Blog Posts
Wednesday, July 14th 2010
20 years ago this month, Petroecuador assumed operation of the Oriente oil fields from Texaco Petroleum. During this time, Petroecuador has generated more than $50 billion in oil revenue for the Republic.
This wealth has not come without a cost – Petroecuador’s operating and environmental record has been poor. More recently, however, it must be acknowledged that the company is trying to do better:
- In 2002, Petroecuador developed a remediation plan for its Oriente operations. In 2005, Petroecuador’s government-approved clean-up began.
- In 2007, Petroecuador reported that the remediation cost for the 370 pits within the former concession area is $31.45 million. So far, at least 86 reserve pits have been remediated.
- Petroecuador has stated that its goal is to complete all remediation work by the end of 2013.
This is good news and it is clear that Petroecuador has the ability, the expertise, and the responsibility to clean up the Oriente oil fields. And, most importantly, Petroecuador appears to have the government’s support.
But the American trial lawyers behind the Lago Agrio lawsuit have interfered with Petroecuador. They have opposed the company’s clean-up and petitioned the Lago Agrio court to halt Petroecuador’s work – not out of concern for the environment but for fear that Petroecuador’s remediation “is changing the case.”
The lawyers’ case has harmed Ecuador as well. The Lago Agrio trial has been corrupted by the very lawyers who initiated it. They have filed falsified expert reports with the court. They have submitted phony evidence. They have secretly colluded with court experts. This is the definition of fraud and it’s not only being perpetrated at the expense of Ecuador’s courts, but also Ecuador’s government and its citizens. Moreover, the trial has impacted Ecuador’s international reputation with respect to corruption and judicial fairness.
The Lago Agrio lawsuit and its lawyers are an impediment to the solutions the Oriente and its people deserve. It is time that the trial lawyers put their own financial interests aside. Texaco Petroleum fulfilled its obligations – now it’s time to let Petroecuador do the same.
Monday, July 12th 2010
A recent delegation led by the Amazon Defense Front traveled to Louisiana in attempt to draw a parallel between a lawsuit backed by U.S. trial lawyers against Chevron and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
There is no question that the people of Oriente face difficulties. However, there is no valid comparison with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the trial that is currently taking place in Ecuador. It is disappointing that the Amazon Defense Front (the named financial beneficiary in the Ecuador trial) and its supporters would take advantage of the people of the Gulf and their tragedy in an attempt to legitimize their fraudulent lawsuit against Chevron. But this is no surprise. This is the same type of deceit and manipulation they have used for years to exploit their own countrymen’s hardships in the Amazon.
In fact, many of the difficulties faced by the people of the Oriente have been exacerbated by the Amazon Defense Front, which has opposed the clean up in the region, harming the interests of the very people they claim to represent.
Texaco Petroleum ceased operating on behalf of a state-controlled consortium in the Oriente 20 years ago this month. The company left Ecuador after performing $40 million in environmental remediation that was approved by the government, releasing the company of all future obligations.
Since 1990, Petroecuador, Texaco’s majority partner, has been the exclusive operator of the oil fields, drilling an additional 414 new wells and amassing a poor environmental record. The state-owned oil company acknowledges its responsibilities and has begun its own clean-up. Petroecuador plans to remediate 370 pits, at a cost of $31.5 million, by 2013. So far, it has remediated 86 pits. It has the ability, expertise and, most importantly, the government’s support to complete the job.
However, U.S. trial lawyers behind the Lago Agrio lawsuit against Chevron and the Amazon Defense Front have interfered with Petroecuador’s cleanup. They have petitioned the court to halt the cleanup– not out of concern for the environment but for fear the remediation was harming their case against Chevron.
In pursuit of their meritless complaint, the Amazon Defense Front lawyers have harmed Ecuador in many ways. They have corrupted the trial, not only through publicity stunts like the one they exported to Louisiana recently, but also by falsifying expert reports, fabricating evidence, making unsubstantiated health claims and colluding with court experts. This fraud on Ecuador’s courts, government and citizens has damaged the nation’s international reputation with respect to corruption and judicial fairness.
In truth, the lawyers behind the Lago Agrio lawsuit are a barrier to the solutions that the people of the Oriente deserve. It is time they put their own financial interests aside.
Monday, May 24th 2010
Chevron Corp. (NYSE: CVX) has uncovered new evidence that Ecuadorian court appointee Richard Cabrera, the so-called “independent expert” claiming that Chevron should pay $27 billion in damages, has had ongoing and surreptitious contacts with plaintiffs’ representatives and that a substantial portion of Cabrera’s court-ordered analysis is based on materials that could only have been provided by the plaintiffs’ representatives outside of the court proceeding. Additional new evidence shows that Cabrera allowed his supposedly independent assistants to work directly with the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Chevron made a filing in Ecuador on Friday informing the court of this new evidence of misconduct.
“This direct evidence of fraud and ex parte contacts further demonstrates the illegitimacy of the fictitious $27-billion number the plaintiffs’ lawyers have created for the purpose of extracting money from Chevron and its shareholders,” Chevron Vice President and General Counsel Hewitt Pate said. “Despite years of denial by Mr. Cabrera and the plaintiffs’ lawyers, one of their own consulting firms has now admitted in a U.S. court proceeding that they dealt directly with Mr. Cabrera. We also now know that Cabrera himself was previously employed by one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in another case prior to being appointed in Lago Agrio and that he never disclosed that fact to Chevron or the Lago Agrio court.” In his November 2008 damages report, Cabrera exclusively attributed pollution and associated impacts in Ecuador’s Amazon to Texaco Petroleum Company while absolving state-owned Petroecuador. Cabrera was appointed in 2007 to serve as an officer of the court to perform an independent, impartial, and transparent investigation of the environmental effects of oil operations. He repeatedly asserted under oath that he was independent and had no relationship or links with plaintiffs’ lawyers:
- In a June 13, 2007 sworn statement, Cabrera declared that “he is not under any legal impediment whatsoever and swears to perform his duties faithfully and in accordance with science, technology, and the law, with complete impartiality and independence vis-à-vis the parties.”
- In a July 23, 2007 sworn statement, Cabrera declared, “I should clarify that I do not have any relation or agreements with the plaintiff, and it seems to me to be an insult against me that I should be linked with the attorneys of the plaintiffs.”
- In an October 8, 2008 sworn statement, Cabrera stated, “I am an honest man with nothing to hide, and my conduct as an expert in this case has been as professional, impartial and objective as possible, as can be seen from my expert report.”
