Miami Herald Journalist Proves Chevron Lied About The Remediation

"(Chevron) always show(s) you the shirt the coat and the tie. They never show you the tumor underneath the shirt."

Miami Herald reporter Jim Wyss has caught Chevron in yet another lie about its so-called “remediation” agreement. Wyss toured one of the oil well sites, Sascha 53, that Chevron told both U.S. and Ecuadorian courts had been cleaned.

He described what he saw after a man with him dug just a few inches below the ground in today’s Miami Herald article:

“Within a few inches the dirt gives off the pungent odor of petroleum. Within a few feet the dirt glistens with oil residue. When a few handfuls of the soil are dropped into a bucket of water, a thick oil-slick coats the surface.”

Chevron claims it is not guilty of the contamination in Ecuador because the remediation agreement between Chevron and the Ecuadorian government releases it from any responsibility. However, scientific tests have proven that Chevron has never cleaned up the oil sites mentioned in the agreement.

Today the Amazon Defense Coalition released this press release that argues the reporter’s eye-witness account of the contamination is further evidence that Chevron has lied to U.S. Judge Lewis Kaplan who has, by and large, accepted Chevron’s statement that it remediated a small percentage of the oil sites.

The only response Chevron’s spokesperson could come up with was accusing Ecuadorians of “spiking” the ground with oil themselves.

Wyss quoted Donald Moncayo, a representative of the Ecuadorians, saying:

"They (Chevron) always show you the shirt the coat and the tie," he said of the area, called Sacha 53, which is now pastureland and spindly trees. "They never show you the tumor underneath the shirt."

"This is their remediation effort," Moncayo says. "They're no better than animals."

Exactly.

Read More

Speak Truth & Join Our Conspirators’ Club Today!

The spokesperson for the Ecuadorian plaintiffs warned public interest advocates this week in an oped in the Capitol Hill publication, The Hill, against criticizing powerful interests for their misconduct, as the lawyers, environmentalists and other supporters have done in the 18-year-old litigation against Chevron for oil contamination in the Ecuador rainforest.

Simply speaking the truth might make you a co-conspirator to extortion and racketeering!

The oped, entitled Standing Up To Chevron, reveals how utterly ridiculous Chevron’s extortion and racketeering charges are. Chevron is portraying the plaintiffs and their consultants and supporters as “Mafia thugs” because they have tried to tell the story of Chevron’s criminal behavior in Ecuador to news reporters and elected officials with the hope they will obtain a damage award or a settlement to cleanup the contamination.

Karen Hinton, the spokesperson, wrote:

“I admit we have not been kind to Chevron. We have told our story largely through the news media, including a devastating “60 Minutes” segment. We have written hundreds of critical press releases and blogs. We met with Members of Congress to mitigate Chevron’s lobbying to end U.S. trade preferences with Ecuador, which the company sought in retaliation for our lawsuit. We complained to Attorneys Generals about Chevron’s withholding information to shareholders about potential liabilities. And we alerted Ecuadorian officials to Chevron’s fraudulent cleanup and urged an investigation.

“Fairly basic tactics for public advocacy campaigns. Hardly ripped from the pages of the Godfather series.”

As ludicrous as the charges are, Hinton warned against the ramification of the charges and a U.S. Court’s decision to allow them to be filed.

“The chilling message of (the judge’s) ruling should make many professionals think twice about taking on powerful interests. Public relations executives representing corporations on either side of litigation could be accused of conspiring to drive down stock prices. Lobbyists could be named as racketeers seeking to put a competitor out of business. Issue a critical press release or meet with a public official, and accusations will fly about extorting and shaking down profitable companies.”

Read between the lines and it becomes clear that the extortion charges are a ruse. Chevron’s real agenda is to obtain a ruling from U.S. Judge Lewis Kaplan that the recent $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron is unenforceable. Such a ruling could be used as a litigation tool in what will likely be future court disputes about the judgment’s enforcement. Judge Kaplan has not hidden his bias in Chevron’s favor and his utter distaste for the Ecuadorians and their country. See recent Chevron Pit blogs here and here. The Southern District Court judge made that very clear when he enjoined the Ecuadorian plaintiffs from enforcing the judgment anywhere in the world, a decision that they steadfastly reject.

