Manuel - Alianza PAIS

2
THE DIRTY HAND OF CHEVRON:
THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL
CRIME IN ECUADORIAN
HISTORY
Movimiento Alianza PAIS
Secretaría Ejecutiva
Communication department
2014
CHEVRON AND ITS SYCOPHANTS
M
anuel Medina Castro is among the greatest friends I have had in my life; and, maybe,
besides his everlasting interpretation of Marxism, the best lesson he passed on to
me can be summarized in one rule of ethical conduct: “In your life, never be anybody’s
sycophant”.
Neocolonialism, as many other capitalist defects, gave birth to a subdued and lackey lifestyle,
in which capital subordinates everything. Human beings are not beings; instead, they are things
that produce or consume other things. Human relations, even love relations, are identified from
power and not from passion. Life itself merely consists of passing through social mobility; it is
determined by opportunism and individualism. Ancient virtues, such as: generosity, solidarity,
and loyalty are a simple shelter for naïve people, since, all people care about is money and its
voracious environment; therefore, egoism and greediness have become values. This is when
sycophants appear.
If this is put into terms that refer to political relations, between States or Corporations, new
features arise: effrontery, shamelessness, sharpness, and vanity. Perhaps these premises can
lead us to the reason this publication is made: the dirty hand of Chevron-Texaco –a display of
the absolute power of money and of their incestuous relations with the false justice, or rather,
with injustice, and, of course, with vassals for whom the Homeland does not exist; it is merely
an accidental simulation of birth, and several times, a reason for shame.
The ongoing legal proceedings of free Ecuadorian citizens against the transnational enterprise,
Chevron, undoubtedly deserve to have a chapter on those countrymen –never fellow countrymen- that serve foreign interests. Devoted to submissiveness, in exchange of a few denarius, they
have provided their testimonies; and, even worse, by providing their signatures, they have become
accomplices and accessories to the biggest ecological disaster that has taken place in our time.
What makes it possible for a human being to betray its Homeland?
It is said that Judas Iscariot asked: “What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” However, is it only money what determines disloyalty? No, in the particular case of Chevron, there
are other aspects in between. Submission in exchange of recognition; servility as a display of
idolization to the powerful party; voluntary humiliation so as to be rewarded with an invitation
to the bazaar of the empire; and, by the way, the gullible pretention of being part of -– like an
ancient palace jester - that despot, blond, and arrogant brotherhood.
A few days ago, I was watching the Argentinian film “No sos vos, soy yo”, by Juan Taratuto. The
betrayed character, masterfully played, after being victim of betrayal, expresses his self-healing
in this way: “After this personal tragedy, in order to live again, I walked a long way that lead me from
confusion to anger; from anger to revenge; from revenge to resignation; from resignation to indifference;
from indifference to disdain; and from disdain to forgiveness. That is how I managed to heal”.
One may agree with everything but forgiveness, since it becomes impunity, a historical defect of our country. On the contrary, we must always keep in our memories those who commit,
or have committed, an outrage against our Homeland. From a legal perspective, betrayal is “a
crime, by a civilian or military person, who commits an outrage against public patrimony, security, sovereignty or honor, and independence of the State”. It is not possible to heal wounds and erase scars
while traitors –wizened, invisible, or cynical – parade across the boulevard of broken dreams. At
least we have our words to point at them.
It would be possible to be puzzled by some absences in the fight against Chevron, and by
the fact that leading them, even if paradoxical, are those who have opted for defending Nature.
If it is only a matter of hatred towards the Citizen’s Revolution and Rafael Correa Delgado, or
the distance, what causes them disdain, we must say that Zizek was right when cataloging this
posture as “an angelic view of the postmodern left”, which is now against the interests of Ecuador.
Maybe the most severe issue here is that we can find all the intemperate men reunited with the
sycophants – even though the reasons for that unity are antagonistic.
The ALIANZA PAIS movement presents this book of dignity with the certainty that the words
patriot and fellow countrymen are valid and a cause for pride, passion, and commitment.
Galo Mora Witt
Secretario Ejecutivo
Movimiento Alianza PAIS
Texaco en el Ecuador
Background
Background
A
ccording to earlier chronicles, during
the pre - Hispanic period, inhabitants
of the Santa Elena peninsula were
familiar with an element sharing oil-characteristics, which naturally emerged from the
earth’s surface and was used for medicinal
purposes. In her book Ancón (2001), Historian
Jenny Estrada points out that this resource
was named copey, copé and baba del Diablo (the
spit of the devil). Spanish monarchy representatives rudimentarily exploited it during
colonial times.
In 1858, in his book “Geography of Ecuador”,
Ecuadorian Geographer Manuel Villavicencio
identified the presence of asphalt and tar in today’s Orellana Province, and in the Hollín River
and the East Cucutú Mountain Range, as well.
During the late nineteenth and the early
twentieth centuries, flourishing oil activities
were mainly carried out by foreign companies,
which settled especially in Santa Elena Province, in the coastal region of the country.
In 1878, Colombian citizen M.G. Mier obtained the first land grant of the area. In 1885,
Italian citizen Salvador Vigniani also obtained
several land grants. Nonetheless, oil exploitation did not begin in Ecuador until 1911, with
the drilling of the first oil well: Ancón 1.
In 1919, English company Anglo (founded
as “Anglo – Persian Oil Company” in 1908, until it changed its name to British Petroleum, in
1951, when it merged with Arco, Amoco, Castrol and Aral) created a subsidiary company,
which was established in Guayaquil and was
named Ecuadorian Oilfields Limited, in order
to carry out oil exploration activities in the
peninsula. Two years later, a production process of 3.000 barrels of oil per day (API = 32)
was launched at Ancón 4 well.
However, commercialization level was not
reached until 1925. Marginal exports initiated
in 1928. Until 1971, they did not represent
more than 6% of total national exports, according to the Central Bank. Between 1928 and
1957, 42 million barrels of crude oil were exported: the same number of barrels exported
in 1972. It was the beginning of the oil boom.
In 1940, a small refinery called “Libertad”
was built. It processed 1.000 barrels of oil per
day. The highest point of oil production in the
region, during this time, was reached in 1955:
10.000 barrels per day.
11
12
Background
During the 60’s, a seven-company group
known as Seven Sisters (Seven Dinosaurs,
according to Jaime Galarza Zavala)
dominated the international oil market:
1.Standard Oil of New Jersey (Esso),
merged with Mobil: ExxonMobil, United
States
2.Standard Oil of New York , merged with
Mobil: ExxonMobil. United States
3.Royal Dutch Shell, Netherlands – United
Kingdom
4.Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC),
later British Petroleum (BP), United Kingdom
5.Gulf Oil Corporation, in 1985, bought
by Chevron and BP, United States
6.Standard Oil of California merged with
Shell, later merged with Texaco: ChevronTexaco. Today, Chevron Corporation,
United States
7.Texaco, merged with Chevron in 2001:
Chevron Corporation, United States
Around those times, production in the oil
fields of the peninsula begun to decline (natural decreasing process of oil production), since
they were almost exhausted. Therefore, in
1965, Anglo Ecuadorian Oilfields Limited was
granted 491.000 hectares of land for exploration in other coastal areas. No positive results
were obtained. Thus, in 1967, the company
initiated gasoline (64 and 80 octanes) refining
and distribution activities. This decision fell
upon decreasing exports and internal supply
– oriented extraction.