The evidence newly discovered by Chevron and admitted by plaintiffs’ consultants in court filings, however, shows that Cabrera violated his legal duties and worked directly with the plaintiffs’ lawyers and consultants:
- Documents filed in Colorado federal court last week reveal that consultants working for the plaintiffs’ lawyers have had direct ex parte communications with Cabrera. Lawyers for Stratus Consulting, paid litigation consultants working for the American trial lawyers directing and funding the Lago Agrio case, retracted their prior denials and admitted that “there were communications between Cabrera and two Stratus representatives.” Cabrera incorporated virtually verbatim portions of undisclosed “studies” furnished by Stratus employees and subcontractors in his damages assessment.
- In a separate proceeding in Texas federal court seeking related evidence from a Stratus subcontractor, 3TM Consulting, the judge presiding over the matter concluded last week that it was clear from the record that “plaintiffs provided some or all of 3TM’s report to Cabrera” even though “it appears Cabrera denies this occurred.” Such collaboration clearly violates the Lago Agrio court’s order that Cabrera work independently and “be responsible for all information and conclusions contained in the expert report.”
- Chevron recently has learned that at the time that he became a court appointee in the Lago Agrio litigation, Cabrera was already in the employ of the plaintiffs’ original counsel, Cristóbal Bonifaz (Bonifaz was dismissed from the Lago Agrio case and was sanctioned for presenting separate, false cancer claims against Chevron in federal court in California) . Specifically, Cabrera served as a paid expert in litigation (Arias v. DynCorp) that Bonifaz and other lawyers brought in Washington, D.C. federal court on behalf of a group of Ecuadorian plaintiffs. The DynCorp plaintiffs assert that they were harmed by herbicide spraying in the same region of Ecuador at issue in the case against Chevron, and Cabrera’s DynCorp report concludes that herbicide exposure is the primary cause of alleged harms in the region. In the Chevron case, however, Cabrera’s report attributes many of those same harms exclusively to alleged petroleum exposure. Cabrera never disclosed his prior relationship with plaintiffs’ counsel to the Lago Agrio court, nor did he disclose the existence of his DynCorp report which contradicts important parts of his supposedly independent report in the case against Chevron.
- The U.S. federal court proceedings in which Chevron seeks hidden evidence of corruption and misconduct captured by filmmaker Joe Berlinger have also centered on evidence of collusion in connection with the Cabrera’s damages report. Parts of Berlinger’s film Crude show plaintiffs’ lawyers Steven Donziger and Pablo Fajardo working with Carlos Beristain, one of the supposedly neutral experts on Cabrera’s team, at a focus group meeting related to Beristain’s supposedly independent “health survey.” Cabrera relies on Beristain’s survey for his assessment of $9.5 billion in damages for “excess cancer” claims. While, at the direction of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Berlinger edited the DVD version of Crude to conceal Beristain’s involvement with the lawyers, the unedited scene remains in a recently released internet version of the film. This documentation of collusion supported Chevron’s successful argument to a federal court in New York that other Crude outtakes should be reviewed for further evidence of misconduct. In its recent order, the New York court ruled that the fact that this scene was cut from the final version of the DVD at the direction of plaintiffs’ lawyers is “a fact suggestive of an awareness of questionable activity.”
“It is clear from the evidence that Cabrera’s claims of neutrality and independence in the Ecuadorian court are false,” added Chevron’s Pate. “The misconduct of the plaintiffs’ lawyers and Cabrera constitutes a fraud against Chevron, against the Ecuadorian court system, and against the Government of Ecuador. Courts in the U.S. are beginning to expose this fraud, and authorities in Ecuador should want to do the same.”
In its filing with the Lago Agrio court, Chevron is seeking the dismissal of Cabrera as a court appointee as well as the rejection of the entirety of his work. Chevron has also requested that the court initiate a full inquiry into the conduct of Cabrera and the plaintiffs’ lawyers to determine the full extent of the collusion and fraud that has been perpetrated.
Chevron is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies, with subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide. The company’s success is driven by the ingenuity and commitment of its employees and their application of the most innovative technologies in the world. Chevron is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. The company explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and other energy products; manufactures and sells petrochemical products; generates power and produces geothermal energy; provides energy efficiency solutions; and develops the energy resources of the future, including biofuels. Chevron is based in San Ramon, Calif. More information about Chevron is available at www.chevron.com.
Monday, May 3rd 2010
The Amazon Defense Front is back at it, trying to distract attention from revelations that its lawyers submitted fabricated expert reports to the court in Lago Agrio.
In the latest volley, the Front’s publicist, Karen Hinton, revisits the $3 million bribery scandal that entangled the judge presiding over the Lago Agrio trial as well as individuals representing themselves as members of the Ecuadorian government and its ruling political party.
After failed attempts to question the legitimacy of the videotape evidence, the Front is now taking aim at outside counsel for Chevron. In its latest attack, the Front’s lawyers accuse Chevron counsel of concealing that Diego Borja, one of the men who recorded the meetings in which the bribery plot was discussed, had previously performed contract work for Chevron.
Yet, when Chevron announced that it had provided copies of the videotapes to authorities in the United States and Ecuador, Chevron stated in its press release that, “Evidence of the bribery plot was brought to Chevron’s attention in June by an Ecuadorian, who was pursuing business opportunities in Ecuador with an American businessman. The Ecuadorian, Diego Borja, has performed work for Chevron as a logistics contractor.”
This fact was widely reported by American media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the San Francisco Chronicle. In Ecuador, papers such as El Comercio, El Universo, La Hora, Expreso, and Hoy also reported that Mr. Borja had been a Chevron contractor.
Chevron counsel also disclosed this fact to the Lago Agrio court in multiple filings.
Diego Borja, in a sworn statement provided to authorities, also disclosed that he had previously performed work as a contractor for Chevron.
It’s unclear why the Front’s lawyers want to keep talking about government-authenticated videotapes that depict judicial misconduct, especially when Karen Hinton has stated that the Front has “full confidence in the Ecuadorian judicial system.” It would seem that, in light of the facts, this position is just as misguided as the notion that Diego Borja’s prior work as a contractor is some sort of secret. However, when faced with the choice of having to explain why their lawyers submitted fabricated expert reports to the court, perhaps a $3 million bribery scheme looks like a better topic of conversation.
Friday, April 30th 2010
The Chevron Pit, a blog “maintained by the team suing Chevron,” has dedicated two consecutive posts to unfounded allegations that Chevron “lied to Columbia Journalism Review writer Martha Hamilton.” Clearly unhappy with a Columbia Journalism Review critique of “60 Minutes’” coverage of the Ecuador lawsuit, the Amazon Defense Front’s current efforts are only displaying the organization’s complete lack of credibility. The first round of misrepresentations are documented here. In the latest barrage of misinformation, the “Pit” claims that “it looks like Chevron also lied to her about the drinking water well site near the oil well site.”
