Recent Decisions On the $19b Ecuador Judgment Do Little to Decrease Chevron’s Enormous Risk

For indigenous and farmer communities, the fight continues

Supporters of the heroic two-decade effort to hold Chevron accountable for its indisputable toxic dumping and destruction of the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador should not despair over recent court rulings that have slowed the seizing of the oil giant’s assets in Argentina and Canada.

The fight is far from over and overall trend lines still favor the affected rainforest communities, who have suffered from Chevron’s toxic dumping for decades. (For a summary of the evidence, see here; for a video about the case see here or this 60 Minutes segment.)

In Toronto, in an unusual decision without any precedent in Canadian law, a court found that because Chevron operates only through subsidiaries then the case must be stayed.  That decision is now on appeal.  The court decision this week in Argentina to lift a freeze on Chevron’s assets will have little impact on a parallel judgment recognition action which is proceeding.  That action will allow the rainforest communities to seize up to $3.5 billion of assets if successful.

Chevron has roughly $15 billion in assets in Canada and another $4 billion in Brazil that are being targeted in court actions based on the valid Ecuador judgment.  That’s real risk no matter how Chevron’s management team – including its conflicted CEO, John Watson -- try to spin it.

Under oath in court, where company officials are obligated to tell the truth, a Chevron comptroller recently claimed such asset seizure actions will cause the oil giant “irreparable harm” and disrupt its global business operations.  Chevron also operates via its subsidiaries in dozens of countries around the world that could be targeted.

There is also a deeper reality to the reasoning behind the recent Canada and Argentina decisions that should disturb concerned citizens everywhere.  In effect, based on legal technicalities, these courts are flirting with a total grant of impunity to human rights violators like Chevron.

Let us explain.

In Canada, a trial judge ruled that Chevron is a separate company from its local subsidiary even though that subsidiary is 100% owned by Chevron.  Yet Chevron itself operates only through its many subsidiaries around the world.  The company does not even own its own building housing its headquarters near San Francisco.

It was also Chevron officials (operating under the Texaco brand) who made the decision to deliberately dump billions of gallons of toxic waste in Ecuador, decimating indigenous groups and farmer communities.  Chevron itself stripped almost all of its assets from Ecuador in recent years in anticipation of losing the case.  It then refused to pay the judgment.

The upshot is this:  when Chevron wants to increase its profits by dumping toxic waste, it can deliver a high level of fake value to its shareholders by externalizing the costs of pollution to impoverished local residents.  But when it comes time to pay the hefty tab for that dumping, it plays the corporate shell game and hides behind its subsidiaries.

That's Chevron's conception of impunity. The question is whether courts will let the oil giant get away with it.

The cultural mindset that it produces in a large oil company leads to excessive risk-taking and arrogance.  And that explains why Chevron always seems to be dealing with a massive number of environmental problems around the world, including in the U.S. where it is currently under criminal investigation for a recent refinery fire in Richmond, CA.

Courts in most countries would not allow Chevron to get away with this brazen mockery of the rule of the law.  Many of Chevron’s own shareholders are also disturbed enough to have sternly rebuked Watson for mishandling the fallout from the Ecuador judgment.

Knowing it cannot win the Ecuador battle on the merits, Chevron also cleverly tries to exercise improper political influence over governments and courts.  In Argentina, after the freeze order became a viable possibility, Chevron suddenly decided to “invest” $1.5 billion in a large gas field with the local state-owned oil company, YPF.

Chevron also took out full-page advertisements in Argentine newspapers claiming impending national doom if the Ecuador judgment were to be enforced.  Its local representative publicly announced Chevron would only follow through on its investment if the freeze order was lifted.  Suddenly, after some furious behind the scenes lobbying, Argentina’s Attorney General recommended the freeze order be lifted.  Voila!

