Thursday, July 19, 2012

Canadians Warned About Chevron's Machinations, Says Environmental Group


The internationally-respected Canadian and Brazilian courts can "put an end to Chevron's rope-a-dope strategy" to evade accountability for the widespread human suffering it caused in the Ecuadorian rainforest by illegally discharging billions of gallons of toxic waste, a worldwide environmental group said today in a blog on its website.

A group of Ecuadorian indigenous and farmer communities recently won an $18 billion judgment in Ecuador against Chevron, but the oil giant has refused to pay. The Ecuadorians are now seeking to enforce the judgment by seizing Chevron's assets in Canada and Brazil, as Chevron sold all of its assets in Ecuador.

Below is the blog, written by Paul Paz of Amazon Watch, a well-known environmental group working to protect the Amazon.  


Engaged for years in a campaign of subterfuge to evade its legal obligations related to a massive environmental contamination in Ecuador. In Canada, where the Ecuadorians have come to force Chevron to comply with the rule of law, people should be aware of this company's long track record of abusing indigenous communities in Ecuador by poisoning their streams and rivers with toxic waste. Internationally respected Canadian courts have a chance to put an end to Chevron's rope-a-dope strategy to delay, deny, and distract attention from this gross and even criminal misconduct.

Chevron predictably refuses to pay an $18 billion judgment against it in Ecuador, where it was found by a court after an eight-year trial to have recklessly operated six large oil fields in the rainforest from 1964 to 1992. To understand how easily it would be Chevron to pay this judgment, the company's gross annual profit since the trial started in 2003 is over $150 billion. That's over eight times the damages imposed by the court.

The judgment number is modest compared to the magnitude of the damage. By way of comparison, the smaller BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico produced a total liability of $40 billion, or more than twice as much as Chevron's liability in Ecuador.

The Ecuador court found that Chevron–out of pure greed–dumped more than 16 billion gallons of toxic "water of formation" into Amazon waterways, and the trial record is replete with evidence of how the company engaged in a fraudulent "remediation" to try to cover up the contamination; doctored soil and water samples to hide the extent of the contamination from the court; never spent a penny on environmental monitoring or safety; used sub-standard practices that produced an outbreak of cancer that has killed numerous people; and then tried to bribe both the judge and high-level officials in Ecuador's government to quash the legal case. This is the same company that has already paid a $30 million fine in the U.S. for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Iraq.

Independent journalists have long confirmed the company's hand in creating this unprecedented catastrophe. See these recent news reports from the Australia program Sunday Night; the American show 60 Minutes and this extraordinary video from the plaintiffs summarizing the evidence and Chevron's corrupt attempts to derail the trial. A story in Vanity Fair on the courageous Ecuadorian lawyer Pablo Fajardo, who was raised in abject poverty and who has been targeted with death threats for trying to hold Chevron accountable, can be downloaded here.

The Ecuadorian communities originally filed the case in the U.S. in 1993; Chevron delayed the matter for nine years before convincing a U.S. judge to shift the venue to Ecuador. At the time, Chevron lawyers filed 14 sworn affidavits praising Ecuador's courts as fair and transparent. These affidavits can be read here.

Looking back, it is clear that Chevron thought it likely the plaintiffs would melt back into the jungle if the case was thrown out of U.S. courts. Instead, the affected communities re-filed their claims under Ecuadorian law in the local court where Chevron had begged for the trial to be held. When the evidence began to point to its guilt, Chevron started to attack as unfit the courts it had previously praised. It also engaged in political engineering, mounting a six-year lobbying effort that is still ongoing to convince the United States to cut trade preferences for Ecuador just for allowing the lawsuit to be brought in the place where Chevron wanted the trial to be held.

When asked by 60 Minutes to explain the hypocrisy of wanting the case in Ecuador and then trying to get out of the case once it got to Ecuador, Chevron lawyer Sylvia Garrigo said, "We don't want to be sued anywhere, period." Garrigo also compared the awful waste pits in Ecuador to the oil in the makeup on her face.

There is no better snapshot than Garrigo of Chevron's deeply held belief that it is entitled to impunity for its human rights abuses in Ecuador–abuses that have killed or threaten to kill thousands of people with cancer and other diseases, according to independent peer-reviewed health evaluations in the region. See here and here.

