Chevron Richmond issue: Dennis Roos is the real "little guy"

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget!



YouTube, Yahoo, MySpace, Metacafe, DailyMotion, Blip.tv, StupidVideos, Sclipo and Viddler


On July 1st, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga issued a decision that altered Richmond, California's economic course for the future. She ordered the oil giant to rewrite its environmental impact report (EIR) because of environmentalists' contention that the EIR was flawed and that a newly refurbished Richmond refinery would not produce lower carbon emissions than the current facility.

Her decision was hailed as a victory for "the little guy" by my friend San Francisco Chronicle Columnist Chip Johnson. But his column made me ask "Who's really the little guy, here?" So in a search for the answer to my query, I did some digging and found a person who represents the real "little guy": Dennis Roos. But before we meet Roos, a brief recap is in order.

Two Sides To A View

A year ago the Richmond City Council narrowly approved a development agreement allowing Chevron to refurbish the existing refinery. The contention with the approval, according to community activists, is that Chevron's working to use a "dirtier" yet cheaper to produce grade of crude oil. Chevron's claim was that the new process would result in cleaner air.

The approval set off a lawsuit filed against Chevron under the grounds that the refinery EIR did not meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) quidelines. The Judge agreed and handed down the ruling which called for construction of the new facility to stop until the problem with the EIR was solved.

I think what's forgotten by many is the current state of the refinery. It's old and dirty, right now, and needs to be upgraded which will not happen because of this tribal culture we live in. What the real problem is, frankly, is that every time there's a development project there's someone who crafts a reason to stop it mainly because they're jealous that someone has done something big. Think about it. My point is not to poo-poo environmental concerns, not at all, but to get at something I've noticed and now have to ask bluntly: why are all the activists poor and struggling and always working against an organization or person they view as wealthy? It's a common theme. Some of these activists don't want to work with organizations to improve anything; they'd rather just stop them cold. Period. But why can't they pay the rent, these guys?

Chevron's not the best neighbor in all of this either. As one who's worked in government, I can say the best companies work years to gain the community's trust and to make sure that the needs of the people are met when they don't need anything. From people I've talked to for background information, this was the Chevron of Richmond's past.

Chevron would contend they're working with the community now, and their Richmond plant website gives a good presentation of what they're doing and have done in that community. From the website one can gather the idea that Chevron has been a major and positive part of Richmond's culture, or has tried to be. Somehow this news isn't reaching the community activists, but perhaps they're not listening or reading it to begin with. Maybe Chevron should try Twitter?

What happened? Why is it, particularly in California, we have "sides" to an issue that consist of people who don't talk to each other? Moreover, it consists of people who just don't like to think at all; they'd rather toss insults or lawsuits than have an intelligent conversation that leads to a workable agreement. It's all so tribal this new culture - one side puts out its view, the other has a view and we in the middle have to figure it out - it's done nothing to improve our economy or quality of life, and it cost Dennis Roos his job. I'm frankly sick and tired of this dumbed-down culture we've allowed to form. Whatever caused it, it's time for a push-back.

The Activist Mayor of Richmond

Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin says the victory is a win for Richmond. But which Richmond? The people who need the jobs don't think it's a win at all and neither does the city's finance director Jim Goins, who said the ruling will "have an impact." (Hey, I guess Richmond's doing fine in this recession, huh? Someone needs to tell Mayor McLaughlin her city's unemployment rate is 10 percent and that the number of Richmond jobs has decreased 65 percent since 2007. Richmond's in trouble.

This is what I'm vexed about: the desire to "get a win" seems to have overruled any idea of "getting to yes" where both parties can agree and improve a community. Shame on Mayor McLaughlin for acting less like a leader and more like an activist. Mayor McLaughlin should talk to one of her own people about this so-called "victory": Richmond's Dennis Roos.

Dennis Roos is the little guy

Roos is a union electrician (with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 302 in Martinez, California) who grew up in Richmond and started working for Chevron there when he was in his 20s as a researcher of sorts. Then Roos took a series of jobs, building a reputation as an electrician who specializes in new facilities and remodeling (or what he calls an "inside wireman"), like the one Chevron had planned to build before Judge Zuniga handed down a questionable call. I talked to Roos about what happened and how it's effected him.