We think Canada’s appellate court will see Chevron’s rope-a-dope for what it is: a sneaky attempt to play the corporate shell game to escape justice.  Ultimately, we feel Argentina’s courts will see it the same way.

Chevron should not take too much comfort from these latest rulings.

The evidence against Chevron for committing a horrific level of environmental contamination in Ecuador is strong.  It has been documented not only by the company’s internal files and a 220,000-page trial record, but by independent journalists the world over who have visited the disaster zone.

Only in an unjust world can a corporation get away with murder by hiding behind legal fictions created by bean counters.  As this battle rages on, everybody concerned about accountability for corporate human rights abusers should take note and demand that judges stand up for the fundamental principle that polluter pays.

Become a follower of  The Chevron Pit.
Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.

Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.

Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Why is Chevron trying to intimidate journalists? And why is Google helping them?

The FAIR radio program (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) reported this today:

"Chevron is going to great lengths to silence journalists reporting on its dealings in Ecuador. The latest maneuver is subpoenaing private email accounts. Is that even legal? And what's the story Chevron doesn't want told? We'll hear it from Graham Erion, legal counsel to the Rainforest Communities in Ecuador." To listen to the program, click here

Also, Blogger Jeremy Bloom of Red Green & Blue writes about Google's cooperation with Chevron's "fishing expedition" into people's personal emails to intimidate and harass them for supporting and, in many instances, just inquiring about the $19 billion judgment against the oil giant for massive oil contamination in the Ecuadorian rainforest.

Bloom writes:  "It’s been more than a year since Chevron lost a landmark lawsuit saying they had to compensate Amazon rainforest natives they poisoned. But instead of doing the right thing and paying to clean up their mess, Chevron is acting like a six-year-old, stomping its feet and saying “I won’t, it’s not my fault, it’s YOUR fault!”. Now, they’re trying to intimidate journalists who report on their tantrum. Red Green & Blue  

"The latest: Going on a fishing expedition against 44 assorted enemies via subpoenas to Google, Yahoo and Microsoft demanding vague personal information. And Google, at least, is cooperating."

Read more of his blog here

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.

Also follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.

Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.

Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

No Love for Chevron In U.S. Courts

Chevron’s courtroom setbacks in the U.S. related to its $19 billion Ecuador liability are piling up as CEO John Watson faces increased shareholder pressure around the world to settle the case, according to an analysis of all legal actions filed by the oil giant in U.S. federal courts.

The new analysis follows reports that Watson’s plan to evade paying the Ecuador judgment is faltering as U.S. courts are showing increasing hostility to Chevron’s claims that it is the victim of fraud in Ecuador, an allegation that the plaintiffs say is nothing more than a smokescreen for Chevron to hide evidence of its criminal activity in the South American nation.

Separately, shareholders representing more than $580 billion in assets have called on Watson to settle the case while shareholders and a U.S. Congresswoman have asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to determine if Watson and General Counsel R. Hewitt Pate are lying to company shareholders about the Ecuador risk.

Last year, after an eight-year trial, an Ecuador court found the company liable for dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon and imposed a $19 billion liability.  Evidence showed indigenous groups were decimated by the pollution and that thousands of people have either died or are at risk of contracting cancer.

The analysis of Chevron’s court results, prepared after tracking the results of 23 separate legal actions filed by Chevron and its lead outside counsel Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in trial courts around the country, produced the following findings:

**Not a single U.S. court at any level – trial, appellate, or even the U.S. Supreme Court – has accepted Chevron’s fake fraud narrative in any kind of definitive finding, and the vast majority of courts to hear Chevron arguments have flatly rejected them.

**In all, 18 different U.S. federal trial courts and all four federal appellate courts have either rejected Chevron’s claims outright, or refused to adopt them.  The U.S. Supreme Court also denied a Chevron petition to review a decision denying it the right to arbitrate the issue of liability.

**Separately, two courts in Ecuador have flatly rejected Chevron’s fraud claims in the most definitive rulings yet on Chevron’s arguments.  In Ecuador, unlike the U.S., both parties had the opportunity to fully present evidence and brief the issues.