According to the Front: “A water sample taken in the trial directly from this freshwater well showed toxic levels of likely carcinogens and harmful heavy metals that are derived from oil, including benzo[a]pyrene, indeno[1,2,3]pyrene, and cadmium. The U.S. government has determined that each of these chemicals are likely or probable carcinogens, as reflected in a toxic substance registry maintained at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.”
We are at a loss to identify the “water sample taken in the trial.” Chevron’s data does not support this assertion and neither does the Front’s. In fact, the following is a copy of the Front’s water data for samples collected at well site Shushufindi-38. The analysis was performed by Quito-based HAVOC laboratory and row “SSF38‐A2‐GW1‐NF(1.50)m” is their sample from the water well.
There’s a reason the Front makes claims without showing any data – the water well shows no exceedances of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) drinking water criteria. As displayed below, the Front’s result for cadmium (cadmio in Spanish) is 0.001 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The USEPA National Primary drinking water regulation for cadmium is 0.005 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Likewise, the following are the Front’s PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or HAPs in Spanish) results. Column “A051124” refers to results from the water well.
The Front’s result for benzo[a]pyrene (pireno in Spanish) is 0.000031 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The USEPA limit is 0.0002 mg/L.
The Front’s result for indeno[1,2,3]pyrene is 0.000012 mg/l. There is no USEPA drinking water standard for indeno[1,2,3]pyrene.
So if the Front’s own data undermines the assertions it makes through its blog, what other accusations are being made that can’t be supported? We already know that the Front’s lawyers submitted fabricated expert reports at the beginning of the trial. If there was any merit to the Front’s lawyers’ case, they wouldn’t need to resort to making up evidence as they go along.
Thursday, April 29th 2010
Last week, we posted a blog entry that detailed two recent Petroecuador spills. In the post we asked why the Amazon Defense Front, Amazon Watch and the Rainforest Action Network have never condemned Petroecuador for the company’s spills and ongoing environmental mismanagement.
After learning about the spills, these groups, who claim to “work to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin” largely remained silent. No press releases issued. No press conferences held. No campaigns mobilized. No lawsuits filed. Instead, only Amazon Watch spoke up, choosing to respond by blog post. Below is an excerpt from the posting, where the author states that the Amazon Defense Front has in fact gone after Petroecuador:
“First of all, the Amazon Defense Coalition – or the Frente – as well as indigenous groups throughout the area have in fact gone after Petroecuador and other oil companies operating in the region on numerous occasions, demanding clean-up of spills, and a general increase in responsible operations.”
This is a dubious claim as we know of no instance in which the Frente has taken on Petroecuador for its operational practices. In fact, a lawyer for the Frente, Pablo Fajardo, is on the record calling for Petroecuador to stop its long overdue remediation work in the region because it was hurting his case against Chevron. The Frente assuming such a position is not especially surprising since it is the named financial beneficiary of the lawsuit in Ecuador. Moreover, another lawyer for the Frente, Cristobal Bonifaz, told reporters in Ecuador that his clients had provided a sworn declaration to the government of Ecuador that they would refrain from suing Petroecuador in return for the government’s assistance with their lawsuit.
Meanwhile, Amazon Watch has continually turned a blind eye to events in Ecuador. Could that be explained by the fact that Amazon Watch has been continually funded by the American trial lawyers suing Chevron? Could this ongoing financial relationship also explain why Amazon Watch has never called on Petroecuador to clean up its portion of the oil fields, as the company has repeatedly promised to do?
Rather than provide factual information to support its claims, Amazon Watch resorts to the “trust us” retort.
Until there is evidence of these groups going after Petroecuador, one has to question if these lawyers and activists really are advocates of the environment and the indigenous people they claim to represent. Maybe they are more interested in taking Chevron to the cleaners than actually cleaning up the Amazon.
Tuesday, April 27th 2010
The Amazon Defense Front’s public relations efforts have been in high gear trying to discredit a Columbia Journalism Review critique of “60 Minutes” coverage of the Ecuador lawsuit. In doing so, the Front’s spokesperson, Karen Hinton, has misrepresented the factual record as it relates to a particular well site, Shushufindi-38.
Shushufindi-38 entered production in 1974 and was ultimately shut down in 1984. To hear Ms. Hinton tell the story, that’s where the history ends. Yet, her claim that Petroecuador, Ecuador’s state-owned oil company, did not have any operations at the site after 1992 is false.
The Front ignores the fact that in 1994, and after the expiration of the Petroecuador-Texaco Petroleum Consortium, Petroecuador converted Shushufindi-38 to an injection well, a type of well that returns byproducts from oil production to the geologic formations from where they came. In fact, 119 pages of Petroecuador maintenance logs demonstrate ongoing Petroecuador activity at the site as recently as 2008. Petroecuador was performing maintenance at Shushufindi -38 in November 2005 on the very day that a judicial inspection of the site was to occur. The Front was at the inspection and witnessed Petroecuador’s work first hand and yet continues to make inaccurate statements.
Shushufindi-38 remains in operation today. However, that is not the limit of Petroecuador activity at the site. Indeed, since at least 2007, Petroecuador has been performing remediation work at the site. Why? Because the site was not assigned to Texaco-Petroleum as part of the company’s remediation program. Rather, as Petroecuador acknowledges, it is solely responsible for any remediation or clean-up efforts required at Shushufindi-38. The ongoing work at the site was captured by a Reuters photographer earlier this year.
Ms. Hinton’s Shushufindi-38 media missives also point to existing hydrocarbons at the well site. The presence of oil at an active Petroecuador well site should come as no surprise to anyone, and further explains why Petroecuador is in the process of cleaning up the site. Moreover, Petroecuador’s extensive and ongoing maintenance work at Shushufindi-38 explains why the reserve pits at the site remained active and contained freshly deposited crude at the time of the judicial inspection.
Likewise, Ms. Hinton has been highlighting for the media the dubious scientific results the plaintiffs’ lawyers claim came from analysis of soils at Shushufindi-38. Putting the Front’s misrepresentation of regulatory standards aside, the plaintiffs’ analytical results simply confirm what is already common knowledge, and common sense – that Petroecuador needs to complete its remediation of the site.
The Front’s denial of more than 16 years of Petroecuador activity at Shushufindi-38 is disingenuous. The truth about Shushufindi-38 is well-documented and Petroecuador’s ongoing clean-up at the site is simply further evidence that Petroecuador is responsible for remediating Shushufindi-38. Promoting outright falsehoods in an attempt to sway public opinion, as the Front and Ms. Hinton repeatedly do, helps no one, least of all the people of Ecuador’s Amazon. The Front needs to stop its campaign of misrepresentations, and come clean about Shushufindi-38 as well as its meritless lawsuit.