Hinton wrote:

“A Chevron lobbyist once remarked about the lawsuit: ‘We can’t let little countries screw around with big companies like this – companies that have made big investments around the world.’

“Hopefully, Chevron's attempt to criminalize public interest advocacy will be thwarted on appeal and "little countries" and their people will have the chance to hold corporations accountable for improper conduct. Meanwhile, if you are in the advocacy field, think twice before you hit the send button on that next blog or press release -- or be prepared to join me in the co-conspirator's club.”

Read More

Chevron Raises CEO John Watson’s Salary As Americans Place Oil Giant In “Least Reputable” Category. Even Watson’s Own Neighbors Don’t Like Him!

News from Chevron: The oil giant has raised CEO John Watson’s salary by 7 percent to $1.6 million. Chevron’s Board may like his performance, but most Americans do not. A survey found that Chevron was one of the least reputable American corporations; it ranked 124 out of 150.

John Watson

And Rainforest Action Network blogger, Linda Capato, discovered that Watson’s own neighbors don’t approve of his practices and policies, especially those in the Ecuadorian rainforest, where Chevron intentionally dumped over 18 billion gallons of toxic sludge into the soil and waterways. Capato wrote about her trip to Watson’s neighborhood.

”We’ve been handing out flyers to residents of Lafayette, CA, which is a relatively small suburban community. Folks here are super nice and really receptive to our message. We’ve felt really welcomed in this tiny hamlet. In fact, just yesterday, we met many of Watson’s close personal friends, most of which responded very openly and warmly to us. One friend of his let us know that she plans on telling him exactly how she feels on the issue, and how wrong she really thinks he is by not taking responsibility for his company’s toxic mess. Once she saw the flyer, she responded by saying, “Yeah, what they’re doing is just wrong, they should take responsibility, and I plan on telling him more.”

An Ecuador court recently awarded the indigenous peoples of the rainforest a $9.5 billion judgment to clean up the contamination, but as The Thin Green Line reports, Chevron is refusing to pay. This means that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs suing Chevron must request a court in another country to enforce the judgment since Chevron has sold all its assets in Ecuador. Meanwhile, Chevron is trying to block enforcement of the judgment in the United States, while continuing to sell its assets in countries that might hold Chevron accountable for its actions. One of the lawyers for the Ecuadorian plaintiffs said in a recent press release:

“While the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs and their counsel may be unable to take any steps to even prepare for enforcement proceedings, (a U.S. court) allows Chevron a generous window of time within which to divest itself of overseas assets that might be used to enforce the Ecuadorian Judgment,” wrote Julio C. Gomez of Gomez LLC and Carlos A. Zelaya, II of F. Gerald Maples PA.”

This is one more example of Chevron’s misconduct in its global massive scheme to avoid taking responsibility for what it did to Ecuador’s rainforest and its people and culture. Spread the word. If more people knew, Chevron would rank 150th, right at the bottom.

Read More

A "Slap in the Face" for Ecuadorians Pursuing Justice Against Chevron

Late Monday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of a $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron Corp. over environmental damage in Ecuador's Amazon region.

The ruling is outrageous for several reasons, which we will get to below. First, we should note there are serious reservations about Judge Kaplan’s impartiality in this case. Mike G over at the Understory (Rainforest Action Network's official blog) noted this concerning Judge Kaplan's bias in Chevron's favor:

In addition to being biased in Chevron’s favor, Kaplan allegedly encouraged Chevron to file the RICO suit in the first place. At a September hearing, Kaplan said, “Now, do the phrases Hobbs Act, extortion, RICO, have any bearing here?”— obviously signaling that he’d be willing to hear such allegations made in his courtroom. As Donziger’s brief says, ”It is no wonder that Chevron would seek to have the [RICO suit] assigned to the very judge who invited and encouraged its instigation.”