**The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, considered one of the most influential appellate courts in the country, has vacated or stayed three trial court rulings favoring Chevron and also nullified the crown jewel of Chevron’s legal strategy -- an unprecedented and illegal “global injunction” against enforcement of the Ecuador judgment issued by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

 **A federal appellate court in Philadelphia reversed a discovery order stating “[t]he circumstances supporting [Chevron’s] claim of fraud largely are allegations and allegations are not factual findings.” The appeals court further chastised Chevron’s attacks on the Ecuador courts as “disparaging”.

A number of other U.S. trial and appellate courts have specifically rejected Chevron’s fraud allegations, as follows: 

**In the District of Vermont, Judge William Sessions conducted a review of Chevron’s so-called “fraud” evidence as it related to an expert report on damages and concluded “the Court is satisfied that no evidence of fraud, false pretenses or undue influence appears.”

**In the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro rejected Chevron’s claims, finding that the oil giant “has not shown Respondent engaged in or intended any criminal or fraudulent activity.”

**In Ohio, federal Judge Karen Litkovitz threw out “fraud” allegations against one of the plaintiff’s experts, concluding Chevron had “no factual basis” for its claim.

**In Tennessee, federal Judge Joe Brown concluded that Chevron’s allegations were “quickly spiraling out of control” and rejected the attempt to obtain discovery via the “fraud” claims.

**During oral argument before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (based in New Orleans), Federal Judge Fortunato Benavides scolded Chevron for throwing “these words about massive fraud and, uh, all this hyperbole… you're making a mountain out of a molehill”.

In addition to the various legal setbacks, Chevron recently was charged with trying to intimidate people who worked on the legal case by trying to subpoena their private email accounts from Google, Yahoo, and Hotmail.

A video on the case can be seen here ; a written summary here; and a 60 Minutes segment here.

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.

Also follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.

Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.

Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Chevron Malfeasance In Ecuador and California: New Criminal Investigation Over Toxic Gas Flaring

More evidence of the cultural rot deep within Chevron’s management structure has surfaced with a devastating new report in the San Francisco Chronicle that the company is now under a criminal investigation for lying to authorities over toxic gas flaring at its Bay Area refinery.  For Chevron CEO John Watson and General Counsel R. Hewitt Pate the news could not have come at a worse time.

We already have reported that under Watson and Pate's leadership Chevron faces a hair-raising $19 billion liability in Ecuador for the dumping of billions of gallons of toxic waste into Amazon waterways, and then undertaking a fraudulent remediation to cover it up. Chevron also recently paid a huge fine to the Justice Department for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Iraq and has been sanctioned by various courts in Ecuador and the U.S. for engaging in unethical litigation practices.  

The Chronicle reported in Sunday’s editions that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a criminal investigation of Chevron after learning the company has installed pipes to re-route toxic pollutants around monitoring equipment at its Richmond refinery before burning them off into the atmosphere, where they pose a risk of cancer and respiratory ailments.

According to the Chronicle:  “Air quality officials say Chevron fashioned a pipe inside its refinery that routed hydrocarbon gases around monitoring equipment and allowed them to be burned off without officials knowing about it.”

A local county supervisor, John Gioia, had the guts to be quoted on the record about what Chevron did:  “That’s a criminal act, intentionally bypassing the monitoring,” Gioia said.

The criminal investigation started when two inspectors noticed that Chevron’s pollution-monitoring equipment wasn’t recording anything and became suspicious.

A fire at the Richmond refinery on Aug. 6, which forced thousands to area hospitals for treatment, is also under investigation and has led to a class action lawsuit against the company. See this Huffington Post piece for more details.

“Chevron's pattern of legal and environmental management failure reveals an executive team out of its depth and out of control.  The board's lack of effective oversight of top management risks driving the company and its shareholders into the ground,” said Simon Billenness, an independent analyst who has followed the company's growing environmental liabilities.