According to the book “Milestones of Oil
Industry 1829 – 2005”, published in 2006 by
Petroecuador, Ecuador's state-owned oil company, oil extraction focused in the Santa Elena
peninsula for approximately 40 years (1928 –
1959). In addition, several foreign companies,
such as Shell, Standard Oil, California Oil, Tennessee and the Western Geophysical Co were
granted more than 5 million hectares of land
in the Ecuadorian coast and the Ecuadorian
Amazon rainforest for exploration purposes.
In his book “Oil in Ecuador”, Byron Galarza
highlights land grants awarded to a group of
private companies, at the time. Later, some of
these companies handed over their market
share to the Texaco – Gulf Consortium. This
consortium was formed by two companies:
Texaco (American oil company created in
1902 as Texas Company, taken over in 2001 by
the rising Chevron Corporation) and Gulf Oil
(American oil company constituted in 1936
and taken over by Californian Standard Oil, in
order to form Chevron Corporation.)
In 1921, the Leonard Exploration Company
from New York obtained the first land grant
in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest (25.000
km2), for exploration and exploitation activities to be carried out during the next 50 years.
However, the operation authorization was
cancelled in 1937, since the company refused
Background
Amazon
Ecuadorian
rainforest, first
oil explotation
fields
to pay a 126.000 sucres1 debt to the Ecuadorian State.
According to Jaime Galarza Zavala, Dictator
Federico Páez had granted millions of hectares
of Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest to Shell Oil
Company, in 1937. After the exploration stage,
the company eagerly announced the existence
of crude in the region. Oddly, the company
later denied its first statement and changed
it, although natives in the area were already
aware of the positive results drilling activities
had showed, relating to oil production. In 1948,
Shell Company sealed the oil wells and left the
1 Local currency at the time
country, owing millions of dollars to the Ecuadorian State and its employees.
Ecuadorian president at the time, Galo Plaza Lasso, pronounced a nowadays famous and
pertinent sentence, on February 23, 1950, once
Shell returned its land grants: “The Ecuadorian
Amazon Rainforest is a myth. There is no oil.
Those lands are not good for agriculture, either.
We should approach the coast.”
Galarza Zavala also narrates the arrival of
Austrian origin Howard Steven Strouth - also
an American citizen - in the late 50’s. Strouth
was linked to the oil business and focused on
obtaining land grants for exploration. In this
way, he obtained a land grant of 4.5 billion
hectares of Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest
throughout the company Minas y Petróleos S.A.
13
14
Background
(which appeared to be owed by multinational
World Adventures in the United States). He divided and sold it to the best bidders.
Afterwards, Strouth sold part of the Minas y Petróleos S.A. shares to eight companies
and he formed fake companies to which he
transferred the remaining shares. The Coca
concession was negotiated in this bargain
sale: 650.000 hectares were sold for 0.002
sucres each to Texaco, without Government
awareness or authorization.
Moreover, on March 5, 1964, the Government Military Junta constituted in 1963 by
Ramón Castro Jijón, Luis Cabrera Sevilla, Marcos Gándara Enríquez and Guillermo Freile
Pozo, signed a 40-year contract with the Texaco- Gulf Consortium. The contract awarded
the Consortium 1.5 billion hectares of Amazon
rainforest, which was inhabited by indigenous
communities. The previous 650.000 hectares
were included. The contract could be renewed
for 10 more years. Nevertheless, Supreme Decree #364, issued by the Junta on June 30, 1965,
diminished the land award by restricting land
grants up to 500.000 hectares for exploration
and up to 250.000 for exploitation, in oil areas.
In this context, by the end of 1967, TexacoGulf had drilled the first commercial wells in
the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest: Lago Agrio
1. Initial production reached 2.640 barrels of oil
per day. In his thesis work, “Contracting system
in oil activities”, published by IAEN in June 2000,
Víctor Guevara narrates: “In 1968, the discovery
of oil and gas in the Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest region reactivated the interest of foreign
companies. The Ecuadorian state granted more
than 4 million hectares of land for oil exploration and exploitation in the area”.
In this way, until 1971, succeeding Ecuadorian governments awarded large areas of land
to half a dozen foreign companies, without any
regulations favoring the country’s interests. Oil
activity in Ecuador was confusing: it was carried out throughout a mess of irregularities and
did not fulfill payment obligations regarding
royalties (payment for oil use and exploitation),
profit sharing (net revenues after production
costs have been covered) or taxes.
After the discovery of new oil reserves
and the launching of Ecuadorian oil pipeline
SOTE (built by the William Brothers Company
to transport crude from the Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest to the Balao port, in Esmeraldas
Province), the government of José María Velasco
Background
Ibarra2 initiated a grant revision policy, which
gave birth to the Oil and Gas Law, issued on
September 27, 1971. According to this law, oil
belongs to the country: “oil wealth is part of the
unalienable and imprescriptible heritage of Ecuadorian State.”
President Velasco Ibarra signed an Executive Decree authorizing the government to
regulate and supervise oil activities in general,
including those carried out by the Texaco – Gulf
Consortium. Future oil exploitation activities
in Ecuador should be regulated according to
specific percentages. Thus, royalties received
by the Ecuadorian State, regarding oil exploitation in the Guayaquil Gulf, increased from 6%
in 1969 to 16%, in 1972.
According to the new Oil and Gas Law
and the Texaco – Gulf contract amendments,
the Ecuadorian State could retain 20% of oil
production and use it for internal consumption
of oil derivatives. On June 23, 1973, under the
military dictatorship led by General Guillermo
Rodríguez Lara3, established in 1972, Ecuadorian
Oil State Corporation (CEPE) was created and
Ecuador entered the OPEP, as a full member.
These changes, along with the implemented
infrastructure, allowed Ecuador to launch
its first big crude export, on August 17, 1972
(308.283 barrels of crude oil corresponding to
the royalties of Texaco – Gulf, which were paid
in kind to the Ecuadorian government). Each
barrel was sold for $2,34.
2 Constitutional President of the Republic of Ecuador: 1934-1935,
1944-1947, 1952-1956, 1960-1961, 1968-1972.
3 “De- Facto” President of the Republic of Ecuador during 19721976.
