Environment

Ecuador: Chevron Named in $27 Billion Contamination Case

by Barbara McPherson | June 26, 2009 at 09:34 am

165 views | 42 Recommendations | 6 comments

Chevron is facing a $27 billion bill in an environmental contamination case involving dumping of toxic waste into Amazon waterways. Chevron lawyers and former Ecuadorian offiicials face fraud charges over the apparent coverup of the pollution. Chevron had claimed to have remediated the toxic sites. Pablo Fajardo a lawyer for the local communities that have brought a class action suit against Chevron has said, "In this case, more inspections produces more evidence against Chevron."

The so-called remediation, performed by Texaco between 1995 and 1998, consisted largely of dumping dirt over a small portion of the 916 unlined pools of toxic waste to hide them from local residents, said Fajardo. All 45 of the "remediated" sites previously inspected during the trial showed extensive and illegal levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs), some thousands of times higher than Ecuadorian norms, according to a damages assessment produced in April 2008 by a team of court-appointed experts.

The results are consistent with the damages assessment from April 2008, which found that 100% of the 94 Chevron well sites previously inspected during the trial were extensively contaminated with cancer-causing toxins, some at rates hundreds of times higher than permitted by Ecuadorian law.

In 1992 Texaco, now owned by Chevron, pulled out of Ecuador and claimed that they spent $40 million on cleanup operations.

Texaco's waste dumping sites are spread across an area the size of Rhode Island that contains major rivers that feed into the Amazon River in Brazil. The lawsuit contends that in 20 years of operations in Ecuador, Texaco dumped billions of gallons of toxic wastewater into pits or into rivers. The oil company counters that it spent millions of dollars in cleanup efforts.

Oil operations may leave behind a toxic brew of benzene, toluene and xylene which can cause cancer, birth defects, and nerve damage.

This trial has been ongoing in Ecuador since 2003. At Chevron's request it was moved from US federal juristiction in 2002.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished (Part 1 of 2)

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Amy Judd

at 09:45 on June 26th, 2009

Good - I hope they pay up

BMCWrites

at 10:40 on June 26th, 2009

Amy -- How did you let this one slip by without telling Barbara it needs an "OPINION" label slapped on it?

BMCWrites

at 10:39 on June 26th, 2009

Barbara,

I've covered the subject for months and can only conclude that you and Amy are either misguided environmentalists or simply ignorant about the facts in this case. Publishing a piece that cites "Amazon Watch" as your chief source of your information is equivalent to the following:

Writing a piece about how bad it is to kill animals for food and citing PETA as your source; or

Writing a piece about how bad it is to eat meat and citing some Vegan outfit as your source.

Meanwhile (and Amy should have required you do this), you should label this piece as "OPINION," because it certainly isn't objective or based upon all of the facts available.

For all of the facts, read the posts at my blog, BobMcCarty (dot) com.

Paschen

at 02:18 on June 27th, 2009

BMCWrites, I though you said good by to NP the other day, what are you doing here still?

Forgot some thing? Well, it wont be fund here for sure.

Barbara McPherson

at 18:17 on June 26th, 2009

You are correct in saying that I have concern over the environment. After all, I live on this planet. As far as this posting being an opinion piece, I will differ with you. I stated that Chevron is facing a large fee to clean up the mess left behind by Texaco. It is factual that lawyers and former government officials are facing fraud charges stemming from the failure to clean up the waste ponds. It is factual that many petroleum products are harmful to the environment. I will again agree with you that I did not state all the facts. I was merely reporting on the ongoing legal action regarding the purported fraud. If I were expressing my opinion freely, I would have used quite different language. You will notice that I listed your posting at the end of mine. I have not been reading your blog. It is unfortunate that we will disagree at this time, but thank you for taking the time to respond to this posting.