Billenness also said a new analysis by the London-based group Fair Pension has revealed how Chevron’s approach to the Ecuador disaster threatens shareholder value.

Our advice to the investigators:  look at Chevron's corporate suites for the source of the problem, not just the line workers at the refinery who creatively figured out a way to save the company money at the expense of the health of local residents.  

Workers cheat because of the existence of a corporate culture that encourages cheating, the effects of which the world has seen in Ecuador time and again. If you want to see what kind of corporate citizen really Chevron is, look at this video about its gross human rights violations in Ecuador.

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.

Also follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.

Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.

Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Preparing Fourth Hit Job On $18 Billion Ecuador Judgment

We are flattered to report that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is once again trying to carry water for Chevron's public relations flaks over the company's $18 billion judgment for creating the world's worst oil disaster in Ecuador.  Chevron has hired six public relations firms and almost 500 lawyers to undermine the communities that sued the company.

The irrepressible Mary Anastasia O'Grady – who purports to comment on events in Latin American as a columnist – called Karen Hinton, the spokesperson for the Ecuadorians, and, in a hurried interview yesterday, asked a series of questions reflecting Chevron's misleading talking points about the Ecuador trial.  O'Grady said she is preparing a column on Chevron's claim that an expert report submitted to the court was "secretly" authored by the plaintiffs.  This is one of Chevron's urban myths that has been fully debunked by the plaintiffs and rejected by Ecuador's appellate courts.

Let's test O'Grady's integrity.  Hinton sent her the following email responding to her questions in writing.  Read it and judge for yourself how much of these facts make it into O'Grady's upcoming column, should she indeed publish it:

Mary,

I want to reinforce and expand upon my answers to some of the questions you raised today in our phone call about the Chevron case in Ecuador. I am hoping you will strongly consider all of my comments as you write your column and not gloss over them. 

It is clear your questions are based on Chevron's misleading talking points. One of my colleagues informs me that you interviewed him by phone in 2007 and that you subsequently canceled a meeting where he was prepared to present information refuting Chevron's arguments as lies. Even though you did not write then on this issue, the editorial page of your newspaper has subsequently staged three separate attacks against the case based on Chevron's misinformation and extrajudicial strategy to undermine the proceedings to evade accountability for creating what is likely the world's worst oil-related disaster. We wrote letters to the editor in response to each of those articles correcting various inaccuracies. We hope that process does not repeat itself with your column.

We also have confirmed that the WSJ editorial page never disclosed that at least one of the two unsigned editorials attacking the Ecuador case was written by Bret Stephens, a columnist and now deputy editorial page editor who previously had written a signed column on the same issue with the same viewpoint.   

Here is some additional perspective on some of the issues you raised:

On whether Richard Cabrera met with the plaintiffs before he was appointed the global expert, and whether he and the plaintiffs planned what the global report would say:

Chevron has presented thousands of pages of papers and videos to the Ecuador court on this issue, and that court rejected the material as irrelevant and disregarded the results of the Cabrera report in making its decision finding Chevron liable.  Instead, it based its decision on 104 other technical reports -- the majority submitted by court experts named by Chevron, paid by Chevron, and whose reports were written by Chevron lawyers -- in deciding that Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon, abandoned hundreds of toxic waste pits, flared poisonous gas into the air, and therefore should pay for a clean-up of what experts consider to be the world's worst oil-related disaster.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the Cabrera report. The contents of that report -- which relied heavily on Chevron's own technical reports submitted as evidence that proved contamination -- is valid from a technical and empirical standpoint.  Some of the information and conclusions were presented to Cabrera by top-level technical experts, consistent with court rules. The fact Cabrera adopted these findings and relied on his own independent soil and water sampling reflected his judgment that they were valid and reflected the evidence.  This is no different than what judges do all the time in the U.S. when presented with findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties in a disputed litigation. The fact Cabrera was paid exclusively by the plaintiffs was required by the Ecuador court; other court-named experts were paid exclusively by Chevron, also consistent with court rules that require the party asking for a report to pay for it.  Again, this is no different than a party in the U.S. paying for the costs of an expert witness.