Gulf constantly and repeatedly unfulfilled
and
disrespected
payment
obligations
stipulated in the contract. Therefore, in 1977,
the Ecuadorian State decided to buy the
shares (37.5%) Gulf held in the CEPE- TexacoGulf Consortium. Consequently, CEPE became
the majority shareholder (62.5%) - it already
owned 25% of the shares since 1974. Relations
with Gulf definitely came to an end, while the
operation of oil wells and the Trans Ecuadorian
oil pipeline were still in Texaco’s hands.
During approximately 30 years, Texaco extracted 88% of total national oil production, in
399 wells and 22 drilling stations, and it operated the Trans Ecuadorian oil pipeline as well.
15
An irresponsible
operation
An irresponsible operation
T
ransnational company Texaco Petroleum (taken over by Chevron in 2001)
was the only operator of the awarded
oil fields and the Ecuadorian oil pipeline. It extracted 1.5 billion barrels of oil during 28 years
(1964-1992). It also spilled 19 billion gallons of
oil waste and 17 million gallons of crude oil
(one barrel = 42 gallons) in the Ecuadorian
Amazon rainforest.
This means, environmentally-irresponsible
and human rights-irrespective actions were
carried out. Approximately 2 million hectares
of land were polluted, due to direct spillage of
almost 379.2 billion barrels of formation water
(toxic wastewater resulting from oil exploitation) on land. Inhabitants of the area were
seriously affected.
This harmful and damaging event is still
polluting groundwater and the atmosphere.
Texaco Petroleum spilled 30 times more oil
than the Exxon Valdez platform did in Alaska,
in 1989, and 85 times more oil than British Petroleum did, in the Mexico Gulf, in 2010.
Aiming to obtain as much profit as possible, the company did not use techniques
to avoid the pollution caused by the removal
of formation water. It built highly permeable
oil pools for crude oil storage. These oil pools
had been forbidden in the United States, by
American legislation, since the 30’s.
These omissions polluted groundwater,
rivers and estuaries used by humans as water
sources for drinking, cooking, personal hygiene, irrigation and fishing. By using obsolete
and inappropriate technology, which would
have been penalized by the Oil Pollution Act
in the United States, Texaco spared $4 billion.
According to article 12 of the Ecuadorian
Sanitary Code, in force in 1971 as a norm of
mandatory application for all public or private
action within national territory: “Nobody
will be authorized to spill into the air, land
or water, any solid, liquid or gaseous waste
which has not been previously processed,
in order to stop being harmful for public
health”. According to article 17: “Nobody will
be authorized to release, directly or indirectly,
harmful or undesirable substances, in such a
way they might pollute or affect the sanitary
quality of water and hinder supply routes,
totally or partially”.
Operations held by Texaco show a racial
and neocolonialist pattern: the company was
completely aware of the risks incurred, regarding US legal framework and non-compliance
with Ecuadorian law.
19
20
An irresponsible operation
»» 1939: According to regulation
implemented by the State of Texas:
“nobody will be authorized to store,
permanently or temporarily, crude oil,
its products or derivatives in open pools
or directly in the ground”. Texaco settled
drilling fluid and other wasteful material
in 1.000 permeable oil pools.
»» 1942: According to the Louisiana
State Law: “production water is not
allowed to flow through natural drainage
channels”.
in the rivers of the Ecuadorian Amazon
Rainforest.
»» 1973: According to the California
State Sanitary and Security Code, the
oil industry was only allowed to use
smokeless flares.
»» 1979: The release of formation
waters in navigable waters was forbidden
by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) of the United States.
»» 1942: Permeable pools that may
overflow to superficial waters or leach the
ground and groundwater are forbidden
in the State of Louisiana. In Ecuador,
Texaco used horizontal flares in formation
water pools, which produced toxic smoke
clouds.
»» 1960: The authorization for
Texaco’s oil exploitation activities forbids
the pollution of ground or surface water
caused by oil waste. Only low salinity
formation water, presenting both low
chloride and boron levels, could be
released. Formation water spilled by
Texaco in Ecuador exceeded by far these
standards.
»» 1969: The release of formation
waters in dry and running estuaries and
rivers is forbidden in the State of Texas.
Texaco directly released formation waters
This means, the transnational company was
fully aware of all dangers. It knew its proceedings
entailed a real attack against life. High toxic
material concentration in the environment,
especially in water, a source of life for indigenous
communities settled near oil platforms, cause
death after daily human contact.
Some of the effects of Texaco’s action are:
Pollution caused by:
»»18 trillion gallons of liquid waste
»»916 free air pools of toxic waste in the
Amazon Rainforest
»»235 billion cubic feet of burned gas
»»16.8 billion gallons of crude oil
Endangered territory:
»»Polluted waters, gas intoxication, falls into
An irresponsible operation
crude oil pools, burning of oil products,
contact with chemicals, explosions of wells,
rupture of pipelines, consumption of poisoned food and animals.
Health issues:
»»Stomach, liver, intestine, uterus and bone
cancer, leukemia
»»Gastrointestinal disorders
»»Skin problems
»»147% more abortion cases regarding
women living close to spillage areas
»»Anemia cases in 1 out of every 3 children
and 2 out of every 3 adults
»»Breathing, neurological and digestive
problems, fungal infection, headaches, allergic
reactions, dermatitis and kidney problems
Economy and livelihood:
»»Death of animals
»»Affected crops
»»Affected wild animals
Disappearance of the ancient Tetetes and Sansahuari peoples
Moreover: high indigenous emigration
rates, damages to biodiversity, deforestation,
natural reserves extinction and damage to
vegetal and animal species. This is why, the
Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest is nowadays
known as the Amazon Chernobyl.
In 1966, Texaco promised to remediate the
damages caused by the pollution it had generated.
This entailed a tacit acknowledgement of the
prejudice caused. However, the $40 million actions carried out for these purposes were
inappropriate and not sufficient. Yet, Texaco
demanded to be exempted of any liability
regarding its previous activities.
In 1994, a study carried out by the Centre
for Economic and Social Rights in Ecuador
warned the country about the high level of oil
polluters contained in the rivers of the area.
A report issued by the Environment Ministry
confirmed these effects: the Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration in the rivers
located nearby one of the studied communities
was 500 times stronger than the allowed level
for human consumption.
Results of the analysis of 20 rivers located
in 9 polluted communities, and 10 rivers
located in 10 non- polluted communities,
randomly chosen, are presented in the “Yana
Curi, Impact of oil activity in rural populations
of the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest” Report
(2000), written by the Ecuadorian Institute
for Epidemiology and Community Health,
Manuel Amunarriz, which is located at El Coca
(Province of Orellana). On one hand, rivers
located in the non- polluted area showed no
TPH concentration. On the other hand, 18 out
of the 20 rivers located in the polluted area
showed some TPH concentration. It oscillated
from 0.02 parts per million (ppm), in Manduro
River, to 2,883 ppm, in Basura River.
In some rivers, TPH concentration was 100
times higher than the level allowed by the European Union.
