Comments on: Amazon Crude

Scott Pelley Reports On A Multi-Billion Dollar Lawsuit Over Oil Drilling Pollution

[vanbbbb]

I also am also amazed at some people here making claims that Chevron is right somehow and talking semantics about oil not being toxic. Are you kidding me??? Claiming 60 minutes was biased....Do you realize how biased Chevron is and how they are not telling the whole truth? My god. That's like giving AIG a pass. Would you like that pollution in your backyard? Easy to say since you are not the natives living there. Unbelievable!! Do you people work for oil companies? Like the man said, that would have never happened here. Chervon has more money that that whole country. give me a break!!

[rocks56]

QUITO, May 6 (Reuters) - Ecuador's state oil company, Petroecuador, received $281 million for its exports in March compared with $563 million during the same month a year ago, the central bank said on Wednesday.

Petroecuador's export income was $199 million in February.

Oil is Ecuador's main export and a key source of revenue to finance its national budget. The sharp drop in oil income could curb President Rafael Correa's heavy spending on the poor that has made him widely popular in the OPEC-member nation.

Petroecuador's exports include crude and oil products. (Reporting by Alexandra Valencia; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

[nospinzone]

This piece has sure kept you Chevron spokespeople busy! I love patrak's "scientific facts". Maybe if Chevron actually tested for the right heavy metals, used an EPA test that was actually designed for oil instead of the TCLP (but that fact doesn't get in the way of Chevron touting its use of "an EPA" test), or took samples from sites based on logic like, downstream from contamination sources instead of upstream. Good thing Chevron took samples from hill tops, you know, just in case the contamination defied gravity and migrated upwards--anything is possible.

Sure, sounds like 60 Minutes spent a lot of time with Chevron. And precisely, because their investigative journalism is balanced and thorough, they didn't fall for the company spin. And they should be congratulated for that.

[woahwack]

Unfortunately, this ridiculous performance by Chevron's spokeswoman -- who compares the oil in her make-up to the chemical traces found in people's drinking water due to toxic waste pits constructed by Texaco -- is just another example of Chevron's corrupt and absurd defense. In fact, this is the norm for even Chevron's lawyers in the case. Just this past month, at an official judicial inspection in front of the judge of the case, Chevron lawyer Diego Larrea elaborately compared a person bathing to dumping contaminated oil water of formation into rivers... and even went on to say that oil production water is the same as ocean water, except with more salt. Where is the logic in this?

You can see for yourself here this ridiculous performance of not just a Chevron spokesperson, but a lawyers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jmB9iG6B9k

[patraq]

Journalism aside, here are the scientific facts: (1) occasional skin contact with crude oil and inhalation of crude oil vapors does not cause cancer in humans, period. Simple epidemiology proves this: There would have been hundreds of cases of cancer throughout the over 100 years of oil production in the world as in the early days, workers used to immerse themselves in crude oil regularly. Laboratory testing also confirms this. The cancer cases found are due to other causes; (2) Petroecuador continued to pollute the region with bad operating practices and poor enforcement of environmental laws, typical of 3rd world countries. It is hypocritical for the govt to support this baseless lawsuit on the one hand, while on the other, failing to improve the operating practices of it's own national oil company...and they are obviously going after the deepest pockets they can find;

[patraq]

I have watched and enjoyed 60 minutes for over 30 years and have respected it as true investigative, balanced journalism; but I was appalled at the blatant bias in this story -- Chevron has stated that they worked long and hard with 60 minutes to get the facts straight but 60 minutes ignored them. Until 60 minutes directly answers Chevron's list of errors and omissions, their story has no credibility; the longer the silence, the more damage 60 minutes will do to their hard-earned reputation...