Chevron boycotted the Cabrera report process because it did not want to legitimate any aspect of the proceeding that it knew it would lose based on the scientific evidence. Thousands of soil and water samples had already been taken by both parties that showed extensive contamination at 100% of Chevron's former well sites.  Chevron knew Cabrera had access to this data, and this fact terrified the company's lawyers. So Chevron now reaps what it sowed with its unilateral boycott: a report that does not reflect its point of view in any way, shape, or form.  But it did succeed in getting the report knocked out of evidence by waging an unrelenting, entirely improper pressure campaign against the judges presiding over the trial.

When Chevron says the plaintiffs met secretly with Cabrera, that is a complete misrepresentation of the process.  The plaintiffs met with Cabrera (and with other experts appointed by the court) consistent with court rules, as did Chevron's lawyers.  We remind you that to the extent these rules seem different than those in the U.S., it does not mean they reflect an inferior system.  In fact, these procedures are consistent with the rules in most civil law countries and have been confirmed as valid by multiple legal experts in Ecuador and elsewhere.  Chevron has been unable to cite one statute or court rule justifying its position on the Cabrera report.  

Chevron also has tried to market two additional lies about Cabrera -- that he was paid with a "secret" bank account, and that he was "bribed".  Both of these accusations collapse when viewed in light of the evidence. There was no secret bank account. Cabrera was always paid for work performed consistent with court rules and the contractual obligation of the parties to pay for experts who produced reports they requested.

On whether attorneys for the plaintiffs will be paid $5.7 billion in fees. The judgment categorizes how $9 billion will be spent on cleanup, water and health. Where does the rest of the money go?

If you are relying on documents Chevron obtained through discovery from U.S. counsel to opine on this issue, we are putting you on notice that those documents have been interpreted inaccurately by Chevron lawyers and in any event have been superseded by other documents.

The vast majority of the judgment will be used to remediate Chevron's horrific and deliberate contamination of the rainforest -- a contamination so great in magnitude that it dwarfs the size of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico where liability has been estimated to be a minimum of $40 billion.  By comparison, Chevron is getting off easy in Ecuador because the court rejected several claims for damages made by the rainforest communities.  The money will be used to remediate contaminated soils and groundwater, provide clean drinking water to dozens of communities, create a health care infrastructure to deal with high cancer rates in the region, and to restore indigenous lands.  The attorneys will be paid a modest contingency fee per private contract with the affected communities -- a fee that is low compared the two decades of work spent preparing and litigating the lawsuit, and the risk undertaken by lawyers in advancing their own funds and time in the pursuit of a fair result for their clients.

On Chevron's contention that the Cabrera report and the court judgment contain identical language from documents written by the plaintiffs.

As in the U.S. court system, a court expert or judge often adopts language offered to the court by one of the parties. What happened in Ecuador was no different. Cabrera accepted some of the documents we submitted because his own testing proved their accuracy.

Chevron's assertions about the "ghostwriting" of the judgment is a complete lie and reflects the company's desperation. The documents in question have been submitted to the court in various forms, either as direct submissions from the plaintiffs or Chevron, or via expert reports.  In fact, none of Chevron's so-called "experts" on this issue has even reviewed the entire trial record.  And some of their conclusions simply do not withstand serious inquiry.