At the same time, according to the
aforementioned report:
“The effects of intense exposure to crude
oil are transitory, unless concentration in
compounds is unusually high. Exposure to
21
22
An irresponsible operation
crude oil or to its steam irritates the skin
and causes itchy or irritated eyes. Long or
repeated exposure to low concentrations of
its volatile compounds can cause nausea,
vertigo, headache or dizziness. Breathing
mineral oil can cause lipoid pneumonia
and death. Exposure to benzene, toluene
and xylene is particularly dangerous.
High benzene concentrations cause
neurotoxic symptoms. Long exposure to
toxic levels can harm bone marrow and
cause persistent pancytopenia. Benzene
is also a known cause for leukemia and
other hematologic tumors (…). Various
epidemiologic studies have reported
evidence about the carcinogen effects
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
can have in occupationally exposed people.
A strong link among these effects and skin,
scrotum and bladder cancer has been
found. High risk of lung cancer has also
been detected, in the case of workers in
different industries, exposed to PAH”.
In summary, the analysis of the impact
oil exploitation -carried out in the worst
imaginable conditions- has on human
health shows that exposed populations face
An irresponsible operation
28 years after Texaco's
operations
a serious situation concerning irreversible
consequences, which have become a public
health issue.
23
Organization
and demand
Organization and demand
T
exaco left the country in 1992, without
really remediating the pollution it had
caused. In that year, former President
of the Republic of Ecuador Rodrigo Borja asked
Canadian company HPT-Agra to conduct an
environmental audit on Texaco’s activities.
Unfortunately, next Ecuadorian President
Sixto Durán Ballén did not disclose the report
written by the Canadian company.
Facing this scenario, on November 3, 1993,
lawyer Cristóbal Bonifaz (Kohn, Nasta & Graft
Law Firm) filed a class action1 against Texaco,
at the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York, in representation of the
affected communities. The Aguinda v. Chevron
petition was filed on behalf of 88 residents
from the Orellana and Sucumbíos provinces,
including colonists and Cofanes, Secoyas
and Kichwa indigenous people like Maria
Aguinda (whose last name actually names
the petition), now a 63-year-old grandmother
who saw two of her 10 children die and her
grandchildren sickened by the pollution.
The company was accused of environmental
and human pollution in the Ecuadorian
Amazon rainforest. The petition demands
1 A class action is a lawsuit where a person sues a group of people, a group of people sues another group of people, or a group of
people sues a person. In this case, it refers to a lawsuit filed against
a company, which has affected a group of people. the company to accept responsibility for its
actions.
American citizen Steve Dozinger, a lawyer
for the Amazon Defense Front, joined later.
Dotzinger is currently defending himself
from a big-money lawsuit filed by the
transnational company against him. Chevron
accuses him of being the intellectual author
of a conspiracy plan created to extort and
defraud it.
Supported by the government of Sixto
Durán Ballén, through its Ambassador to the
United States, Edgar Terán Terán, Texaco tried
to convince the Judge to dismiss the case.
The Judge denied this request and declared
that his Court would accept jurisdiction,
if pollution was proved. Unfortunately,
this magistrate died and his successor, Jed
Rackoff, dismissed the case in 1977, on the
ground of inconvenient forum, under Texaco’s
request. Plaintiffs appealed this decision.
Thus, the file was sent to the Appealing
Court, which ratified Rackoff’s decision, in
2002. The Texaco case was transferred to the
Ecuadorian Courts.
Meanwhile, the case raised awareness in
Ecuador. In May 1994, the Amazon Defense
Front (ADF) was created. It is a nonprofit
organization, consisting of 20 organizations
and communities. Its main goal is the defense
of human and environmental rights in the
Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest region.
27
28
Organization and demand
World citizens protesting
against Chevron in New York,
United States of America
NEW YORK AND NUEVA LOJA
Legal tricks played by Texaco have
permanently delayed the legal process, ever
since. However, a radical change took place on
August 16, 2002: the Court of Appeals of New
York decided it was not competent to hear the
case, so it should be referred to Ecuadorian
Courts. It should be remarked that the Oil
Company pressed the Court to take this decision,
intending to bribe the Ecuadorian legal system.
Unanimously,
all
30.000
plaintiffs
decided to go on with the claim. On May 7,
2003, 5 indigenous Ecuadorian nationalities
(Siona, Secoya, Cofán, Huaorani y Kichwa),
represented by Humberto Piyaguaje, filed a
petition at the Superior Court of Nueva Loja.
On October 21, a big demonstration walked
towards the building where the hearing was
taking place. A historical trial, unique in the
world was beginning: a group of people from a
small South American country was bringing a
powerful transnational company before court.
During the legal process, the Ecuadorian part focused on proving its case, as law
requires. Therefore, more than 230.000 supporting information pages were saved in the
corresponding file, more than 40 affected people testified, 106 reports elaborated by experts
were incorporated, more than 80.000 results of
chemical tests done on ground, water or sediment samples were obtained, and independent
health studies carried out by foreign experts
were submitted. Judge Alberto Guerra (later
bribed by Chevron with $326.000 to testify
against the affected people) directly inspected
and verified the damages caused in 54 sites
where the Company used to operate.
Organization and demand
JUDGMENT
According to the judgment from First Instance issued by Judge Nicolás Zambrano on
February 14, 2011, at the Court of Sucumbíos,
environmental damages “which are imputable to the land and water activities carried out
by the sued company” have serious impact in
the ecosystems inhabited by diverse cultural
groups “because environmental degradation
might threaten the group’s existence”.
Based upon analysis, the ruling establishes
the most serious prejudice concerns health, a
fundamental right, whose violation entails a
crime against life.
The concept, meaning and orientation of
this right are widely developed in several international instruments. In the specific case
of the indigenous peoples, it is enshrined in
the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on
Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights. These elements led the
Presidency of the Court to asseverate: “the
right to health is especially linked to the right
to human dignity, equality and non discrimination”.
The legal opinion points out that the
presented evidence is convincing: it shows
“these are constant damages caused by
pollution and not random results”. It warns
about the necessity of remediating the damage
caused to flora and fauna, “in order to restore
livelihood and recover traditional food, thus
seeking to recoup the caused impact”, noting
that it constitutes patrimonial detriment.
After assessing the presented information
and evidence, the President of the Provincial
Court of Sucumbíos concluded: “the cultural
impact on indigenous peoples has been partially caused by the activities carried out by
the defendant, but they also respond to external agents. The activity carried out by the
defendant is a very important contributor,
due to the nearness and dependence existing between the damaged ecosystem and the
habits of the affected peoples”.
29
30
Organization and demand
The judgment, which contemplates
affectation to communities, environmental
damage and its remediation, condemns
Chevron to pay $9.5 billion compensation
for having caused one of the “world’s biggest
environmental disasters”, between 1964 and
1990. It provided this amount might double
and reach $19 billion, if the company did not
publicly apologize to the victims, in the next
weeks.
