Actually, we first learned about Chevron’s South American shenanigans from our friends at Amazon Watch, who produced this brilliant parody about the oil company’s Amazon antics, including petroleum profiteering and wide scale environmental abuses in Ecuador.
But mainstream media outlets are finally starting to take big oil to task, exposing its corporate social responsibility mantras as little more than hot air.
Chevron, according to a “60 Minutes” report that aired last night, is the third largest company in the United States, with oil interests all over the world. Drilling far from home, the company has responded to the U.S.’s unquenchable thirst for oil. While reaping a tidy profit–despite the economic downturn, Chevron managed to increase revenues by 25% (to $263 billion USD) in 2008 — Chevron has consistently engaged in business and environmental practices that have had very real and devastating consequences for communities and ecosystems in South America, Africa, and on other continents.
Photo: Kayana Szymczak, via chevrontoxico.com
Chevron’s dirty work has been especially damaging in Ecuador, where the world’s largest environmental lawsuit in history–with more than 30,000 litigants–is getting underway. Chevron, which started oil prospecting in Ecuador in the 1960s, took the money and ran, leaving a trail of environmental hazards–including leaching waste wells–in its wake.
To learn more about the situation, check out “60 Minutes’” full report in this video:
And to learn more about what you can do to hold big oil accountable for its environmental and human atrocities, check out Amazon Watch’s action alerts.
About the Author
Related Posts
44 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
I didn’t know about any of this. There really needs to be a world policing force that holds multinationals responsible for what they do outside their home country.
↵ -
Chevron’s “60 Minutes” spokesperson is the same woman who previously said that Amazon rainforest resident’s health problems are associated with their bad hygiene. This blantant disregard for the Ecuadorians whose lives have been made such a misery typifies the upper echelon of this highly profitable corporation. See: http://www.chevrontoxico.com or http://www.texacotoxico.org. It’s all there in black and white.
↵ -
Wonder if we’ll see anything about this in The New Yorker…probably not, what with all the Human Energy bullshit they run.
↵ -
So so sad – good to see mainstream media finally getting on board. Maybe they had an advertising deal fall through with them.
↵ -
Julie, thanks for posting this. I saw it on tv last night, it was really moving. It’s nice to see that big corporations aren’t getting away with picking on the ‘little guy’ at least in this case. But, it is also more reason why we need to get away from using oil, besides pollution it is causing so many other problems in the world. We need to get the world out from under the thumb of the oil empire.
↵ -
What do you mean ‘not getting away with it’?
There will be a bit of an uproar now, for a few days, maybe weeks, and that’s it. Everyone will still continue to fill their vehicles and line these people’s pockets.
There may be some legal battles, but their high priced, dirty lawyers will quell that and it’ll be business as usual.↵ -
Luke- Absolutely! I’ll be posting another article tomorrow about Shell and its role in environmental and human crises in Nigeria. You’re right– all this mounting evidence should be more impetus for reducing our dependence on oil.
↵ -
I find it amazing how many people take a “60 Minutes” show to heart. Especially knowing that the show was taken from the plantiffs perspective.
Little facts went into the production of the “60 Minutes” episode.
A list of a few of the misrepresentations include:
1. The claim that Texpet made over 4 billion in their venture in Ecudor. A close look at Texpet earnings show only a profit of 460 million while PetroEcudor made 21 billion. “60 Minutes” was told this fact and choose to ignore.2. The sites that “60 Minutes” kept showing are current sites that PetroEcudor uses. These sites are not Texpet property. Also these sites were not Texpet responsiblity to clean up and remediate under the agreement with PetroEcudor. “60 Minutes” was made aware of this fact and choose to ignore.
3. The supposed expert, Richard Cabrera, was paid directly from the plantiffs attorney. His report contains exact sentences from the plantiffs attorney’s lawsuit. These sentences include sampling test results and dollar figures assigned to damage. “60 Minutes” was given pictures, legal documents, and check stubs from plantiffs attorneys and choose to ignore.
4. No responsibility assigned to PetroEcudor. The state owned company has been exclusively operating the oil industry in Ecudor since 1992 and has failed to maintain equipment, properly train personnel, or remediate mandated oil pits. There is a documented history of errors by PetroEcudor that has led to massive oil spills. “60 Minutes” was given facts about problems PetroEcudor has caused and choose to ignore.
5. The water that “60 Minutes” showed flowing directly into the Amazon River was tested and showed no amounts of petroleum products. However large amounts of bacteria from human waste did show up. Thus indicating that dumping of human was by an Ecudor company was occuring. Once again “60 Minutes” was given copies of these sampling and test results but ignored this fact and choose to report otherwise.