This is nothing more than last-minute hysteria by a desperate litigant.  Chevron stalled the case for ten years in U.S. courts, thinking it would disappear once a U.S. federal judge moved it to Ecuador.  When the evidence of contamination began to pour in, Chevron began to cry foul as part of a concerted strategy to undermine the very court system it repeatedly had praised. The only way out was to either be held accountable or concoct accusations of fraud. Now that the communities have won a landmark victory and are preparing to enforce their judgment, Chevron is appealing once more to journalists with one-sided presentations of facts that have no relationship to the body of evidence that overwhelmingly proved Chevron's guilt.

Finally, we have extensively documented Chevron's violations of anti-bribery statutes in the U.S. and Ecuador in various sworn affidavits.  Most recently, Chevron offered a $1 billion bribe to Ecuador's government to extricate itself illegally from the lawsuit.  More information on this and other examples of Chevron's malfeasance and criminality can be found on the website www.chevrontoxico.com.

Conclusion

We hope and indeed expect our version of the facts will be reflected in your analysis and that you will not allow your column to become a de facto public relations tool for Chevron's unethical attempt to evade justice.

Best, 

Karen Hinton


Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Also follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.
Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.
Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

European Investors Concerned About Chevron’s Amazon Disaster

Ecuadorian indigenous leaders meet Church of England's Investment Department

Read this great blog by Mitch Anderson of Amazon Watch, focusing on concerns by European investors about Chevron’s environmental crimes in the Ecuadorian rainforest.

"London, England – Ecuadorian indigenous leaders Humberto Piaguaje and Guillermo Grefa began a one week European tour today, where they will be educating major institutional investors in Chevron Corporation, including prestigious funds such as the Church of England Investment Fund and the Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church, about the oil giant’s grim environmental and human rights legacy in the Amazon. The fact that European investors are concerned about the American oil major’s growing multi-billion liability over its Amazon disaster comes as no surprise."

Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit and like us on Facebook.
Visit and watch a video on ChevronToxico.com to find out more.

Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Chevron Says These People Don't Matter

These moving photos were taken by Lou Dematteis, a photographer and writer who documented the lives of many Ecuadorian indigenous people who have died, lost family members or are sick from diseases as a result of Chevron's intentional contamination of the Ecuadorian rainforest. A Chevron lawyer recently said these people are “really irrelevant.”

Luz Maria Marin holds the head of her husband Angel Toala one day before he died of stomach cancer in his home in Shushufindi.

Chevron says the people in these photos don’t matter.

The oil giant’s lawyer Doak Bishop of King & Spalding recently said:

“The plaintiffs are really irrelevant. They always were irrelevant. There were never any real parties in interest in this case. The plaintiff's lawyers have no clients... There will be no prejudice to [the rainforest communities] or any individual by holding up enforcement of the judgment."

Bishop is speaking of the Ecuadorian indigenous people who won an $18 billion judgment against Chevron for massive oil contamination in the rainforest – a judgment Chevron has refused to pay.

Chevron even went so far as to try and hire a journalist to spy on the Ecuadorians to see if they were telling the truth about being sick. Read this article about it.

Here are just a few of them, photographed and interviewed by Lou Dematteis. You can purchase his book at Lou Dematteis Photography.


At her home in Andina, Amanda Armijos stands in front of a photo of herself and husband Saul Apolo who died of stomach cancer at age 49.

Nine-year-old Jairo Yumbo shows his birth-deformed hand on the road in front of his home in Rumipamba.


Juana Apolo walks out of a cemetery in La Andina where her father, brother and sister are buried, all of whom died of cancer.


Uterine cancer victim Rosana Sisalima with her granddaughter at their home in San Carlos on November 24, 2004. Rosana succumbed to cancer in 2006.


Fifteen-year-old Myra Chicaiza sits with her mother Rosa Mercedes on the floor of their home in Dureno. Myra suffers from sever birth defects due to her mother's exposure to toxic hydrocarbon contamination when she was pregnant with Myra.

Maria Villasis shows the scars from four operations on her liver and gallbladder at her farm near Guanta oil well #8.