Chevron might think it can get away with ignoring court orders in Ecuador, but it will not easily obtain impunity in Canada's courts. Chevron's interest in various oil field and refining operations in Canada are reportedly worth billions of dollars. They could easily be sold with the proceeds redirected for clean-up in Ecuador. That would be poetic justice indeed for a company that admitted contaminating drinking water with benzene-laden "water of formation", and then denied it was legally responsible.

As terrible as the BP spill was, it was still an accident. Chevron's contamination of Ecuador's rainforest was the product of a planned design to inflate profits by externalizing production costs. The company even built pipes that continue to drain the toxic waste from its pits into nearby streams, as documented in the trial and in the 60 Minutes segment.

According to American law professor Judith Kimerling, who chronicled these facts in her 1991 book Amazon Crude, Chevron engineers told the indigenous people of the region that oil had vitamins and other positive medicinal effects. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the noted environmental lawyer, penned a powerful firsthand essay after visiting the region in 1991. See here. Kennedy said he witnessed "antiquated equipment, rusting pipelines, and uncounted toxic waste sites"; the jungle, he said, "was broken by landscapes reminiscent of war."

Chevron is notorious in communities around the world for trying to win through intimidation, political lobbying, and corruption what it can't win legitimately in court. In Ecuador, the trial judge found that Chevron tried to grind the case to a halt as part of its defense strategy. The company once filed 18 motions in 30 minutes and then tried to recuse the judge when he did not rule on them fast enough. Chevron employee Diego Borja, under the direction of company lawyers, tried to bribe a sitting judge in a sting operation; Chevron threatened other Ecuadorian judges as well as lawyers for the plaintiffs with sham criminal prosecutions; and finally, offered $1 billion to Ecuador's government (half of which was to go to an environmental project) to induce it to illegally quash the case. Chevron lawyer Doak Bishop famously announced that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs "are irrelevant". This sworn affidavit from Ecuadorian lawyer Juan Pablo Saenz provides some of the gruesome details about Chevron's ongoing efforts to corrupt Ecuador's judicial system.

Chevron's new public relations narrative claims that the evidence in Ecuador is in its favor. What the evidence actually shows is that Chevron, via its own audits and technical reports, proved the claims of the plaintiffs and then lied about it to shareholders and the financial markets to artificially boost its stock price. That helps explain why a U.S. Congresswoman and three institutional investors recently asked U.S. regulatory authorities to investigate the company for violating securities laws. See here and here.

Another prominent U.S. elected official who visited the region in 2008, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, described seeing a "terrible environmental and humanitarian crisis" that made him "ashamed" as an American. See here for a letter he wrote to President Obama about Chevron's activities in Ecuador.

Which brings us back the falsehoods Chevron will try to market in Canada. First, the few minutes of outtakes from the movie Crude that Chevron posted on its website are spliced and diced in its editing room to present a completely distorted view of the case. Joe Berlinger, the film's director, told Fortune that he is "dismayed at the level of mischaracterizations" in Chevron's presentation of his outtakes.

American lawyer Steven Donziger, who Chevron has spied on and harassed for years as he too tried to hold company officials accountable, emphasizes throughout the full 600 hours of outtakes the strength of the evidence against Chevron and his own frustration that Chevron that was corrupting the court and improperly delaying the trial. Chevron won't show you these outtakes, which faithfully reflect the conclusion among the legal team that the scientific evidence against Chevron is overwhelming.

Chevron's take on the science is equally unavailing. To the extent you can judge somebody by the company they keep, consider this: one of Chevron's scientific consultants in the Ecuador case is Dr. Douglas Southgate, who works with an institute funded by the oil and gas industry to cast doubt on global warming. See here. Another, Ralph Marquez, is the former lead lobbyist for the chemical industry in Texas. See here. Michael Kelsh–the author of a grossly flawed cancer study funded by Chevron–was hired by a company owned by a former Chevron Board member. See here. (One can better understand how Chevron uses junk science by reading the classic book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscure the Truth On Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.)