Kaplan wrote to the U.S. State Department requesting input on the implications of Chevron’s RICO suit for international relations with Ecuador, but the State Dept. replied with a big fat “No comment.” Translation: You and Chevron are on your own, Kaplan.

It appears now that Kaplan has delivered for Chevron. As mentioned above, late yesterday evening he issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of $9.5 billion dollar judgment against Chevron for being responsible for one of the world’s worst environmental disasters in Ecuadorian Amazon. Karen Hinton’s statement on behalf of Amazon Defense Coalition laid out why the decision was a “slap in the face” for Ecuadorians pursuing justice:

“This decision is a slap in the face to the democratic nation of Ecuador and the thousands of Ecuadorian citizens who have courageously fought for 18 years to hold Chevron accountable for committing the world's worst environmental disaster. The trampling of due process in the court’s refusal to consider key evidence or hold a hearing to determine the facts is an inappropriate exercise of judicial power that will harm the United States’ relationship with Latin America and other parts of the world. It disregards the scholarly and comprehensive 188-page opinion of Ecuadorian Judge Nicolas Zambrano, a well-respected member of Ecuador's judiciary. It also ignores key evidence that Chevron has committed a series of frauds in Ecuador to cover up its unlawful misconduct.

"We want to emphasize that after appeals in Ecuador the Ecuadorian plaintiffs retain their full right to lawfully enforce the judgment of their own country's courts in any of the dozens of nations around the world where Chevron has assets. In the meantime, we will appeal the decision on multiple grounds."

To stay up to date on the developments in this story, please make sure to follow us on Twitter @chevronpit and also keep an eye on ChevronToxico.com.

Read More

U.S. Investigations Into Wastewater Raise Similar Concerns As In Ecuador

U.S. investigations into hydrofracking — a drilling method to tap natural gas resources — revealed the same findings of an Ecuadorian judge who recently awarded $8.6 billion in damages to a group of indigenous tribes suing Chevron for oil contamination in the Amazon rainforest. The judge found that wastewater generated by Chevron’s oil exploration had contaminated drinking water and soil — the same concern raised by hydrofracking investigations in Pennsylvania, New York, Louisiana and Texas. New York Times’ reporter Ian Urbina wrote this disturbing article about the safety impacts on drinking water. Not surprisingly, industry officials denied harm, just as Chevron has done in Ecuador.

Urbina wrote:

“With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground.... More than 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater was produced by Pennsylvania wells over the past three years, far more than has been previously disclosed. Most of this water — enough to cover Manhattan in three inches — was sent to treatment plants not equipped to remove many of the toxic materials in drilling waste.”

In Ecuador, Chevron never treated the wastewater at all. The oil giant produced 16 to 18 billion gallons of untreated wastewater and intentionally dumped it into the rainforest during the company’s operations in Ecuador from 1964 to 1992. Tests taken in 1994 found dangerous levels of benzene in Chevron’s wastewater, but no tests on radioactive elements have been conducted. View this video of a former oil operations assistant for Texaco (purchased by Chevron in 2001) who talks about how the company intentionally dumped untreated wastewater directly into the rainforest.



Urbina wrote:

The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.... The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.

Chevron has argued that harmful chemicals in the wastewater have been diluted by the rainforest’s waterways.

Urbina wrote:

A confidential industry study from 1990, conducted for the American Petroleum Institute, concluded that “using conservative assumptions,” radium in drilling wastewater dumped off the Louisiana coast posed “potentially significant risks” of cancer for people who eat fish from those waters regularly.... In Texas, which now has about 93,000 natural-gas wells, up from around 58,000 a dozen years ago, a hospital system in six counties with some of the heaviest drilling said in 2010 that it found a 25 percent asthma rate for young children, more than three times the state rate of about 7 percent.

Health studies have shown higher rates of cancer, respiratory illnesses, spontaneous abortions and other diseases in the former Chevron concession area, in comparison to other areas of Ecuador. Not surprisingly, Chevron denies any negative health impacts.

