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 Can’t Cover Up Its Amazon Mess By Pointing To Its Own “Audits”

One of the “evidence” Chevron often points to claiming they are not responsible for the environmental damage to the Ecuadorian Amazon is a set of “audits” done by an “independent expert” hired by the big oil company. Chevron’s claims based on these audits are patently false. The audits show the opposite, that Chevron is responsible for the damage at over 45 sites operated by Chevron.

In fact, as shown by the plaintiffs in their Alegato Final (Final argument) in Ecuador, Chevron’s own “audit” shows that the oil company is responsible for the mess created in the Amazon. The first two independent studies from 1992 found extensive evidence of Chevron’s reckless disregard for the environment in Ecuador from 1964 through 1990. In fact, the audits noted multiple violations of Ecuadorian environmental laws. Chevron turned around and hired a third independent expert who had similar finding.

It’s Chevron’s report that is the most damaging, because they are the ones backing it. It does anything but absolve them of the responsibility. The Chevron report found:

• All but one facility had contaminated water discharge into creeks and streams.


• Hydrocarbon contamination at all facilities and a majority of drilling sites.


• Water waste was historically discharged into surface water.


• “An oil spill prevention and control plan was not identified. The audit teams also did not observe any spill control or containment equipment.”


• Rather than cleaning chemical or hydrocarbon spills, the oil company covered the spills with sand.

Various environmental experts have said that Chevrons claims are dubious, in part because their process for conducting environmental tests is flawed. Among other problems, Chevron only tested a thin layer of soil, tested soil from outside areas expected to be contaminated and mixed soil samples together from different sites to minimize the amount to contaminants. These actions show that Chevron’s claims about audits and testing are false.

5 independent studies have concluded that Chevron is responsible for environmental damage in Ecuador. While the oil giant claims they are not responsible, all the studies prove them wrong. More on this is available in the plaintiff’s final argument presenting overwhelming scientific evidence of Chevron’s mess in Ecuador, which you can find by going here.

Read More

Chevron, Trying to Fight Ecuador Lawsuit, Now Claiming Plaintiffs Don't Really Exist

Event In Amazon Jungle Puts Lie to Oil Giant's Latest Desperate Tactic


Amazon Defense Coalition
28 January 2011 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Karen Hinton at 703-798-3109
Karen@hintoncommunications.com

Lago Agrio, Ecuador – Several indigenous plaintiffs in the historic environmental lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador came together this week at one of the oil giant's polluted well sites in the Amazon rainforest to once again "prove" they are real in light of Chevron's latest legal motion claiming they don't really exist.

Chevron's legal team in Ecuador, which has been sanctioned recently for filing frivolous motions to delay the trial, had asked the court in December to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that one of its paid American "experts" determined that the signatures of 20 of the 48 named plaintiffs had been forged by their attorneys. The case has been on trial in Ecuador since 2003 and is nearing a final judgment, with the top end of damages estimated at $113 billion.

Chevron is accused of deliberately dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon from 1964 to 1990, when it operated a huge oil concession. The disaster is considered by some experts to be the worst oil-related environmental problem in the world today, with an area the size of Rhode Island laden with toxins.

Chevron's lawyers had claimed that there were discrepancies between some of the signatures on the lawsuit filed in 2003 and the same signatures attached to national identity cards in Ecuador. In disputing the allegation, the plaintiffs had accused Chevron of engaging in "desperate" tactics to derail a lawsuit it is losing based on the scientific evidence.

Pablo Fajardo, the lead attorney in Ecuador, said any discrepancies resulted from the fact the indigenous plaintiffs rarely sign their names to documents and thus any two signatures from the same person usually look slightly different. Chevron's American expert, Gus Lesovich, clearly had no understanding of this critical issue when he reached his flawed conclusions, said Fajardo.

Thirteen of the individual plaintiffs who were accused of having their signatures forged appeared this week before a notary to affirm that it was in fact their signatures on the lawsuit against Chevron. Each of the individuals stated that their signatures were their own.



“I find it humiliating that Chevron has said that the signatures are not genuine, and so I am here in person to sign with my own handwriting, yet again, and thus affirm the contamination that they have caused,” stated Hugo Camacho, President of the Pimanpiro community in the province of Orellana.

“It is not enough for [Chevron] to have killed our people, killed our rivers and our air, but now they are treating us like common criminals, like forgers. This is an outrageous indignity,” added Camacho.

