last three years alone.  All the while, the company has largely ignored its obligations to clean up its portion of the consortium operations based on the remediation agreement with Texaco Petroleum.

View a photo gallery or watch a video of Petroecuador’s environmental mismanagement.

Despite Petroecuador’s dismal environmental record, neither the Amazon Defense Coalition nor Amazon Watch has made Petroecuador a focus of their Oriente clean-up campaign, and the plaintiffs and their lawyers have never pursued any legal action against the state oil company. To the contrary, Petroecuador stands to benefit, directly and indirectly, more than any other Ecuadorian entity if the cost for widespread remediation is shifted to Chevron by:

  • Forcing Chevron to pay for remediation work that is clearly the responsibility and obligation of Petroecuador, both under the Settlement and Release entered into by Texaco Petroleum, the Government of Ecuador and Petroecuador, and as the sole owner and operator of the former consortium fields for the past two decades.
  • Requiring Chevron to refurbish and upgrade Petroecuador’s deteriorating infrastructure even though Texaco Petroleum transferred all of that property to Petroecuador in good operating condition almost 20 years ago and has had no say in any of Petroecuador’s operational decisions since 1992.

See these photographs of Petroecuador’s operations in Ecuador:

petroecuadoroperations1petroecuadoroperations3