The evidence relied on by the Ecuador court clearly shows that all of the toxic substances Chevron and the plaintiffs found at hundreds of contaminated well sites in Ecuador are dangerous to human health and can kill people at high exposures, according to the Agency for Toxic Disease Registry, the leading authority on toxicity in the U.S. government. Yet Chevron continues to deny any harm has occurred.

Chevron's paid "expert reports" claiming there is no risk to human health are pre-cooked by company lawyers. For example, the Chevron-funded Kelsh study severely undercounts the incidence of cancer in Ecuador's Amazon by relying on official mortality data when most rainforest residents die quietly in the forest and therefore never enter the national cancer database. In its first iteration, Kelsh never disclosed in the study that he received funding from Chevron. Chevron can also cite the existence of some "clean" water and soil samples from the trial, but it lifted these samples up-gradient from the waste pits as part of its fraudulent sampling and analysis plan, exposed here in a report by Dr. Ann Maest.

Incidentally, Dr. Maest–one of the most respected experts in the world on how contaminants travel in groundwater–testified under oath recently that there is massive contamination of water in Chevron's concession area. See here and here. In a blatant act of deceit, in a recent blog Chevron leaves the false impression that Dr. Maest agrees with the company that there is no water contamination. See here.

Chevron's assertion that the plaintiffs wrote the judgment is a both a fabrication and a final act of desperation. It plays into the company's fundamentally racist notion that an Ecuadorian judge is simply not capable of writing a considered, intelligent 188-page decision that picks apart and destroys its arguments, as was done in this case.

Of course, these arguments already were litigated and resolved in the trial that Chevron wanted. But to Chevron, any court or judge who disagrees with it is just part of an ever-widening conspiracy. As of now, the members of this "conspiracy" include numerous judges in Ecuador, dozens of respected media outlets that Chevron claims have been "hoodwinked" by the plaintiffs, prominent U.S. law firms such as Patton Boggs, and the highly respected Canadian lawyer Alan Lenczner, who represents the Ecuadorians in their legal action. You might as well throw in Sergio Bermudes, probably the most respected litigator in Brazil, who just joined the case to help the plaintiffs.

Chevron's goal in Canada will be to reopen the litigation so it can kick the can down the road several more years, calculating it is cheaper to pay the hourly rates for an army lawyers than it would be to clean one of the largest oil disasters on the planet.

Canada's courts will have a great opportunity to finally block Chevron's rope-a-dope, cynical, and manipulative legal strategy.

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.




Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Chevron’s Growing Reputation As Rogue Company Reinforced by New Charges of Misconduct in Nigeria


Reinforcing Chevron’s growing reputation as a rogue company ignoring safety requirements and local laws in countries across the globe is a recent report that Chevron refused to allow its workers to evacuate an oilrig in Nigeria before an explosion killed two men.

Reuters recently reported the workers had raised safety concerns and asked to evacuate but Chevron refused. About 154 workers jumped from the rig into water and had to be rescued by local fishermen.

“Chevron knew for over a week that the well was unstable yet they refused to evacuate us," a worker said in the Reuters article. A witness said, “If it were not for the fisherman those guys would have died in the water.”

This latest incident is one example of Chevron’s long history of ravaging natural environments, violating human rights and ignoring indigenous communities in countries across the globe, including Ecuador, Burma, Angola, Australia and even in its own corporate backyard, Richmond, California.





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.



Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Chevron Can't Stop The Lies

In a recent letter to the Canadian newspaper, The National Post, Chevron repeats its lies to distract attention from its own misconduct in the world's largest oil-related environmental disaster in the Ecuadorian rainforest. 


For example, Chevron representatives are fond of claiming that a number of U.S. courts have “found” that there was “fraud” in the litigation in Ecuador. This is completely false. When Chevron made this assertion to one journalist who included it in his story, his publication, Courthouse News, was forced to run a retraction once it realized the reporter had been misled, stating that while “[a]n earlier version of this article quoted a Chevron spokesman as saying that eight federal courts had found the Ecuadorean plaintiffs had committed fraud. In fact, the courts issued crime-fraud exception findings during discovery. Chevron’s fraud allegations against the Ecuadorean plaintiffs remain unproven.” See here.
No U.S. court has made any final determination with respect to Chevron’s fraud allegations. In fact, 13 U.S. courts rejected or otherwise declined Chevron’s invitation to apply what is known as the crime/fraud exception. Such an exception requires a court to make only a prima facie showing that a fraud might have occurred if proven to be true. But no actual factual findings have been made. As one court succinctly put it: “The circumstances supporting [Chevron’s] claim of fraud largely are allegations and allegations are not factual findings."  Another wrote that Chevron was making a "mountain out of a molehill."  See here.