So this should be a lesson for all posting on this board to truely investigate any claim on your own and stop being controlled by false reporting.
↵ -
Do you by any chance work for this company?
↵ -
Contrary to the plantiff’s attorneys claim, not one case of cancer has been reported to be caused by exposure to petro products in this area.
In fact indigenous tribes in the areas surrounding Texpet remediation sites have grown by 5x since 1992.
↵ -
Champion of Truth-
Given that you choose not to use your real name or disclose your own affiliation, I’m skeptical of your claims, none of which are substantiated.
I didn’t just take a “60 Minutes” episode “to heart,” as you say, and write an article against big oil based on that alone. I’ve traveled extensively in Ecuador and seen the environmental and human damage done by oil companies and other corporate interests, and I’ve interviewed Americans, including the author John Perkins, who have been complicit in these actions, which, yes, are atrocities.
↵ -
Hear hear! Show yourself ChampionOfTruth! I am willing to listen…
↵ -
South America has been so abused by multinationals. Awful.
↵ -
I watched 60 Minutes last week and saw the piece on Chevron. I found it interesting that they did not have a Master List of the oil pits. If they’re innocent, why wouldn’t they be able to produce a list? Why wouldn’t they want to say, “…here’s our list and we’ve cleaned up the pits, we did out job and stuck to our end of the agreement.” The lawyer that on 60 Minutes as a true lawyer; I thought she danced around the subject.
The bottom line is that U.S. companies operating in foreign countries need to start taking responsibility for their actions. Instead of “getting into bed” with local (possibly corrupt) companies/governments, take the high road and conduct business based on truth and integrity. Make sure companies/governments know and understand their part of the agreement. If not walk away. I know it will be tough to walk away from millions of dollar, but it could be done. Wouldn’t companies want to produce “good karma” instead of “bad karma”?
BTW: this is what happens when we “depend” on oil. I felt bad for the wildlife and the people of Ecuador. It’s the 21st century, come on!
↵ -
Julie,
“Given that you choose not to use your real name or disclose your own affiliation”
Not sure what you mean by affiliation. I am a registered professional engineer and a member of my cities tennis league…just a low paid civil engineer working for the man. Don’t know why it’s pertinent to know my “affiliation”.
“I’m skeptical of your claims, none of which are substantiated.”
What is really substantiated in your opinion? Is “60 Minutes” coverage substantiated?
Do you know for a fact what equipment was installed by Texpet and that this equipment was sub-par?
Do you know for a fact that the stream shown on “60 Minutes” was contaminated with TPH and not fecal bacteria?
Do you know for a fact that the testing done by the plaintiff’s attorney occurred in an internationally accepted testing facility?
Do you know for a fact that the samples collected by Richard Cabrera were actually located in old remediated Texpet sites or were they still active PetroEcuador sites?
How do you know a local tribe in Ecuador didn’t cover old remediated Texpet site with petroleum hoping for a big payout? Or maybe the head lawyer Donziger didn’t? Can you say this hasn’t happened with complete confidence?
Or that Doug Beltman, the consulting engineer that works for Stratus Consulting, isn’t hoping for some profits from the litigation. Or is it only evil American oil companies that are greedy and lie?
Or that all of the damage shown in “60 Minutes” was not from failure of PetroEcuador to properly maintain equipment. As I am sure you know all equipment whether it be pipes, pumps, compressors, heat exchangers need tons of maintenance. Most equipment will fail in a few years if not properly maintained.
Are all of the claims supported on ChevronToxico substantiated? http://www.chevrontoxico.com
What about the rebuttal claims on Chevron’s website; are these substantiated?
http://www.texaco.com/sitelets/ecuador/en/default.aspxDo you not think that they purposefully made the Chevron representative look like fool or that they made Donziger look like he really really cared. If Donziger cared so much about the people of Ecuador and not about the money why isn’t he doing the work pro-bono.
“I’ve traveled extensively in Ecuador and seen the environmental and human damage done by oil companies and other corporate interests”
I am not arguing that the environmental damage in Ecuador is great. But to place blame squarely on Chevron is not right. Do I believe that Chevron remediated the sites to the letter that was called for by them by Ecuador and environmental agency? Yes. Did they remediate any areas outside of what they were required to do? Probably not. Why would any business pay for services that are not required by them?
