Tag Archives: Chevron’s oil pollution of Ecuadorean Amazon

How Many Oil Barrels have Spilled in the Amazon

petroperu-oil-spill-amazon-loreto

It’s been a bad year for Peru’s Amazon – 2016 has seen seven oil spills there so far. And it’s only September. Most of these occurred across the Northern Peruvian Pipeline, in operation since 1977, which transports crude from the Peruvian Amazon to the Pacific Coast along 854 kilometers (530 miles) and is under the control of state-owned Petroperu. After the first two spills leaked around 3,000 barrels, in January and February 2016, the pipeline was shuttered for repairs. However, five additional oil spills have happened since then.According to Peru’s environment regulator OEFA, at least five oil spills were due to poor pipeline conditions, and illegal use of it after the closure. However, the oil company is blaming the latest two spills on vandalism by locals.,,

[M]ore than 190 oil spills have been recorded in Peru since 1997, according to Peru’s energy and mining agency. But the situation appears to have worsened since the beginning of 2016. After the two oil spills leaked 3,000 barrels – polluting nearby rivers and destroying the livelihood of locals – protests against pipeline’s poor conditions in February 2016 forced its shutdown.

When a third oil spill occurred in June 2016 – of 600 barrels – then-Minister of Environment, Manuel Pulgar Vidal, accused Petroperu of pumping crude illegally through the pipeline. The president of Petroperu was ousted, and a $3.5-million (around 3-million-euro) fine was levied.

But the disaster continued: During August and September 2016, four additional oil spills were recorded in the area. The last two occurred while thousands of indigenous people were demonstrating for withdrawal of the oil companies. According to the Peruvian government, Petroperu is responsible for at least five of the seven oil spills – the company has already been penalized more than $7 million. Petroperu continues to insist, however, that the oil spills were a result of extreme weather or vandalism by the locals.

The amount of oil spilled 2016 in the Peruvian Amazon – less than 10,000 barrels in seven spills – is a relatively small amount, compared for instance to the 650,000 barrels of oil that have fouls parts of the Amazon of Ecuador since the 1960s.

Repeated oil spills threaten Peru’s Amazon, DW.com, Oct. 2, 2016

Foreign Corporate Immunity: Chevron/Canada against Ecuador

A Toronto judge halted on May 1, 2013 an effort to enforce a $19 billion Ecuadorean judgment against U.S. oil company Chevron Corp in Canada, finding that his Ontario provincial court was the wrong place for the case.  The action is the latest skirmish in a two-decade conflict between Chevron and residents of Ecuador’s Lago Agrio region over claims that Texaco, which Chevron acquired in 2001, contaminated the area from 1964 to 1992.

Citing Chevron’s promise to fight the plaintiffs until “hell freezes over, and then fight it out on the ice,” Justice David Brown of the Ontario court foresaw a “bitter, protracted” battle that would be costly and time consuming.  “While Ontario enjoys a bountiful supply of ice for part of each year, Ontario is not the place for that fight,” Brown wrote in his ruling on Wednesday. “Ontario courts should be reluctant to dedicate their resources to disputes where, in dollars and cents terms, there is nothing to fight over.”

Alan Lenczner, principal lawyer in Toronto for the Ecuadorean plaintiffs, said they would definitely appeal, arguing that a multinational company could not be immune from enforcement in a country where it earns so much. “Chevron Corp itself earns no money,” he said in a statement. “All its earnings and profits come from subsidiaries including, importantly, Chevron Canada.”  Chevron Canada’s assets are worth more than $12 billion, the plaintiffs had said, and alongside separate actions in Argentina and Brazil, they had sought to persuade the Ontario court to collect the damages awarded to them by the South American court.

Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, has steadfastly refused to pay, saying the February 2011 ruling by the court in Lago Agrio was influenced by fraud and bribery. A related fraud case goes to trial in New York in October.  The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the country’s courts can recognize and enforce foreign judgments in cases where there is a “reasonable and substantial connection” between the cause of the action and the foreign court. Chevron called Brown’s ruling a “significant setback” to the Ecuadoreans’ strategy of seeking enforcement against subsidiaries that were not parties to the Ecuador case.  “The plaintiffs should be seeking enforcement in the United States – where Chevron Corporation resides. In the U.S., however, they would be confronted by the fact that eight federal courts have already found the Ecuador trial tainted by fraud,” Chevron said in a statement. Last month, a consulting firm whose work helped lead to the $19 billion award against Chevron disavowed some environmental claims used to obtain the judgment.