Chevron tries to distract attention from these facts with statements replete with falsehoods; meanwhile, independent journalists have long confirmed the company’s hand in creating this unprecedented catastrophe.  See these recent news reports from the Australia program Sunday Night; the American show 60 Minutes and this extraordinary video from the plaintiffs summarizing the evidence and Chevron’s corrupt attempts to derail the trial.   A story in Vanity Fair on the courageous Ecuadorian lawyer Pablo Fajardo, who was raised in abject poverty and who has been targeted with death threats, can be seen here.

Chevron takes emails and other correspondence out of context and cleverly edits video to make it appear that our own experts do not believe there is contamination. Yet one of the most respected experts in the world on how contaminants travel in groundwater – Dr. Ann Maest -- testified under oath recently that there is massive contamination of water in Chevron’s concession area. See here and here. In a blatant act of deceit, in a blog Chevron leaves the false impression that Dr. Maest agrees with the company that there is no water contamination.  See here.
Chevron’s assertion that the plaintiffs wrote the judgment is a both a fabrication and a final act of desperation. For this argument, Chevron relies on more paid experts who analyze what they call “word strings” from an internal memo from the plaintiffs that appeared in a handful of paragraphs in the 188-page judgment.  Yet arguments from the memo using the same language were submitted to court in numerous motions throughout the eight-year trial.  It is completely plausible for a court to adopt arguments and language from briefs or other materials submitted to the court.
The real and only fraud is Chevron's environmental crimes, its phony remediation, its manipulation of evidence during the Ecuador trial and its abuse of the rule of law by delaying and attempting to derail the trial during the eight-year-long proceeding. See here, here and  here.
These facts, as confirmed by Ecuador’s courts and independent journalists, are bad for Chevron.  More to the point, they explain why the company tried to sabotage the proceedings in Ecuador, and how it will now try to convince courts it Canada that somehow it was the victim of a shakedown by indigenous groups in Ecuador.
Don’t believe it.





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.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

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.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

The Canadian face of the biggest lawsuit in the world

The Chevron Pit spoke with Jeff Gray of Toronto's Globe & Mail yesterday about the Ecuadorians' new lawyer, Alan Lenczner. Gray wanted to know why Lenczner decided to take our case.

We told him: "Because he knows he will win, and Chevron will lose."

After an indepth review of the Ecuador and U.S. court record on the case and a trip to Ecuador to view the contamination, Lenczner joined the legal team.

“It (seeing the contamination) influenced my decision a lot. I just saw the devastation … and I’ve seen the plight of these people,” he said. “… Forget the noise about lawsuits and distraction and internal memos and everything else, the fact remains that this is a mess.”

Read the story here: The Canadian face of the biggest lawsuit in the world



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.


Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Interesting Reads: BP Owes $192 Billion On Gulf Coast & Chevron's Secret Deal With Ivonne Baki

Interesting reading on The Huffington Post and The Business Insider. See below.

BP Owes $192 Billion for Gulf Oil Disaster, Not $15 Billion Settlement It's Seeking

On Friday, the Financial Times reported that BP is hoping to reach an agreement with U.S. authorities which would require it to pay under $15 billion to settle all criminal and civil penalties arising from the 2010 Gulf oil disaster. The Department of Justice is reportedly seeking $20 to $25 billion. Negotiations between the DOJ and BP are accelerating and "an agreement could be reached before the Democratic party's convention in September," the FT reported.

While $15 billion sounds like a lot of money -- and it is -- it is a far cry from what BP owes for the many costs associated with the largest offshore oil spill in history. To date, a full accounting of exactly what BP should owe for its crimes in the Gulf has not been made public. Such an accounting is vital if we are to ensure that justice and restoration are delivered to the Gulf Coast and that such a catastrophe never occurs again.

