Comments on: Amazon Crude

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

[rocks56]

So the government can hire a foreign oil company to produce its oil for it, keep most of the revenue, and then hold the foreign company entirely responsible for all pollution occuring even after they have left? Sweet deal.

[Roxy0608]

So, you mean to tell me that the government always works in the best interest of its people? That concept is not true even in this country, let alone in a third-world country like Ecuador. Second, as landowners, the Ecuadorian tribes living around these oil pits have the right to say what should and should not be done to their land. The government cannot speak on their behalf and take away their land ownership interest and devalue their property. This is called a TAKING in the US and it is unconstitutional. Lastly, as the 60 Minutes report clearly noted, Texaco was 100% responsible for the oil operation/production in Ecuador. As such, the way it excavated and produced the oil was the direct result of the toxic damage caused. Therefore, it should bear sole responsibility.

[matsumura88]

I?m no lover of oil companies, but a few things strike me about this story:

Ecuador had a democratically elected government in the 80s; the essence of democracy is that the elected government is responsible for the wellbeing of the people. If the government let them down it's regrettable, but it's not Texaco's fault; they played by the rules as they were set up.

"Well, our clients never released Texaco. And that's a critical distinction. That was an agreement between the government and Texaco. We were not part of that agreement, and we're not bound by that agreement," Donziger replied. How can they're be a distinction between the people of a country & the government that represents them?

How can businesses be expected to do get into agreements with governments just to have those agreements essentially broken years later?

Texaco may have been doing a 100 percent of the production, but is still only 40 percent shareholder. Many business agreements are made in which one party does most or all of the work but gets only a percentage of the actual profit. The Ecuadorian government owned 60 percent of the operation; you cannot take the good & wash your hands of all that's bad.

If a judgment is reached against Texaco then Petroecuador should be 60 percent responsible.

I have been watching 60 minutes since I was a small child & think it?s the best news show of it?s kind, but I have to admit I found this story a biased against big oil; I hate the monopolizing practices & utter greed of the oil companies too; but in this case I just don?t see how they are solely at fault.

[Roxy0608]

I had to laugh when the Chevron spokesperson compared the crude oil spill to the makeup oil on her face! First, the toxicity of a crude oil is not comparable to the oil contained in makeup. Second, we don't ingest the makeup with the food we eat and the water we drink. The indigenous tribes in the Amazon who are living around these oil pits are living with the toxins everyday. Chevron would never get away with such conduct in the U.S. How would Chevron like it if there was an oil pit next to their CEO's residence? But, they figured these people would never have the clout or the drive to go after an oil giant like ChevronTexaco. Well, they were WRONG...It's high time that ChevronTexaco was exposed for their greedy and heartless actions in Ecuador. Thank you 60 Minutes.

[peterhunt21]

Second coment;

Does anyone know what happens to this crappy sludge once the pits are cleaned?

Is there any productive use for it.....Just Wondering ?

It is like......the Oil Companies can NOT figure out what to use it for......however,when the "WORLD" is watching...is it turned into something ....GOOD ?

If you spend an extra $3.00/barrel what does it get turned into ?

Peter

[peterhunt21]

Hey 60 Minutes;
My name is Peter and I have enjoyed the 60 Minutes NEWS segments for many,many years.I cannot really afford CABLE,so I enthuiastically use my computer to "watch" the 60 Minutes show each Sunday and sync with the "News" Radio for the audio.I learn so much from the segments,and often replay them a few times.

My coment is about a technology for soaking up oil that is poluting water.I heard about ;

AB Technologies.....

and they have several ways of soaking up oil pollutants in water.I read about the "smart sponge" while surfing around on the web and this morning it clicked that it could be used to filter the water.....before it contaminated the river any where...including the Amazon Rainforests

So....this coment is about a solution,and I want to provide a website and a 1-800 telephone number as well for this company that Glen Rink started and has spent 7 years developing the technology and invested over $10 million dollars for.....