However, company spokesman James
Craig stated that “Chevron wouldn’t apologize” and he assured the legal process was
corrupt. Thus, he filed a cassation appeal
at the National Court of Justice. On December 12, 2012, the appeal was referred to the
Court’s Civil and Commercial Division.
In addition, the legal process has been filed
with legal instances in 6 countries: Ecuador,
United States, the Netherlands, Argentina,
Brazil and Canada. Plaintiffs have tried to
enforce the ruling, in the last 3 countries.
James Craig has questioned the validity of any
ruling issued in Canada, claiming that the
lawsuit was filed against Chevron-USA and
not against Chevron – Canada. In this regard,
Pablo Fajardo, a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team, declared that the parent company
owns the subsidiaries; therefore, the sentence
can be enforced.
APPEAL AND RATIFICATION
After the judgment of the Sucumbíos Court,
Chevron filed a cassation appeal (judgment
revision due to probable misinterpretation or
wrong application of law) with the Provincial
Court of Sucumbíos. Magistrates referred it to
the National Court of Justice, which ratified
the judgment on November 11, 2013.
According to the ratification act, the transnational company caused environmental
damage in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest. Therefore, it must pay $8.6 billion to the
affected people, and a 10% remediation additional fee to the Amazon Defense Front.
This means, the total amount to be paid
is $8.8 billion, since the National Court
eliminated the punitive damage penalty
determined by the Provincial Court of
Sucumbíos, in January 2012. This penalty
raised the compensation to $19 billion, for
not apologizing to the victims. The sentence
issued by the National Court of Justice has
222 pages and was signed by Judges Wilson
Andino Reinoso, Patricia Aguirre Suárez and
Eduardo Bermúdez.
In October 2013, plaintiffs made significant
progress: the Ecuador Institute of Intellectual
Property – IEPI (Spanish initials) embargoed
50 trademarks held by the company. They
were considered non tangible assets. Chevron
will no longer be able to make profit out
of royalties coming from the following
trademarks: Chevron, Ursa, Havoline, Doro,
Geotex, Meropa, Motex, Multigear, Regal, Taro,
Texatherm, Thuban, etc.
Organization and demand
The embargo followed a request of the
Sucumbíos Court of Justice. IEPI proceeded to
seize every trademark held by Chevron-Texaco.
Andrés Ycaza Mantilla, Executive Director of
CITIZENS WOULD PAY
In October 2013, Ecuadorian Foreign
Minister, Ricardo Patiño, asserted that a
Chevron favoring - ruling would lead the
Ecuadorian State to bankruptcy. The General
Budget of the State represents more than $30
billion, and the government should pay $9.5
billion to Chevron. Patiño declared the State
would have to hand over all export categories,
including coffee, oil and bananas, which sum
up for nearly 10% of the $80 billion GDP, and
30% of the General Budget of the State.
IEPI, confirmed this decision and supported it on
a Judicial Decree, which included IEPI as a holder
of the embargoed intangible assets.
31
The governments
of Sixto Durán
Ballén and Jamil
Mahuad and the
Texaco-Chevron
case
Sixto Durán Ballén
JJamil Mahuad
The governments of Sixto Durán Ballén and Jamil Mahuad and the Texaco-Chevron case
I
n order to prepare for a friendly meeting,
facing the lawsuit filed at New York, first
meetings between representatives of the
government of Sixto Durán Ballén and Texaco’s
victims were held, in 1994. However, negotiations
became cloudy, since the government gradually
kept the victims aside of the decision-making
process, standing on the transnational’s side.
Consequently, in 1995, still under President
Durán Ballén, the Ecuadorian State and Texaco
signed an Environmental Remediation and Repair
Agreement, which came into effect in the same
year. The victims and the Government Accountability Office questioned the activities performed
by the company.
Nonetheless, in 1998, under President
Jamil Mahuad, former Energy and Mining
Minister, Patricio Ribadeneira; former CEO of
Petroecuador, Ramiro Gordillo; former manager
of Petroproducción, Luis Albán Granizo; former
Vice-president of Texaco, Ricardo Reis Veiga; and
the representative of Texaco in Ecuador, Rodrigo
Pérez Pallares, signed the “Act of Final Liberation
of Claims and Equipment Delivery” (Final Act), in
which they recognized that Texaco had fulfilled
its obligations pursuant to the 1996 agreement –
namely environmental remediation in northern
Amazon rainforest- and released it from current
and future liability. This act was signed, even
though the Government Accountability Office
report and studies carried on the reality experienced by the affected people confirmed the
carried out remediation was anti-technical.
The Act permanently liberated, absolved
and released Texpet, Texas Petroleum Company,
Compañía Texaco de Petróleos del Ecuador
S.A., Texaco INC and all of its agents, servants,
employees, officers, attorneys, indemnitors,
guarantors, heirs, administrators, executors,
beneficiaries, successors, predecessors, parent
companies and subsidiaries of any lawsuit or
claim filed by the Ecuadorian Government,
Petroecuador or its subsidiaries”.1
But, even though this document released
Chevron and its agents of any liability regarding
the Ecuadorian State, it does not release them of
individual claims.
1 El Telégrafo Newspaper, 26-09-2013. Available online: http://
www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/informacion-general/item/chevronmaneja-240-mil-millones-en-capital-bursatil.html 35
36
The governments of Sixto Durán Ballén and Jamil Mahuad and the Texaco-Chevron case
OTHER ECUADORIANS IN FAVOUR OF TEXACO-CHEVRON
Sebastián Pérez Arteta: Finance
Minister during the presidency of Sixto Durán
Ballén (1996), defense lawyer for Chevron (Pérez-Bustamante and Ponce Law Firm).
Carlos Vera: Information and Tourism
Minister during the presidency of Sixto Durán
Ballén (1996-97), in charge of the strategy
deployed by the government to defend the
signing of the BIT (1993).
Emilio Palacio: Again in the public
arena since 2012, after a long silence. He
defends Chevron as he discredits the actions
taken in favor of the Amazon communities.
According to him, evidence against Chevron
is fake. He holds the government of Rafael
Correa responsible for the environmental
damage that has killed several people.
Jamil Mahuad: A Release and Settlement Agreement signed by him (1998) released
Chevron from any responsibility regarding environmental damage.
Vladimiro Álvarez Grau: Chevron’s
witness during RICO trial (2011), held against
affected communities. Earning $150.000, he
testified as a specialist, even though all of his
supporting material was taken from press
clips.
Inés Manzano: Public servant during
the presidency of Lucio Gutiérrez (2001-02)
and later running mate of Mauricio Rodas
(SUMA) for the 2013 presidential election. She
has discredited the Ecuadorian legal system
in the media. According to her, the 2011 judgment is illegitimate.