Victor Tanguila, one of plaintiffs signing his support for a lawsuit against Chevron

“Chevron had promised that its expert analysis ‘proved’ that the signatures were false,” said Karen Hinton, spokeswoman for the plaintiffs. “But we now know that the only thing that has been ‘made clear’ is Chevron’s willingness to hire and pay any expert to make inaccurate claims to derail a lawsuit where it faces an enormous liability."

The latest expert report by Lesovich is just one of many improper allegations put forth by the company as the 17-year litigation has entered its final stages.

Examples of Chevron’s improper tactics in the litigation include putting out fake news reports that appear independent, trying to pay a journalist to spy on the plaintiffs, setting up dummy corporations in Ecuador to hide the company's role in testing soil samples, and mounting a sting operation to entrap an Ecuadorian judge presiding over the case. The company has also bombarded the Ecuador court with frivolous motions, leading to sanctions against its legal team.

The plaintiffs recently filed the first part of their final argument finding that "there is irrefutable evidence of contamination" at every one of Chevron's 45 former well and oil production sites inspected by the parties during the trial. The chemicals and compounds found -- all of which are toxic and some of which are known carcinogens -- include barium, benzene, cadmium, chromium, copper, etheylbenzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, vanadium, xylene, and zinc.

"The evidence makes it clear and unmistakable that Chevron is guilty," the summary of the alegato concludes. "Guilty of polluting the rainforest with toxic sludge from lucrative oil drilling operations, guilty of a shoddy and haphazard cleanup operation, guilty of letting toxic waste continue to devastate the rainforest and its inhabitants' lives, and perhaps worst of all, guilty of trying to cover it all up by destroying documents and making false accusations of fraud before courts in the U.S. and Ecuador."

Read More

Chevron Lawyers Sanctioned and Fined for Obstructing Environmental Lawsuit in Ecuador

Last week Judge Nicolas Zambrano ruled that Chevron lawyers Alberto Racines and Diego Larrea tried to obstruct the multi-billion lawsuit the oil giant faces in Ecuador by repeatedly filling the same motions in an apparent effort to stall the case. Another Chevron lawyer Patricio Campuzano was sanctioned for the same reason in 2009. On August 5th, Chevron filled 19 motions to repeal the court’s order to submit new damages assessments and later argued the judge’s failure to rule quickly on those motions was a reason to recuse him. Given Chevron’s charges that previous damage assessments were fraudulent, one would think the company would welcome an opportunity to submit its own. Instead, facing a potential $113 billion liability, Chevron files a bunch of old motions already denied.

Three Chevron Lawyers Sanctioned For Obstructing Ecuador Environmental Trial

Facing $113 Billion in Potential Damages, Chevron Lawyers Seek Any Opportunity to Delay

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

Lago Agrio, Ecuador (October 29, 2010) -- A trial court has sanctioned and fined three Chevron lawyers for obstructing the trial where Chevron faces a multi-billion dollar judgment for the deliberate dumping of 18 billion gallons of toxic waste, according to court papers made available today.

Alberto Racines and Diego Larrea, both of whom have worked on Chevron’s legal team in Ecuador since the trial against Chevron began in 2003, were fined by Judge Nicolas Zambrano this week for repeatedly filing the same motions in an effort to delay the seven-year Ecuador trial.

The judge ruled that the lawyers had used Chevron’s motions “to obstruct the trial.” In 2009, a third Chevron lawyer – Patricio Campuzano – was sanctioned for the same reason.
On August 5 – one day after the court ordered both parties to submit their own damages assessments -- Chevron filed 19 motions to nullify the order or the trial itself in a 30-minute period. Racines and Larrea then cited the failure of the trial judge to quickly rule on each of the motions as a basis to recuse him.

“The evidence clearly shows Chevron used illegal practices that resulted in the massive destruction of the rainforest in Ecuador and the decimation of indigenous groups and other local residents,” said Pablo Fajardo, who represents dozens of indigenous and farmer communities suing the oil giant for dumping more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon rainforest.

“To help Chevron evade its obligations, Chevron’s lawyers are trying to sabotage the Ecuadorian legal system in addition to violating their professional obligations,” he added.