A straightforward application of just the most pertinent U.S. laws yields a fine of $192 billion. (For simplicity sake, I only address BP's fines.)

Sound high? Here's why it's not. (read more)

Why Chevron Fired Ogilvy


Chevron knew full well that an executive at its PR agency, Ogilvy PR, had ties to the Andean parliamentary president in Ecuador, Ivonne Baki, and fired the shop because the agency failed to bend the Ecuadoreans to its will, not because it was a conflict of interest: That, in a nutshell, is the conspiracy theory alleged by The Chevron Pit, a blog maintained by rain forest activists who successfully sued Chevron for its pollution of the Latin American jungle.

Chevron ostensibly fired Ogilvy after it discovered that one of its executives, Felipe Benitez, had given advice to both the Ecuadorean government and environmental groups hoping to preserve the Amazon. We pointed out that the move seemed weird because Benitez's LinkedIn profile listed the fact that he had those clients dating back to 2008, so this shouldn't have come as a surprise.

Chevron Pit now alleges that Chevron knew about Benitez all along and was hoping that he could sway the government to not enforce an $18 billion judgment environmental activists won against the company for polluting the forest:
There is simply no way Chevron could not have known that the firm of its lead lobbyist on the Ecuador matter was also representing Ecuador's government. In fact, we suspect that was all part of the "value" Ogilvy was offering Chevron for its fee of $600,000 per year.
(read more)


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.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Rattled Chevron Fires P.R Giant Ogilvy, But Questions Remain

The pressure on Chevron over its $18 billion Ecuador environmental judgment appears to be rattling company management. We already reported how 40 institutional investors hammered Chevron in recent days over its bungling of the litigation, asking that the long-running case be settled before the oil giant suffers further damage to its reputation.

Now we have the bizarre saga of Chevron firing its longtime lobbyist in Washington, the highly-respected and influential Wayne Berman, over something related to the Ecuador matter. The question is what is that something.

Last week it was reported Chevron fired Berman's firm Ogilvy because one of the agency's low-level employees offered advice on environmental public relations at an event organized by Amazon Watch. Amazon Watch is that pesky group of environmental activists who have driven Chevron crazy for years over its failure to clean up its mess in Ecuador. (Note that the young PR executive who spoke at the Amazon Watch event did not even mention Chevron and Ecuador.)

This week Advertising Age reported that Ecuador's celebrated Yasuni environmental project also  "halted its relationship with" Ogilvy. The Yasuni is an area of oil-rich rainforest inhabited by two non-contacted indigenous groups. Ecuador's government is trying to raise money from governments in exchange for a promise never to let oil companies exploit the territory.

We were surprised to learn that Ogilivy was representing Chevron -- a sworn enemy of Ecuador's government given their battles over who should clean up the oil pollution in the country -- and Ecuador's government at the same time.

Is there a connection between the two?

We think so. There is simply no way Chevron could not have known that the firm of its lead lobbyist on the Ecuador matter was also representing Ecuador's government. In fact, we suspect that was all part of the "value" Ogilvy was offering Chevron for its fee of $600,000 per year.

Chevron Pit readers may remember postings from several months ago (here and here) about Chevron offering a bribe to Ecuador's government in exchange for killing or stopping enforcement of the $18 billion judgment against it for massive oil contamination.

The bribe included a $500 million contribution to -- you guessed it -- the Yasuni project coupled with an effort to recruit corporations and governments around the world to raise more money.

But the plot thickens. The person heading up the fundraising effort for Ecuador is Ivonne Baki, who has close ties to Chevron and has tried to intercede on Chevron's behalf before to kill the lawsuit. See this press release and this Miami Herald story. Baki was also reported to be floating Chevron's bribe offer to kill the case from her perch inside Ecuador's government.

How is it that Oglivy and Berman, who have represented Chevron since 2004, acquired Yasuni as a client around the same time Chevron tried to bribe Ecuador through its Yasuni payment?

Was Chevron subsidizing the Yasuni PR effort through its own payments to Oglivy as a way to curry favor with Ecuador's government to kill the lawsuit?