When the state run PetroEcuador signed the release of liability form they took all liability of any remaining issues and also took responsibility for maintaining the equipment so that environmental disasters do not occur. PetroEcuador failed its people and environment.
“John Perkins, who have been complicit in these actions”
What company or government did John Perkins work for? I went to his website but he failed to mention who he was an “Economic Hit Man” for? Can you substantiate his claim? Maybe he is lying. He did say in his bio that he was paid to keep quiet by his former company. Maybe he made the whole thing up to make money…evil capitalist.
Could keep typing but have to stop.
My whole point is that there are two sides to every story. This one to me sounds like a money-grab by lawyers.
↵ -
when will people wake up, pull their heads out of their asses and realize that ETHANOL WORKS and is ultra-clean compared to this crap!
↵ -
Julie Schwietert,
Where is your response to ChampionofTruth regarding your “hit piece”?
John
↵ -
John-
I don’t feel a need to respond to “Champion of Truth.” There’s nothing in the article that ever suggested that environmental destruction is “squarely on Chevron”– as with any social problem, there are multiple and complex factors and actors that contributed to a problem–however, Chevron bears a significant amount of responsibility, which it’s clearly not accepting.
And as I’ve already stated, Chevron’s role in Ecuador’s environmental destruction is a subject I know fairly well, having talked with people who have had a hand in that destruction. So I don’t feel the need to defend the piece; it stands on its own.
↵ -
Julie,
You write:
“as with any social problem, there are multiple and complex factors and actors that contributed to a problem–however, Chevron bears a significant amount of responsibility, which it’s clearly not accepting. ”
Will you please explain to me how Chevron (actually Texaco or Texpet) did not accept responsibility for their actions?
Texpet did remediate the areas that were required of them by a contractual agreement with PetroEcuador. Remember this was a 60%-40% joint venture operation with Texpet owning 40%. As the minority stakeholder is Texpet suppossed to take responsibility for actions that PetroEcuador failed to perform? PetroEcuador released Texpet from all liabilities saying that the remediation work was performed to an acceptable level and in all areas required.
PetroEcuador is a state-run company. For those that are not familier with the term state-run; it means government (or nationalized) corporate entity. So in essence it was the government of Ecuador that release Texpet from all liabilities.
The arguement that the people of Ecuador didn’t release Texpet is silly. Considering Ecuador is a republic with publicly elected officials. These publicly elected officials are elected on the basis of representing the people. Since they make up the government, which controls PetroEcuador; all blame and responsibility that you feel Chevron needs to take should all be placed upon the government of Ecuador.
*on a side note I definately can agree with the people of Ecuador with the fact that sometimes I don’t feel as if my publicly elected officials truely represent me; seems like they are more out for themselves.*
You also write:
“Chevron’s role in Ecuador’s environmental destruction is a subject I know fairly well, having talked with people who have had a hand in that destruction.”
When I was in college I first wanted to go into medicine and become a surgeon. So for a class project I interviewed both a cardiologist and a dermatologist. Both interviews were fairly lengthy, lasting for about a hour. I then prepared a report with statistics and pictures of different surgeries. Since talked with these doctors do you feel this is a subject that I know fairly well (since I already stated I work as a civil engineer)? Would you trust me to perform open heart surgery or treat severe burns on you or a family member? I did talk to these doctors for a fairly long time; so I feel I know the surgeries fairly well.
Who were the people that you interviewed that gave you such deep insight (enough to claim you are fairly knowledgable in the subject) into the environmental destruction? Did these people represent both sides of the Ecuadorian environmental destruction subject? Or were the people interviewed only on the side of the plantiff’s? How many Texpet employees that worked in Ecuador did you interview?
↵ -
Pointless analogy – the equivalent of being concern, trying to make educated decisions and reconsider one’s patronage of a company is not the equivalent of doing open heart surgery after doing an interview.
But thank god someone is finally standing up for oil companies! Poor dears…
↵ -
The demand of buyers in the U.S. is what makes this cycle continue. Until Americans are willing and able to use less gasoline and seek alternative energy sources, big oil companies will continue to have a stranglehold on the world. We also need to drive less, eat less, and walk more. If we don’t take steps to correct this problem then we are just being hypocritical.
↵ -
People are trying, and the ideas and uses are spreading – as even “white middle class liberals” get into things, this enables more production of alternative energy sources, etc. which makes them easier and cheaper to produce.
You know what’s a hindrance? The fact that it’s hard-to-impossible to be completely pure in not using petroleum in some form, and somehow the people who think it’s all A-OK cry “hypocrite” when someone at least tries.