Chevron, which operated several oil fields in Ecuador from 1964 to 1990, faces damages and clean-up costs estimated at up to $113 billion. The amount includes compensation for an estimated 10,000 potential deaths from cancer in the coming decades, according to reports submitted by a team of prominent American technical experts.
Chevron is also accused of deliberately discharged highly toxic “water of formation” into the waterways of the forest that thousands of local residents depended on for their drinking water. The “water of formation” has a salt content ten times greater than ocean water.

Chevron bought Texaco (which owned the Ecuador operation) in 2001 for $31 billion, apparently without adequately vetting the company for the Ecuador environmental liability, said Fajardo.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. federal court in 1993 but moved to Ecuador in 2002 at Chevron’s request, accuses the oil giant of poisoning an area of rainforest the size of Rhode Island that is home to five indigenous groups. More than 900 unlined toxic waste pits built and abandoned by Chevron are spread out through the rainforest where they continue to contaminate groundwater and soils, according to evidence submitted to the court.
Chevron has repeatedly tried to delay the trial by bombarding the court in the Amazon town of Lago Agrio with hundreds of repetitive motions, a practice that has intensified in recent months.

Two Chevron employees currently living in the United States, Ricardo Reis Veiga and Rodrigo Perez Pallares, are under indictment in Ecuador for lying about the results of purported remediation in the mid-1990s. Evidence gathered during the trial shows that toxic waste pits the company claimed to have remediated are contaminated with cancer-causing toxins, sometimes hundreds of times higher than U.S. and Ecuadorian norms designed to protect public health.

Chevron’s misconduct in Ecuador and its abuse of the legal process has drawn increasing criticism.

A prominent Ecuador Bishop, Gonzalez Lopez Maranon, blasted the oil giant for failing to accept responsibility for the “pollution and death” Texaco caused in the country. The full text of his letter in English and Spanish, which was sent to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, can be found here.

Rep. James McGovern, the only member of Congress to have visited the disaster area in Ecuador, previously had written a letter to President Obama saying Chevron’s pollution had created “a terrible humanitarian and environmental crisis.” Dozens of members of Congress also have protested Chevron’s attempts to lobby the Obama Administration to cancel Ecuador’s trade preferences as retaliation for the lawsuit.

Just last week, Chevron’s new $100 million advertising campaign was widely mocked by environmental groups and the Yes Men, who created a website called www.chevronthinkswerestupid.com.

Read More

Fortune's Roger Parloff Sucked In By Chevron Spin

More headlines on Chevron’s fraud. A post on ChevroninEcuador.com:


Enough to Make You Sick: Chevron's Successful Spin & Toxic Lies in Ecuador

Yesterday, I began my workday drinking coffee and reading over a brutal article on Fortune.com by legal reporter Roger Parloff, entitled Evidence of fraud mounts in Ecuadorian suit against Chevron.
My hopes that the article would help to highlight Chevron's long history of corruption and fraud were quickly dashed... it was not exactly the start to the week I had hoped for.

As I read Parloff's review of the latest in the titanic legal battle to force Chevron to clean up its poisonous legacy in the Ecuadorian Amazon, my chest tightened as it ocurred to me how good Chevron has become at making this case about everything except for the ravaged rainforest and the men, women, and children who have suffered over the decades due to the oil giant's greedy, reckless, behavior.

The article begins:

Over the past ten months, Chevron's outside lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have filed 11 civil actions in federal courts across the United States, each designed to pull back the curtain on what they say is an elaborate, two-year-long charade in which plaintiffs lawyers covertly planned and ghostwrote a crucial report on damages that was ostensibly being authored by an independent expert appointed as an "auxiliary" to the Ecuadorian court. The expert's final report, issued in November 2008, recommended that Chevron pay the plaintiffs $27.3 billion.

And throughout the article, Parloff does an exceptional job at presenting the story as if it wasn't lifted almost entirely from a bunch of Chevron talking points. The gist of Chevron's claim is that the lawsuit against the company is a giant baseless swindle concocted by contingency fee lawyers looking to get at the oil giant's deep pockets. And now, as Parloff's writes, Chevron's multiple discovery actions – most notably its successful subpoena of hundreds of hours of outtakes from Joe Berlinger's documentary film CRUDE – have produced evidence that the plaintiffs attorneys have engaged in fraud.

Except that neither Parloff, nor any of the federal judges who have opined about the case in rulings granting Chevron's motions for discovery, have any basis upon which to draw their conclusions except for Chevron's self-serving, dishonest, and, apparently, superbly-made arguments.

