Chevron notches key win in Ecuador pollution fight

[Judi Lynn]

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/idINIndia-54839020110211

Chevron notches key win in Ecuador pollution fight
By Braden Reddall

SAN FRANCISCO | Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:24am IST

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - International arbitrators ordered Ecuador to suspend enforcement of any judgment against Chevron Corp in its marathon rainforest pollution case, representing an important win for the U.S. oil company.

The order, dated Feb. 9 and posted on Chevron's website, came a day after a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Ecuadorean plaintiffs to stop them going outside the United States to seek enforcement of any court ruling against the company.

The move to the arbitration tribunal in The Hague, made in September 2009 shortly after the appointment of Chevron General Counsel Hewitt Pate, was a key part of the company's containment strategy for litigation seeking billions of dollars in damages.

Chevron expects to lose the case being heard in the Ecuadorean jungle town of Lago Agrio, where a ruling is anticipated in the weeks or months ahead.




Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/idINIndia-54839020110211

[Judi Lynn]

1. Ecuador ordered to back off Chevron

Ecuador ordered to back off Chevron
International arbitrators ordered Ecuador to suspend enforcement of any judgment against Chevron Corporation in a marathon environmental case against the US supermajor, according to an order posted on Chevron's website.

News wires 11 February 2011 18:33 GMT

The order, dated 9 February, came a day after a US judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Ecuadorean plaintiffs to stop them going outside the United States to seek enforcement of any ruling against the company.

The arbitration tribunal, brought under a bilateral US-Ecuador investment treaty in The Hague, ordered Ecuador to "take all measures at its disposal to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement or recognition within and without Ecuador of any judgment" against Chevron in the case, Reuters reported.

The Ecuadoreans, supported by US lawyers, began their litigation against Texaco in 1993 in a Manhattan court. The case moved to Ecuador nearly a decade later, by which time Chevron had acquired Texaco. The plaintiffs accused the company of dumping oil-drilling waste in unlined pits, contaminating the forest and causing illness and death among local people. They sought $27 billion in damages.

While Chevron had long pushed for moving the case to Ecuador, the company later said the judicial process had been corrupted. This month it filed a civil racketeering lawsuit against the plaintiffs, accusing them and their US supporters of extortion.

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article244719.ece

[FreakinDJ]

2. GOOD - the Whole Lawsuit is PURE BULLSHIT

[Boswell]

3. why? just because it is brown people?

who got hurt?

[FreakinDJ]

5. You try to insinuate everyone who doesn't agree with you is a Bigot

Bullshit is Bullshit - doesn't matter the color of skin

But what your doing is worse

[Boswell]

6. nope, I asked YOU a question

based on your comment. and so far all you have done is avoid answering. that right there tells me a whole lot about you.

[FreakinDJ]

25. Nope - that would be a Lie

[Boswell]

27. it would be a lie for you to answer honestly?

do you knopw the definitions of those words?

[FreakinDJ]

30. 1st you need to apologize for insinuating I had bigoted reasons

[Judi Lynn]

8. Only the brown people, of course! Everyone who doesn't glow in the dark doesn't count. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

7. Maybe you could share your reasons for this claim, since you've gone to the trouble

to smear the people of Ecuador.

A few links would be helpful, surely.

[Peace Patriot]

10. Ye gods! Do you have any idea what the Ecuadoran tribespeople have been living with?

The fishery has been decimated over an area the size of Rhode Island. This doesn't mean just no fish--their major source of protein--it means a devastated eco-system. Thousands of poor children have grown up washing their hands in oily toxic water, bathing in it, drinking in it, eating food cooked in it. High cancer rates. High spontaneous abortion rate. The self-taught Indigenous lawyer who stuck with the case, after it was bumped out of the U.S. court, seventeen years ago, himself grew up with this pervasive pollution, along with his brothers and sisters and 30,000 other tribespeople. This has been going on for decades--into second and third generation pollution. They are poor. Many are sick. Their environment will never be the same, even with a massive clean up.

Chevron and Texaco thought they could dodge this liability with a merger. They thought they could dodge it in U.S. court, then in Ecuadoran court, and now back to a U.S. court and the Hague. They thought they could dodge it with high-priced "power" law firms, with slanderous, high-priced P.R. campaigns and with every kind of bullying, manipulation, pressure and evasion. But the fact of their toxic pollution remains--it is on-going, with toxic pools seeping up out of the ground and into the water supply to this day--and the illness and other impacts on the poor tribes who live in this area remain. It is unconscionable that they are not cleaning this disaster up and caring for the sick and the poor.