↵ -
I want off. I never want to have to support those companies again. Just give us a way please
↵ -
This story and comment board is full of hypocritical liberal hand-wringing and whining. You all use oil, none of you could or would stop using it, yet you bitterly complain about the people you pay to get it to you.
If you can’t stand the thought of sick foreign children, then either pay $6/gallon or sell your car (and your plastics, and you cosmetics etc). You won’t, which means you really don’t care about sick foreign children, you just feel as though you should.↵ -
Chris-
Really? Do you know personally know any of the liberals who are “hand-wringing and whining” here? I do. Speaking for myself, I don’t own a car. I walk or take public transportation. And all of the other people you point out as whiners don’t own cars either. They’re cyclists or public transport users. So how about some constructive conversation rather than screed?
↵ -
Chris, no one is saying oil is evil and let’s do away with it all – it’s a call for more accountability by the people responsible for the big mess. Even if Champion of Truth is right and Chevron has met all their “requirements”, there is still clearly something wrong. If they know what they’re causing but are washing their hands of it because they’re technically not doing anything illegal, perhaps they have moral obligations to meet.
The answer is never in the extremes – it’s not black and white, like, let’s either rape the earth or else not use oil at all. It’s about being responsible.
↵ -
Champion of Truth,
you sound so bitter.↵ -
Xavier,
Please explain how I have “bitter” tones in my writings?
If you would have said “skeptical” then I would have to agree with you. But “bitter”; I don’t understand how you derived that.
Yes, as I stated in my previous post I am very skeptical of the New York lawyer’s actions. Why is he not working on the case pro-bono? If his actions matched his words, than I believe that he should work on the case for free.
↵ -
People with good intentions need to eat, too.
↵ -
I think the point of Julie’s piece is to educate us about the cause and effect relationship that is happening with oil companies and indigenous cultures/environments.
Everyone knows it is not just Chevron who is going into these areas (and oceans) and wreaking havoc–but it is extremely important to report on these specific stories when they come to light so that people WILL think about how the way they live their life will devastatingly affect a community or area possibly on the other side of the world from them.
We are all a part of the solution, which means both currently cutting down on fossil fuel usage AND the larger step of moving toward diversifying our usage of renewable resources. From what I’ve read, I believe we currently have the capability to fully remove ourselves from the tangled web of oil, between wind, solar, RECYCLED biofuels, and other “fringe” sources, such as algae.
Articles like these keep it fresh in our minds the devastation that can occur because of staying with the status quo. The oil companies, and many government officials in different countries throughout the world, are too invested and are making too much money to back out or change their ways. So it is up to us…
↵ -
Julie,
My parents had actually told me about this special on 60 Minutes, but there’s really no way for me to be able to watch it–the Internet connection is just too slow to support the video. But apparently it was a good insight into what happened in Ecuador. What I really want to read is “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” but I just can’t find a copy down here.
Basically, I haven’t seen any of this damage first hand, but everyone knows about it. As a result, most Ecuadorians are very wary of foreign investors and as a result, there are often issues with things like mining. Just a few months ago there were protests over a contract the government gave to a foreign mining company. So the issue still lives.
I remember you sent me a video about the destruction Chevron did before I left back last summer, and I’m glad to see it’s getting more exposure now. Thanks for writing this piece.
Jon
↵ -
This is a good story, but it’s been around for a long time. Best treatment I’ve seen is Mike Tidwell’s book “Amazon Stranger: A Rainforest Chief Battles Big Oil” which was published in 1996.
↵ -
I wondered why the cute little girl… Then I was both disgusted and appalled.
↵ -
I lived in Ecuadorian rain forest with a community called the Achuar (who is part of the lawsuit) along with a group of doctors trying to help the community, and the damage that these companies caused knowingly and purposely is atrocious. Watch “trinkets and beads” for more info.
↵ -
A couple comments for ChampionOfTruth and others:
Chevron’s argument about being released from legal liability holds no water. No court in the U.S. or Ecuador has EVER accepted Chevron’s expansive interpretation of the release. When Chevron brings up the release these days, it’s not as a legitimate legal argument, but purely a PR one meant to obfuscate the issue.
The notion that Chevron can’t be sued by private citizens because of a contractual agreement with the government, which “represents the people,” is ridiculous. Think of it this way: if I go skiing, I have to sign a waiver relinquishing my right to sue the ski resort if I get hurt. That’s fine. But I have to sign that waiver voluntarily as a private citizen. The government can’t give the ski resort a blanket release that says NO ONE may sue them for any reason. The fact that as I am a voter, the government “represents” me doesn’t change that in the least.