Read More

Chevron Buries Its Final Arguments In Ecuador; Embarrassed To Proclaim It Didn’t Harm a Blade of Grass or One Person

Chevron filed its final arguments to the Ecuadorian court in January, but you would never know it. No press release from the oil giant. No posting on the web site, either.

Why? Because, according to Chevron, its operations over three decades resulted in no harm to the environment or to people. Zero.

Read more below, and see the first part of the plaintiffs’ final arguments, detailing the overwhelming evidence of illegal levels of toxins in the soil and water.

Chevron Finds Its Toxic Dumping Didn't Harm A Soul In Ecuador
In Final Argument, Oil Giant's Tally for Clean-up is "Zero" Despite Dumping Billions of Gallons of Waste Into Amazon

Amazon Defense Coalition
7 February 2011 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Karen Hinton at 703-798-3109 or Karen@hintoncommunications.com

Lago Agrio, Ecuador -- Chevron has found that dumping of billions of gallons of toxic waste into Ecuador's Amazon didn't harm a single person or the environment, according to the company's final argument submitted to the Ecuador court hearing the historic environmental case.

Chevron denies in the 292-page document that there are damages despite admitting during the trial that it dumped billions of gallons of chemical-laden "water of formation" into the streams and rivers of the Amazon that indigenous groups relied on for their sustenance. The indigenous groups are now decimated because of the toxic waste, according to evidence submitted to the court.

"The plaintiffs have not established that there was any negligence" on the part of Chevron in its operations in Ecuador, the company claims in the document "The plaintiffs have not proven the existence of the supposed damages … that they allege in their lawsuit," it added.

Curiously, Chevron's final argument -- called the "alegato" in Ecuador -- can not be found on the company's website or in its press materials. The company for weeks has refused to publicize its final argument in a case the company claims that it should win based on the evidence.

"Chevron is embarrassed to promote a document that is so clearly misleading," said Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for the 30,000 plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit. "Chevron's final argument makes a mockery out of the evidence at trial and is so deceptive that not even Chevron wants people to read it."

Chevron from 1964 to 1990 operated a large oil concession in an area of Ecuador the size of Rhode Island, reaping billions of dollars in profits before pulling out of Ecuador in 1992.

Chevron has admitted during the trial that it created in Ecuador a system of oil extraction that led to the deliberate discharge of more than 16 billion gallons of chemical-laden "water of formation" into the streams and rivers of Ecuador's Amazon, home to six indigenous groups.
The dumping of the toxic "formation water" was confirmed by the company's own environmental audits by environmental sampling, and by Rodrigo Perez Pallares, Chevron's legal agent in Ecuador who admitted to the practice.

The lawsuit also accuses Chevron of abandoning more than 900 unlined waste pits gouged out of the jungle floor that leech toxins into soils and streams; contaminating the air by burning the waste pits; dumping oil along roads; and spilling millions of gallons of pure crude from ruptured pipelines. Internal company documents demonstrate that Chevron officials ordered field workers to destroy records of oil spills, that the company refused to develop an environmental response plan or pipeline maintenance program, and that Chevron never conducted a single health evaluation or environmental impact study despite the obvious harm it was causing.

Chevron's "alegato" claims that not even one person in Ecuador was harmed by the company's operations, even though several independent studies in academic journals suggest dramatically higher rates of cancer and other health problems in the region where the oil giant operated. Studies show thousands of people have either died or are at increased risk of contracting cancer due to the contamination.

"Chevron's final argument is scientifically and morally bankrupt," said Hinton, the spokesperson for the plaintiffs. "It is just astonishing that a public company continues to bury its responsibility for causing a flagrant and ongoing human rights violation that is putting thousands of lives at risk."

Chevron's "alegato" in Ecuador continues the longstanding practice of the company of ignoring scientific evidence and denying all responsibility for causing environmental harm.

Chevron's lead scientific expert in the Ecuador trial, the American John Conner, has admitted under oath in U.S. court that his company never found that any of Chevron's activities worldwide have harmed a single individual. Conner has been working for Chevron on a variety of lawsuits for most of two decades and has been paid at least $5 million for his work in the Ecuador trial.