Monday, April 26th 2010
Reeling from the public revelation that they submitted fraudulent expert reports to the court in Lago Agrio, the Amazon Defense Front’s lawyers are trying to change the topic of conversation. In doing so, however, they are only making things worse.
On April 20, 2010 Karen Hinton, the Front’s publicist, responded to a Washington Times editorial critical of the trial lawyers’ misconduct by stating, “contamination results submitted to the Ecuadorian court by Chevron itself show illegal levels of contamination dangerous to human health and the environment at the very pits Texaco said it cleaned.” This statement is false:
- There is overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating that Texaco Petroleum’s remediation work was effective and complies with the applicable standards established by the government of Ecuador at the time of the remediation.
- Independent scientific analysis of every remediated site performed by technicians working for the government of Ecuador at the time of the clean-up further corroborates the effectiveness of the remediation.
- Subsequent to the remediation, Ecuadorian Prosecutors General serving two separate administrations have commissioned additional scientific analysis of Texaco Petroleum-remediated sites. In both instances, the scientific results demonstrate that Texaco’s remediation met and complied with applicable standards.
As the basis for their claims, the plaintiffs’ lawyers point to a 1,000 parts per million (ppm) total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) standard in Decree 1215, a regulation enacted by Ecuador’s Ministry of Environment in 2001. While Decree 1215 was intended to govern environmental aspects of hydrocarbon production, the Ecuadorian constitution prohibits the unfair and retroactive application of a 2001 standard to remediation that was completed in 1998. Moreover, the 1,000 ppm standard only applies to “patrimony national natural areas or others identified in a corresponding environmental study”—national parks or other designated protected areas. At no point in time did the remediated oil fields at issue meet this definition. Further, not even Petroecuador, Ecuador’s state-owned oil company uses this standard. Petroecuador currently remediates below 2,500 ppm TPH (1215’s agricultural land standard) with the full approval of the government of Ecuador.
In trying to shift public attention away from their own misconduct, the Front and its lawyers are attempting to conceal the truth, only reinforcing their reputation as a one-stop-shop for misinformation. Indeed, instead of explaining why the Front’s lawyers submitted fabricated evidence to the court in Lago Agrio, Ms. Hinton instead questions why the plaintiffs’ former expert, Dr. Charles Calmbacher, who until his recent deposition was unaware that the plaintiffs lawyers had filed fabricated expert reports in his name, “wait[ed] six years to speak up.” Facts are stubborn things, and it is time for the contingency-fee lawyers behind the Front to end their game of misdirection, and answer for their misconduct in Lago Agrio.
Friday, April 23rd 2010
The Ecuadorian government and American trial lawyers are combining forces to influence the outcome of the lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador. This interactive diagram documents the relationships, the politics and the flow of money. A newly added dimension in this Web of Influence illustrates the community of interests and how the groups are working together in the hopes of compelling Chevron to settle a meritless lawsuit. Click here to view this web of influence.
Wednesday, April 21st 2010
In the space of a week, a Chevron technical team has discovered two fresh oil spills in Ecuador’s oil-producing Amazon region. One covers three hectares (7.4 acres) near state-owned oil company Petroecuador’s Guanta production station in the heart of Cofan indigenous country. The other impacts half a hectare (1.2 acres) in the Sacha field, an area operated by the Rio Napo joint venture. The spill is near the village of San Carlos where plaintiffs’ lawyers and activists claim oil has caused an outbreak of health problems.
Yet the Amazon Defense Front, Amazon Watch and the Rainforest Action Network – groups backing a meritless lawsuit against Chevron – have said nothing. Despite claiming to advocate on behalf of the environment and the people of Ecuador’s Oriente, there have been no expressions of outrage. No denouncements of the companies operating in these areas. No indignant press releases. No press conferences. And, of course, no lawsuits.
April 17_2010: Photo facing northwest. General view of Petroecuador’s spill
April 17_2010: Photo facing southeast showing a berm built to dam fluids as part of the remediation activities by Petroecuador in the spill area located approximately 1 km North of Guanta Production Satation.
April 10_2010: Remediation activities of recent Petroecuador oil spill from production line near San Carlos.
April 10_2010: Remediation activities of recent Petroecuador oil spill from production line near San Carlos.
Location of Recent Oil Spills Occurred in the Former Petroecuador-Texpet Concession Area
Yet this behavior is consistent with an ongoing pattern of ignoring the conduct of Petroecuador and opposing Petroecuador’s clean-up efforts. Given their track record, one has to ask if these lawyers and activists are really advocates of the environment or the indigenous people they claim to represent?
It very well may be that the Amazon Defense Front, Amazon Watch, and the Rainforest Action Network are more interested in taking Chevron to the cleaners than actually cleaning up the Amazon.
Tuesday, April 6th 2010
On August 31, 2009, Chevron provided to Ecuadorian authorities and the U.S. Department of Justice video recordings of meetings between the judge presiding over the litigation against Chevron in Lago Agrio, Ecuador and other individuals. Within days after the video recordings were disclosed, Ecuador’s Prosecutor General asked the judge in Lago Agrio to step down due to his participation in two of the recorded meetings. Ecuador’s Judiciary Council is currently investigating the judge’s conduct to determine if sanctions are warranted.
The Amazon Defense Front, the named financial beneficiary of the Lago Agrio lawsuit, has sought to discredit the video recordings for months, falsely claiming that the video recordings had been manipulated or edited. Despite more than seven months of investigation spanning at least two continents and more than five countries, the Amazon Defense Coalition’s investigators have failed to cast any doubt on the authenticity of the videos or explain the judge’s improper participation in the meetings. Indeed, the Amazon Defense Front investigative efforts further confirm that Chevron had no involvement whatsoever in planning or recording the meetings.
Chevron delivered the video recordings provided by Diego Borja to authorities in Ecuador as well as the United States and called for the appropriate parties to investigate the matter. The videos showing the participation of Judge Nunez and others in a bribery scheme have been confirmed to be authentic by the forensic expert retained by Ecuador’s Judiciary Council and by an independent forensic expert retained by Chevron.
Through their exploits, the Amazon Defense Front has also tried to attack the evidence Chevron has submitted to the court in Lago Agrio. Chevron stands by the integrity of its analytical results, which meet the highest scientific standards. The fact of the matter is that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have tried unsuccessfully for years to prove contamination and harm without any legitimate tests or medical records to support their claims. Meanwhile, it is clear that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have been falsifying reports from the outset of the trial because the scientific evidence in the trial proves Chevron’s case.