Hernán Pérez Loose: Defense lawyer
representing OXY, Perenco and Chevron in
lawsuits filed against Ecuadorians.
Lucio Gutierrez: During his presidency, an international cooperation agreement
between Texaco – Chevron and the Fourth
Division of the Amazon Army was signed
(2004). It included the building of safe housing
in Lago Agrio for Chevron staff. The payment
of basic services (water and electricity supply)
would be assumed by the military brigade,
thus, by Ecuadorian citizens.
Benjamín Ortíz: Minister of Foreign Affairs during the presidency of Jamil Mahuad
(1999). He owns the company BO Asociados
Quantum, in charge of Texaco- Chevron’s
Public Relations in Ecuador. BO Asociados
Quantum earned more than $300.000 for its
services in 2012.
Patricio Ribadeneira: Energy and mines
Minister during the presidency of Jamil Mahuad
(1998). He signed the final act which released
Chevron from its responsabilities.
The governments of Sixto Durán Ballén and Jamil Mahuad and the Texaco-Chevron case
Victim's testimony
(Fragments of the testimony held by José Shingre, a farmer from the Ecuadorian Amazon Region, at a forum
attended by several representatives of the Human Rights Council members, which held a side event titled
“Human Rights, Environment and Transnational Corporations: The Chevron Case in Ecuador”, during the
68th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York).
“As a consequence, many hundreds and now
thousands of fellow farmers, and fellow indigenous
are dying, but what is hurting us the most in our souls,
is that not even governments have supported us. They
have not answered to our claims either. We don’t
want money; we want two things, dear friends: We
want water, because we have no way of getting water in the area. Water is polluted. No matter how
hard local authorities try to provide us water, they just
can’t do it. Everything is polluted (…) and we want
justice, that’s all, justice, because at this time we can’t
even count on our crops. Our hands have hardened
because of hard work. Is anything worth it?”
“They ruled the land (Texaco). Authorities did not
rule it, not even did the Army, because they (Texaco)
made the decisions and often ordered the military to
keep us from resisting when they knocked down our
coffee plants, our sugar cane and our fruit crops, and
even ourselves, we were harassed by the authorities
themselves.”
“Our family members are constantly getting sick,
and while these immoral practices by Chevron, formerly Texaco, continue, nothing will be good for us
(…). It is clear in our minds, that if they don’t fix it,
if they don’t do an adequate environmental remediation, no other remedy will be good enough.”
“Today, as we claim for justice, the Ecuadorian
State is held responsible for what has happened. We
José Shingre
Farmer from the Ecuadorian Amazon Region
are not defending the President, but we feel we are
part of the Ecuadorian State. So, now they want us to
pay for the injustice committed by Chevron, formerly
Texaco. This should not happen, anywhere on earth.”
37
The tantrums
thrown by
Chevron at the
international
courts of
arbitration
The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration
D
espite the countless times Chevron tried
to hinder the trial at the Court of Nueva
Loja, the judgment was finally issued
and ratified. Therefore, the company was ordered
to pay the stipulated compensation. However,
still trying to escape its monetary obligations, the
Corporation’s attorneys filed several petitions
at different legal instances. Among these, two
petitions should be highlighted:
1) A lawsuit filed at the Courts of New York
against the lawyers representing the affected
communities. They were accused of supposed
fraud regarding the sentence issued by the
Court of Sucumbíos.
2) An international arbitration claim filed
at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The
Hague (Netherlands), aiming to force the Ecuadorian State to take over liability for the debt.
Moreover, on September 23, 2009, Chevron
Corporation filed a notice of arbitration against
the Ecuadorian State, under the Arbitration Rules
of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and under article
VI of the Bilateral Investment Treaty signed by
the United States and Ecuador in 1993.
The notice of arbitration mainly claims
Ecuador has violated its obligations under the
United States-Ecuador Bilateral Investment
Treaty,
investment
agreements,
and
international law, by allowing the 2003 trial to
proceed at the Court of Lago Agrio.1
According to the Government Accountability Office, the arbitration claim has been filed
aiming to obtain: (1) a statement releasing
Chevron from any liability for environmental
damage; (2) an order forcing Ecuador to inform
Texpet, its parent company, its subsidiaries and
its major society of the release of any environmental damage raising from the activities
carried out by the former Consortium; (3) a
statement acknowledging that Ecuador will pay
compensations to the affected communities,
taking over the compensations for all damages
for which Chevron could be held responsible;
and, 4) a statement recognizing that Ecuador
and Petroecuador hold entire responsibility for
the decision obtained in the Lago Agrio Trial.
In this respect, the official position of the
Ecuadorian State, made public by the State
Attorney General, Diego García, and his predecessors, is the following: “the Ecuadorian State
is not involved in the Lago Agrio Trial, it entails
individual claims. Nor the State, neither any of
its organisms takes part in this case”.2
1 State Attorney General, “Posición de la República del Ecuador
frente a la ofensiva de la Compañía Chevron – Texaco”. Available
online: http://www.pge.gob.ec/es/boletines/archivo-2010/
febrero-2010/1380-posicion-de-la-republica-del-ecuador-frente-a-laofensiva-de-las-compania-chevron-texaco.html
2 Idem
41
42
The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration
THE EXPENDITURES OF CHEVRON
During 15 years, the transnational company destined almost $100 million to pay
specialized lobbying firms. Expenditures incurred in order to pay lawyers for marketing
the company, creating false evidence on the
Lago Agrio trial and discrediting Ecuador oscillated between $400 and $600 million.
In the report named “When injustice becomes
business”, Cecilia Olivet states that these executives earn $375 - $700 an hour. Courts of
International Arbitration act against sued States:
Money is deviated from taxpayers to corporations, thanks to the great power these courts
have, although they pretend to be neutral.
CHEVRON’S EXPENSES IN LAWYERS
$ 40’135.971,84
OFF TO NEW YORK, AGAIN
Under Chevron’s request, on February 1,
2010, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, Lewis Kaplan, initiated
a judicial process against Ecuadorian plaintiffs
and their lawyers, including Steven Dozinger.
The lawsuit alleges fraud has been committed
against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador. The
Company intends to delegitimize the judgment
ordered against it by the Sucumbíos Court, under the application of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). According to the American government, the RICO
Act was originally legislated to prosecute the
Mafia and others involved in organized crime,
but over time, the definition of what constitutes racketeering activity has expanded.
Consequently, the application of RICO law has
broadened to include any act relating to homicide, kidnapping, gambling, money laundering,
drug – trafficking conspiracy, justice hindering,
fire, robbery, bribery, obscene material trafficking or negotiation of controlled or chemical
substances.
