Chevron Lies Through Teeth About Groundwater Contamination In Ecuador

The Ecuador indigenous and farmer communities who recently won an $18 billion judgment against Chevron have long maintained that the oil giant has been taking their comments out of context and is lying in its long-running effort to discredit the lawsuit.

Here’s a good example.

This week in a blog on its web site, Chevron claimed that Dr. Ann Maest, a prominent U.S. scientist who worked as an expert for the rainforest communities, testified under oath “that she was not aware of any scientific data indicating that drinking water wells have been impacted in any way by Texpet’s operations” in Ecuador.  (Texpet is a Chevron subsidiary.)  

What Maest said during three days of deposition testimony was that there was extensive groundwater contamination at Chevron’s production sites, but that there was no data from the plaintiffs about contamination in drinking water wells because no such wells were tested. 

In her deposition, Maest repeatedly cites multiple and widespread instances of groundwater pollution at every single waste pit in Ecuador where such testing took place. Yet Chevron claims in its blog that "even the plaintiffs own scientists" agree with Chevron's fabricated theory that there is no groundwater contamination in Ecuador.   

Here are some relevant excerpts from the Maest deposition that Chevron failed to mention in its blog:

“There has been some sampling of groundwater that's down gradient of pits, and they did find quite high concentrations of TPH [Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons] in groundwater.” (see 1/20/11 deposition, page 133)

The plaintiffs found "elevated concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons...downstream of one of the separation stations in the concession." (see 12/8/10 deposition, page 161)

Samples tested from the plaintiff's and Chevron proved that "there are also PHs [a type of oil hydrocarbon] that are high in soil and groundwater immediately under the…pits that were allegedly remediated". (see 12/8/10 deposition, page 203)

Here is how Maest answered questions from a Chevron lawyer about groundwater contamination in Ecuador at a deposition that took place on December 8, 2010 (see page 212) -- an exchange Chevron ignored in its blog posting:

Q.  You had no worry about finding -- whether you were going to find it or not?

A. No. We knew at that time that they (the plaintiffs technical team) had found groundwater contamination.

Q. And where was that found?

A. Under pretty much every pit that they looked at.

Just in case you missed that last line: groundwater contamination was under pretty much every pit that they looked at.     

So much for Chevron’s claim that plaintiff's consultants agree with Chevron that there was no groundwater contamination in Ecuador.

For more on how Chevron lies to shareholders about the Ecuador litigation, see this report from securities lawyer Graham Erion and this letter from Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the company.

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

A Look Back At Key Devastating Facts Chronicling Chevron’s Environmental Mess In Ecuador

No one is to blame for Chevron’s crimes in the Amazon but the company itself. For that reason, and in light of the recent historic court decision handed down in Ecuador, we felt it imperative to provide a brief summary of Chevron’s worst offenses.

Chevron dumped chemical-laden water into natural streams and rivers.

Chevron dumped approximately 16 billions gallons of “produced water”—water extracted from the ground during oil drilling that is loaded with toxic chemicals—into jungle soils and streams near its well sites. At each of its processing stations, Chevron built large pipes that drained directly into nearby streams and rivers. At the time it was dumping this toxic water into the rainforest, the evidence shows that Chevron was well aware of its dangerous effects and had developed technologies to minimize its risks. It refused to apply any of those technologies in Ecuador. In fact, Chevron was still dumping produced water directly into streams and rivers in Ecuador over 70 years after the industry had stopped the practice in the United States due to its damaging environmental effects.

View this video of a former Chevron employee in Ecuador explaining how oil workers were told to dump toxic waste directly into the rainforest environment.

Chevron dug unlined earthen pits and filled them with a “toxic soup of oil drilling byproducts.”

Chevron dug approximately 900 open, unlined, earthen pits and filled them with “drilling muds”—a toxic soup of oil drilling byproducts that includes barium, heavy metals (e.g., chromium, lead, and zinc), chloride, petroleum compounds, and acid. It dumped these chemical-laden byproducts despite knowing they were a source of pollution and had a disastrous environmental impact. In fact, the petroleum industry had generally stopped this practice in the 1940s. As one eyewitness to this practice recalled:

“[W]hen the petroleum came out, part of it was scattered at the beginning of the platform, and another part went to the pits with sand; once in the pit it was set on fire, burning the surrounding woods; the petroleum on the platform went straight to rivers and estuaries.”