In fact, as the lawyers for the Ecuadorians noted in a response to Parloff's article:

"...Parloff has never been to Ecuador, never examined the 200,000-page trial record, never seen an original lab report from the 64,000 sampling results at trial, never talked to any witnesses who have testified in the case, and utterly fails to understand either the enormous quantum of evidence or the procedural rules that govern trials in Chevron’s preferred forum of Ecuador."

A major focus of Chevron's latest legal & PR blitz is the relationship between the plaintiffs and court-appointed expert Richard Cabrera. Unsurprisingly, this is also the major focus of Parloff's article.

Richard Cabrera is the court-appointed expert who was asked to come up with an overall damages assessment – in the end, $27.3 billion – to assist the judge overseeing the trial in Lago Agrio to make a final ruling about Chevron's liability for massive oil contamination across a vast swath of the Ecuadorian Amazon.

Parloff rolls with Chevron's cynical narrative:

Chevron claims that the logs already prove that the plaintiffs' consultants ghostwrote Cabrera's report, and the plaintiffs lawyers do not deny that they and their consultants provided materials to Cabrera.

He then goes on to detail the ex parte contacts between the plaintiffs side and Cabrera as if it's a smoking gun (ex parte is a Latin legal term that in this context refers to contacts between one party and the court or experts without the opposing party present).

But, as the plaintiffs explain in a legal filing in U.S. Federal Court opposing a subpoena served upon the lead U.S. attorney in the case (an extraordinary over-reach unto itself):

“Ex parte” contacts with Mr. Cabrera remain at the heart of this petition, yet (i) the matter of contacts between Plaintiffs and Cabrera is undisputedly before the Lago Agrio Court, and that court has given no indication that such contacts are improper; (ii) Chevron has still not denied it that also had ex parte contacts with court experts in Lago Agrio; and (iii) Chevron still cannot point to a single order, rule, regulation, or law prohibiting such contact; to the contrary; it is reduced to relying on lengthy expert opinions to resolve what it had claimed was a cut and dry example of fraud under Ecuadorian law.

Chevron complains about the “ghostwriting” of expert reports, yet it has become clear that Chevron’s private expert, John A. Connor, ghostwrote part of the report of another independent, neutral court expert in Lago Agrio: Mr. Barros. Attached as Exhibit 67 is a report Chevron’s private expert, Mr. Connor, prepared dated June 16, 2005 titled Prácticas y Reglamentos Internacionales Para el Uso y la Remediación de Piscinas de Campos Petroleros. Apparently without any attribution, the neutral and independent expert appointed by the Lago Agrio Court, Mr. Barros, copied entire pages of Chevron’s report, word for word.

The legal memorandum continues:

Nowhere does Barros appear to acknowledge that he has cut and pasted Chevron’s expert’s materials into his own avowedly neutral and independent report. Does Chevron deny it had ex parte conduct with Barros? It does not.

Is it a miraculous coincidence that an entire section of the Barros report is a clever cut and paste of disparate portions of Chevron’s work product? It is not.

By Chevron’s argument, this is fraud on the court, collusion with a neutral, independent expert, and criminal conduct that should send the people at Chevron who engineered the fraud to jail.

Chevron also fails to refute the now-undisputed declarations that Chevron’s lawyers met secretly and repeatedly not just with experts, but with the Court, and specifically discussed the Lago case. When this ex parte conduct was exposed, Chevron’s security guards tried to keep plaintiffs’ representative away. This secret contact was pursued by Chevron’s counsel, yet counsel is completely silent in Chevron’s opposition: not one declaration, not one response on the facts. If it is acceptable for Chevron’s lawyers to meet ex parte with the Court itself, why is it unacceptable for plaintiffs to meet “ex parte” with an expert? Chevron does not and cannot explain.

Evidently, Parloff has chosen the convenient path of simply ignoring the plaintiffs' thorough debunking of Chevron's breathless accusations.

In a brief aside, Parloff writes:

It should be noted that the fraud claims -- even if true -- do not necessarily impugn the legitimacy of the Indians' underlying cause, or even the genuineness of their lawyers' belief in that cause..."

But as Parloff also notes, to the certain gratification of Chevron and its highly-paid American corporate lawyers, legitimacy of the indigenous communities' cause – and the reality of their continued suffering – won't necessarily secure them justice in court.