The case has experienced several
The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration
New York's
southern
District
Federal Court,
United States
of America
irregularities. For instance, Ecuadorian Judge Alberto Guerra (first Judge to hear the case at the
Provincial Court of Sucumbíos, later presented
by Chevron as a key witness) alleged plaintiffs
ghostwrote the judgment against Chevron. According to him, the plaintiffs’ lawyers tried to
bribe him. Nonetheless, according to El Telégrafo
Newspaper, evidence confirms that Chevron
had a $326.000 agreement with Alberto Guerra,
under which he testified against plaintiffs.
“(…) Plaintiffs claim they did not pay
$500.000 to former Judge [Alberto Guerra] to
rule in their favor. Therefore, they say, Guerra
accepted $326.000 compensation from Chevron, in order to testify, at Manhattan Federal
Court, that the judgment ordering Chevron to
pay $19 billion for environmental remediation
was ghostwritten by the plaintiffs and their
lawyers. Out of the $ 326.000, $38.000 would
have been paid cash to compensate Guerra for
the physical evidence presented to sustain his
deposition, including documents and evidence
saved in computers, cell phones, hard drives
and bank records. Additionally, Guerra would
earn $10.000 a month, during 2 years, and he
would receive $2.000 a month for renting and
health insurance expenses and lawyers ‘fees”.
After being served a new summon, Guerra
appeared before Court and accepted his first
deposition lacked honesty, which, along with
the agreement he held with Chevron, totally
discredits his word.
Despite the glaring inconsistencies evidenced
during the process, according to a ruling issued
by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on March 5, 2014,
neither lawyers nor plaintiffs will be able to
enforce the 2011 judgment within US territory.
Kaplan justifies this ruling appealing
to supposed corruption cases surrounding
lawyers and plaintiffs. This ruling offends
43
44
The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration
justice, since the testimonies and allegations
of the defendants were not taken into account
during the trial, under Chevron’s request.
THE HAGUE
On February 28, 2012, the Oil Company
announced that an International Court of Arbitration called under the BIT signed by Ecuador
and the United States, had jurisdiction to hear its
claims against the Republic of Ecuador. The Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague would
administer the International Court of Arbitration.
This arbitration appeal had been filed in 2009.
The Company then alleged that Ecuador violated
the obligations it had assumed under the BIT
and international law. However, Chevron did not
mention it had already left Ecuadorian territory
when the BIT came into force, in 1997. According to the company, the government of Ecuador
did not respect the prior Release and Settlement
Agreement it had subscribed together with the
Texaco Petroleum Company, when the CEPE –
Texaco Consortium came to an end (1992). Thus,
it holds the Ecuadorian State responsible for the
environmental damage occurred in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest. Even if Hague Court ruled
that the State couldn’t sue the Oil Company, this
does not include private or individual claims.
In September 2013, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration of The Hague issued an arbitration
award, which appears not to respect impartiality
principles. It asks Ecuador to suspend the enforcement of the judgment issued by the Court
of Sucumbíos. Ecuador denied this request, alleging division of powers and rule of law must
be respected.
Additionally, State Attorney General Diego
García discredited the Company’s allegations,
since this case does not involve the Ecuadorian
State. It only implicates the Oil Company and the
affected communities (individuals).
In 2013, the Denver Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit allowed Ecuador to use thousands
of documents (not covered by the Attorney
Work-Product doctrine) the Company intended
to keep under reserve. Chevron’s environment
expert Bjorn Bjorkman is now keeping the documents, which stand as clear evidence that the
Company tried to hide pollution caused in the
Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest.
The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration
CHEVRON III
The international lawsuit filed by Chevron, according to which the Ecuadorian State
should take over compensations for the environmental damage caused in the Ecuadorian
Amazon Rainforest between 1964 and 1992 is
known as Chevron III.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration of The
Hague has established three stages in order to
process it:
1) The alleged Ecuadorian “unfulfillment of
the release agreements” will be discussed
on January 31 - April 30, 2014
2) “Chevron’s allegations regarding
Ecuadorian violation of the BIT, especially
a denial of justice charge” will be discussed
on May 9 – April 20, 2015
3) No date has yet been set for discussing
“damage and compensation issues”.
CANADÁ
On December 16, 2013, the Court of
Appeal for Ontario authorized plaintiffs to
appear before Canadian Courts and try to
seize Chevron’s assets. To this end, this Court
invalidated a previous judgment, which
overrode the plaintiffs’ pollution lawsuit
against the Company.
According to Pablo Fajardo, lead
Ecuadorian lawyer for the Union of
Communities Affected by Texaco, the fact
that jurisdiction and competence to validate
and enforce Ecuadorian judgment have been
acknowledged represents a legal victory. This
is a meaningful step towards the embargo of
the company’s assets in Canada, as a means
of forcing it to fulfill the Ecuadorian 2011
judgment. Besides, it will allow plaintiffs to file
lawsuits in other countries, such as Australia,
where the company does also hold important
assets. Fajardo says Chevron’s investments in
Canada account for more than $ 10 billion.
“The ruling of the Canadian Court allows us to
force the company to pay and to enforce the
Ecuadorian judgment”.3
The Union of Communities Affected by
Texaco filed freezing assets petitions against
Chevron in 3 of the 60 countries where the
company currently holds assets: Canada, Brazil and Argentina.
3 El Telégrafo Newspaper, 17-12-2013. Available online: http://
www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/informacion-general/item/
activos-por-mas-de-10-000-millones-de-chevron-en-canada-podrianincautarse.html
45
46
The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration
The dirty hand
The dirty hand
A
s a consequence of the campaign
Chevron has carried out to discredit
Ecuador, which includes lawsuits
and slanderous propaganda, the Ecuadorian
government decided to take a step forward to
defend affected communities and Ecuadorian
dignity.
Ecuador’s campaign “The dirty hand of
Chevron”, personally launched by President
Rafael Correa on September 17, 2013, live from
the areas affected by the irresponsible exploitation of Texaco – Chevron, adds to citizen
initiatives deployed to claim for justice over
the last 2 decades.
The worldwide effects this campaign has
obtained are huge: it has helped raising awareness of the devastating events occurred in the
Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest, which could
be replicated by other irresponsible companies somewhere else on earth. In late July
2013, President Correa called regional blocs
ALBA and UNASUR to discuss UNCITRAL’s
“legal aberration”: the UN commission had ordered the suspension of the 2011 Sucumbíos
Court judgment, under the 1997 BIT, without
considering the fact that charges on Chevron
were committed before the lawsuit was filed.
“Latin-American union is necessary to
avoid the abuse of multinational companies,
which still think of us as their colonies, as they
bribe arbitration courts in favor of large corporations”, said Rafael Correa. ALBA’s country
members expressed their solidarity with Ecuador and its defense from Chevron’s aggression.
