Plaintiff's Final Arguments in Ecuador Court Show 'Overwhelming' Proof of Chevron Contamination

[Judi Lynn]

Amazon Defense Coalition: Plaintiff's Final Arguments in Ecuador Court Show 'Overwhelming' Proof of Chevron Contamination

Oil Giant's Liability for Amazon Disaster On Full Display In Public Document

LAGO AGRIO, Ecuador, Jan. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Lawyers for the Amazonian communities suing Chevron have submitted the first part of their final written argument to the Ecuador court, outlining the evidence demonstrating Chevron's liability in the $113 billion environmental damages lawsuit and the fraud behind the company's primary defense of remediation.

The court filing -- called an "alegato" in Ecuador -- details in exacting detail how evidence gathered by independent experts, the plaintiffs, and from Chevron itself proves the case against the oil company. A summary of the argument can be found here. The lawsuit was first filed in U.S. federal court in 1993 but was shifted to Ecuador at Chevron's request. The plaintiffs are tens of thousands of persons who live in area of Ecuador where Chevron operated several large oil fields from 1964 to 1990, reaping excess profits by using substandard practices.

Chevron has long argued, as its primary defenses at trial, that no contamination in Ecuador is linked to its operations, that any contamination that had been present was cleaned up in a "remediation" conducted from 1995-98, and that any contamination remaining in the region was the responsibility of PetroEcuador, Ecuador's state-owned oil company which took over the oilfields after Chevron abandoned them in 1992.

Despite Chevron's claims, a summary of the plaintiff's alegato concludes the legal release used by Chevron as a result of that remediation is "null and void" because it was based on numerous false and misleading representations by the company. Instead of actually cleaning up the waste in the area, the limited "remediation" was largely accomplished by simply covering a small number of waste pits with dirt and then using an inappropriate laboratory test that counted only a fraction of the actual contamination to "prove" that the remediation had been effective.

More:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/amazon-defense-coalition-plaintiffs-final-arguments-in-ecuador-court-show-overwhelming-proof-of-chevron-contamination-114497884.html

[Judi Lynn]

1. Chevron Accused Of 'World's Worst Oil-Related Disaster' In Ecuador: Alleged Evidence Submitted In La

Chevron Accused Of 'World's Worst Oil-Related Disaster' In Ecuador: Alleged Evidence Submitted In Lawsuit (PHOTOS)
The Huffington Post | Joanna Zelman First Posted: 01-24-11 03:04 PM | Updated: 01-24-11 03:15 PM

Could there be enough "overwhelming" evidence against Chevron to merit a payment of over $100 billion? Tens of thousands of Ecuador's residents are the plaintiff in an environmental damages lawsuit against Chevron, and they believe the evidence speaks loud and clear, which is detailed in the first part of the final written argument against Chevron recently released by the Amazonian communities' lawyers.

Chevron ran several oil fields in Ecuador until the early 1990's -- Petroecuador, a state-owned oil company, took over the oilfields in 1992. The plaintiff claims that in the time that Chevron operated the oil fields, it disastrously harmed both the environment and human health.

The plaintiff believes that Chevron intentionally disposed of billions of gallons of toxic waste by dumping them into rivers and streams. They also argue that Chevron spilled thousands of oil barrels, built and abandoned 900 toxic waste pits, and ordered the destruction of oil spill records. It is possible that the company could be liable for up to $113 billion, according to plaintiff damage assessment reports.

Meanwhile, Chevron argues that Ecuador's contamination cannot be linked to its operations in the country. At the same time, they argue that any contamination that had existed was cleaned up during a past "remediation," and thus, any remaining contamination is Petroecuador's responsibility.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/chevron-accused-by-ecuado_n_813117.html#s228930

[social_critic]

2. This is an interesting case

How is the court going to figure out which is Chevron's in which is the state oil company's pollution? They don't mention Ecopetrol at all.

I don't think those who say the problem in Ecuador is the world's worst oil pollution have been to see the Baku oil fields operated by the Soviet Union. Or their counterparts in Kazakstan.

[Bacchus39]

3. I don't think it will be an issue since its being ajudicated in an Ecuadorian court

I would expect the judgement to go against Chevron and then Chevron essentially ignoring the judgement.

[social_critic]

6. I'm not sure. If I were Chevron i would appeal it

The plaintiff's case is weak because the contamination is in land operated by the state oil company, and their operations have been going on for about 20 years. I visited the area (this is where Angelina Jolie visited last year), and I found a significant amount of pollution and what I would call poor practices, which were denounced by locals - complaining about the state oil company's behavior. I also interviewed some of same state oil company employees, and their attitude was fairly constant - they acted as per the instructions they got from the top. And who is the master of the state oil company? The government - ie Mr Correa himself.

This tells me that indeed it's very likely Chevron (aka Texaco at the time) polluted the environment, but it's hard to figure out which pollution is caused by which company. The whole case seems to be more one of ambulance chasers from the US seeking a quick buck rather than an honest court case to make somebody clean up the environment. Also, the damages claims are outlandish. Overall, it's a poor case. If I were Chevron I would take it to the Supreme Court in Ecuador, and dare them to give themselves such a lousy reputation no foreign company would ever invest in that country. And this would seal Correa's fate. He needs foreign investment. I know for a fact Venezuela is too broke to invest, and the multinationals (including Chinese) are too wary as it is, so he's running on empty anyhow.

