I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Ecuador and can tell you that Texaco/Chevron has only managed to avoid problems until now because it has taken advantage of previously corrupt governments by bribing public officials. Additionally by cutting small dettlement deals with small communities who, lacking legal sophistication, accept them without realizing that they deserve so much more.

Mr. Donziger who the Washington Post says is a Harvard lawyer whose group recently hired a big time DC lobbyist, seems to spend a lot of time on this issue and said he had traveled to Ecuador 100 times. Who is bankrolling Mr. Donzinger and these lawyers? What would be their cut of any award? what would be left for the indigenous people after the New York lawyers get their cut?

I have read about this type of “class action” lawyers and heard that the affected people seldom get much in the end.

I would like to know if any Chevron employees, the lawyers anyone on there side of the fence drinks the water in that area? Do they bathe or swim in those rivers or consume fish in local restaurants? I bet you would get a NO.

Sarah has a point. The water in Northeaster Ecuador tastes like oil. I am certain that the visitors dont.

Good to see you Sarah, Mando Saludos a Gerardo y la familia.

Mateo

Shareholder activism in this case needs to be considered more carefully. One of my students did a thesis project comparing Chevron-Texaco and Burlington Resources ventures in Ecuador and the role of shareholders in motivating cleanup. Because Chevron is so much bigger and has far more diffuse shareholders, it is hard to get much action on that account. For smaller companies, shareholder activism is more effective.

The caller who said that Chevron is there to make money for the shareholders, well it is increasingly evident that negligence to remediation can lead to long-term costs which diminish value for shareholders as well.

I am sorry to say I am not surprised by the conduct of Mr. Donziger during your “discussion” of the case in question. He is a plaintiff attorney and like all plaintiff attorneys he vigourously pushes his clients position with respect to both the law and a created sense of guilt-public sympathy for the alleged damages his clients claim. You always look for the deepest pockets and in this case Chevron’s run deep. I was deeply diappointed that Ms. Clayson the moderator and the gentleman representing the press (I did not note his name) served as water carriers for the plaintiffs; backing their assertions, allowing them to interrupt the defense counsel etc… It was accusatorial to ask how much plaintiff attorneys will make? An acceptable answer is “a small percentage…of 16 billion dollars?” Come on, this is about socking an oil company and spreading the pain of doing so nothing more. Ms. Clayson, you should review the differnce between the news and your opinion

Thank you for this morning’s discussion in re the Ecuadorian people’s lawsuit against Chevron for the pollution and resulting diseases and afflictions of the people, of course as always the poorer population. Many churches send aid to a “sister church” in Latin American countries. When a group of people from our sister church came to our church, I asked what caused the severe eye problems for which we were sending eye drops (along with vitamins, aspirin, etc.). He replied that Ecuador is what is known as a “petroleum country” and the pollution from the refineries is very irritating to the eyes. It made me wonder why we were not protesting the cause of this problem instead of a bandaid after the fact. How would we like to have our children exposed to this? How Christian is this? We benefit from the oil from these countries at the expense of the people whose oil it really is!

Scott Williamson: I understand your concern but in Ecuador all legal fees are in addition to the damages award for the plaintiffs. Therefore, if the judge in Ecuador awards $16 billion that is the full amount that the indigenous communities in Ecuador will receive. Lawyers fees can range between 0-10% of the award based on a number of factors including the behavor of defendent’s counsel. Hope that addresses your concerns.

I was listening to the lawyer for Chevron-Texaco winning about not getting a fair trial in Ecuador. Is she kidding? Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?

Her industry just had the largest quarter of profits in the history of commerce. This is about them winning, not getting caught. It’s about greed and money and power. They should settle this ASAP.

This used to happen in our country. Remember ‘Love Canal’ in up state New York.
How about the Cuyahoga River Fire of 1969? There are countless environmental ‘issues’ caused by corporations.

The link below shows all the super-funds sites in our country, it’s mind-numbing and this is in a country that is in the first world.

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/superfund/?gclid=CNPF_7fD-ZQCFQyI1Qod9nVmrA

Left unchecked these industries will do anything to maximize the profit margin period.

Nothing new here.

I am a scientist that has worked on environmental issues all over the world. I am continually surprised about how ready we are all to believe that The Bad Guys hurt The Little Guy. Why don’t people drink the water? Because there are bacteria in it, ever think of that? Should the Big Company settle the case just because they made a profit? Have we lost our perception on right and wrong? I’m sorry, but I don’t care if someone is rich, handsome or lucky, the facts - not emotion - should be reviewed before deciding. Emotion alone leads us into bad decisions.

Georgie, did you go to the links on the Super-sites?

Chevron-Texaco has a long history of doing this in third world countries.

There is a big difference between getting sick from bad water and getting sick from water full of oil.

You state that you’re a scientist who has worked with environmental issues all over the world, why do I get the feeling you worked for companies such as Chevron-Texaco?

It is worth reading Joe Kane’s book, Savages, for more history on the impact of oil exploration and production in the Amazon basin in Ecuador. He specifically relates his experience with the Huaorani tribe.

http://www.amazon.com/Savages-Joe-Kane/dp/0679740198

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins — Give this book a close read for the precise details of how the American government “arranges” for sole American oil company rights to resources in the third world. I’d like to have this author as a guest On Point.

I just finished listening to the program. I support the clean-up and am suspicious of Chevron’s claims. I also have close family in Ecuador and have traveled there frequently.

However I am amazed at how unbalanced the interviewing in this program seemed. Silvia, the rep of the Chevron side, seemed never able to get her comment finished and was cut off. Granted, its a big topic, but the interviewing seemed almost fawning in how she covered Donzinger (sp?).