Although Chevron was well aware its pits filled with oil drilling byproducts were leaking into the soil and groundwater, it did nothing in order to save money. Letters discovered during the litigation clearly show that Chevron made a conscious choice not to fix its outdated and outmoded toxic pits that continued to dump chemicals into the rainforest. A 1980 letter between a Chevron (then Texaco) District Superintendent and an engineer states determines that the costs of more environmentally safer alternatives including installing steel pits or digging new pits and coating them would be too costly.

Chevron spilled thousands of barrels of oil.

Chevron failed to maintain or monitor its oil pipelines in the region, which resulted in many oil leaks and spills going undetected with no cleanup effort. The Big Oil company spilled at least 26,400 barrels of oil, most due to a lack of preventative maintenance on its equipment. Chevron did not have a spill prevention or response plan. Rather than clean up its spills, Chevron simply covered them with sand.

Chevron polluted the air.

In addition to contaminating the soil, groundwater, and streams in the rainforest, Chevron also polluted the air. Chevron disregarded accepted industry methods and technologies to reduce harmful air pollution and instead vented large quantities of gas directly into the atmosphere. Chevron used a practice called “horizontal flaring” which was a disfavored practice in the United States by the 1950s. This practice resulted in large plumes of black smoke that choked the life out of the region.

There is lot more on these devastating facts and on how Chevron tried to cover up its hideous environmental practices in the plaintiff’s final argument presenting overwhelming scientific evidence of Chevron’s mess in Ecuador. Chevron can waste millions of dollars obscuring their crimes. But they will never change the facts.

Read More

We Knew It Would Come To This

First, Chevron said there was no contamination in the Ecuadorian rainforest. Then, Chevron said no one had been harmed by the contamination. Now, Chevron says the plaintiffs in the lawsuit don’t exist, and it’s all a figment of our imagination. Read Kate Sheppard’s piece from Mother Jones:

Amazon Plaintiffs to Chevron: We're Real!

— By Kate
Fri Jan. 28, 2011 12:07 PM PST


— Photos of re-signing event in Lago Agrio courtesy of the Amazon Defense Coalition.

The long legal case against Chevron over environmental damage wrought by drilling operations in the Amazon may finally be drawing to a close, as the parties in the case this month began filing their final arguments. But Chevron has made several attempts to get the case thrown out entirely--including making claims that the plaintiffs in the case don't actually exist.

Last month, Chevron made accusations of an "elaborate forgery of plaintiffs' signatures" in the suit. When the complaint was first filed in 2003, 48 indigenous residents of Lago Agrio, Ecuador, affected by the legacy of toxic pollution left behind by Texaco (a company Chevron later acquired) signed on as plaintiffs. Chevron claims that its forensics expert has determined that 20 of those signature were forged, and that therefore the lawyers representing them in the case did not truly have consent.

Chevron vice president and general counsel R. Hewitt Pate almost sounded like an activist in Chevron's press release last month, pledging to "seek full redress against the harm that has been done in the name of the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and to hold accountable all of those who have knowingly participated in this unlawful scheme." The irony, of course, is that the plaintiffs are seeking compensation for what they have described as massive environmental and human health harm caused by decades of oil extraction in the region that was never fully remediated.

Chevron says this is evidence that the suit has been "tainted with corruption from the very beginning and must be terminated." The company's lawyers filed a motion in the provincial court asking the judge to therefore declare the lawsuit "null and void."

In response, 24 of the plaintiffs involved in the case held an event this week to re-sign the documents, a symbolic effort to show that they are, in fact, real and they do have very real complaints against Chevron, namely the billions of gallons of toxic waste that they say was dumped in their Amazon communities. (The total number of plaintiffs is now down to 47; one has died since the suit was originally filed.) The lawyers for the plaintiffs say the forgery claims show that Chevron is getting "desperate" in these last-ditch efforts to get the case thrown out, rather than challenging the question at stake in the suit—whether the oil giant is indeed responsible for the alleged damage caused by its subsidiary.

"It's part of their fantasy of saying that this lawsuit doesn't really exist," Karen Hinton, spokesman for the plaintiffs, tells Mother Jones. "The only way to maneuver now is to discredit the court, the lawsuit itself, the plaintiffs and the lawyers—anyone associated with this—through various personal vilification campaigns."