Edited to add: http://chevrontoxico.com/ (for those unfamiliar with this case)

[emad]

12. The evidence is unequivocal: Petroequador is to blame.

Anyone oblivious to this scam needs a major reality check.

[FreakinDJ]

31. Caught on Film even

[GETPLANING]

14. Explain why the whole lawsuit is pure bullshit

[FreakinDJ]

29. Politician ran on platform "Lets Sue the Shit out of Chevron"

Only problem was it was "Texaco" owned and operated the facility up until the Ecuadoran Government "Nationalized" their Oil industry.

Needless to say the "Fix was In" on the case. EVAN AFTER CHEVRON CAUGHT THE GOVERNMENT RUN OIL COMPANY DUMPING SLUDGE IN THE AMAZON JUNGLE

[emad]

17. I agree.

Total bullshit. Smoke and mirrors.

[JackRiddler]

34. Bullshit is a synonym for naked assertions, like yours. Either back your bullshit or back off.

Come on, FreakinDJ - links? Articles? Books? Legal briefs? What have you got on behalf of Chevron? An aggressive delivery counts for nothing, by the way.

[1monster]

9. So why should Equador's sovereignty over its own courts and its own country

be subservient to an injuction by a U.S. court?

Somehow, I don't believe that the U.S. Court system has any jurisdiction in Equqdor. Am I mistaken?

[FreakinDJ]

26. WTO rules is why

[Boswell]

28. nah you got nothing

or you would have replied to any of the questions above so you are just trolling for replies.

[FreakinDJ]

32. Ya nothing - just a Restraining Order

BHWahahahhaahahahaa

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Peace Patriot]

4. How can a U.S. judge tell plaintiffs in Ecuador what they can and can't do?

"The order, dated Feb. 9 and posted on Chevron's website, came a day after a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Ecuadorean plaintiffs to stop them going outside the United States to seek enforcement of any court ruling against the company."--from the OP

I know that this is a complicated case, with a long history--part of it in the U.S., way back at the beginning--but this sentence in the article seems unusually impenetrable. I really don't know what it means or what set of circumstances/legal actions it is referring to. What I recall from early in the case is that the plaintiffs (30,000 indigenous tribespeople) initially filed their complaint in a U.S. court, more than a decade ago. Chevron requested that the case be moved to Ecuador (likely because they thought they could bribe/bully their way to a win, in Ecuador, at that time). The judge agreed to dismiss the case here, on Chevron's signed promise that they WOULD OBEY any Ecuadoran court rulings.

The case was then filed in Ecuador--entirely independent from any U.S jurisdiction--and the trial has been conducted entirely in Ecuador. So, what is the sentence above referring to, when it says "to stop (Ecuadoran plaintiffs) going outside the United States to seek enforcement..."?

Just for starters: The Ecuadoran plaintffs aren't IN the United States--they are Ecuadorans--nor does the U.S. have any jurisdiction over them or over Ecuadoran courts. So, what does this judge think he is doing ordering Ecuadorans around? And what is meant by "going outside" the U.S. "to seek enforcement..."? It looks like Chevron is the one "going outside" the U.S.--to get out of the judgement (--to do their bribing/bullying at the Hague). I don't understand what Ecuadoran action this sentence pertains to.

Let me make a wild guess as to what is going on here: Chevron, unable to bribe/bully the Ecuadoran judge, and about to suffer a major legal defeat, is now trying to move the action, first, back to the U.S. (after a decade of Bushwhack appointments of judges here), and maybe is using that prior U.S. judge's order--that they must obey Ecuador's courts--to get it back to U.S. courts, and the U.S. judge (--don't know if it's the same judge, as way back before) is accommodating Chevron by bumping it to the Hague for "arbitration" (long, difficult, generally secret process, with max advantage to the very rich and the very powerful).

BUT, there is no ruling yet in Ecuador. So, WHAT is being "arbitrated"? And how does a U.S. court have any say in this? (--other than the original agreement, that Chevron WILL obey Ecuadoran court rulings).

I have ceased expecting coherence from corporate 'news' articles. They have so many agendas going that they often just completely garble things, depending on which corporate or corporate/government master they are thinking of (I guess). But it may be partly my own fault (not up on the latest legal moves). I will google around and see if I can find out what the hell is going on.

I'm beginning to despise Chevron as much as I despise Exxon Mobile and BP. Why don't they just skip a few big investor payouts, and cut their own bloated salaries, clean the place up, take care of the sick, and go on with a more socially and environmentally responsible business? Do they have any idea how much respect, and how many customers, and how many "third world" oil concessions that would get them--besides the satisfaction of doing the right thing? They could just jettison their P.R. department. The whole world would cheer! And get rid of a whole lot of bloated law firm leeches.