[mauriciopaz]

We at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre have been tracking this lawsuit against Chevron for many years now. In our portal you can find further information about the lawsuit and links to the pleadings and court decisions:
http://www.business-humanrights.org/LegalPortal/Home
Thanks,
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit in USA

[LetsTryLogic]

Roxy0608 - "Toxic" is a word that gets thrown around a lot by people who do not know what they are talking about or who are deliberately trying to inflame public opinion. I looked it up and "Toxin" is defined as "A poisonous substance produced during the metabolism and growth of certain microorganisms and some higher plant and animal species". So how, exactly, is crude oil a toxin?

I also did a search and pulled up two Material Safety Data Sheets for crude oil, neither from Chevron, which identify crude oil as being non-carcinogenic. It does seem to cause skin tumors on mice if applied over time without washing between applications, but this is non-indicative of a human carcinogen. The primary hazard associated with crude oil, apart from its flammability, is the presence of trace amounts of benzene. But benzene is a volatile substance which, as oil degrades in the environment, is one of the first elements to disappear. I didn't hear "60 Minutes" say anything about benzene, if it's even there at all.

So, again Roxy0608, please explain to me how you can conclude that crude oil is "toxic".

And, nospinzone - your diatribe certainly sounds like "spin" to me. "Don't bother me with facts", you say, "I'm on a roll!".

[jbwillis96]

Good investigative journalism should always take a fair and balanced approach to reporting. It should always show both sides to the story to allow viewers to make their own conclusions. This case in Ecuador is very complex and has many, many issues which could not possibly be covered in a fair and balanced way in 15 minutes. But you would still hope that "60 Minutes" would make every attempt to do so, unfortunately they clearly took the plaintiff's side in this case as they conveniently left out many facts that not only dispute the plaintiffs claims but disprove them. Just a few of those facts:

-The "independent" court appointed expert has assigned claims of $9 billion against Chevron for excessive cancer deaths. However, there is not a single cancer victim identified, a single medical report nor any evidence linking Texaco's activities to any cases of cancer in his findings. In fact the Ecuador's own health statistics show the cancer rate in the areas of Texaco's operations to be no higher (and in some cases lower) than other parts of the country. So I'm not sure how you can assign $9 billion in damages when you have offered no evidence of those damages. As a side note, the lawyer who originally brought this lawsuit against Texaco in 1993 was reprimanded by a San Francisco court in 2007 and was ordered to pay Chevron $45,000 for brining a number of other false cancer lawsuits against Texaco.

-During the program, "60 Minutes" showed a number of pits that clearly were contaminated. What they did not say is that the clean-up of these pits were the responsibility of Petroecuador under the terms of the remediation plan. Petroecuador has stated on numerous occasions that it has FAILED to remediate many of the pits it has responsibility for (even after 19 years). So let me see, they admitted to not performing the remediation but apparantely have immunity for any environmental damage caused by this. Oh and Petroecuador has one of the worst environmental records in the world, having thousands of documented spills over the last decade or so.

-One last point to make. "60 Minutes" interviewed an Ecuadorian who talked about his drinking water being contaminated. His water was contaminated all right, by fecal coliform, not by hydrocarbons. This is no "junk" science either, the plaintiffs own records show this. Perhaps it is possible that oil contains fecal matter but no hydrocarbons. Also what "60 Minutes" did not show was the raw, untreated municipal sewage that get's dumped into the rivers and streams on a daily basis in these areas of the Amazon. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing this is where the fecal matter came from that contaminated this person's drinking water. So it is interesting once again that one of the claims is for Chevron to pay billions to provide water systems, something the government of Ecuador has never provided to it's people.

I could go on and on but it is clear that "60 Minutes" approach to this issue was not fair or balanced and simply ignored many blantant facts that countered the plaintiffs claims.

[nospinzone]

Oh rocks56. A government can enter a contract with a foreign oil company that specifically stipulates that it use the most modern technology and protect the environment. When that company doesn't do so, conducts a sham clean up, refuses to even attempt to clean up the rest, uses junk science to hide the evidence, delays a lawsuit for 15 years while the pollution gets worse, and then said company tries to wash its hands and cry foul, and in its spare time lobbies the USTR to try to meddle in the case, it's a sweet deal. For Chevron.