It has been 15 years since a group of Ecuadorian indigenous people filed a lawsuit against Texaco for oil contamination, resulting from 26 years of substandard oil extraction efforts. In those years, Texaco —acquired by Chevron in 2001—consistently has denied responsibility, delayed justice, and defamed the Ecuadorian people who need help the most. In other words, the oil giant has acted like most people expect Big Oil companies to act — like bullies — instead of the good corporate citizens that Chevron’s advertising campaigns like to portray.
Meanwhile, the Ecuadorians living in Texaco’s former dumping ground suffer every day. Texaco released over 18 billion gallons of oil and toxic water into the rainforest from 1964 to 1990. Experts indicate that over 1,000 people have died from cancer. Spontaneous abortions are two to three times more likely to occur in the concession area than in other parts of Ecuador. It’s almost impossible to find a family not touched by the illnesses.
Until you see the extent of the contamination, it is hard to believe. Almost 1,000 pits the size of large swimming pools scar an area the size of Rhode Island. Texaco built the pits to dump the remaining oil and toxic water after drilling. To reduce costs, Texaco violated standard industry practice and never lined the pits. As a result, the toxins have flowed directly into the streams and underground water supply. Texaco eventually covered the pits with dirt—as if hiding the pollution would make it go away — but never took any real steps to clean up the area. Some people even built their houses on top of the covered pits, thinking that the pits were safe.
Chevron has done almost nothing to help people or restore clean drinking water. The company has never conducted a single health impact study, probably because the corporation doesn’t want to create any evidence of its wrongdoing. You can view photos of some of the families here and more photos of the contamination here.
Chevron has denied responsibility with misleading statements and arguments that insult the intelligence. For example:
- The soil in Ecuador is naturally toxic. (This claim despite the incredibly rich ecological diversity native to the rainforest.)
- The people in Ecuador are sick because they have poor personal hygiene. (This argument, replete with imperialist and racist undertones, is simply factually incorrect.)
- Fecal coliform bacteria in the water gave the Ecuadorians cancer. (This argument ignores the absolute fact that coliforms do not cause cancer.)
- Oil is good for you, so don’t worry about it being in the water. (This claim despite the numerous chemicals in oil that are known to cause human health problems, including benzyne, a known carcinogen.)
Each of these statements can be sourced directly to Texaco or Chevron.
In the courtroom, Chevron’s main line of defense has not been much better:
- An agreement with the government of Ecuador released Texaco from liability.
- Texaco cleaned up the contamination.
- The government-run oil company, Petroecuador, is the real polluter.
What Chevron fails to mention is that the agreement released only the government of Ecuador and specifically states that it does not release third-party claims (like those of the indigenous plaintiffs). They also fail to mention that cleaning up the contamination requires more than just pouring dirt into only 16 percent of the nearly 1,000 oil pits. Petroecuador didn’t start operating the oil fields until 1992, a year before the lawsuit was filed. While Petroecuador was part owner, Texaco operated the oil sites until the day it evacuated the country, leaving behind its antiquated and shoddy production system for Petroecuador and the Texaco-trained Ecuadorians to use.
Recently, for the first time ever, an elected American official traveled to Ecuador to view the contamination left by the American oil company. Congressman Jim McGovern, chair of the House Human Rights Caucus, was shocked by what he saw. On the House floor, he said:
“I saw firsthand the terrible human and environmental costs that have resulted from the decades-long failure to properly clean the contamination left by oil drilling and production. Specifically, the sites I visited were those that were under the control of Texaco, now Chevron ... The drinking water for thousands of poor people is horribly unfit — even deadly. Children are drinking and bathing in water that reeks of oil. In one village, San Carlos, I couldn’t come across a family that hasn’t been touched by cancer. Mothers brought their children to show me the terrible rashes and sores that covered their bodies.
“As an American citizen, the degradation and contamination left behind in a poor part of the world by this U.S. company made me angry and ashamed.”
It’s hard for anyone not to be angry and ashamed when they see firsthand what’s been done to the rainforest and the people. Perhaps that’s why Chevron’s CEO David O’Reilly and other top Chevron executives have never traveled to Ecuador to see their company’s legacy. They would rather turn a blind eye — to see it is to face an enormous responsibility.
While scientists fight over BPA studies, Congress could just act
EPA demands attorneys remove video critical of cap-and-trade
Comments
View as Flat
ChristianHGross Posted 8:18 am
31 Dec 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&si ...
This article talks about both sides and the fundamental problem I see is as follows:
PetroEcuador took over Texaco and forced them to leave Ecuador.
Texaco did make a mess, and because they were pushed out did not take the effort that they should have to do a better job cleaning.
PetroEcuador kept on pumping garbage and sludge since they took over the fields in 1990 did not clean up the fields.
The problem that I see here is that Chevron and PetroEcuador are BOTH responsible. Yet all we see is that Chevron is responsible. Heck if I were Chevron I would be doing the same thing, since they were kicked out, and here we are with the same problems 18 years later.
Permalink
khinton Posted 11:45 am
01 Jan 2009
Permalink
ChristianHGross Posted 8:46 am
02 Jan 2009
Let's start with the first issue: (BTW I would like to point out that I have relatives who live in Ecuador, and I have had my father die on what we think was cell phone radiation.)
What was the legal law present at the time of the deeds. Because if you are going to hold a company liable then you have to look at the laws of the time. This gets very complicated since at the time Ecuador was a mess in terms of legal and law. Ecuador is not one of the most corrupt nations on the planet for nothing.
If the laws at the time did not forbid Texaco from doing what they did, then things become more complicated. What has to be proven is that at the time of action Texaco did things that they could have avoided. On this there is some legal footing since Texaco was not doing the same thing in Ecuador as they were doing in other places.
Legal precedent I think in this cannot hold since you have to ask yourself what laws were in place? Ecuador? Then all Chevron would have to say is, "bugger you I am not there." America? Ah, but then comes the problems of international and the fact that Ecuador is a mess in terms of law. International court is a joke so let's not even start there.
Texaco was pushed out, and anybody who says otherwise is doing revisionist history. And the fact that they were pushed out is relevant because what Chevron can argue is that they clean up was cut short. After all they did clean up. Now you might say they did not do it good enough. Fair enough, but you have to go back to the times of the act and ask yourself what were the local conditions. All Chevron has to say is, "we were kicked out and to the best of our abilities we tried to be safe and cleaned up..."
I am not trying to say Chevron is innocent. What I am saying is that this tack is fool hardy. The lawsuit should have attacked both Chevron and PetroEcuador. Because the real problem is that you have to go back and establish what the problems were. That is problematic because you are going to have to prove intent, intent that Texaco wanted to harm people.
If I were Correa, I would have done the following:
Let foreign companies come back in and make investments.
Get companies to help clean up the mess. I would have taken the tack and said, "I know things back then were funny, but that was then, this is now." People are dying, getting sick and we need to move on, move forward.
Take a smaller slice in the royalties in return for acting responsibly.
I actually see a much bigger problem. With Correa defaulting, and scaring foreign capital, there will be more home brewed messes.
Permalink
ChristianHGross Posted 8:54 am
02 Jan 2009
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/global/latin/36998464.h ...
"The law would create a National Mining Company and increase state control over foreign corporations, which are largely Canadian. But the law would also allow mining to take place anywhere, including in protected areas and sharply limit community input."
My question to you is why are you not talking about this as well? This is a disaster in waiting. And it is completely home brewed...
Permalink
Cyril R Posted 4:37 am
04 Jan 2009
Are you hearing me, Ecuador? Solarize!
Permalink