What Chevron’s arguing is that a democratically elected government has the power to declare a corporation to be above the law if it wants to. Which is ludicrous.
As for Petroecuador vs. Texaco’s liability for the clean-up: that’s a contractual issue in the remediation contract that Texaco worked out with the government in the early ’90s. Yes, Petroecuador has failed to hold up its end of the bargain, as stipulated in that contract – and Chevron is free to sue Petroecuador if it wants to.
BUT the civil lawsuit in Lago Agrio is fundamentally NOT about that remediation contract, as Chevron likes to claim it is. The lawsuit is about what Texaco did in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was the sole operator. Texaco built a system that it knew would cause horrific pollution, it did so on purpose to save money, and this is documented in Texaco memos released during the trial. What happened since is in some ways irrelevant; Texaco (now Chevron) is being sued because what TEXACO did, starting in the late 1960s, was illegal and caused great harm to thousands of people.
…. and is STILL causing great harm today. Let’s not forget that much of the remaining pollution is at sites that Texaco built, abandoned before 1990 without cleaning up. I don’t see how Petroecuador can be liable for waste pits that Petroecuador has never touched. Furthermore, there are the sites that Texaco claims to have cleaned up in the mid-90s. There’s overwhelming evidence that they didn’t really do so at all; in many cases they just shoveled dirt over open waste pits. Chevron’s people can point at an open field and say “Look at this pretty grass!” but try digging down a few feet and see what you find.
Again, when Chevron says it’s not liable for the sites that are still polluted, that’s not a “fact” that 60 Minutes is choosing to ignore. That’s actually the whole core of the legal disagreement. Plaintiffs would argue Chevron IS liable, because Chevron bought Texaco, and Texaco built those sites, Texaco dumped the waste at those sites, Texaco designed and operated the whole system for nearly 30 years.
↵ -
A few more things:
1. See http://chevrontoxico.com/about/historic-trial/chevrons-scientific-fraud.html to learn how Chevron scientists have manipulated lab results and used improper sampling techniques to minimize evidence of contamination.
Also, you can go there and smell the drinking water from wells like Mr. Salinas’s well shown on “60 Minutes,” which Chevron claims doesn’t contain petroleum hydrocarbons. It SMELLS like gasoline. Unless you want to believe in some vast left-wing conspiracy in which local people and visiting reporters are flat-out lying about this on camera, I think Chevron’s got some explaining to do.
2. Chevron loves to claim that there are no proven cases of cancer from oil contamination. Well, duh. You can’t “prove” the cause of any specific case of cancer. Least of all in an area with minimal health services, where many if not most cases of cancer probably go undiagnosed. There’s still strong, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of elevated cancer rates in the region. See http://chevrontoxico.com/tags.html?tags=health+studies
The studies that attempt to refute these claims of elevated cancer rates are written by consultants on Chevron’s payroll.
3. Chevron has also paid Richard Cabrera for his work, so the notion that a check to him from the plaintiffs is some sort of a “smoking gun” is ridiculous.
4. Chevron’s claim about activists exaggerating Texaco’s profits by more than an order of magnitude, which ChampionOfTruth parrots, is also totally disingenuous. (See a theme here? They say things that are technically true but meaningless or intended just to obfuscate the real issues.) The $460 million figure is the profit made ONLY by Texaco’s subsidiary, Texpet, in Ecuador. The total profit taken in by Texaco from its operations there is closer to $30 billion.
↵ -
great points, thank you. it’s important to remember that this is a David and Goliath issue. we’ll soon find out if the truth and the law are as powerful as big oil.
↵ -
and the rest of the world is sooo much better huh?
↵ -
So oil companies are evil? Huh. Duly noted.
↵ -
All Oil companies working in developing countries are evil. Shell is the biggest of them all. Nigeria is their biggest victims and their atrocities have fuelled a war in teh Creeks in the Niger Delta of Nigeria. Its sad and my heart goes out to the suffering people there.
↵ -
Hey, “ChampionofTruth”! Surely, you are not a champion of English!
If you are a lawyer, why don’t you clean up your writing? If you are an engineer, why do you try to write like a third-class law student?Occasional apostrophes, perhaps?
↵ -
Chevron
717 S Broad St
Brooksville, FL 34601
(352) 799-6979If you even walk into this place to fill a water bottle at the sink there is an Indian (India)guy who will just start screaming at you. He even says that he will charge you $1.00 just to fill up a water bottle.
↵