Such stupids! And so vile, to boot!

[emad]

11. So far Chevron's NY lawsuit is on civil extortortion issues. An upgrade

to criminal status is long overdue and should focus on Condoleezza Rice's role during her ten years at Chevron.

They downplayed her exit in 2001 when she became GWB's national security adviser, merely marking her departure by renaming an eponymous tanker with the new name the Altair Voyager.

However the seeds of the current malicious lawsuit against Chevron were germinated solely by Rice.

She menaced Chevron's very biggest, notoriously secretive stockholders/partners, the original owners of the Western Australia offshore gas leases that are now reaping such rich rewards.

Rice was caught conducting covert campaigns of industrial espionage, harrassment, defamation, physical and other wounding as well as countless other classic mobster-type destabilization attempts.

When she was done the trail was found to lead directly back to George W Bush, whose 30 year criminal career has been more whitewashed over and covered up than most church child sex abuse scandals.

The current malicious lawsuit is merely an outsourcing to junior partners.

[Peace Patriot]

13. Chevron appears to have plenty of rancid fascists to make up for their loss of Condi

but, frankly, I don't think I fully understand your comment. Chevron is the one who filed the RICO lawsuit against the Indigenous and their lawyers and advocates. So, what are suggesting be upgraded to "criminal status" and against whom?

"the seeds of the current malicious lawsuit against Chevron were germinated solely by Rice." Which lawsuit are you talking about?

The current malicious lawsuit is merely an outsourcing to junior partners." Which "current" lawsuit? Who do you mean by "junior partners"?

[emad]

16. Chevron Files Racketeering Claim Against Ecuador Plaintiffs, Lawyers

HOUSTON (Dow Jones)--Oil giant Chevron Corp. (CVX) on Tuesday sued lawyers, plaintiffs and contractors involved in a long-standing multibillion-dollar environmental legal claim it faces in Ecuador, arguing they have sought to extort and defraud the company.

Chevron filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, a federal antiracketeering law. RICO is often used by prosecutors in organized crime cases, but also has been used in some antitrust-type cases.

Chevron claims evidence recently gathered through discovery ordered by various courts throughout the U.S. shows the Ecuadorean environmental lawsuit, which seeks billions of dollars in compensation for damages allegedly committed by Texaco Inc. in the Amazon, is tainted by a conspiracy. Chevron claims defendants sought to damage the company's reputation, fabricated evidence and intended to create enough pressure in the U.S. to force a large settlement. The company says defendants shouldn't be allowed to enforce any judgment against Chevron coming from the Ecuadorean court that has been overseeing the case since 2003. Chevron inherited the Ecuadorean case when it bought Texaco in 2001. The company denies the environmental damage allegations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110201-718931.html


ALSO


Chevron accuses Ecuadorean plaintiffs of extortion


(Reuters) - Chevron Corp filed a civil racketeering lawsuit against Ecuadorean plaintiffs in U.S. court on Tuesday, opening up another legal front in its 17-year-old battle over pollution claims in the South American country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/02/us-chevron-ecuador-idUSTRE7110TH20110202


Civil racketeering to criminal racketeering.

One small step ....

[Boswell]

20. how much does the COC pay you?

[emad]

22. I am not an employee nor a consultant.

The corporate history of Chevron lawsuits is a bit of a personal hobby!

[Peace Patriot]

15. Here's an article on Chevron's maneuver at the Hague...

http://www.automatedtrader.net/real-time-dow-jones/46384/international-panel-orders-ecuador-to-temporarily-suspend-any-ruling-against-chevron

International Panel Orders Ecuador To Temporarily Suspend Any Ruling Against Chevron
First Published Friday, 11 February 2011 08:00 pm - © 2011 Dow Jones

HOUSTON (Dow Jones)-An international arbitration panel ordered Ecuador to temporarily suspend the enforcement of any potential judgments against Chevron (CVX) in a pending multibillion environmental lawsuit the oil giant faces in the Andean country.

According to documents posted on Chevron's website, arbitrators presiding in the Permanent Court for Arbitration in The Hague ordered Ecuador on Wednesday "to take all measures at its disposal to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement or recognition within and without Ecuador of any judgment against" Chevron.

The order is the latest development in an epic 18-year-old legal battle that pits one of the world's biggest oil companies against residents of Ecuador's Amazon region....

The arbitration, which Chevron filed in 2009 under international law, claiming that Ecuador was violating the terms of a 1997 trade pact with the U.S., is also part of an aggressive legal campaign the company started that year to thwart the effect of any adverse ruling by the Ecuadorean court.