Did Chevron use a young PR exec as a scapegoat to fire Oglivy because the Yasuni bribery plot turned south, possibly exposing company officials to liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

Stay tuned.


Ivonne Baki -- Yasuni

Ogilvy- PR Firm 

John Watson -- Chevron

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.

Friday, June 1, 2012

Chevron Fires Big Shot Lobbyist Wayne Berman After He Hires Young PR Environmentalist

Chevron may be huge, but it's full of people with small minds.

The gigantic public relations firm, Ogilvy, hired a young man who has been involved in environmental causes, and Chevron went ballistic, firing the firm and along with it, Wayne Berman, a powerful and influential lobbyist in Washington, DC. Berman is an Ogilvy partner and has worked for Chevron since 2004.

We hear Berman is not happy. Maybe more to follow?

We know all about Chevron's revenge tactics. If you mess with them, you pay a price.

See Bloomberg story below.

Chevron Fires Ogilvy As Lobbyist Over Ecuadorean Dispute

By Jim Snyder - May 31, 2012 8:00 PM ET

Chevron Corp. (CVX) fired Ogilvy Government Relations as its U.S. lobbyist after a person affiliated with the firm spoke to a group advocating for residents of the Ecuadorean rainforest in a multibillion legal fight with the oil company, a person familiar with the matter said.

On May 9, Felipe Benitez of Ogilvy’s public relations branch gave a presentation to San Francisco-based Amazon Watch on “strategic communications for environmental defense and protection on human rights,” according to that group’s website. Lloyd Avram, a spokesman for Chevron, which was Ogilvy’s third-largest lobbying client last year, said the company discovered a serious conflict recently. He declined to comment about the nature of the issue or the date Chevron ended its relationship with Ogilvy.

Another person, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, said the conflict concerned Benitez and his talk to Amazon Watch, which advocates on behalf of indigenous tribes in the Amazon basin and has called damage from oil drilling in Ecuador “Chevron’s Chernobyl.”

“Chevron discovered a material conflict of interest with Ogilvy,” Avram said in an e-mailed statement. “It could not be resolved and made our relationship with them untenable. Under the terms of our agreement, we terminated the relationship.”


Ogilvy Revenue

Ogilvy received $600,000 from Chevron in 2011 to lobby on energy, environmental, tax and financial policies in the U.S., according to federal lobbying records, making the oil company its third-biggest client by revenues, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political and lobbying spending.

Ogilvy, the sixth-largest U.S. lobbying firm by revenue, according to the center, had represented Chevron since at least 2004, public records show. Ogilvy’s various units are owned by WPP Plc (WPP), a communications company based in Dublin. Avram declined to comment on Chevron’s plans to replace Ogilvy.

While Chevron, based in San Ramon, California, doesn’t operate in Ecuador, it has become embroiled in a lengthy legal fight over the alleged disposal of toxic wastewater from drilling operations by Texaco Inc., which used to operate in the country and was acquired by Chevron in 2001.

Previous Work

Previously, Benitez worked for Fenton Communications, and had helped Ecuador improve its global image, according to his page on Linked In, a social networking website.

“Chevron informed Ogilvy & Mather of its decision to end its relationship with Ogilvy Government Relations because of a perceived conflict with Ogilvy PR,” Rachel Ufer, a spokeswoman for Ogilvy public relations, said in an e-mailed statement, referring to the parent company. “As this is primarily a personnel matter, we are unable to provide further detail.” Amazon Watch didn’t return a phone call seeking comment.

Chevron is fighting an $18 billion judgment from an Ecuadorean court finding the company was responsible for damage. The company argues that Texaco performed all the environmental remediation under the terms of its contract with Ecuador. It has accused the plaintiffs’ lawyers and Ecuadorean officials of fraud and misconduct in the case.

Ecuadoreans filed a lawsuit yesterday in the Superior Court in Ontario targeting Chevron assets in Canada as a way to begin collecting on the judgment, because the oil company has few assets in Ecuador.

In Washington, Chevron spent more than $9.5 million on lobbying last year and keeps a team of outside firms to lobby on a variety of issues.

More than 70 companies and trade groups paid Ogilvy Government Relations more than $20 million to lobby on their behalf in 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which is based in Washington.

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.