Excerpt, Judge halts Chevron-Ecuador enforcement action in Canada, Reuters, May 1, 2013

See also how Chevron Destroyed the Paper Trail

HardBall: Chevron and the Oil Pollution in Amazon

texaco ecuador.  Image from wikipedia

An environmental case that has pitted Chevron against Ecuadorean Amazon villagers for two decades has taken another bizarre twist, with an American consulting firm now recanting research favorable to the villagers’ claims of pollution in remote tracts of jungle.  The consulting firm, Stratus Consulting of Boulder, Colo., announced late Thursday (April 11, 2013) that it had originally been misled by Steven R. Donziger, a lead lawyer for the Ecuadorean villagers, and had decided to disavow its contributions to scientific research about whether there was groundwater contamination that sickened the residents in swaths of rain forest.

The move prompted the plaintiffs to assert that Chevron was coercing parties to the case, citing this as another example of strong tactics employed by the company as it tries to overturn an Ecuadorean judge’s decision two years ago that it pay $18 billion in damages, one of the largest environmental awards ever. In this instance, the plaintiffs claim that Chevron pressured Stratus to retract its assessment in exchange for dismissal of legal claims in a countersuit filed by Chevron made against the firm — claims that could have pushed the consulting business into bankruptcy.  “Stratus deeply regrets its involvement in the Ecuador litigation,” the firm said. It remains unclear whether this development with Stratus will have much impact on Chevron’s appeals, because the judge also based his ruling on other environmental assessments. The judge ruled that back in the 1970s, Texaco had left an environmental mess in oil drilling operations while operating as a partner with the Ecuadorean state oil company, and that Chevron, which bought Texaco in 2001, must apologize for and was liable for the damage.

Chevron has refused to apologize. In addition to appealing the decision in the Ecuadorean courts, Chevron also filed a countersuit in federal court in New York against Mr. Donziger and Stratus Consulting, accusing them of racketeering and fraud. Because Stratus has now retracted its statements on the Ecuadorean pollution, Chevron agreed not to pursue claims against the firm anymore. On Friday, Chevron filed witness statements from Douglas Beltman, a Stratus vice president, and Ann Maest, a Stratus scientist, in which they now say they were not aware of scientific evidence of groundwater contamination in the former Texaco concession area or of any adverse health impact to people from the operations.

Mr. Beltman stated that “at Donziger’s direction,” he drafted portions of a report in the first person as if it were written by Richard Cabrera, the supposedly independent expert, that detailed environmental damage for the Ecuadorean court. “Donziger stressed to me and Ann Maest the importance of Stratus ensuring that no one learn of Stratus’ involvement in any aspect of the Cabrera Report or Responses,” he said.  In an interview, Mr. Beltman said, “This settlement was extensively negotiated with Chevron and we think it’s fair and it’s not extortion.”  Mr. Donziger said he could not comment since he was a defendant in the racketeering case filed by Chevron.

It was not immediately clear what impact Stratus’s recantation would have on the case. Chevron’s appeal is before Ecuador’s highest court, the National Court of Justice, and the company is defending itself in courts in Canada, Argentina and Brazil to avoid paying damages in those countries. The plaintiffs are waging an international campaign seeking damages because Chevron has no assets in Ecuador itself…

Kent Robertson, a Chevron spokesman, said the statements should uphold the company’s position in the American racketeering case and in the international enforcement proceedings. “The declarations today show there is no scientific evidence to support the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ allegations,” he said.

Craig Smyser, a lawyer for some of the Ecuadorean plaintiffs, said the statements by the consulting firm “should have almost no effect” because the Ecuadorean judge relied on many expert reports other than the one that Stratus was involved in.  He attributed the decision by Stratus to repudiate its earlier work to the “immense financial strain that threatened the financial extinction of the firm, including a campaign by Chevron to discredit Stratus with various government agencies and businesses with which Stratus worked.”

Chevron has been playing hardball for at least four years. The company produced video recordings from pens and watches wired with bugging devices that suggested a bribery scheme surrounding the proceedings and involving a judge hearing the case. An American behind the secret recordings was a convicted drug trafficker.  But the oil company appeared to gain the upper hand three years ago when it won a legal bid to secure the outtakes from a documentary about the case, “Crude,” in which Mr. Donziger was shown describing the need to pressure a Ecuadorean judge and boasting of meetings with Ecuadorean officials.

In a sworn statement filed in an American court, Alberto Guerra, an Ecuadorean judge who heard the Chevron case in 2003 and 2004, accused Nicolas Zambrano, the judge who issued the $18 billion verdict against Chevron, of taking a $500,000 bribe from the plaintiffs. Mr. Zambrano denied the charge, and in his own affidavit, said that Mr. Guerra had told him that Chevron would offer him $1 million in return for a favorable judgment.  Chevron has denied offering any bribes.