The Connor testimony in a trial last year in Mississippi, was rejected by a jury and resulted in a $19 million judgment against Chevron.

The plaintiffs submitted the first part of their "alegato" on January 18, finding "irrefutable evidence of contamination" at each of Chevron's 45 well and production sites inspected by the parties during the trial. The chemicals 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 plaintiff's alegato concluded that the sampling results and other evidence provided by Chevron prove the claims of the plaintiffs.

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 Should Pay for Its Pollution in Ecuador

The arch-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page blasted the Ecuadorians’ lawsuit for the third time recently. Some things in life are so predictable. Below is the letter to the editor in response.

Chevron Should Pay for Its Pollution in Ecuador

Your editorial "Shakedown in the Rain Forest" (Sept. 23) on Chevron's multibillion-dollar liability in Ecuador is the third time in recent years that you have attacked this important litigation. Contrary to what you claim, scientific evidence from experts demonstrates that Chevron has been contaminating an area in Ecuador the size of Rhode Island and taking advantage of indigenous groups for decades. Now Chevron is trying to sabotage a seven-year trial to evade accountability.

Rather than deal with the overwhelming evidence of its contamination, Chevron has launched a strategy of intimidation, distraction and delay. It has filed legal actions in 10 different U.S. federal courts against 23 people (including two lawyers) involved in the case, claiming ex parte contacts with a court expert constitute "fraud." Chevron knows that such contacts were allowed by the court and were common practice by both parties. Chevron devised this narrative as part of a strategy to defeat enforcement of a potentially adverse judgment.

From 1964 to 1990, Chevron deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic "formation water" into streams and rivers which thousands of people in the rain forest relied on for their drinking water. This hot liquid had a saline content 10 times higher than ocean water and contained heavy metals and carcinogens. Laboratory samples submitted during the trial found that all of the company's former well sites are extensively contaminated— often at levels hundreds of times higher than Ecuadorian and U.S. norms. The disaster is larger than the BP Gulf spill and will cause harm for decades if not cleaned up.

Several peer-reviewed health evaluations have found significantly elevated rates of cancer where Chevron operated. Daniel Rourke, formerly associated with the Rand Corp., has found that up to 10,000 Ecuadorians are at significant risk of contracting cancer in the coming decades. Ann Maest, a leading geochemist, found that many Chevron pit sites "still contain high levels of . . . petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants" and are in close proximity to wells used for drinking water.

The editorial also mischaracterizes Chevron's so-called "remediation" in the mid-1990s. Chevron employed a laboratory method that produced artificially low measurements of toxins that were used to induce the government to grant a release. As a result, two Chevron employees and several former Ecuadorian officials face fraud charges in Ecuador. Chevron's internal audits conducted in the early 1990s found that remediation was necessary "at all production facilities," that toxic wastes were not treated and that oil spills "were not cleaned up." Yet Chevron never conducted a single environmental or health-impact study during the 26 years it operated in Ecuador.

Chevron for years insisted on moving the litigation to Ecuador after it was filed in U.S. federal court in 1993. With the evidence against it mounting, Chevron needs to stop forum shopping and allow Ecuador's courts to determine the extent of its responsibility for this disaster.

Jonathan S. Abady

Attorney for Ecuadorian plaintiffs

New York

Read More

Chevron Proves Own Guilt In Ecuador With Devastating Internal Audits

More Than 100 Expert Reports, Chevron’s Own Lab Tests, and Chevron’s Audits Demonstrate CEO Watson Lying to Courts and Shareholders

Environmentalists and other concerned citizens have been spreading the news about two environmental audits, conducted by Chevron, that detail the vast contamination the oil company left behind as it exited Ecuador in 1992. That’s right. Chevron’s audits prove Chevron’s responsibility for the 18 billion gallons of toxic formation water dumped into the Ecuadorian rainforest, and the more than 900 unlined waste pits built by Texaco to store its deadly sludge and cancer-causing chemicals such as Chromium 6. These pits, built in violation of all legal norms and industry customs, have been leeching toxins into the soil and water for decades. Just look at the 60 Minutes segment to show how Chevron recklessly built the pits with pipes to drain their sludge into the surrounding streams.