Monday, April 5th 2010
In Sworn Deposition, Expert Denies Authoring Reports Submitted in His Name
SAN RAMON, Calif., Apr. 5, 2010 – Lawyers for the plaintiffs suing Chevron Corp. (NYSE: CVX) submitted fraudulent reports to an Ecuadorian court claiming dangerous contamination was found at Amazon oil well sites, the original technical expert for the plaintiffs revealed in sworn testimony last week.
Charles W. Calmbacher, Ph.D, a U.S. biologist and industrial hygienist who was the first expert appointed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the litigation pending against Chevron in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, testified in a court-ordered deposition last week that reports associated with inspections of the Sacha 94 and Shushufindi 48 well sites were submitted in his name without his knowledge or consent. Dr. Calmbacher said he had never concluded the sites posed a risk to human health or the environment and that his opinions were known to the plaintiffs’ legal and technical teams in Ecuador. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs’ lawyers submitted reports contradictory to Dr. Calmbacher’s conclusions, fraudulently using his signature months after he ceased his participation in the case.
“Their own expert has testified that two of the plaintiffs’ earliest reports are fraudulent, confirming that the trial in Ecuador has been tainted from the outset,” said Hewitt Pate, Chevron vice president and general counsel. “Chevron will petition the Lago Agrio court to strike the plaintiffs’ false Sacha 94 and Shushufindi 48 reports and call on authorities to investigate the misconduct.”
After the lawsuit was filed against Chevron in 2003, the plaintiffs’ lawyers nominated Dr. Calmbacher, and the court appointed him to conduct judicial inspections of oil well sites in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Petroleum Co. concession area to assess alleged environmental damage. Dr. Calmbacher led those inspections for the plaintiffs, supervising the taking of soil and water samples, from August to October 2004.
The fraudulent reports were filed in February and March 2005, and later used by Lago Agrio court appointee Richard Cabrera in his $27 billion damage assessment against Chevron. Cabrera never investigated Sacha 94 or Shushufindi 48, yet specified more than $101 million damages based on the fabricated findings. Dr. Calmbacher also inspected Sacha 6 and Sacha 21, yet the plaintiffs’ lawyers failed to submit reports containing his conclusions regarding those well sites. Dr. Calmbacher testified that he did not find a risk to human health or the environment, or a need for further clean-up, at any of the Texaco Petroleum-remediated sites he inspected. He also said he never concluded that Texaco Petroleum’s remediation in Ecuador in the 1990’s was not successful.
In his March 29 deposition ordered by a U.S. federal court, Dr. Calmbacher said he sent signed signature pages and initialized blank pages to the plaintiffs’ legal team by overnight courier in late 2004 for the submission of reports he thought would contain his true findings. Dr. Calmbacher also testified that the plaintiffs’ lawyers never informed him that the Lago Agrio court had ordered him to answer questions on the reports after they were submitted under his signature in 2005.
Chevron has long claimed the lawsuit is baseless and tainted by scores of irregularities and fraud. The company last September filed a demand for arbitration with the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague asserting that Ecuador’s handling of the Lago Agrio litigation amounts to a breach of the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty.
To view Dr. Calmbacher’s full sworn deposition, see www.chevron.com/ecuador/depo.pdf. Additional information on the Ecuador lawsuit can be found at www.chevron.com/ecuador.
Chevron is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies, with subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide. The company’s success is driven by the ingenuity and commitment of its employees and their application of the most innovative technologies in the world. Chevron is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. The company explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and other energy products; manufactures and sells petrochemical products; generates power and produces geothermal energy; provides energy efficiency solutions; and develops the energy resources of the future, including biofuels. Chevron is based in San Ramon, Calif. More information about Chevron is available at www.chevron.com.
# # #
Tuesday, March 30th 2010
SAN RAMON, Calif. – Mar. 30, 2010 – An international arbitration tribunal has ruled in favor of Chevron in a claim against Ecuador related to past oil operations by Chevron’s subsidiary, Texaco Petroleum Company. The tribunal, administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, found that Ecuador’s courts violated international law through their delays in ruling on certain commercial disputes between Texaco Petroleum Company and the Ecuadorian government.
Today’s ruling is distinct from arbitral claims Chevron and Texaco Petroleum filed against Ecuador in 2009 in connection with the Lago Agrio litigation.
In its decision, the tribunal found that Ecuador had violated the United States-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty by failing to provide effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights. As a result, the tribunal awarded Chevron and Texaco Petroleum Company approximately US$700 million in principal damages and interest as of December 22, 2006, pending further proceedings to determine applicable taxes, compound interest, and costs.
“This ruling demonstrates that the government of Ecuador is not above the law,” said Hewitt Pate, Chevron vice president and general counsel. “We have maintained for some time that Ecuador’s courts are failing to administer justice when it comes to Chevron and its affiliates, and an international tribunal has now agreed. We hope this ruling will help move Ecuador towards proper treatment of foreign investors and respect for the rule of law.”
The arbitral award partially resolves seven commercial claims that Texaco Petroleum Company, now a Chevron subsidiary, filed in Ecuador between 1991 and 1993. Ecuadorian courts continually delayed and refused to rule on Texaco Petroleum’s cases, which has been found to constitute a breach of Ecuador’s treaty with the United States.
Chevron and Texaco Petroleum Company filed the arbitration in December 2006 under the Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The Permanent Court of Arbitration is an intergovernmental organization with over one hundred member countries established by international convention in 1899 to facilitate arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution. The United States acceded to the Court’s founding convention in 1900 and Ecuador acceded in 1907.
The tribunal is not alone in highlighting the Ecuadorian courts’ failure to provide justice to foreign investors. In February 2009, the United States Department of State released its Investment Climate Statement for Ecuador, which stated, “Systemic weakness and susceptibility to political or economic pressures in the rule of law constitute the most important problem faced by U.S. companies investing in or trading with Ecuador.” The report went on to state, “corruption is a serious problem in Ecuador,” and that, “the courts are often susceptible to outside pressure and bribes.”
Ecuador is defending the second largest arbitration docket in the world with more than 11 claims seeking more than US$6.5 billion in damages. Ecuador has withdrawn from the World Bank’s arbitration program, making it the second country ever to do so, and has indicated its intention to cancel scores of bilateral investment treaties that provide for international arbitration of investment disputes. The country has also fallen out of favor with international financial markets since defaulting on more than $3 billion of foreign debt after a government-appointed panel declared the debt to be “illegitimate.”