The company has also sought footage from a documentary filmmaker that they believe will show misdeeds on the part of the plaintiffs.

The Ecuadorian court is supposed to rule on the case sometime before May, though it's likely that it will remain tied up in this legal wrangling for some time. If the forgeries claim is any indication, Chevron will throw every obstacle it can think of in the way of a final decision.

Read More

Chevron’s Spies Deposed: Will They Tell The Truth?

Chevron employee Diego Borja and drug felon Wayne Hansen had their 15 minutes of fame over a year ago when Chevron unveiled videos that the two men had made secretly with a spy pen and spy watch. Chevron’s purpose in releasing the videos was to discredit an Ecuadorian judge, whom the oil giant expected to rule against the company in a multi-billion environmental lawsuit. The 007 caper failed but the fallout revealed other “dirty tricks” that Borja had orchestrated in Ecuador as well as Borja’s distrust of Chevron lawyers who he said promised him compensation for the videos. Borja confided to a friend that if Chevron did not pay him he would turn evidence against the company in the lawsuit. Soon the two of them will be under oath and will have to decide whether to tell the truth or take the Fifth.

Chevron Sting Operative Faces Deposition Under Federal Court Order
Judge Orders Wayne Hansen Deposed, Documents Turned Over as Scandal Tainting Oil Giant Widens

Amazon Defense Coalition
26 October 2010 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Karen Hinton at 703-798-3109 or Karen@hintoncommunications.com

Fresno, CA (October 26, 2010) – A federal court in California has ordered the deposition of Chevron sting operative Wayne Hansen, the convicted drug trafficker who in 2009 engaged in a “dirty tricks” operation for the oil giant in Ecuador that tried to undermine a trial judge, according to court papers.

Diego Borja, the leader of the sting operation and a longtime Chevron employee in Ecuador, earlier had been ordered deposed by a federal judge after he was caught on tape saying that he “cooked” evidence while working for Chevron during the trial. Borja separately said that he took soil samples away from contaminated oil sites and that Chevron’s laboratory was not independent as required by the court.

A hearing on Borja’s attempt to quash the order is set for November 10 in San Francisco.

"This court ruling is important because Borja and Hansen are at the epicenter of a potentially enormous scandal that could implicate several Chevron officials right through the company’s General Counsel and possibly beyond,” said Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for the Ecuadorians suing Chevron in the South American nation.

The depositions create potential peril for Chevron and its legal team.

Borja and possibly Hansen had extensive contact with Chevron lawyers as they taped four meetings in Ecuador in 2009 that they thought would implicate the trial judge in a bribery scandal, but instead backfired against Chevron, according to Hinton.

“Borja and Hansen participated in an illegal operation designed to interfere in an ongoing trial, ruin a judge’s reputation, and deny tens of thousands of people their day in court,” she added.

Chevron is charged in the lawsuit with illegally discharging billions of gallons of toxic produced water in Ecuador’s rainforest from 1964-1990, creating what experts believe is the world’s worst oil-related catastrophe. The company faces a potential $113 billion liability based on a 200,000-page evidentiary and is desperate to derail the trial before a judgment is reached, according to representatives of the plaintiffs.

The depositions, requested by lawyers for Ecuador’s government, are being ordered under a U.S. law that allows discovery to assist foreign legal proceedings.

Hansen and Borja came to the attention of authorities after Chevron released videotapes made by the pair, claiming they exposed a bribery scheme related to the trial judge. Chevron initially described Hansen and Borja as “Good Samaritans” who were not connected to the company.

Chevron’s story unraveled quickly.

Far from being a “good Samaritan”, an investigation found that Hansen had pled guilty to importing illegal drugs into the United States and had been sentenced to two years in a federal prison. He also had no connection to the remediation industry, as Chevron had claimed. The investigation also found that Borja was a long-time Chevron employee who was intimately involved in the company’s legal defense team in Ecuador, a fact Chevron did not disclose. Click here for more information about Borja and Hansen.

Chevron relocated Borja to the U.S. and paid for well-known criminal defense lawyer Cristina Arguedes to represent him. He was later taped by a childhood friend bragging about the operation. On the tapes, Borja brags that “crime does pay” and that he expected to receive large payments from Chevron.