Meanwhile, Chevron has been desperately filing legal briefs in the United States and abroad to discredit the Cabrera report, an analysis of the contamination that the Ecuadorian court ordered as part of the 17-year legal battle. Only problem is that the Cabrera report is based, in part, on Chevron’s own audits and Chevron’s own sampling results. There’s also the 100 other expert reports in evidence that found extensive contamination at 100% of the former Chevron well sites. And Chevron’s own tests, submitted into the court record, also found illegal levels of contamination. See this chart.

Chevron, in other words, is jammed by its own evidence. It can talk about the Cabrera report all it wants, but it cannot escape the fundamental fact that there is voluminous and unassailable evidence that it proved the case against itself. And we know Chevron’s sampling results are valid because they are corroborated by the results produced by the technical experts for the Amazon communities and by the sampling done by Cabrera himself.

Read about the Texaco audits here and here and at these blogs:

Chevron vs. Chevron: Oil Company Digs for Truth in Ecuador Case, and Finds It


Chevron’s Own Audits Prove Company Lied About Massive Pollution In Ecuador

Chevron Lies About Its Toxic Legacy in Ecuador. Who Says? Chevron

Proof of Guilt

Read More

Chevron Lied To Columbia Journalism Review About Toxic Oil Well

Shushufindi 38, the famous pit closed by Texaco in 1984 as seen in recent months. Chevron’s tests found no contamination here.

Chevron has told the highly respected Columbia Journalism Review a flat-out lie about an oil well site in Ecuador and the harmful level of contamination found at the site’s oil pit, featured in a 60 Minutes piece that aired almost a year ago.

In a critique of 60 Minutes’ coverage of the eco-disaster lawsuit filed by indigenous tribes in Ecuador against Chevron, CJR writer Martha Hamilton said the CBS news show should have reported that the government-owned oil company Petroecuador operated the well site Shushufindi 38 after Texaco left Ecuador in 1992.

Had Hamilton contacted the plaintiffs in the lawsuit about her pending critique, she would have learned that Chevron lied to her. Court documents clearly show that only Texaco operated the well site, which Texaco closed in 1984.

Chevron also told Hamilton that soil tests turned up no contamination at the site. Again, court documents clearly show this to be false. Tests from the plaintiffs revealed illegal levels of toxins at over 400 times the Ecuador legal limit of 1,000 parts per million of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and over 4,000 times the legal limit as allowed in most states in the United States (about 100 ppm of TPH).

For copies of these court documents, go to:

http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/pkshu38closed1984.jpg
http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/pktexacopits.pdf

Chevron’s tests at the well site pictured above, on the other hand, showed no contamination. Why? Chevron took its test samples uphill and away from the well site. Taking soil samples far away and uphill from toxic waste sites where Chevron knows it will find little or no contamination, and then using those same samples to report the toxic waste sites pose no risk to human health, is part of the company’s fraud in the Ecuador litigation.

Hamilton also argues that 60 Minutes should have spent more time explaining the 1995 remediation agreement between Texaco and the government of Ecuador. Hamilton reported that Petroecuador is responsible for cleaning up Shushufindi 38, but we disagree.

If 60 Minutes had spent more time explaining the remediation agreement, viewers would have understood why we disagree, and Chevron would have looked even worse. Viewers would have learned that Texaco and Ecuador’s government negotiated the agreement after the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the US in 1993. They also would have learned that the agreement applied only to potential government claims, and expressly excluded the private claims being heard in the lawsuit.

Viewers also would have been told about how Texaco claimed to have cleaned about 16% of over 900 oil pits built by Texaco, a clear violation of its agreement with Ecuador’s government (which required it to clean 37% of the pits). Yet Texaco didn’t actually clean those pits. It just bulldozed dirt over them. Hundreds of tests taken at these “remediated” oil pits demonstrate they are as toxic as the pits that Texaco didn’t clean. Even Chevron’s tests submitted into court evidence show that Texaco did not clean these pits. The entire clean-up on which Chevron’s defense rests was a sham.