Roos explained that he'd already been released by Chevron and didn't know what he was going to do for income considering his normal obligations and the fact that he has two daughters: one in college and the other just graduated from high school. At any rate Roos said he was laid off, he thought prematurely, and without other job prospects forced to go on unemployment. "It's pretty detrimental to the economy (of Richmond and myself) and I'm reduced to what I call necessity spending." Roos recently bought a new home and as a result of that and the court action against Chevron, he's not in the best financial shape at all. (He's looking for work, so please contact me if you have any opening and I will relay that information to him.)

A terrible decision 

Judge Barbara Zuniga could have resolved this issue in a way that helped all parties. Rather than order a stoppage of work to solve the environmental impact report problems, Judge Zuniga should have ordered the formation of a group of community activists and environmentalists to work with Chevron and then install the project change orders necessary to make sure the refinery's production process was "cleaner" in its emissions release than before. This would have saved the 1,000 jobs that have been removed - and perhaps even the 3,000 total refinery jobs that are now in question as Chevron considers moving production south to El Segundo - and made sure Richmond got the $61 million in community benefits from Chevron it negotiated for, which by the way lead to more jobs. Instead, Judge Zuniga made a terrible worst case call that harmed Richmond, Chevron, and workers like Dennis Roos.

Chevron accuser paid $200K to Ecuador court's economist

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget!



On YouTube.com

 

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa - does he know about this?

As you may or may not know, San Ramon, Ca-based Chevron is in a legal battle against an organization called "The Amazon Defense Coalition" (ADC) which represents a group of citizens in the Amazon River Delta region of Ecuador that the ADC charges were the victims of environmental damage caused by oil production by Chevron from 1968 to 1992, when Chevron / Texaco sold it's facilities to the state-run organization PetroEcuador.

One of the key claims made by ADC was that an economist, Richard Cabera, appointed by the court in Ecuador where Chevron's being sued, discovered damage estimated at $16 billion; Cabrera then updated his study to $27 billion. While Chevron has long dsiputed that study, the ADC, and much of the media, used those numbers in articles and blog posts to dramatize the extent of Chevron's alledged impact. But a new finding has been reported, one that should alter the course of events in this case; Cabrera was paid $207,000 by the ADC, according to the work of blogger Bob McCarty.

Normally, an expert is called as a witness during a trial and represents one side, either the plaintiff or the defense. In this case, Ecuador had a court-appointed economist who's by that title is supposed to be non-biased. But the discovery that Cabrera was paid $207,000 - and McCarty has photos of the check to prove it right on his blog - effectively tosses out any claim that Cabrera's unbiased. The ADC disputes this idea.

Karen Hinton, the terrific PR and communications representative for the ADC told McCarty it's common for such expertise to be paid for both in Ecuador and in America. But in the USA, expert witnesses are paid for by either side to present their case, not an unbiased view, unless supeonaed by the court to testify. But in that case if one is using the English system and this appears to be the case in Ecuador, the expert witness is required to be unbiased, so this revalation of payments goes against even the English code.

According to the affiable McCarty, Chevron not only didn't pay Cabrera, they were not approached to do so and didn't want to because they asserted his resume was "thin." With this, the Ecuadorian court employed him anyway.

McCarty's investigative work led him to pin-point the writer of the checks:

Similarly, all of the checks were issued by Selviva, a limited-liability company formed in Ecuador in 2004 by Alberto Wray, the lead attorney in charge of the litigation when it began in Ecuador the previous year, and three other individuals.

Wray has been working on the case against Chevron with Donziger as far back as 2003. The fact that Wray has been writing these checks to Cabrera and in turn the economist is Ecuadorian court-ordered, also backs Chevron's fear that the trial is fixed to go against them.

In fact, Chevron's assertion of a "kangaroo court" scenario is such the firm approached the U.S. Department of Commerce earlier this year calling for a "close review of Ecuador’s eligibility under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA)" according to a letter sent to me just a few days ago by Chevron's media department. At first, the letter seemed of little value so early in the court case process and it came "out of the blue" without request by me; now it's of high value as the ATPA clearly deals with such issues as corruption in trade operations and legal systems.