Chevron is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies, with subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide. The company’s success is driven by the ingenuity and commitment of its employees and their application of the most innovative technologies in the world. Chevron is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. The company explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and other energy products; manufactures and sells petrochemical products; generates power and produces geothermal energy; provides energy efficiency solutions; and develops the energy resources of the future, including biofuels. Chevron is based in San Ramon, Calif. More information about Chevron is available at www.chevron.com.
# # #
Thursday, March 11th 2010
On Thursday, a U.S. judge granted Chevron’s motion to dismiss the government of Ecuador’s attempt to block the company’s international arbitration claim from proceeding. In his decision, Judge Sand declined to stay international arbitration in a dispute between Ecuador’s government and Chevron. Stating in his ruling that, “a stay of arbitration is inappropriate.”
Chevron is pleased that the Bilateral Investment Treaty arbitration can proceed. Chevron is seeking to hold Ecuador and its government owned oil company, Petroecuador, to the promise they made to complete the environmental cleanup of the Amazon.
Texaco Petroleum did its share of the cleanup as promised, and Petroecuador now needs to own up to its promises and address the environmental problems wrongly being blamed on Chevron.
Only the international arbitration panel can bring Ecuador to the table and compel Petroecuador to do the right thing and clean up its oil fields. With today’s decision, we are one step closer to making that a reality.
Thursday, March 4th 2010
This past Tuesday, executives from Chevron hosted a meeting in San Ramon including Cofan representative Emergildo Criollo and advocates from the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) as well as Amazon Watch. Following the meeting, Chevron’s Manager of Global Issues and Policy, Silvia Garrigo posted the following comment to RAN’s blog:
“This is Silvia Garrigo from Chevron. I want to thank RAN for the opportunity yesterday to meet with Emergildo, Maria, and Mitch. Spending an hour together in our headquarters and hearing Emergildo’s story was a valuable experience. We can all agree that his personal story is moving and heartfelt. And we can all agree that there are unacceptable environmental conditions in Ecuador’s Amazon. While there may be many areas where we do not agree, it is important for us to listen to each other. We believe RAN and Chevron can share common ground on some important points. Thank you again for meeting with us. We look forward to continuing a constructive dialogue.”
Chevron views Tuesday’s meeting as an important first step towards building trust. It is our hope that subsequent meetings can move future conversations past rhetoric and towards a constructive dialogue about solutions.
Tuesday, March 2nd 2010
An independent expert working for Ecuador’s Judiciary Council has filed a report stating that the videotapes Chevron provided to the government of Ecuador and the U.S. Department of Justice are authentic and unaltered.
In late August of last year, it was revealed on video that Judge Juan Núñez, who was then presiding over the lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador, had prejudged the case (even though evidence was still being submitted and final arguments had not been held) and may be involved in a $3 million bribery scheme.
The judge was willing to talk about his pending decision with businessmen (Hansen) seeking post-verdict remediation contracts. The following is a transcript of that conversation:
- Núñez: “Any other questions for me as a judge?”
- Hansen: “Oh no, I, I know clearly how it is, you say, Chevron is the guilty party?”
- Núñez: “Yes Sir.”
- Hansen: “And the, the, the act (decision) is October or November of this year?”
- Núñez: “Yes Sir.”
- Hansen: “And it’s …?”
- Núñez: “No later than January.”
- Hansen: “January 2010. And the money is twenty-seven (billion dollars)?”
- Núñez: “It might be less, and it might be more.”
After analyzing the videos from which this conversation was transcribed, the expert found that:
- The videos were authentic and showed no evidence whatsoever of any kind of manipulation.
- The videos were proven to a scientific certainty to contain the unaltered voices of purported government officials and others who participated in the meetings.
The expert report puts to rest the false claims that the plaintiffs’ lawyers and Judge Núñez himself have made in attempts to cover up this abuse of the judicial system. Judge Núñez insisted to the Wall Street Journal that he could “see things that have been erased” and that someone “cut and pasted certain things.”
In calling into question the authenticity of the video tapes, the plaintiffs’ representatives had also insisted that the tapes had been digitally altered.
The expert’s report further emphasizes the improper conduct on the part of Judge Núñez as well as individuals affiliated with Ecuador’s ruling political party. To date, Judge Núñez has not been sanctioned for his misconduct and his prior rulings in the Chevron lawsuit remain part of the record.
Friday, February 12th 2010
Earlier in the week it was revealed that the author of a report recommending Chevron pay $27 billion in damages has a conflict of interest that he illegally hid from the court. As it turns out, Richard Cabrera, the report’s author, is the majority owner of an oil field remediation company in Ecuador that stands to gain financially from a judgment against Chevron.
Cabrera has suggested a wholly illegitimate and unsubstantiated damage recommendation against Chevron in excess of $27 billion. Cabrera was not only paid solely by the plaintiffs, but he openly relied on them to staff his effort while seeking to obstruct Chevron’s representatives from even observing his work. In fact, major portions of his submissions to the court are cribbed from the plaintiffs’ own submissions, if not written by them directly. His work product is devoid of scientific content, lacks even the most basic evidentiary support, and assesses monetary relief for alleged environmental damage and health claims he has never even bothered to investigate, inspect, or verify.
In addition to those outlined above, below is a list of other Cabrera Report flaws:
Lack of Causation
Cabrera completely ignored his court-ordered mandate to determine causation and chronology of environmental conditions. Instead, he just arbitrarily assigned liability to Texaco for every instance of alleged environmental impact in the former concession areas. By ignoring chronology and causation, Cabrera even makes Texaco liable for environmental impact caused solely by Petroecuador in the last 20 years.
Failure to Inspect and Falsifying “Evidence”
Cabrera ignored court orders that he must inspect every site, visiting only 48 of 316 wells and one of 19 production stations. Instead, Cabrera reviewed aerial photos to identify pits and used those photos incompetently and dishonestly. For example, Cabrera submitted certain aerial photos with his report and declared that various items in the photos — like trees, tanks and shadows — were pits. He also submitted photos of pits constructed by Petroecuador after 1990, backdated the photos to the 1970s and declared that the pits were constructed earlier by Texaco Petroleum. Cabrera, therefore, fraudulently overstated the number of pits.
Arbitrary Determination of Remediation Scope
With no justification, Cabrera arbitrarily concluded that 80 percent of well pits and 100 percent of production station pits need to be remediated, regardless of past or current remediation efforts. Cabrera then further fabricated and overstated the magnitude of remediation required for each pit, arbitrarily assuming that each pit needs to be remediated to a depth of four meters (13.12 ft) and that an additional area around each pit equal to 50 percent of the pit surface area also needs to be remediated.