It is worth mentioning that Ecuadorian
Embassies have been in charge of making this
case public, throughout the organization of
forums and information campaigns. Organizations and individuals, sensitive to life respect
and nature, have shown overwhelming response. For instance, actors Angelina Jolie,
Danny Glover, Daryl Hannah and Mia Farrow;
songwriter and musician Luis Fernando Aute;
activist Antonia Juhasz; French politician and
far left candidate for the 2012 presidential
election Jean -Luc Mélenchon; environmentalist Alexandra Costeau and the Mayor of
Richmmond, Gayle McLauglin, among others,
have visited the area of ecological disaster.
Likewise, a lot of citizens, ecologists, youth
organizations, students, intellectuals, journalists and communications’ specialists have
demonstrated in the streets of Moscow, Paris,
Havana, Bucharest, Madrid and New York.
Moreover, international solidarity groups
and networks have been built to support
the affected Amazon communities, such as
the network built by Argentinian activist for
51
52
The dirty hand
human rights, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, who was
awarded the Nobel peace Prize in 1980; those
built in Canada, Dominican Republic, Cuba,
France, Sweden and Venezuela, and the European Solidarity Network.
Young people participating at the XVII
World Festival of Youth and Students, held in
Quito on December 9-13 2013, brought the
case to the “Anti-imperialist Youth Court”. This
court condemned the company’s behavior and
ordered the remediation of environmental
damage caused in Ecuador.
According to Ecuadorian newspaper El
Telégrafo, in December 2013 German newspaper Junge Welt published a very important
article on the struggles waged by indigenous
peoples in the Amazon against Chevron. The
article written by journalist André Scheer goes
through the legal and political context of the
lawsuit. Scheer highlights Chevron’s reluctance to pay compensation.
In its December 2013 issue, German Journal Diplomatisches Magazin, informed about the
talk on the Environmental Disaster in Ecuador,
held in the House of Democracy and Human
Rights, in Berlin. It pointed out Chevron’s lack
of sensibility, reflected in its reluctance to pay
$9.5 billion compensation.
In the same way, on December 10, 2013, a
Support Committee for Ecuador was constituted
in France; in order to face the campaign Chevron pursues to discredit Ecuador worldwide.
16 French associations, representatives of
political parties, French senators and representatives, Ambassadors to ALBA’s countries,
filmmakers, journalists, intellectuals and representatives of the Ecuadorian communities
attended the event.
According to the Ecuadorian Embassy
in Brussels, Vice president and Sustainable
Development Minister of the Walloon Government Jean-Marc Nollet condemned the
damage caused by Chevron on a letter he addressed to the American Diplomatic Mission.
The letter states: “economic development is
detrimental to environment protection, which
is regretful”.
An audiovisual campaign was also presented at the University of the Caribbean
(Unicaribe), in Santo Domingo (Dominican
Republic). It included the distribution of supporting material for denounces.
In order to commemorate Human Rights
Day, a conference on the campaign carried
out by Ecuador against Chevron was held in
Havana. Cuban authorities, representatives
of the Cuban Communist Party, students and
authorities of the Eloy Alfaro Primary School
and Ecuadorian residents in Cuba attended
the event.1
1 El Telégrafo Newspaper, 13-12-2013. Available online: http://
www.telegrafo.com.ec/politica/item/los-jovenes-unen-voz-deprotesta-contra-chevron.html The dirty hand
Witnesses of disaster
Celebrities all around the world have supported Ecuadorian goverment's campaign "The dirty hand of Chevron". including artists, environmental activists and politicians.
Luis Eduardo Aute
Daryl Christine Hannah
Spanish Songwriter
American Actress
Alexandra Cousteau
Jean Luc Mélenchon
American Researcher
French politician. Left Party founder.
Member of the European parliament
Mia Farrow
Danny Glover
Australian-American actress
American actor and director, political
activist
53
54
55
MILESTONES
1964 - 1992
Former transnational oil company Texaco (Chevron) irresponsibly operated oil wells
and drilling stations located in approximately
1.5 billion hectares of land in the Ecuadorian
Amazon rainforest. The oil company spilled 30
times more oil than the Exxon Valdez platform
did in Alaska, in 1989, and 85 times more oil
than British Petroleum did, in the Mexico Gulf,
in 2010.
1993
88 people from the Orellana and Sucumbíos
provinces, including colonists and Cofanes,
Secoyas and Kichwa indigenous people, decided to file a petition with the Court of New
York (Aguinda v. Chevron), demanding the oil
company to accept responsibility for the environmental damage caused in the Ecuadorian
Amazon rainforest.
1995
On May 5, under President Sixto Durán Ballén,
the Ecuadorian State and Texaco signed an Environmental Remediation and Repair Agreement, which
came into effect in the same year.
1998
The “Act of Final Liberation of Claims and
Equipment Delivery” (Final Act) was signed under
President Jamil Mahuad. According to it, Texaco had fulfilled its environmental remediation.
This act was signed, even though the Government Accountability Office Report and
studies carried on the reality experienced by
the affected people confirmed the carried out
remediation was anti-technical.
2002
On August 16, the Court of Appeals of New
York decided the case should be referred to
Ecuadorian law, since it was not competent to
hear it. The case was transferred to the Superior Court of Nueva Loja.
2003
On May 7, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the
Superior Court of Nueva Loja, in Lago Agrio (Ecuador).
2009
Chevron filed and arbitration appeal. The
company alleged that Ecuador violated the
obligations it had assumed under the BIT
signed in 1997. However, the Oil Company had
already left Ecuadorian territory when the BIT
came into force.
2010
Under Chevron’s request, United States
District Judge for the Southern District of New
York, Lewis Kaplan, initiated a judicial process
against Ecuadorian plaintiffs and their lawyers.
The lawsuit alleged fraud had been committed against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador.
56
The company intended to delegitimize the
judgment ordered against it by the Sucumbíos
Court, under the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), originally legislated to prosecute the
Mafia and others involved in organized crime.
2011
On February 14, the Court of Sucumbíos
condemned Chevron to pay $9.5 billion compensation for having caused one of the “world’s
biggest environmental disasters”, between 1964
and 1990.
2012
On February 28, 2012, the Permanent Court
of Arbitration of The Hague, which had been
called under the BIT signed by Ecuador and the
United States, announced that it had jurisdiction to hear its claims against the Republic of
Ecuador.
2013
On November 11, the National Court of Justice ratified the judgment issued by the Court
of Sucumbíos, which holds Chevron responsible for the environmental damage caused in
the Ecuadorian Amazon and rules it has to pay
compensation to the affected communities.
On December 16, the Canadian Court of Appeal for Ontario acknowledged jurisdiction and
competence to validate the Ecuadorian judgment and enforce it in Canada.
2014
The Permanent Court of Arbitration of
The Hague determined that hearings on the
Chevron III case would be held in January 2014.
They might continue until 2016.
According to a ruling issued by Judge Lewis
A. Kaplan on March 5, 2014, neither lawyers
nor plaintiffs will be able to enforce the 2011
judgment within US territory. This means that
Chevron would no longer be held responsible
for paying compensation to the affected communities.