I'm not sure what is more devastating about an article like this, but either choice is just a different side of the same coin. Yesterday, I was saddened that a man as smart as Parloff can be so completely taken in by the dishonest narrative that Chevron has spun. Today, I'm sickened by how astonishingly good at their devious task the Chevron lawyers and spinmasters have grown to manipulate a man as smart as Parloff.

Chevron has scored another PR victory, yes. But the truth, as I've said before, has a way of bubbling to the surface like crude in the Amazon.

Concluding their response to Parloff's article, and to Chevron's increasingly dishonest and abusive legal tactics, the lawyers for the communities in Ecuador write:

Chevron’s problem in Ecuador is that it is losing the case based on the evidence and that its own officials are under criminal indictment for fraud related to a sham remediation. The real story is that the evidence convincingly demonstrates that an American company went to a foreign nation and deliberately devastated the Amazon rainforest environment out of greed. The destruction was done in violation of Ecuadorian laws, industry standards, Chevron’s own operating contract, and all sense of basic decency. Chevron’s allegations of “fraud” are themselves part of an elaborate scheme to cover up the company’s pervasive illegality in its Ecuador drilling operation and in its advocacy during the trial.

– Han

Read More

Court Filing: Chevron’s Own Audits Prove Company Lied About Massive Pollution in Ecuador

Evidence of Chevron’s “Stunning Hypocrisy” and Lies to U.S. Federal Courts

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

NEW YORK – A U.S. Federal Court has been presented with two separate audits conducted at Chevron’s request that show “clear and convincing evidence” that the oil giant knowingly dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste directly into the Amazon and subsequently lied to cover it up, according to a legal brief by the 30,000Ecuadorian rainforest residents suing the company for the illegal dumping.




The two separate audits, commissioned by Chevron’s predecessor company Texaco as it was wrapping up operations in Ecuador from 1990-92, found that the oil contamination “require[d] remediation at all production facilities.” The audits also demonstrate deliberate contamination by Texaco, noting that the company failed to protect surface water quality and intentionally dumped untreated toxic waste directly into the streams and rivers of the jungle.

The findings of the audits – presented for the first time in a U.S. federal court as part of a battle over various discovery requests related to the Ecuador litigation – stand in stark contrast to Chevron´s numerous sworn statements that there is “no evidence that Chevron is responsible for any environmental damage” in Ecuador, made in multiple filings in recent weeks in several different federal courts.

Chevron’s public denials of damage to the region given the extraordinary findings in its audits are “shocking and cynical,” according to Ilann Maazel, an attorney for the Amazon residents. “These audits definitively prove that Chevron is guilty of contaminating Ecuador´s rainforest and that the company is now shamelessly lying about that undisputed fact to U.S courts,” he said.

“It is incredible that Chevron lawyers have stated in US courts that there is no damage in the region even while their own audits unequivocally state the exact opposite,” said Maazel. “Chevron has consistently and intentionally made such false statements to federal judges in a cynical attempt to hide the extent of the contamination caused by its operations.”

Some of the shocking findings of the audits, which were conducted by two Chevron sub-contractors and paid for by the company, are:

· “All twenty-two production stations are currently, or have at some time, discharged oily produced water to the environment and flared excess gas. The stations have produced a total of approximately 1.4 billion barrels of oil, 250 million cubic feet of gas and 375 million barrels of produced water during the period 1964 to 1990.”

· “The audit identified hydrocarbon contamination requiring remediation at all production facilities and a majority of the drill sites.”

· “Produced water (which contains carcinogens and toxic heavy metals) is being discharged to the environment in all cases.”

· “Produced waste is then passed through a series of open, unlined pits. The remaining oil emulsion and produced water is discharged into a local creek or river or in some instances directly into the jungle...Produced water has historically not been tested prior to disposal…”

· “Contamination of soil and water was observed at well sites, production stations and along roadways, flowlines and secondary pipelines.”

· “Workover, completion wastes, salt solutions and oil/water emulsions have historically been disposed of into well site pits. … Little maintenance has reportedly been done on any of the pits at the well sites.”

· “[Texaco’s] operation included the intentional burning of crude oil from spills and contained in pits. This operation usually created large amounts of black smoke and soot that can potentially impair the environment and human health.”