What is the ATPA?

According to the U.S. Government, the ATPA was:

enacted in December 1991, to help four Andean countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) in their fight against drug production and trafficking by expanding their economic alternatives. To this end, the ATPA provided reduced-duty or duty-free treatment to most of these countries’ exports to the United States.

The ATPA consists of a 20-point set of criteria so loose in interpretation that Chevron could claim Ecuador was not operating in a "fair trade" fashion and indeed, as part of the "Business Community Roundtable" has done so. The portion of the letter sent to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and that I have obtained and is the meat of all this reads as follows:

We are writing to urge your close and careful review of Ecuador’s continued eligibility under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) required by section 208(a)(2) (19 U.S.C. 3206). As you know, ATPA was originally enacted in 1992, and extended by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) as part of the Trade Act of 2002, to foster the rule of law and legitimate economic development opportunities in the Andean region. While both Peru and Colombia have successfully used this program to promote economic diversification and new opportunities, while also strengthening their own legal systems and respect for the rule of law, the same cannot be said of Ecuador.

In particular, there are serious concerns within the U.S. business community about breaches of the basic rule of law that are occurring in Ecuador, contrary to the basic eligibility requirements of section 203(c). As found by the State Department in its annual human rights report on Ecuador released in February 2009, there are concerns with “corruption and the denial of due process within [Ecuador’s] judicial system.” U.S. businesses have also continued to see Ecuador’s repudiation of its legal obligations to U.S. investors and a politicization of the judicial system.

Given these basic gaps in the rule of law, we believe that the automatic renewal of Andean preferences for Ecuador would send the wrong message to other developing countries in the hemisphere and throughout the world that have worked to meet the basic eligibility criteria to qualify for U.S. trade preferences. We note that Bolivia has already lost its ATPA benefits as a result of its failure to meet the ATPA eligibility criteria and that Bolivia’s actions continue to worsen.

We urge you, therefore, to closely review Ecuador’s eligibility to continue to receive preferences under the ATPA.

Remember, this letter isn't just from Chevron; it represents a number of U.S. businesses that have experienced problems operating in Ecuador, most notably Occidental Petroleum, which was kicked out of Ecuador in 2006 after an alledged breach of contract with the government, which then took over its oil production facilities and even the luxury cars left behind.

While there's no official indication the U.S. Government will step in and respond to the letter, written June 9th, this new information of payments to Cabrera will change the climate around which the letter was written. Indeed, before the discovery, the Government was clearly aware of problems of corruption in Ecuador:

Ecuador has been reported to suffer from high levels of corruption. Weak judicial institutions, sometimes susceptible to political influence and lack of transparency in regulatory bodies, are frequently cited as root causes of corruption in Ecuador. There are few non-governmental institutions that fight corruption. President Correa has cited fighting corruption as an important administration goal.

What about the Amazon's people?

The main problem of environmental damage caused by oil exploration will not be solved by this trial, and these payments are a great indication this will not happen, if that was ever Ecuador's objective. I think Donziger's a very good man with the right idea, but the wrong focus, and working with the wrong people. Ecuador has shown no real sign of true interest in solving the environmental problems caused by oil exploration.

Oil spills are common in the Amazon to this day, and while Chevron's not been a player in oil exploration there since 1992, many companies from the European Union and Canada have.

Oil is that country's number one revenue-generator. President Rafael Correa has crafted a public image of being an "environmentalist man of the people" and attracted World attention with his request for $4 billion from companies to avoid producing oil in the Yasuni National Park within the Amazon.

Correa's idea is innovative, but gives pause. He's asking for companies to pay to keep the oil under Yasuni untouched, but there's a problem: oil production's already taken place in Yasuni and there's every indication Ecuador's gotten no takers for Correa's deal because of the knoweldge that the Yasuni's "touched" already. Moreover, and this is little reported, Correa has said that if doesn't get the $4 billion, Ecuador will "drill there anyway" which means Petroecuador expands operations. Correa's real interest has been the continued nationalization of oil production, almost, it seems, by any means necessary.