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS, Consultant Recants in Chevron Pollution Case in Ecuador, NY Times, April 12, 2013

Chevron in the Amazon

Argentina against Chevron: the Amazon Rainforest Judgment

An Argentine judge embargoed Chevron Corp.’s assets in Argentina to carry out an Ecuadorean court order that awarded $19 billion to plaintiffs in an environmental damage lawsuit in the Amazon, a lawyer said Wednesday (Nov. 7, 2012).  Judge Adrian Elcuj Miranda ordered the freezing of Chevron’s assets in Argentina as plaintiffs try to collect the judgment won in Ecuador last year, Argentine lawyer Enrique Bruchou told reporters in a conference call.  The order states that all the cash flows from sales and bank deposits be frozen until the $19 billion is collected, Bruchou said. The order applies to 100 percent of Chevron’s capital stock in Argentina, 100 percent of its dividends and its entire minority stake in Oleoductos del Valle. It also includes 40 percent of any current or future money that Chevron Argentina holds as well as 40 percent of all its crude sales.

Bruchou said the decision in the largest environmental suit in the world should send a strong message to foreign investors that they must apply the same environmental standards wherever they do business. Similar lawsuits have been filed this year in Canada and Brazil.  “We’re making history in the preservation of the environment,” Bruchou said.  “This is a ruling that sets an example. What we’re telling the world is that in Latin America we want to demand that whoever comes to exploit does it following the same health an environmental standards as they do in their countries of origin,” he said.

Chevron officials said the company knew of neither a filing by the plaintiffs nor an order from a court in Argentina. They also said Chevron’s operations in Argentina had nothing to do with the case in Ecuador.  “The plaintiffs’ lawyers have no legal right to embargo subsidiary assets in Argentina and should not be allowed to disrupt Argentina’s pursuit of its important energy resources,” said James Craig, a Chevron spokesman for Latin America and Africa. “The Ecuador judgment is a product of bribery, fraud, and it is illegitimate.”  Chevron has refused to pay the sum stemming from waste water pollution and oil industry waste, saying that fraud marked the trial and that Texaco Petroleum Co. mitigated the environmental damage long before 2001, when it became a Chevron subsidiary.

Ecuador’s highest court has upheld the ruling, while the plaintiffs have accused Chevron of dirty tricks designed to subvert the lower-court ruling.  The plaintiffs say Texaco, and now Chevron, remain responsible for environmental contamination and illnesses resulting from the operations of an oil consortium from 1972 to 1990 in Ecuador’s rainforest…

The plaintiffs will begin a suit in Colombia in the coming days and are also preparing legal actions in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, Fajardo said.  “Environmental crime will not go without punishment and we’re going to chase them anywhere in the world,” he said.  Chevron argues that a 1998 agreement Texaco signed with Ecuador after a $40 million cleanup absolves it of liability and that Ecuador’s state-run oil company is responsible for much of the pollution in the oil patch Texaco quit more than two decades ago.

Chevron is a major player in Argentina producing about 26,000 barrels of crude and 4 million cubic feet of natural gas daily, the plaintiffs have said.  The company is also key for the South American country’s future energy needs, especially after it agreed to work with the state-run YPF energy company to develop shale reserves that could be the third-largest in the world.

Argentine judge embargoes Chevron assets on spill, Associated Press, Nov. 7,2012

See also Chevron US Courts

Chevron and Amazon: the $18 billion Ecuador Liability

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals  on June 12, 2012  (pdf) dealt another setback to Chevron over its $18 billion Ecuador liability, reversing a lower court decision that allowed the oil giant access to documents from a prominent consulting group for the Amazon rainforest communities that sued the company.-

Chevron’s Amazon Rainforest Pollution, human rights and investment tribunals

Indigenous rainforest communities from Ecuador who recently won an $18 billion judgment against Chevron for environmental damage have filed  a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights strongly criticizing Chevron’s “egregious misuse” of the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) to violate human rights protections. They are seeking an order requiring Ecuador’s government to protect their right to life, physical integrity, health, a fair trial, and equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the American Declaration of the Rights of Man and other international human rights treaties.

The petition was filed against Ecuador’s government because Chevron is seeking an order from the private investor arbitration panel mandating that the country’s President freeze the court proceedings until the BIT panel can rule, a process which normally takes three years. Such an order would violate Ecuadorian and international law as well as the human rights protections that the Commission is sworn to uphold, said Pablo Fajardo, the lead lawyer for the Ecuadorian plaintiffs in the underlying environmental case.

The Commission, located in Washington, D.C., hears claims for emergency relief from individual human rights victims and derives its authority from the the multilateral international treaty that created the Organization of American States, of which Ecuador and the United States are members. Any order from the Commission is binding on the government against which it is issued.

“The threats are serious and urgent,” the plaintiffs wrote in their petition, referring to their own plight living near extensive levels of toxic oil contamination in the Amazon rainforest for almost 50 years. An Ecuadorian court in 2011 found Chevron liable for dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon when it operated under the Texaco brand from 1964 to 1992, causing dramatically increased rates of cancer and decimating indigenous groups. See here and here.