Gross Overstatement of Remediation Cost
Cabrera grossly overstated the cost to remediate pits. Though Petroecuador has been remediating pits to Ecuador standards for approximately $85,000 per pit, Cabrera recommends remediation costs of $2.743 billion — over 150 times the Petroecuador budget of $18 million for this work.
For more information on other elements contained within Cabrera’s $27 billion damage report, please use the following hyperlinks.
It is clear the Ecuadoran court handling the lawsuit against Chevron has abandoned the due process guarantees mandated by Ecuadorian law, eliminated the plaintiffs’ burden of proof, and substituted in its place the work of Richard Cabrera. Chevron has consistently argued that it is not getting a fair trial in Ecuador. Evidence presented to the court shows Texaco Petroleum’s remediation was thorough and complete. The Amazon Defense Front has teamed up with the government of Ecuador to try to shift the liability of Petroecuador to Chevron by pressuring the company into an unjust settlement using a biased and improperly influenced court and a partisan and unqualified “independent” analyst.
Thursday, February 11th 2010
New revelation of a conflict of interest for the author of a report recommending that Chevron pay $27 billion in damages in the long-running trial in Ecuador has prompted a deliberately misleading response from the Amazon Defense Front, which is the named financial beneficiary of any judgment in the case.
Cabrera has a previously undisclosed majority ownership interest in a company registered to do business with Petroecuador. Petroecuador is the state owned oil company, chief polluter in the region, and beneficiary of Cabrera’s “findings.” This evidence raises additional, serious questions about Cabrera’s independence and completely undermines the integrity of his report.
Seeing its potential payday at risk, the Amazon Defense Front scrambled to respond via press release. While attempting to sidestep the issue, the Amazon Defense Front does not deny that Cabrera improperly failed to disclose his conflict of interest at the time of his appointment or thereafter. Nor does the Amazon Defense Front deny that had Cabrera’s ownership interest been properly disclosed, it would have been disqualifying. Below is a response to four of the many misleading and inaccurate statements from the Amazon Defense Front press release:
“Cabrera disclosed to the court that he owned a clean-up company before his appointment as Special Master. This fact was properly cited by the court as one of the reasons he was qualified to do the damages assessment.”
This is a yet another of the Amazon Defense Front’s blatant attempts to mislead the public.
Exhibit 4 from the filing contains everything that Cabrera has disclosed. Nowhere does Cabrera disclose the fact that he was a co-founder, general manager, majority stockholder, and legal representative of CAMPET at the time of his appointment as an “independent” technician or during his work for the court. CAMPET is a soil remediation company and preapproved contractor to Petroecuador. Cabrera affirmatively swore to the court that he had no conflicts of interest. This has shown to be untrue by virtue of his financial interests in CAMPET.
The Amazon Defense Front’s statement is intended to misrepresent Cabrera’s disclosure about working for a different remediation company, CONGEMINPA, prior to his appointment. Cabrera disclosed that his work with CONGEMINPA ended in 2003, and Cabrera had also sold all of his stock in GONGEMINMPA in 2003, years before his 2007 appointment in this case. This past connection to a remediation company did not present a conflict of interest at the time of his appointment. The Amazon Defense Front’s statement is meant to create the false impression that Cabrera disclosed his interest in CAMPET, the company he continued to own, manage, and legally represent during his entire tenure as a supposedly “independent” expert in the case. But he did not make any such disclosure. In fact, German Yanez, the judge who appointed Cabrera, told Dow Jones Newswires Feb. 9 he didn’t know about CAMPET or whether the company’s registration as a bid contractor for Petroecuador constituted any conflict of interest.
“All I know is what I saw in his curriculum (vitae),” said Yanez. “If there’s missing information, I don’t know why.”
“Chevron thought so highly of Cabrera’s qualifications that it accepted him as a court-appointed expert in an earlier part of the case and paid his fees as required by court rules.”
This is factually incorrect.
Cabrera was appointed by the court in an earlier phase of the trial, but he performed no work and at no time has Chevron paid Cabrera for anything. On the contrary, the plaintiffs paid Cabrera more than $200,000 for his subsequent work.
Chevron has repeatedly and unwaveringly questioned Cabrera’s qualifications since his original involvement in the case, has opposed his report, and has repeatedly told the court that his damages assessment is without basis, is biased, and was developed with and co-written by the plaintiffs. At no time has Chevron ever “thought highly of Cabrera’s qualifications” to be an expert in this case.
“The fact Cabrera’s company is qualified to bid on clean-up contracts offered by Ecuador’s state-owned oil company is irrelevant. That company, Petroecuador, is not a party to the case against Chevron and would have no role in any eventual cleanup.”
This is factually incorrect.
Petroecuador was the majority partner in the consortium and is responsible for every site in question. Moreover, no remediation work in the oil producing region could occur without Petroecuador’s active involvement, participation, and authorization. Simply put, nothing could happen in Petroecuador’s oil fields, including a remediation ordered by the court, without Petroecuador.
Meanwhile, the government of Ecuador has already acknowledged that it expects to participate in any prospective remediation work. At a September 2009 press conference, Ecuador’s Prosecutor General, Washington Pesantez said, “Although I don’t have the exact figures, 10 percent would go to the plaintiffs if Chevron is found guilty; 90 percent would be delivered to the State for remediation or bio-remediation activities that would serve to correct biologic and chemical mechanisms…”
In addition, “the fact Cabrera’s company is qualified to bid on clean-up contracts offered by” Petroecuador is extremely relevant: — Cabrera’s report attempts at every turn to exonerate Petroecuador for 20 years of sloppy practices. In his report Cabrera exonerates Petroecuador of the current environmental conditions in the region, grossly inflates the scope of remediation and costs of the work, and even calls on the court to award $375 million to upgrade Petroecuador’s infrastructure. Cabrera’s company’s registration to do work for Petroecuador provides the perfect incentive for Cabrera to go to such absurd lengths to lavish benefits on Petroecuador in his report, and the perfect opportunity for Petroecuador to return the favor.
“Cabrera by virtue of his role in the case would be barred from having a role in a future clean-up.”
This statement is inherently contradictory and is made without any factual support. First the Amazon Defense Front says there is no conflict at all, and then it says that Cabrera does indeed have a conflict of interest. His financial stake in remediation explains why Cabrera, on at least ten different occasions, concealed from the court his conflict of interest — a violation of Ecuador law. Accordingly, Cabrera’s report should be rejected and Cabrera’s connection to Petroecuador should be investigated.