AB Technologies
1-800-545-8999
www.abtechnologies.com

Finally this is NOT an advertisment, I called the 1-800 telephone number for the first time this morning and asked if they had seen the 60 minutes segment......

[nospinzone]

The amount of pro-Chevron folks on here is incredible. Did you guys watch the same show I did? They talked about Petroecuador's poor environmental record. They talked about Petroecuador having a 60% share in the consortium. Yes, Petroecuador has a role and some responsibility. But that doesn't liberate Chevron. Seems like you all are upset at 60 Minutes because the show refused to buy your company spin and didn't fall for the smoke and mirror strategy that you're pushing here.

Texaco was the operator. Texaco designed, built, and operated all oil operations. Some of you are right. This is about money. Not about greedy lawyers, but about a greedy oil company called Texaco that used out-dated, cheap technology. They made the decision to dump toxic waste water instead of using the industry standard re-injection process. Texaco chose profit over people and it saved them about $3 a barrel. A 1972 memo from Texaco instructs the company to "not report spills" unless the media or a government agency finds out, and orders the "destruction" of any records of past spills.

Petroecuador is far from being an environmentally responsible company. But again, that does not liberate Chevron for its past liabilities. Since Texaco left, Petroecuador has almost a 100% re-injection level of these toxic production waters--something Texaco never did in order to save money. They had the technology, but they didn't use it. Remember, this case was filed in 1993--right when Texaco left. The area was an environmental disaster at that time. The longer Chevron delays this trial, the more they point to Petroecaudor. Very convenient. Chevron can sue Petroecuador is they lose.

The Ecuadorian people ARE demanding justice as well from Petroecuador. There have been many legal claims brought against Petroecuador. The Ecuador government has started a program to re-locate those most affected by the contamination (including those that live directly on top of "clean" Texaco pits that ooze oil). Petroecuador is cleaning up Texaco pits. But these do not let Texaco/Chevron off the hook.

So 60 Minutes didn't give airtime to Chevron spin--because the show actually investigated these claims beyond a company soundbite. Like that the remediation was a success? It wasn't. It was a fraud. Chevron used their "junk science" to show low levels of contamination. They took samples upstream from contamination sources, on the surface where pits of sludge lie underneath. They used an "EPA" test to show no migration of contamination. Except the EPA says that test should never be used for oil. Oops. So why would CBS include these blatant attempts to hoodwink the public, the judge, and the company's own shareholders?

The release of "liability" between the company and the government explicitly says that it does not exclude private claims. No judge and no court on earth is going to bar the rights of individuals to sue the company. Oh, but that's right, Silvia and her gang don't want to be in ANY court.

Also, that release was dependent upon an ACTUAL clean up. It doesn't include throwing dirt on top of oil pits. And so maybe so grass grows on top of the pits, but anything with roots, like trees, are dead.

The arrogance of Ms. Garrigo to belittle those suffering in Ecuador due to her company's actions was beyond the pale. To me, that said it all. The company can spin all it wants, but those precious few seconds showed the world Chevron's attitude towards the communities where it operates. At its 2009! I can only imagine what Texaco thought of the indigenous people it encountered in the pristine rainforests of Ecuador in 1964. Clearly, it didn't think enough of them to not dump heavy metals and carcinogens into their drinking water.

[Sadieandspike]

Did anyone notice or care that the pollution is still going on?! If the Ecuadorian government was so concerned about their people (as the 60 Minutes article implied) then why haven?t they shut down oil production until this problem is fixed? There is one reason: money.

Why aren?t the Ecuadorian people demanding more from their government? And where is the lawsuit against PetroEcuador and the Ecuadorian government? My guess is the lawyers know that they will never get any money out of them so they go after the American company. Don?t think for a minute this is about the people. It?s about the money.

It cracks me up too that the Amazon folks are calling out Chevron for doing the exact same thing they are doing. So it is okay for them to drag Chevron through the mud but apparently it isn?t okay for Chevron to tell its side of the story?