Read More

Chevron Fraud Evidence Mounts In Ecuador

Bogus Lab Tests, Threats Against Plaintiffs Counsel, Ex Parte Meetings With Judge Paint Nasty Picture of Oil Giant’s Litigation Tactics

Amazon Defense Coalition
13 September 2010 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Karen Hinton at 703-798-3109 or Karen@hintoncommunications.com

New York, NY – Evidence of fraud by Chevron is mounting in Ecuador, dealing the oil giant a potentially crippling blow as it faces a potential multi-billion judgment for environmental damage, representatives of the Amazonian communities asserted today.

In a series of recent court filings in federal courts across the United States, the Ecuadorians suing Chevron for oil contamination in the Amazon rainforest have demonstrated the oil company faces an increasing array of problems, among them:

· Diego Borja, a Chevron contractor in Ecuador, ran a “dirty tricks” operation for the oil giant in Ecuador that attempted to ensnare the trial judge in a corruption scandal, according to taped phone conversations.

· Borja claimed that Chevron had “cooked” court evidence and that he would turn against Chevron if company officials did not pay him what they promised for videotapes he made of the judge in the lawsuit. Widely covered by the news media, the videotapes were later discredited.

· Chevron hired Kroll, the publicly traded investigations firm, to try to pay an American journalist to become an undercover spy for the company in Ecuador, according to a recent article in The Atlantic.

· Chevron’s lawyers had ex parte meetings with judges and have not denied having ex-parte meetings with court-appointed experts on the case – the exact same basis for Chevron’s false claims of “fraud” against lawyers for the plaintiffs.

· The plaintiffs also produced evidence that a court-appointed expert adopted many materials wholesale that were prepared by Chevron’s own expert without citation – the exact same charge that Chevron has leveled against the plaintiffs.

· Two Chevron officials are under criminal indictment in Ecuador for, according to the charges, conspiring to defraud the government by lying about the results of a sham remediation in the mid-1990s. Chevron’s own tests submitted into evidence show illegal levels of contamination at the so-called “remediated” sites.

· Due to a series of death threats from unknown sources, lawyers for the plaintiffs and their families are now protected with armed bodyguards.

Chevron is arguing in various jurisdictions around the country that any ex parte meetings between the plaintiffs and a court-appointed expert prove “fraud,” though they have failed to cite any order, rule, regulation, or law prohibiting such meetings under Ecuadorian court procedures. Legal experts in both Ecuador and in the United States have disagreed with Chevron’s argument.

“Chevron has not denied that its own lawyers met with court experts and has yet to deny the evidence that its lawyers met ex parte with judges in the lawsuit,” said Ilann Maazel, an American who is representing the Ecuadorians. “Why can Chevron meet ex parte with judges, but plaintiffs can not meet with an expert? This is hypocrisy with a capital “H”.

“Chevron’s true complaint is not with the Ecuadorian courts, but with the evidence of its own wrongdoing,” Maazel said.

Originally filed in the U.S. in 1993, Chevron requested the case be moved to Ecuador. Now that a decision is approaching and the evidence points to its culpability, Chevron is attempting to retry the lawsuit in the same U.S. court system it once rejected as inappropriate.

In a brief submitted to the Southern District Court of New York last week, attorneys for the Ecuadorians argued that Chevron had conducted ex parte meetings with court-appointed experts and that one of them, Gerado Barros, copied entire pages of a 2005 Chevron report into his expert report, entitled Prácticas y Reglamentos Internacionales Para el Uso y la Remediación de Piscinas de Campos Petroleros. Barros is one of several experts who have written about 100 reports, in total, that the court may rely on as evidence in the case. The majority of the reports show illegal levels of contamination, even at sites allegedly “remediated” by Texaco.

The plaintiffs assert that adopting materials directly from reports is not inappropriate, as long as the court-appointed expert is in agreement with the materials or is using them to explain or make a point. Such practice is common in U.S. courts, Maazel said.

Maazel said Chevron has yet to identify an “order, rule regulation, or law prohibiting” contact with experts.

Penn State law professor Catherine Rogers, a scholar of international arbitration and professional ethics, wrote on Opiniojuris.org, a well-respected online legal forum, that Ecuadorian “standards for the impartiality of court-appointed experts may treat such attendance (ex parte meetings) as acceptable, and perhaps not even necessary to disclose.....”