So much for environmental concerns; Correa's playing genius-level politics. The reality is Ecuador's zoned a whopping 65 percent of the Amazon for oil production according to a recent study you can download here. Who's really watching out for the living conditions of the poor of Ecuador's Amazon region? That's a good question. A very good one, indeed.

Ecuador Mess: 118 Amazon Oil Spills

 

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter!



At first I wasn't going to weigh in on the Ecuador issue for a bit, especially considering the recent and on balance really interesting 60 minutes segment that aired Sunday of this week. But then I ran across a paragraph that popped up in an Internet search for oil spills and Ecuador that reported this:

In 2006 to date, the country has reported 117 oil spills, which have jointly cost the company more than 27 million U.S. dollars in environmental compensation.

The "country" is Ecuador and the "company" is not Chevron, for who we in America have been almost programmed to think is responsible for all of the oil spills in that country, but Petroecuador, the state-run oil company. Now, from my reading Petroecuador's mentioned by Chevron but the blame for oil spills in the Amazon region doesn't stop there.

The simple sad fact is the government of the country of Ecuador has maintained a cozy relationships with multinational oil companies over the years. For example, in 2003 Ecuador embarked on a plan to expand oil production in the Amazon by constructing a then-new pipeline, the "Oleoducto de Crudos Pesados" or OCP and to the ire of AmazonWatch, which reported:

Set to go online in October 2003, the pipeline will transport heavy crude from the country's Amazon rainforest region to the Pacific Coast, placing fragile ecosystems and dozens of communities along the 300-mile route in jeopardy.


The damaging impacts of the new pipeline will be felt far beyond the immediate pipeline route. To fill the OCP, Ecuador must double current oil production by embarking on an unprecedented wave of new oil exploitation in vast areas of Amazon frontier forest. Plans are already underway for dozens of new oil wells, roads, flow lines, and associated processing plants that will litter some of the country's last remaining old growth rainforests and territories of isolated indigenous peoples.

And the country is trying to gain more oil revenues, called "petrodollars" by eliminating foreign country oil producers like Occidental Petroleum in 2007 and Chevron in 1992, and even the state-run organization in Brazil late last year, and in Canada, and move all production activities toward Petroecuador. And that all companies, not just Chevron and Petroecuador, have been responsible for oil spills and Chevron has not produced oil their since 1992, but again, the spills have been many since their departure.

Ecaudor's grab for money

The problem is the Ecaudor and Petroecuador lack the annual revenues to maintain oil facility production and performance, and so have embarked on a massive campaign to gain such monies by "user fees", the revenue from the new-to-Ecuador petrodollar sources, and the Chevron lawsuit.

There's no indication Ecuador intends to start environmental cleanup actions in the Amazon beyond what Petroecuador has done already. But Petroecuador's work and the large number of oil spills lead me to ask if the oil we saw on the waters in the Amazon shown on 60 Minutes was actually caused by one of these 117 oil spills? It's said that oil spills are almost a way of life in the Amazon today and it has been that way for some time and in the country in general.

For example, In 2001, 144,000 gallons of diesel and "bunker" fuel were spilled near the Galapagos Islands and then made its way to shore. And that same year in the Amazon itself Petroecuador failed to contain oil spilled from "an abandoned exploratory well." And in this year 2009, February, 14,000 gallons of oil were spilled by Petroecuador as the country's second largest pipeline ruptured, causing oil to ooze out onto the banks of the Santa Rosa river. “The river was completely covered with oil from bank to bank,” according to a Reuters' update.

Not all oil production activity in Ecuador has been by American companies. World environmentalists have waged war against a Canadian oil firm called EnCana. In a presentation of a documentary film called Between Midnight and The Rooster’s Crow it was reported that..