If you really care about these people, start raising money to clean the pits. And I guarantee you that it won?t cost $27 billion. That is a figure that the lawyers came up with to make themselves rich. They are no better than Chevron? in fact they are worse? wolves in sheep?s clothing. If they really only cared about the people, they would be working pro bono.

[jmtaylor700]

I commented on the night that the story ran, and came back today to read what others had written. Some of this is boggles the mind.

?I was surprised by 60 minute's attempt to influence the trial by "tampering" directly with the judge.?

Chevron?s corporate mouthpiece outright ACCUSED that the Ecuadorian Judge of being so biased against Chevron that it could not get a fair trail from him; 60 minutes questions the Judge to get his side. Now 60 Minutes is being accused of tampering with the very Judge that Chevron stated could not be influenced, leastwise, not in Chevron?s favor.

?The one sided approach to this story reveals the show to be a far cry from an objective reporting vehicle, and instead identifies it as siding with the anti-big oil, left-wing lobby.?

I almost forgot that not trashing out our planet is a left-wing cause. And the right wing wonders why the middle is fleeing to the left in droves.

?I had always placed faith and believed "60 Minutes" provided the public with unbiased information to effectively arouse a public response in favor of the common good.?

I whole-heartedly agree ? anyone that reports me for pouring my waste oil/chemicals out on U.S. ground, or into U.S. creeks or rivers, is certainly not looking out for the common good. If we like-minded folks would just get together for the common good, we could show them Ecuadorians that they are just crying over spilt milk by turning our country into one big toxic waste pit.

?Texaco received signed documentation from the Ecuadorian Government that Texaco's portion of the Clean-Up was complete, successful, and that PetroEcuador is responsible for the remaining clean-up. The only way for the plaintiff?s to win this case will be to have this document thrown out or reversed.?

Recent U.S. history as our witness should be sufficient evidence that signed documents, regardless of who signs them, does not prove the absence of bad faith, fraud, or corruption. It would seem that the character of documents is irrelevant if they disgorge U.S. Companies of any liability for any wrongful conduct .

?Displaing Petroecuador's poor environmental management and blaming it on Texaco Petroleum who has been out of the region since 1992 is a disgraceful journalistic act.?

I agree, PetroEcuador?s poor environmental management should excuse Chevron?s poor environmental management, and it is just a plain disgraceful journalistic act for 60 minutes to report after all this time has passed, that people in some backwash country want a U.S. Corporation held accountable for poor environmental management.

John Taylor
Elgin, Texas

[bill_c_emery]

This is an important story and 60 Minutes got it totally wrong.

Images are of Petroecuador sites and are not Texaco-remediated sites: The images of oil pits, and oil operations in general, that ?60 Minutes? used are of locations that are the sole responsibility of Petroecuador, Texaco Petroleum?s partner from the days of the consortium. ?60 Minutes? knew this fact, but chose to ignore it in its reporting.

No responsibility was placed on Petroecuador: Petroecuador has been the sole operator of oil fields in Ecuador since 1992 and has compiled a well-documented record of environmental mismanagement. In addition, Petroecuador has repeatedly stated that it is responsible for the remaining cleanup work that is required in the Ecuadorian Amazon and it readily admits that it has not cleaned up the sites allocated to them under the remediation action plan 15 years ago. Again, ?60 Minutes? ignored these facts in its reporting.

$27 billion damage figure is baseless and unsupported by law, facts or science: Richard Cabrera, the court-appointed engineer who made the $27 billion damage recommendation, conducted his analysis with direct support from the plaintiffs? representatives. Cabrera arrived at the $27 billion figure at the urging of plaintiffs. Chevron provided ?60 Minutes? with photos documenting this wholly improper relationship. In addition, we provided ?60 Minutes? with signed checks that went directly from the plaintiffs to Cabrera. Unfortunately, ?60 Minutes? did not interview Cabrera and failed to scrutinize Cabrera?s ?independence.?