Read More

The Next Time Chevron Tells You Texaco Cleaned Its Share Of The Pits, Ask Them About Atacapi 5.

The next time Chevron tells you Texaco cleaned its share of the pits, ask them about Atacapi 5.

Chevron’s main defense in a $27 billion lawsuit for oil contamination is the 1995 remediation agreement with the government of Ecuador that released Texaco from government claims in exchange for cleaning up oil pits built by Texaco to store the toxic sludge left over from drilling.

What Chevron doesn’t tell you is that Texaco failed to live up to its side of the agreement. The pits Texaco “cleaned” tested as high or even higher for contamination than the pits Texaco did not clean. At many pits, Texaco only poured dirt into the pits, without cleaning them out and lining the pits first.

Here’s a photo of dirt laden with oil, dug only three inches deep from the pit at the well site, Atacapi 5. Contamination tests taken by the court-appointed expert at this site found a total petroleum hydrocarbon level of 21,976 parts per million — 21 times over the legal limit of 1,000 TPH.




The chart below lists other so-called “cleaned” pits that Texaco said it remediated, but clearly did not based on the illegal levels of TPH.

	SITE	CHEVRON’S CLAIM	TPH	NUMBER OF TIMES OVER LEGAL LIMIT
1	Sacha 18	Complete Remediation	35,380	35.3
2	Sacha 65	Complete Remediation	32,444	32.4
3	Shushufindi 27	Complete Remediation	26,413	26.4
4	Atacapi 5	Complete Remediation	21,976	21.9
5	Sacha 21	Complete Remediation	17,000	17
6	Shushufindi 21	Complete Remediation	16,033	16
7	Shushufindi 67	Complete Remediation	13,587	13.5
8	Shushufindi 45A	Complete Remediation	13,290	13.2
9	Shushufindi 48	Complete Remediation	13,000	13
10	Shushufindi 7	Complete Remediation	12,715	12.7
11	Shushufindi 25	Complete Remediation	10,956	10.9
12	Shushufindi 27	Complete Remediation	10,452	10.4
13	Ron 1	Complete Remediation	9,632	9.6
14	Lago Agrio 5	Complete Remediation	8,830	8.8
15	Sacha 94	Complete Remediation	8,700	8.7
16	Aguarico 8	Complete Remediation	8,183	8.1
17	Sacha 57	Complete Remediation	8,100	8.1
18	Sacha 65	Complete Remediation	7,519	7.5
19	Sacha 53	Complete Remediation	7,430	7.4
20	Shushufindi 13	Complete Remediation	7,415	7.4
21	Sacha 51	Complete Remediation	7,200	7.2
22	Shushufindi 45A	Complete Remediation	5,721	5.7
23	Sacha 94	Complete Remediation	5,600	5.6
24	Shushufindi 25	Complete Remediation	5,574	5.5
25	Guanta 4	Complete Remediation	5,510	5.5
26	Shushufindi 7	Complete Remediation	5,334	5.3
27	Shushufindi 48	Complete Remediation	5,000	5
28	Shushufindi 18	Complete Remediation	4,881	4.8
29	Lago Agrio 2	Complete Remediation	4,777	4.7
30	Auca 19	Complete Remediation	4,014	4
31	Yuca 28	Complete Remediation	3,876	3.8
32	Shushufindi 46	Complete Remediation	3,697	3.6
33	Sacha 56	Complete Remediation	3,600	3.6
34	Sacha 6	Complete Remediation	3,300	3.3
35	Shushufindi 21	Complete Remediation	3,133	3.1
36	Sacha 51	Complete Remediation	3,100	3.1
37	Shushufindi 48	Complete Remediation	3,000	3
38	Sacha 10	Complete Remediation	2,802	2.8
39	Shushufindi 48	Complete Remediation	2,700	2.7
40	Sacha 57	Complete Remediation	2,400	2.4
41	Shushufindi 24	Complete Remediation	2,180	2.1
42	Parahuacu 3	Complete Remediation	2,065.12	2.065
43	Shushufindi 24	Complete Remediation	2,000	2
44	Shushufindi 8	Complete Remediation	1,600	1.6
45	Lago Agrio 6	Complete Remediation	1,300	1.3

Read More