Chevron has consistently argued that it is not getting a fair trial in Ecuador. Evidence presented to the court shows Texaco Petroleum’s remediation was thorough and complete. Amazon Defense Front has teamed up with the government of Ecuador to try to shift the liability of Petroecuador to Chevron by pressuring the company into an unjust settlement using a biased and improperly influenced court and a partisan and unqualified “independent” analyst.
Tuesday, February 9th 2010
Chevron has revealed new information showing that the author of a report recommending the company pay $27 billion in damages has a conflict of interest that he illegally hid from the court. As it turns out, Richard Cabrera, the report’s author, is the majority owner of an oil field remediation company that stands to gain financially from a judgment against Chevron.
Records from 2003-2008 show that Cabrera is co-founder, general manager, majority stockholder, and legal representative of an oilfield remediation company, CAMPET, which is registered to perform oilfield remediation and other services for Petroecuador. Cabrera failed to disclose these business interests as required by law.
In his report, Cabrera absolves Petroecuador of any responsibility or remediation obligations associated with past or present oil operations. Yet, Petroecuador was the majority owner of the Petroecuador-Texaco Petroleum consortium which operated until mid-1992. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that Petroecuador has spilled millions of gallons of oil since taking over exclusive ownership and operations.
Instead, Cabrera exclusively attributes pollution in the Amazon region of Ecuador to Texaco Petroleum, now owned by Chevron. Cabrera’s report says Chevron, because it acquired Texaco Petroleum in 2001, is solely liable for $27 billion in damages, citing grossly inflated remediation costs while ignoring Petroecuador’s role in oil operations and its well-documented poor environmental performance. These findings make no sense as a matter of Ecuadorian law or common sense, but are consistent with furthering the interests of Petroecuador, as well as Cabrera’s.
Not only did Cabrera hide his financial interests in the remediation company, he affirmatively represented to the court that he did not have any impediment or conflict that would affect his performance as an “independent” court-appointed witness. Moreover, Cabrera knowingly omitted his interest in CAMPET, as well as CAMPET’s status as a registered Petroecuador contractor, in his submissions to the court. Finally, Cabrera further misled the court by accepting his appointment, which required an explicit acknowledgment of his duties to the court as an impartial analyst—something Cabrera could not have done in good faith, given his financial interests.
Due to the remediation company’s relationship with Ecuador’s state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, Chevron has called upon the court to immediately reject the work of Richard Cabrera on the grounds that he knowingly hid his relationship and that he stands to gain from what was supposed to be unbiased work for the court.
Thursday, January 21st 2010
Lawyers for the Government of Ecuador Engage in Revisionist History- Myth of Jurisdiction Exposed
“In a lawsuit filed Thursday, the plaintiffs say Chevron broke a promise Texaco Inc. made in 1999 to a New York federal court to abide by the Ecuadorean legal system if the court dismissed the environmental case.” – Wall Street Journal, 10/14/10
Chevron has never operated in Ecuador, a fact that cannot be disputed. Texaco’s role in oil operations in the country ended in 1992. Since then, Ecuador’s government owned oil company, Petroecuador, has been the exclusive operator of the oil fields and has amassed a deplorable environmental record.
The claim filed against Chevron on January 14 is erroneous and subsequent media statements by the plaintiffs are incorrect and misleading. Chevron did not agree to any stipulation concerning jurisdiction in Ecuador. In fact, Chevron was not a party to the prior New York action. American trial lawyers are once again distorting the record. To clarify, the case that was brought against Texaco in New York is totally different than what has been brought against Chevron in Ecuador. The case against Chevron in Ecuador does not seek an award for the 48 named plaintiffs. Rather, it seeks to force Chevron to pay for the remaining remediation work that the government of Ecuador has never performed. Under an agreement with the government of Ecuador, Texaco spent $40 million performing its agreed-upon share of the clean-up work. Texaco obtained full and complete releases after meeting all the requirements placed upon it by the government of Ecuador. The remaining remediation work required is the exclusive responsibility of the government of Ecuador. The case against Texaco in New York was dismissed. Period. It was not moved, transferred, or refilled. A brand new and totally different case was brought against Chevron in Ecuador. There are no stipulations from the New York action that cover a different claim against a different party in Ecuador. Texaco never waived its rights to seek the enforcement of valid agreements and contracts with the government of Ecuador. Texaco has never waived its rights to resist a verdict that is the product of fraud and a broken legal system.
It is important to understand that the two cases are very different. The case brought against Texaco in New York was about alleged personal injuries and alleged personal damages. The case against Chevron in Ecuador is exclusively about alleged damages to public lands. Of the 48 plaintiffs in the Ecuador case, there are no claims for personal injury or personal damages of any kind.
“In a lawsuit filed Thursday, the plaintiffs say Chevron broke a promise Texaco Inc. made in 1999 to a New York federal court to abide by the Ecuadorean legal system if the court dismissed the environmental case.” – Wall Street Journal, 1/14/10
Chevron has never operated in Ecuador, a fact that cannot be disputed. Texaco’s role in oil operations in the country ended in 1992. Since then, Ecuador’s government owned oil company, Petroecuador, has been the exclusive operator of the oil fields and has amassed a deplorable environmental record.
The claim filed against Chevron on January 14 is erroneous and subsequent media statements by the plaintiffs are incorrect and misleading. Chevron did not agree to any stipulation concerning jurisdiction in Ecuador. In fact, Chevron was not a party to the prior New York action. American trial lawyers are once again distorting the record. To clarify, the case that was brought against Texaco in New York is totally different than what has been brought against Chevron in Ecuador. The case against Chevron in Ecuador does not seek an award for the 48 named plaintiffs. Rather, it seeks to force Chevron to pay for the remaining remediation work that the government of Ecuador has never performed. Under an agreement with the government of Ecuador, Texaco spent $40 million performing its agreed-upon share of the clean-up work. Texaco obtained full and complete releases after meeting all the requirements placed upon it by the government of Ecuador. The remaining remediation work required is the exclusive responsibility of the government of Ecuador. The case against Texaco in New York was dismissed. Period. It was not moved, transferred, or refilled. A brand new and totally different case was brought against Chevron in Ecuador. There are no stipulations from the New York action that cover a different claim against a different party in Ecuador. Texaco never waived its rights to seek the enforcement of valid agreements and contracts with the government of Ecuador. Texaco has never waived its rights to resist a verdict that is the product of fraud and a broken legal system.
It is important to understand that the two cases are very different. The case brought against Texaco in New York was about alleged personal injuries and alleged personal damages. The case against Chevron in Ecuador is exclusively about alleged damages to public lands. Of the 48 plaintiffs in the Ecuador case, there are no claims for personal injury or personal damages of any kind.