The Aguarico and the Napo rivers, which have sustained the native tribes—the Cofan, the Secoya, and the Siona—for thousands of years, have been systematically contaminated since intense oil extraction began in the 1970s. Drost documents crude oil leaking into the now noxious rivers, and interviews locals swearing that eating river fish tastes like eating pure crude. It appears as though while the oil companies have reaped their record profits, skyrocketing cancer, broken promises, miscarriage, and skin disease have been the dividends paid to the local populace...When the Amazonian locals decide to take direct action to ensure that their interests are not overlooked, the military and police step in with an excessive amount of force to ensure that nothing stops corporate profit (oil) from flowing. Drost—giving the viewer a candid glimpse at the seedy underbelly of corporate globalization—interviews a man who, while peacefully protesting at a roadblock with a group of locals who were demanding clean water, sewage, electricity, and jobs, was shot by Ecuadorian soldiers. Given that the soldiers who shot him were flown into EnCana’s private airport, picked up by EnCana trucks who were driven by EnCana drivers, one must wonder how Gwyn Morgan (President and CEO of EnCana—and before that President and CEO of AEC since 1994) keeps a straight face when he comments, at the end of the film: “People fail to understand how little influence companies have on government.”

That was by first-time Canadian filmmaker Nadja Drost who created the movie in 2003, and over ten long years after Chevron's presence in the Amazon region was replaced by Petroecuador, and shows the real truth: with so many companies both foreign and domestic involved in oil production in the region since 1992, the real cost of environmental damage is impossible to pin to just one company. Ecuador itself and many oil companies from various countries from the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Ecuador itself are responsible for the environmental damage caused by oil spills, and which continues through today.

Oh, and considering the level of interest in this by so-called activists, for the record, I'm not paid by Royal Dutch Shell, Occidental Petroleum, Chevron, or their affliates for this post. What bothers me here is the constant insistence that oil production problems here and in the Third World are the fault of rich, White American firms working against the poor people of color in those areas. If one tells the complex truth, where the assignment of blame is more complicated, they're demonized and told to shut up.

Chevron: Ecuador Court Ordered Inspections To Resume Tuesday

More at CNN Moneyy: “QUITO -(Dow Jones)- After a nearly 10-month pause, judicial inspections will resume Tuesday in a lawsuit in Ecuador against Chevron Corp (CVX), the oil company said Monday.

Chevron said in a press release that presiding justice Juan Nunez of the Superior Court in Nueva Loja has ordered four of eight remaining judicial inspections to be carried out this week.

They are on oil well Auca-17, oil well Auca-19, Auca Central Station and Auca Sur Station.

Four remaining inspections are scheduled to be carried out by March 26.

"Judge Nunez ruled in response to a request by the plaintiffs' lawyers that he move quickly to issue a ruling in this case," Chevron said.”

-- I have to say I think this court's a total joke. It's in Ecuador, and the judge is under the influence of the President in a society not known for fair due process. While Chevron reportedly asked for the venue to be Ecuador, it would have been better here in America. We'll see, but I would be surprised if a fair ruling came out of this judicial system.

Chevron Wins in Judge's Decision To Deny New Bowoto v. Chevron Trial

 This was a major victory for Chevron, which was falsely accused of violating the civil rights of Larry Bowoto and bis friends in the Niger Delta region.  Here are my thoughts:

 Here's the news story as seen in the SF Chronicle:  

A federal judge on Wednesday upheld a San Francisco jury's verdict that cleared Chevron Corp. of wrongdoing in the shootings of Nigerian villagers who occupied an offshore oil barge in 1998 to protest the company's hiring and environmental practices.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who presided over the four-week trial in November, denied a request by the villagers' lawyers for a new trial and ruled that there was evidence to support the verdict.

About 150 tribesmen from the oil-rich Niger Delta occupied a barge tethered to Chevron's Parabe platform in May 1998, saying the company's Nigerian subsidiary had refused to meet with them and hear their complaints that drilling and dredging were polluting their wells and killing trees and fish.

The villagers said they were unarmed and peaceful, but Chevron's witnesses said the protesters threatened violence, held crew members hostage and demanded ransom. After three days of negotiations, Chevron summoned Nigerian security forces, who killed two men and wounded two others.

The suit was filed under a law passed by the first Congress in 1798 that allows foreigners to seek damages in U.S. courts for violations of international human rights.