[EFerrari]

4. That's is the Chevron lawyers' view, precisely. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

5. Interesting how the RWers here echo Chevron's well-heeled P.R. firms and

conclude that a ruling against Chevron would be biased because the court is in Ecuador.

As for Chevron ignoring a ruling against them in Ecuador, it's funny because they are the ones who wanted the trial in Ecuador. At the time they thought they had Ecuador's government all sewn up. Now there is a non-corrupt leftist government and they don't have things all sewn up. There is a chance at objectivity.

Multinational corporations like Chevron don't like objectivity. They like things good and rigged in their favor--like they thought they had in Ecuador when they moved the trial from the U.S. They certainly don't want "little people"--like the 30,000 Indigenous who have sued for restoration of their lands and treatment of their cancers and other toxic oil-sludge illnesses--to have any chance in court against their almighty selves, the lords of the earth. Like the corporate 'news' monopolies they use as their propaganda tools, they want not only for their view to prevail, they want their view to be the only thing that anyone gets to hear. One of their apologist 'news' monopolies, for instance, in Venezuela--where the Chavez government was insisting on a fair oil deal for Venezuela, with Exxon Mobil--actively participated in a rightwing coup d'etat against the elected government. Among the coup's first acts was to suspend the constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights. And among the acts of one of the 'news' corps that supported the coup--RCTV--was that they forbade any member of the Chavez government from speaking on TV during the coup. They also promulgated a list of the members of Chavez's government and their locations, so rightwing mobs could more easily find them.

How's that for "free speech"?

And then, of course, when the Chavez government denied RCTV a renewal of their license to use the PUBLIC airwaves (to foment coups), the hue and cry went up from the apologist corporate media that Chavez--Chavez, who had been kidapped, and whose vice president and cabinet members had been banned from TV--was "suppressing free speech."

I think this is typical of multinational corporations. They want THEIR views promulgated in all media and no one else's. And they've pretty much gotten their way. They also want to write their own laws, which they do every day in Washington DC, and they want to own judicial systems, which they pretty much do in the U.S., as well as having their own guys running the executive branch (Bush, Cheney--both "oil men")--and/or fatally weak executives, who don't think like FDR: "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred." This is why they call Chavez a "dictator" and have begun to do the same to Evo Morales (Bolivia) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador). Chevron, Exxon Mobil and other multinationals consider strong leftist advocacy on behalf of the people to be "dictation."

It's pretty much the same struggle in Ecuador, as in Venezuela--it's all about the oil--and, in Bolivia, the gas and the lithium. Can multinational corporations run roughshod over local governments and peoples, extract the resources, giving nothing back, and often leaving things much worse--as with the toxic oil sludge in the Ecuadoran rainforest--and then move on, ever richer, ever more powerful, to ravage the next people and the next environments? According to the Wall Street "ethos," the answer is yes. According to Wall Street's echo chamber, the corporate 'news' media, the answer is yes. But according to the voters of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, the answer is NO MORE!
'
As for Chevron being scofflaws, and ignoring court rulings, i imagine that they will behave just like these multinational monsters always behave, especially toward "little people" and "little countries" --with utter contempt or worse.

But the "little people" and democracy are making a comeback in Latin America--so we will see. There is certainly more chance today that a corp like Chevron can be held to account than there was ten years ago, or ever before.

I want to say that I don't oppose business corporations or "the marketplace," per se. I think both can be--and have been--useful to humanity--and a "teeming marketplace"--full of variety, color and life--may be a fundamental human need, built into the species. However, what I see today--with U.S.-based multinationals as the lead example--is utterly out-of-control wealth and power, concentrated into the hands of a few, that is devastating to democracy, often lethal to powerless people and may bring on the death of Planet Earth. We simply must rein them in--with strong regulation, and dismantling of monopolies--or it's all over for U.S. democracy, certainly, and perhaps for democracy anywhere--and it may be all over for human beings and our lovely home.

I have no idea how the Ecuadoran court will rule. I think the Indigenous tribes have a chance, that is all. They got a fair hearing, from what I can tell. They have fought very long and very hard, against great odds, and that speaks to the genuineness of their grievance. And though I've seen some of the pictures and read some accounts, I am not that familiar with the evidence. And there are certainly politics and pressures involved, not necessarily in their favor. I also don't know for sure how Chevron will behave if they lose. But it is certainly a paradigmatic situation--even an epic one. We could see a great turning of the wheel toward Pachamama--Mother Earth--whatever the legal outcome. This could be it. Are we going to repair Mother Earth, or are we ourselves going to go extinct, like the millions of species of fish, birds and other critters and plants that our industrial revolution and its pollutants have extirpated?

[social_critic]

7. We right wingers are well known to be lackeys of US imperialism

I myself make sure I only eat oranges picked from the right side of trees, and always drive on the right lane, never mind the traffic laws. And I carry a card saying if found dead please bury laying on my right side. And I'm always right, by the way.

Now that we got the bs out of the way....

I don't read pr firm reports. I visited the sites, talked to people, reached my own conclusion. The legal case for the plaintiff is weak, and it's bogus.