Because Texaco said it cleaned the pits, people living in the area thought they were cleaned so they built homes directly on top of toxic waste dumps. Here’s an example at a so-called “remediated” pit at Shushufindi 43.

A home built on top of Texaco’s toxic oil pit at Shushufindi 43.

As a result, Texaco’s phony cleanup resulted in putting people even closer to the contamination, increasing the risk of exposure to harmful chemicals. Match that up with the fact Chevron has never issued a warning to the local population that the pits are dangerous hazardous waste sites.

Had Hamilton contacted both sides, she could have written a completely different story: about how Chevron is attacking 60 Minutes so it can divert attention from its cover-up of Texaco’s phony cleanup.

Read More

Chevron – Produce The iPhone & Evidence Your Contractor Has

A Chevron contractor in Ecuador, Diego Borja, claims the company cooked evidence and created dummy corporations to process laboratory samples – all in an effort to avoid a judgment in a large environmental trial.

Diego Borja

Chevron’s response: No comment.

But that’s just not good enough. Chevron should answer the explosive questions raised by Borja and turn over any evidence that Borja has regarding the lawsuit filed by Ecuadorians living near and, in some cases, on top of oil pits filled with toxic chemicals that were left in Ecuador by Texaco.. (See other posts on The Chevron Pit that feature people living near the pits who have died from cancer.)

Borja says he has the proof of his allegations on his iPhone and in documents stored in Ecuador. Borja says his wife, Sarah Portilla (also a Chevron contractor), knows everything as well. More details about the damaging evidence

In fact, Borja’s relationship with Chevron is a family affair in place for at least three decades. Borja’s uncle has worked for Chevron for 30 years and owns the building where Chevron’s Quito attorneys lease office space, and where his nephew and Portilla have offices as well. One big unanswered question is the role of Chevron’s Ecuador-based legal team in working with Borja in his questionable efforts to undermine due process of law. Borja is now being paid a substantial sum by Chevron for carrying out his various dirty tricks operations.

In conversations with a childhood friend, Santiago Escobar, Borja tells him that he collected soil and water samples at contaminated well sites on behalf of Chevron and that he and his wife accepted the samples as representatives of Chevron’s “independent” laboratory, Severn Trent Labs, Inc. and then stored them in their office refrigerator. Court records obtained by the plaintiffs show Borja and Portilla’s signatures on chain of custody documents. of documents Download PDF

Borja says that Chevron’s lab is not independent, and that it “belonged” to Chevron and that he rented a house where a Chevron lab was located in Ecuador. Yet Chevron presented laboratory samples to the court during the trial from an independent lab.

What is also clear is that Borja expects Chevron to pay him handsomely for the so-called “bribery” videotapes that he recorded on Chevron’s behalf.
More details on Chevron's efforts to derail the lawsuit

The Ecuadorians, who are suffering the consequences of Chevron’s actions, as well as Chevron’s own shareholders, deserve answers to the disturbing charges leveled by Borja.

Here’s a sampling of just a few of Borja’s troubling statements:

“Chevron always stayed, supposedly, independent, and sent the analysis to have them analyzed… But I know that’s not true … I have proof that they [laboratories] were more than connected, they belonged to them.” . (Transcript 6, October 1, 2009 p. 6-8; Transcript 11, October 1, 2009, p. 6)

“I have correspondence that talks about things you can’t even imagine, dude….I can’t talk about them here, dude, because I’m afraid, but they’re things that can make the Amazons win this just like that (snapping his fingers).” ).” (Transcript 4, October 1, 2009 p. 3, 7-9)

“….if the judge here (in the U.S.) finds out that the company did cooked things, he’ll say, ‘Tomorrow we better close them down,’ you get it?” (Transcript 6, October 1, 2009 p. 10-11)