On Dec. 1, a nine-member jury unanimously rejected the plaintiffs' claims that Chevron was responsible for assault, inhumane treatment, torture and wrongful death.

Chevron has asked Illston to order the villagers to reimburse the company for $485,000 the company spent defending against the suit. The judge did not address that request in Wednesday's ruling.

In seeking a new trial, plaintiffs' lawyers said Chevron never contradicted testimony that three villagers were shot, beaten or tortured without justification. But Illston said jurors could have had doubts because of contradictions in the testimony.

She also said the jury could have found that the company was not responsible for the actions of military forces, citing Chevron testimony that its Nigerian subsidiary did not control the security forces and that its main concern was the safety of its workers.

Chevron, based in San Ramon, said it was pleased with the ruling. Plaintiffs lawyer Theresa Traber said the villagers would appeal.

Chevron:Starts Nigeria Community Development Program

More at CNNMoney.com: “LONDON (Dow Jones)-Chevron Corp. (CVX) is in talks with the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and other organizations to liaise on programs fostering peace in the oil-rich Niger Delta, a company manager has told Dow Jones Newswires.

The statement comes as the Nigerian government and militants have made no progress solving the three-year conflict but as some grass-root Nigerian initiatives have been successful.

"We have been having discussions with USAID on cooperation with some programs" Chevron or the U.S. aide agency sponsor "to transfer knowledge and make sure our efforts are complementary," said Dennis Flemming, a community development manager at Chevron's Nigeria operation.”

Bowoto v. Chevron Is Back In Court Feb 6th 2009

Bowoto v. Chevron Is Back In U.S. 9th District Court, Northern California, San Francisco, Feb 6th 2009 and for the purpose of the plaintiffs explaining why a new trial is needed. 


The plaintiffs (Bowoto) believe that the core idea that claims Chevron acted in violation of the Alien Tort Act was not understood by the jury, but given the nature of the incident -- tresspassing by Bowoto -- it's hard for me to see how they can make that claim.

Chevron eyes higher production of ethanol-blended fuel - BusinessWorld Online:

BusinessWorld Online: Chevron eyes higher production of ethanol-blended fuel

Chevron Accuses Court Expert Of Violating Law In Ecuador Case

Chevron Accuses Court Expert Of Violating Law In Ecuador Case And here's more on Richard Cabrera: Chevron accuses Cabrera of filing false report.

Chevron Wins Bowoto v. Chevron Case of Nigeria Crime

After over a month of court legal battles in the case of Larry Bowoto v. Chevron Corporation, the jury only took three days to find the oil company not guilty of 58 counts of assault, torture, and other alledged violations.

The lawyer for Bowoto said they would pursue an appeal, but I have to ask who's backrolling their legal bill -- it's certainly not Bowoto.

At any rate, I talked to Chevron spokesperson Don Campbell about today's outcome. Campbell said that it was a victory for American companies doing business around the World who need to protect their employees from harm.

Indeed, Royal Dutch Shell faces a similar case in New York City next week and again involving Nigeria.

Thus,it seems the real organization that should be on trial is the government of Nigeria, which has a poor record of providing good economic development to the people who need it the most.

Richard Cabrera: Who Is Prof Cabrera And Why Can't One Find Info On Him?

 UPDATE: Chevron attacks Cabrera's Voodoo Economics. 


Richard Cabrera is a supposed geologist and environmental expert based in Ecuador, and who's large damage estimates have played a major role in the case of Ecuador v. Chevron.  His first estimate of Chevron's alledged environmental damage was $16 billion, but he's increased that to $27 billion to take into account Ecuadorians who may have been striken with cancer.


And here's the problem.  No one knows where he got the new damage estimate from!  What was the multiplier?  Why?  But I have another really basic question: who is this guy?  I can't find anything in the way of a resume or a website listing from whatever university Prof Cabrera represents.  In the 21st Century, how the hell can someone claim to be "a World-class expert" if no one can find them online around the World?