“The idea that an arbitral panel would even contemplate ordering a sovereign state to violate its human rights obligations is repugnant not only to the substance of international human rights law but to the very core of the international legal order,” the petition added.  The petition also argues that the relief sought by Chevron extends well beyond the scope of the BIT in that it does not authorize private investor arbitration panels to act as a “transnational” appellate court that can override decisions in a public court system of a sovereign nation. The BIT is normally limited to allowing investors to seek monetary damages directly from a government if it feels it has been treated unfairly, a claim that Chevron makes but that the indigenous communities reject.

The Ecuadorians believe the investor arbitral panel convened by Chevron violates international law in that it bars the rainforest communities from appearing before it, does not publish its decisions, and does not inform the public about when and where it meets. Further, its three members — all practicing lawyers — suffer from a conflict of interest in that they each stand to reap millions of dollars in fees paid in part by Chevron simply by granting jurisdiction over the case when there is little if any basis to do so.

“What Chevron is trying to with this secret arbitration is utterly offensive to anybody who believes in the rule of law,” said Fajardo, whose clients initially filed the environmental lawsuit against Chevron in 1993 in U.S. federal court in New York before it was shifted to Ecuador at Chevron’s request.  “Chevron is trying to convince the private arbitral panel to override the decisions of a public court in a sovereign country where Chevron chose to litigate, even as Chevron continues to pursue appeals in that country making the same arguments it makes before the secret panel,” he added. “It’s just an outrageous abuse of judicial process.”  “Any decision by the panel granting Chevron’s requests would violate international law and certainly would not bind the indigenous communities who are not a party to the proceedings,” he added. “We also believe it will backfire against Chevron if the company carries through on its threats to try to block enforcement of the legitimate Ecuador judgment in courts around the world.”

Ecuador’s government has argued that the oil giant has no right to even file the claim under the BIT given that the treaty did not take effect until 1997, or five years after Chevron left the country.  Chevron’s latest maneuver prompted renowned Latin American jurist Jose Daniel Amado to send a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asking for a review of what he called an “improper and illegal expansion of arbitral powers” by the panel.  The Amado letter gained immediate support from jurists around the world, who sent a separate letter backing Amado’s arguments to the U.N. official in charge of international arbitration, Renaud Souriel.

Excerpt, Ecuador Communities Target Chevron’s Secret Investor Arbitration in New Court Filing, Says Amazon Defense Coalition, PR Newswier, Feb. 10, 2012

Dragging itself through Oily Mud: Chevron in Amazon

 

A judge in a tiny courtroom in the Ecuadorean Amazon ruled Monday that the oil giant Chevron was responsible for polluting remote tracts of Ecuadorean jungle and ordered the company to pay more than $9 billion in damages, one of the largest environmental awards ever.

The award against Chevron “is one of the largest judgments ever imposed for environmental contamination in any court,” said David M. Uhlmann, an expert in environmental law at the University of Michigan. “It falls well short of the $20 billion that BP has agreed to pay to compensate victims of the gulf oil spill but is a landmark decision nonetheless. Whether any portion of the claims will be paid by Chevron is less clear.”

Both sides said they would appeal the ruling…Pablo Fajardo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “triumph of justice,” but said it still fell short. “We’re going to appeal because we think that the damages awarded are not enough,” he said in a telephone interview. The plaintiffs were seeking as much as $113 billion, according to a report recently submitted to the court.  A Chevron spokesman, Kent Robertson, called the decision “illegitimate and unenforceable.” He said Chevron would appeal through the Ecuadorean legal system, and would not pay the damages.  “This is the product of fraud,” he said. “It had always been the plan to inflate the damages claim and coordinate with corrupt judges for a smaller judgment.”

The origins of the case go back to the 1970s, when Texaco, which was later acquired by Chevron, operated as a partner with the Ecuadorean state oil company. The villagers sued in 1993, claiming that Texaco had left an environmental mess that was causing illnesses. Chevron bought Texaco in 2001, before the case was resolved.

Chevron has been playing hardball for at least the last two years. It produced video recordings from watches and pens wired with bugging devices that suggested a bribery scheme surrounded the proceedings and involved a judge hearing the case. The judge was forced to resign, although it was later revealed that an American behind the secret recordings was a convicted drug trafficker…

Last week, Chevron filed a suit against dozens of people involved in the case, charging that they conspired to extort the company for $113 billion by making up evidence and trying to manipulate the Ecuadorean legal system. At the company’s request, an American judge issued a temporary restraining order to block any judgment for at least four weeks. A day later, international arbiters ordered Ecuador to suspend the enforcement of any judgment.

Excerpts from SIMON ROMERO and CLIFFORD KRAUSS, Ecuador Judge Orders Chevron to Pay $9 Billion, NYTimes, Feb. 14, 2011