When he first spoke with Chevron about the videos, Borja said he expected to be covered in terms of security and economically – “in everything” after handing over the videos. He told them, “Obviously, I’m not going to ask for anything now, because it would ruin everything.” Chevron told him not to worry, but it is “totally understood.” (Transcript 21, October 7, 2009 p. 11)

According to Borja, Chevron told him “We can’t give you money because…it would compromise the evidence…. What we can do is (make you) our business partner.” Borja continued, “Now, that little word means a lot of things, right?”
When Escobar then said, “the objective is to become their partner. I mean, once you’re a partner of the guys, you’ve got it made,” Borja replied, “That’s right you dog. So, I… I’ve seen how things work here now. I mean, it’s a brass ring this big, brother.” (Transcript 2, October 1, 2009 p. 6)

Borja said he formed four companies for Chevron in order to make the work he did appear to be independent of Chevron. He implies that Chevron controls these companies. (Transcript 4, October 1, 2009 p. 12-13; Transcript 6, October 1, 2009 p. 9)

Sounding angry, Borja said Chevron could not force him to testify. “I told them,…if I feel that I’m being tricked, you’ll eat shit.” ….they’re (Chevron executives) right here, 40 minutes from me… from where I live. Just 45 minutes away is the office of the [Unintelligible], so I just show up, ring the bell and everyone knows who I am. I sit down and tell them, ‘Let’s see, this is the way it is.’ And the joke is over, dude, you get it?.... I’ll shit on them in a second [Unintelligible]. I mean, what they… what I’m trying to explain to them is that I also have… I don’t know how much to say, but I have only so much patience, you get it? (Transcript 5, October 1, 2009 p. 4-5, 11)

Read More

Real Fraud In $27 Billion Environmental Lawsuit Is Texaco’s Phony Cleanup & Chevron’s Effort To Cover It Up

Amazon Defense Coalition

For Immediate Release
April 5, 2010
Contact: Karen Hinton
703-798-3109
karen@hintoncommunications.com

Real Fraud In $27 Billion Environmental Lawsuit Is Texaco’s Phony Cleanup & Chevron’s Effort To Cover It Up


WASHINGTON, DC (April 5, 2010) -- The Amazon Defense Coalition released the following statement about a news account that questions evidence submitted in the $27 billion environmental lawsuit brought by Ecuadorian indigenous groups against Chevron for oil contamination. Spokesperson Karen Hinton said:

“The plaintiffs’ reports in question show illegal levels of contamination to human health and the environment. Chevron’s own reports at the same oil well sites also show illegal levels of contamination. While we take Dr. Charles Calmbacher’s statements about the reports seriously, we believe his recollection almost six years after the fact is inaccurate.

“Dr. Calmbacher clearly agreed to have his signature placed on materials, including reports, that were to be submitted to the court, and he acknowledged he was actively reviewing the reports with our local, technical team. We are bewildered, frankly, at his testimony.

“We know that Dr. Calmbacher’s testimony that there were no health risks contradicts public statements that he made in 2004, at the time of the judicial inspections. On August 27th, 2004, a major media outlet quoted him as saying: ''Their defense is a lot like the tobacco industry saying there is no evidence linking smoking and lung cancer,'' said Charles Calmbacher, a certified industrial hygienist who works as an expert for the plaintiffs.” (See below.)

“Finally, it is clear scientific evidence from the four sites in question, including Chevron’s own evidence, strongly suggests that the real fraud is Texaco’s phony cleanup that was used to secure a release from Ecuador’s government.”

New York Times article, August 27th, 2004:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/business/court-goes-to-oil-fields-in-ecuador-pollution-suit.html?pagewanted=2

“ChevronTexaco says it has seen no credible evidence to link such problems to oil exposure and cites reports by American experts who take issue with health reports presented by the plaintiffs.

“The company also insists that its tests show no presence of hydrocarbon contamination in drinking water and argues that cancer rates in the areas at issue are lower than in other parts of the country.

''Their defense is a lot like the tobacco industry saying there is no evidence linking smoking and lung cancer,'' said Charles Calmbacher, a certified industrial hygienist who works as an expert for the plaintiffs.”

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