Miguel Mashumar and his wife Maria Claudia Antuash sit with a portrait of two of their two daughters who both died as a result of exposure to toxic hydrocarbon contamination.

Carmen Guaman with her fourteen-year-old daughter Veronica at their home in La Primavera. Veronica suffers from a neurological birth defect.


Her leg amputated because of a cancerous tumor, Modesta Briones sits in her house near Parahuaco oil well #2 in the Ecuadoran Amazon.



Become a follower of The Chevron Pit.
Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit . and like us on Facebook.
Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More

Chevron's Troubles

Chevron is facing troubles in a number of oil-rich countries, including Nigeria, Brazil, and, of course, Ecuador.

Here are three articles worth reading that appeared this weekend:

Chevron's Amazon-sized gamble on Latin America

The Chevron spill off the coast of Brazil is not so much about the amount of oil spilled but about Chevron's reckless behavior that results from the company's arrogance -- similar to its misconduct in Ecuador.

Excerpts: "The prosecutor told Reuters the more than $11 billion civil award sought against Chevron is not based on a clear assessment of damages from the spill. The figure is meant to send a message.

"'Energy companies operating here need to know that reckless behavior will cost them,' (the prosecutor) said.

"Chevron's worst-case scenario damages from Brazil and Ecuador could top the company's $26.9 billion in 2011 profits....

"Chevron's deputy comptroller, Rex Mitchell, warned in U.S. District Court last year that the Ecuadorians' collection effort could 'cause irreparable injury to Chevron's business reputation and business relationships.'

"Chevron may be spending $200 million per year in legal fees related to Ecuador alone, the plaintiff lawyers estimated. Chevron declined to comment on legal fees."

Chevron: Fire On Gas Rig Extinguished

Nigerians have been pleading with Chevron to help them following a fire on a gas rig that took over a month to put out, but Chevron has done very little.

Excerpts: "Residents here complained of air, water, and fish that taste of kerosene as the plume of smoke hovered within sight offshore.

"They're asking Chevron to relocate the approximately 10,000 people in the surrounding community--a request that cuts against long-standing religious ties to land in Nigeria's oil-rich marshland.

"Mostly, residents say their livelihood--fishing--has been spoiled by the gas fire.

"'The gas is inside the fish,' the youth chairman for the village, Bravely Salvage said. 'After eating the fish you feel like somebody who drunk diesel, you feel dizzy...some of us collapse.'"

Hits, and Misses, in a War on Bribery

The Ecuadorians believe Chevron is in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by offering what is essentially a $1 billion bribe to the Government of Ecuador for the Yasuni project and a small cleanup effort -- but only if the Government steps in and blocks the enforcement of the $18 billion judgment against Chevron.

Excerpts: "Enacted in 1977, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits American companies and foreign companies whose securities are traded on exchanges here from bribing foreign officials to attract or keep business. For many years, there were few prosecutions under the act. In 2003, for instance, not a single person was charged.

"But in the last four years, a total of 58 companies have paid a combined $3.74 billion to settle such corruption charges. Since 2009, some 67 people have been charged, 20 are still awaiting trial or are at large, and 42 have been convicted, some from charges prior to 2009. A total of 22 have been acquitted or had charges dismissed.

"Lanny A. Breuer, the assistant United States attorney general who has stepped up enforcement actions under the act, said he saw no reason to change course. In fact, he is expanding his staff — and his range of potential targets.

“'We have to be willing to take cases that we would be willing to lose,' Mr. Breuer said in an interview. 'We can’t just pick the easy cases.'

"Even more, he sees himself on the right side of history, especially given the outcry against government corruption in the Arab world and elsewhere.

“'This is not the time for the United States to be condoning corruption,' Mr. Breuer said. 'We are a world leader and we want to do everything to make sure that business is less corrupt, not more.'”



Become a follower of The Chevron Pit. Follow us on Twitter at @ChevronPit .
Visit Chevron Toxico.com to find out more. Support Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network.

Read More