Both audits were relied upon by a court-ordered damages assessment report that found Chevron could be responsible for up to $27.3 billion in environmental damages and remediation costs. Chevron’s lawyers have called the report “scientifically bankrupt” but thus far have refused to comment on their own audits, which were conducted in the early 1990s as the company was winding down its operations in Ecuador.

The audits were conducted by HBT Agra and Fugro McClelland, two Chevron sub-contractors. They are part of the evidence in the Ecuador trial. Chevron, through its predecessor company Texaco, operated in Ecuador from 1964-1990. The lawsuit, originally filed by 30,000 Ecuadorians in New York in 1993, was transferred to Ecuador at Chevron’s request. Since the trial began in Ecuador, more than 64,000 scientific sampling results and a 200,000-page trial record, has created a mountain of evidence demonstrating Chevron’s responsibility for the environmental devastation in the region, said Maazel.

Read More

Chevron Tries to Silence Critics of Its Ecuador Environmental Disaster

Chevron is exhibiting some awfully thin skin lately over its Ecuador environmental disaster.

A clear pattern is emerging where the company, its lawyers, and its public relations firms try to intimidate critics of its Ecuador problem into silence. Award-winning filmmaker Joe Berlinger, who recent made a movie documenting the company's abuses in Ecuador, is the latest victim. That has gotten Chevron on the bad side of prominent journalists and filmmakers such as Bill Moyers, Trudie Styler and Michael Moore.

Chevron has admitted to dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into Ecuador's Amazon to cut costs, decimating indigenous groups and creating an outbreak of cancer that affects thousands of people. For years, the company has engaged in abusive litigation to evade accountability for a clean-up.

Unlike the BP disaster in the Gulf, Chevron (via its predecessor company Texaco) discharged this waste on purpose. And unlike BP, Chevron's executives have buried their heads in the sand and refused to accept responsibility for the clean-up.

The increased pressure on Chevron – 60 Minutes did a highly unflattering segment on the company recently – seems be taking a toll.

Take look at Chevron's attacks on Free Speech just in the past year:

• Filing frivolous lawsuits to "punish" critics: Chevron, via its new law firm Gibson Dunn, initiated a "malicious prosecution" lawsuit in a California federal court to punish a 75-year-old lawyer, Cristobal Bonifaz. Bonifaz had brought a separate lawsuit against Chevron on behalf of a handful of individuals for health claims related to the company's Ecuador disaster in San Francisco federal court. A federal judge turned the tables on Chevron, finding the Chevron action violated a California law that bars nuisance lawsuits designed to suppress Free Speech. The judge dismissed virtually all of Chevron's claims against Bonifaz. The California law (called Anti-SLAPP) used by the court against Chevron was created to prevent legal attacks brought to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of defending a frivolous lawsuit. The decision was a tremendous setback for Gibson Dunn, which has a reputation for being paid millions to protect companies like Chevron from being held accountable for their human rights abuses.

• Attempting to intimidate journalists and gain access to their files: Chevron recently launched an unprecedented legal attack on award-winning documentarian Joe Berlinger to force him to allow the company to rummage through 600 hours of video footage Berlinger shot for the documentary, CRUDE. The movie – which has won 22 awards from film festivals -- chronicles the struggle of the 30,000 residents of the Ecuadorian rainforest to hold Chevron accountable for systematically polluting their lands. Chevron's lawsuit prompted a group of filmmakers that includes 20 Academy Award winners and many more nominees to write an open letter in support of Berlinger stating that Chevron's effort "will have a crippling effect on the work of investigative journalists everywhere." Filmmaker Michael Moore has stated, "The chilling effect of this is, someone like me, if something like this is upheld, the next whistleblower at the next corporation is going to think twice about showing me some documents if that information has to be turned over to the corporation that they're working for."

• Barring critics from public events: At the Chevron-sponsored Houston Marathon, a team of runners was barred from participating in the event, and threatened with arrest, for attempting to distribute materials critical of Chevron's human rights record in Ecuador. The race manager told the runners that "higher ups at Chevron were freaking out." At the time, runner Maria Ramos stated: "It is sad that the Chevron Houston Marathon – which raises awareness and money for many important causes – would deny the rights of participants to appease a corporate sponsor that is clearly ashamed of its human rights record."
• Attempting to pressure news outlets to silence critics: Chevron has used pressure tactics to force major media outlets to prevent advertisements critical of the company from being published. Chevron responded to an ad campaign from the Rainforest Action Network by directing its lawyers and public relations firms to leverage the company's influence and demand that the New York Times and Washington Post pull the ads. Despite Chevron's complaints, the New York Times ran the advertisements. However, the Washington Post initially succumbed to Chevron's pressure and pulled the ads temporarily. Of course, the fact Chevron was contemporaneously paying for the publication of advertisements attacking its critics was of no small irony.