The other point I didn’t sense was closely examined was the issue of Petroecuador and what is its role. Petroecuador has a infamous reputation for polluting, corruption, and not following up on clean-up. Yes, I have heard the Texaco left a disaster, but no attention was given to the point that Petroecuador has been exploring in the area since the early 90s–and of course, its comparatively broke and quite poorly managed, so they’re not going to clean up.

Good topic to cover, but needed more balance. That said, I hope the Ecuadorians get every penny and the area can be cleaned up.

After listening to the broadcast, I am convinced that the public media is not the best place for lawyers to argue their case. Clearly, the rules are different than in a court of law where order is kept. It was almost painful to hear these people stepping all over each other as they fought for airtime to plead their case.

One point, made by a caller, brought up an interesting topic touched on by Graham Erion in an earlier post. I believe this is the central point of the whole argument. Mr. Donziger, when asked by a caller about his fees mentioned that if the plaintiffs win, counsel would be entitled to reasonable fees and a modest percentage. When pressed on this issue by Ms. Clayson, he reiterated that the defense would be entitled to fees and modest percentage compensation.

If indeed, the $16 billion would go directly to the people harmed in this case, then the potential outlay for Chevron could be much higher depending on what constitutes a modest percentage. Herein always lies the problem; follow the money. Chevron’s money is easy to see and is posted quarterly, the plaintiffs’ counsel is a lot harder to evaluate.

Environmental issues are always hard to defend against. On one hand, nobody wants to see the environment polluted and certainly if a company is found liable, they should “do the right thing” and be forced to pay severely for damages. On the other hand, I hate to see law firms get stinking rich over “doing the right thing” for the environment and receive a modest percentage. It’s hard to see where their heart really lies.

Treating this issue as solely financial does a great disservice to those killed and injured by the poisons knowingly released into the water.

What if someone fired an automatic weapon in the direction of a crowd and then said they had not deliberately targeted any individual? That they did not know that bullets kill people? That other people have done the same? That they cleaned up some of the mess?

The only difference between killing people with toxic chemicals and a firearm is the amount of time it takes for the victims to die. Until those who knowingly poison others are called murderers and brought to justice this killing/poisoning will continue globally. Too many people have already paid the ultimate price.

I find it funny that people always question the profit motive of plaintiff’s counsel and never question the same motive of defense counsel. Chevron/Texaco surely has a huge team of very well-paid lawyers working on this case, and they have all gotten rich working on the case whether they win it or not. Plaintiff’s counsel, on the other hand, only gets paid if they win. In the meantime, they need to shell out plenty of money on research, investigators, depositions, staffing, etc. None of this is taken into account. Also, regardless of what you think of their case’s merits, we are talking about a group of highly educated, highly skilled professionals who are obviously working very hard over the course of many years…why do we assume they are morally bankrupt if they have the audacity to expect compensation for their work? We don’t assume this about other professionals. This point of view is especially absurd considering the financial risk they are taking in the first place.

On a related note, I think it is fair to assume that a professional who stands to lose considerable amounts of money if a case is lost will carefully tailor business to cases that have the best chance of winning….or better put, the most merit.

Simply put, let he who happily works without a paycheck cast the first stone.

I am a little corn fuzed. Chevron is responsible because they bought Texaco. But the state oil company is not responsible at all? Are they not the true inheritors of the problem once they gave Texaco the boot? They want the whole pie for themselves, but no liability at all. Is that right? No use suing them, though, and that is the cynical nature of the suit that turns people off.

I loathe the oil company in this discussion, but I was surprised at how unbalanced a discussion Jane led. She gave Steve every opportunity to talk, but didn’t give Sylvia equal air time. She let Steve respond to callers, cut off Sylvia in order to hear from others and just didn’t let Sylvia talk nearly as much as Steve. Jane let Sylvia get interrupted by Steve constantly. Near the end, Sylvia was talking and Steve, once again, interrupted. This time Jane (surprisingly) said, “Go ahead, Sylvia,” but then Kelly jumped in and once Steve and Kelly were both drowning out Sylvia, Jane just capitulated. It was a great topic with worthy participants, but Jane just came off as unprofessional. The interviewer’s personal opinions shouldn’t be THAT obvious.

It is true the defense attorney was cut off repeatedly. However, I’ll be polite here, it was for making assurtions not based on fact. Cheveron’s main defense remains that during the time that Texaco committed the acts leading to the pollution that they where following local law. Texaco did not follow industry standard practices. As soon as the law changed they left the country giving away in country assets in exchange for for a release from past practices. Is it fair to go after them now? That depends on how they behaved when the acts took place. Did they inappropriately influence officials who created the rules or gave the release? Did they knowingly disregard the health and well being of citizens? Just to give you a clue to what they consider fair they’re attempting to have Ecuador’s favorable trade status revoked for having the audacity to pursue the case.

What wasn’t mentioned in any of the current or even older news accounts of this that I’ve read is why this pollution is so harmful. It is awful that all this petroleum is dumped on the surface making a noxious mess of course. The real issue is that Texaco imported and utilized vast quantities of toxic compounds, heavy metals in drilling compounds and solvents, during their period of exploration and oil well development. By the extensive evidence it appears that Texaco acted with a brazen disregard for the well being for the residents of the area.

Should lawyers become billionaires representing anybody? That’s above my pay grade to decide. My hope is that the plaintiffs will get everything needed to remediate the problem. Based on what I know of Chevron Texaco’s actions the plaintiffs deserve damages. It sounds from an earlier post that Ecuador’s rules will have the legal fees added on top of the settlement. I think this is fairer than subtracting it from a judgement. Also we should all know that Chevron sought to move this case to Ecuador.