....Ecuador's attorney in the case, Eric Bloom, has said that the arbitration is an attempt of Chevron to escape its commitments. Ecuador has claimed Texaco promised to a U.S. court in 1999 to accept the ruling of the Ecuadorean courts.

http://www.automatedtrader.net/real-time-dow-jones/46384/international-panel-orders-ecuador-to-temporarily-suspend-any-ruling-against-chevron
(my emphasis)

--------------------

The part that I boldfaced is not a "claim" by Ecuador that Texaco promised to accept the ruling of the Ecuadoran court. Judges don't accept oral promises. It is a written order that Texaco signed because they wanted out of the U.S. court system at the time (and into Ecuador's). Chevron is bound by it--and they are trying to get out of it by this maneuver at the Hague, where they have great advantages of time, money and power.

This is called "judge shopping" or, in Chevron's case, "court shopping." They've been hopping around from court system to court system--from the U.S. to Ecuador, back to the U.S. and now to the Hague, to evade a ruling based on the evidence.

[emad]

18. Do you really think a supermajor like Chevron would buy a pig in a poke

with potentially vast negative exposure in a dodgy, corruption-filled country like Equador .....without a bit of research about any long term liabilities?

They spent more than a year examining whether any liability was in existence in Equador and were given legal guarantees by the Equadorean government that all liabilities and legal claims had been settled.

End of story.

Until the Donzinger cabal came up with the whizz idea "Hey, guys, I think we can milk these bastards for billions of dollars and make ourselves a fortune to boot!"

[plumbob]

19. Not really familiar with oilfield types, are you? I grew up in the middle of

the Permian Basin. Conoco bought out Gulf's holdings here. There was a year between the purchase and actual turnover. Gulf had our company go to the field, kill the wells, remove the wellhead and drop used drill bits bit side up and then cement. The bits would make it extremely difficult and costly to re-enter those 10 barrel a day producers.

In the end, Conoco (also our customer) gave up on 1/2 those wells.

We used to laugh when the auditors for Williams would come in - those accountants didn't know anything about wellhead at all, so we would just pull pallets of anything at all that belonged to anyone at all while they solemnly checked off items on their sheets. In 7 years, those came up perfect every time. But then, when they moved the inventory to Cactus, another company, it turns out about half of that stuff was missing! Cactus, the bastids, musta lost it on the way over to their place! ;)

Personally, any money that any oil company must disburse is good news - as soon as that filthy muck is expensive enough, we can get on with the real job of developing true alternate energy, like wind and solar.

[emad]

21. I grew up personally involved in the super major buisness.

I've had a close personal/business/legal relationship with Chevron for more than 30 years.

I would say that what the public knows about oil and gas industry secrets is less than 1 per cent of what is really going on.

And that in the last 30 years most organised crime scams in the industry can be traced directly to the Bush family and their outsourced partners around the globe.

The rapid expansion of the internet, too, has been a massive boon to those uber-secretive oil and gas super-multi-billionaires who make the Forbes 100 tycoons look like owners of petty cash deposits.

Officially these big oil titans to not exist - and I am not talking about the Saudis, the Brunei mob, or any of the Russian oligarchs.

[plumbob]

23. Ever been out where the work is actually done? I was the top-rated administrator

for our company for 7 years, based on percent of after-tax profit as the only indicator.

My grandfather build wooden derricks in the 20s and 30s.

My dad ran an oilfield supply store for 20 years.

After you've had to wade up to your armpits in the cellar in drilling fluids to flange down a head because the driller is too lazy to use the jetpump to dry it out, come back with the relationship stuff, please.

Like the old story of eggs and ham for breakfast - the chicken was involved, but the pig was committed.

[emad]

24. Yes I have been there and taken a personal interest. I'd say

Chevron's employee policy is one of the outstanding market leaders. A pity others do not take a leaf out of its book....

Some of the most hellish experiences I have had have involved seeing blowouts in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s where dozens fried alive because of deliberate negligence.

While at the UN I was part of the team sent in to inspect the Kuwaiti oil fires after the Gulf War and advise remedial action.

Pretty horrific, that.

I make no attempt to diminish the daily reality of what it takes to produce a barrel of crude nor the inherent dangers of working in gas extraction.

[FreakinDJ]

33. the chicken was involved, but the pig was committed.

Instrument Tech here - and ya I've worked ALL OVER too.

We ALL wish more oil companies had the corporate responsibility of Chevron. They are by far the safest cleanest oil refineries out there