• Taking out advertisements attacking critics: Chevron has taken out multiple paid advertisements in Ecuador, in the United States, and across the internet accusing the Amazon community leaders suing Chevron of being liars, frauds, and con men. Chevron has also taken out ads attacking the independent court-appointed expert in Ecuador, the judge, and other participants in the lawsuit. The use of paid public advertisements to attack and intimidate court officials is unethical and would result in sanctions against the company's lawyers if it were done in the United States.

Chevron's "scorched earth" approach to its critics is pathetic, to say the least. But that's what happens when some of Big Oil's corporate leaders don't want to be reminded that they are responsible for the discharge of more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon Rainforest.

But the facts are the facts. While we can understand Chevron's desire to forget about the mess it made in Ecuador, and to wish that its critics would go away, it's time for the company to stop trying to silence the opposition.

For more information, visit www.chevrontoxico.com.

#

Read More

Obama, Ecuador, and Chevron: Big Oil’s Hypocrisy

As the economic and environmental losses mount on the Gulf Coast so do the similarities between the growing BP oil spill and the existing oil contamination in the Ecuadorian rainforest, the latter courtesy of Chevron.

First and foremost, they both are ecological disasters that have forever changed the landscape’s environment and way of life for both the people and business owners of the Gulf Coast and the indigenous tribes of Ecuador.

In testimony on Capitol Hill BP, Transocean and Halliburton blamed each other for the accidental spill on the Gulf Coast, sounding much like Chevron in Ecuador, where the oil company has blamed everyone but itself for the billions of gallons of oil and toxic water dumped intentionally into the rainforest by Texaco, purchased by Chevron in 2001.

BP blamed Transocean and Transocean blamed Halliburton, just as Chevron has blamed Ecuador’s state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, and, oddly enough, even Texaco, arguing that just because it bought the oil company does not mean it is responsible for what Texaco did. (Never mind that this argument undoes about 150 years of legal rulings.)

Like Chevron, BP and its oil exploration partners are being very careful in their public statements about legal liability. But U.S. and Ecuadorian laws are clear on this point. The Economist reported this week that because BP is “majority shareholder in the consortium” and the “project’s operator, it is liable under American law for the costs of cleaning up.” Under US law either being the majority shareholder or being the operator is sufficient to make a company liable for the costs of cleaning up. Texaco was the exclusive operator of the oil well sites in Ecuador.

Meanwhile, President Obama has not been shy about pointing his finger directly at BP.

Twelve days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama, visited Venice, Louisiana, to meet with local fishermen, industry representatives and local leaders. President Obama made it clear BP was to blame for the spill:

“BP is responsible for this leak — BP will be paying the bill,” he said.

President Obama’s press secretary said the White House would “keep a boot to the throat of BP” to ensure that it fulfilled its responsibilities.

In 2007, six months after his election as President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa visited the former concession area of Texaco, now owned by Chevron, to see firsthand the contamination and destruction left behind by the oil company after almost three decades of oil exploration. President Correa expressed support and concern for the residents who suffer from cancer, respiratory illness and other diseases as a result of living near toxic materials. He lifted soil from the ground and stated the obvious, “Soil with oil, friends.”

He was the first President of Ecuador to visit the contaminated sites since Texaco left Ecuador in 1992.

Chevron’s new attack-dog law firm, Gibson Dunn, points to this moment as evidence that Ecuador is a corrupt and backwards country and that Chevron cannot get a fair trial there -- even though Chevron pleaded with a U.S. court to move the lawsuit to Ecuador in the first place.

When President Correa visited several of over 900 unlined oil pits where Texaco left its toxic sludge, Chevron said it was “sorry” the President had gotten involved by expressing concern for the people living in the contaminated area.

Is Chevron sorry the President of the United States did the same thing on the Gulf Coast? Does Chevron think the United States is a corrupt and backwards country?

Chevron is drowning not only in a multi-billion liability in Ecuador, but also in its own hypocrisy.

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