A search for "Richard Cabrera, geologist "yields nothing not connected with the Chevron case yet carrying his name.  If the Chevron case isn't his first rodeo, then how can we be sure?   Just because a court appointed him in Ecuador?  He's supposed to be a World-known expert.


Cabrera's resume is something that must be investigated considering the gravity of the case he's involved in.

Bowoto v. Chevron: White Guilt Clouds The Truth

Today features jury instructions and closing arguments in the trail of Bowoto v. Chevron. In the accounts of the trial, I've noticed an interesting pattern of the perspective of what I know call "White Activist Guilt". From that perspective, Chevron is the rich, bad "white" company, and the Nigerian militant groups attacking that company's employees and facilities are all good, non-violent folks.   This is the kind of view that has been presented by blogger Scott Gilmore, and others.  But his blog's arguably the best one solely dedicated to the Bowoto trial, so I'll start there.

The story he tells of a peaceful demonstration by Bowoto is just not true. But the real story of this case is the poor Nigerian economic development and that government's neglect in making life better for Nigeria's poor, who've formed militant groups to take whatever wealth they can.  

Bowoto v. Chevron - Witness Testimony For Each Trial Day

This is a full text of recorded witness testimony given to date in the Chevron Trial. It comes from Scott Gilmore's blog -- http://bowotovchevron.wordpress.com/2008/ -- who's worked to attend every day of the trial since it's beginning.

Gilmore doesn't take a side but seems more interested in legal strategy than outcome, none the less I do provide commentary at some points below.

At any rate, here is just enough to give one a taste of what's going on but not by any stretch all of it -- that's Scott's blog.  So you should read "bottom to top" in terms of day if you want a forward chronological order or just go to the blog for the whole deal.

Day 7 11.5.08
In Trial Notes on November 5, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Federal Courthouse, San Francisco. Ambient temperature: 60 F.

Witness: Harrison Ulori

Today’s session began with the conclusion of Harrison Ulori’s testimony.  Mr. Ulori was an Itsekiri worker aboard the Parabe platform barge at the time of the Ilaje occupation.  He  also participated–along with Boyo Johnson–in the Itsekiri’s March 1998 occupation of Parabe.

Under cross examination by Mr. Klein–attorney for Chevron–Mr. Ulori corroborated previous accounts of the military operation on Parabe.  Mr. Ulori stated that from May 25th to 27th he observed no altercations and no violence between the Ilaje protesters and the Naval and Mobile Police aboard the platform and barge. Mr. Klein inquired if he had witnessed a mobile soldier brandishing his belt as a whip and he said he had not. This is the first time we have heard of this incident, and I wonder if Mr. Klein has a card up his sleeve here.

Mr. Ulori also testified that he heard several gunshots after the soldiers leapt from the first helicopter to land on the morning of May 28th. While this slightly contradicts other testimony that the soldiers opened fire while the helicopter was still hovering in the air, the discrepancy in sequence doesn’t strike me as being particularly consequential.

Witness: Methuselah Aiyenumelo

Next, we heard testimony from another of the Ilaje protesters. Questioned by Dan Stormer, counsel for the plaintiffs,  Methuselah (as he is commonly called) described the meeting held by Ilaje elders at Ikorigho at which they generated a list of demands from Chevron and decided on a course of action for the protest.

The list was entered into evidence and contained inter alia the following items:

Jobs

employment opportunities from Chevron Nigeria Ltd.
employment opportunities with the permanent contractors working with CNL
opportunities for indigenous contractors
Social Amenities

provision of potable water
town halls/meeting center
electricity/electric lights
post office
school assistance
Redress for Ecological Problems

embankment [protection from erosion]
sand filling [repairing erosion]
resettlement [for zones beyond rehabilitation]
Methuselah then described the events that occurred at the tugboat on May 28th. Arriving in the first Ilaje speedboat, Methuselah corroborated Mr. Bowoto’s previous testimony that the protesters arrived bearing placards with slogans like: “We want to speak to Kirkland [George Kirkland, Managing Director of Chevron]“

Aboard the vessel, the Ilaje refrained from entering the crew’s quarters or the galley below deck.  According to Methuselah, another Ilaje protester named Judah came to the tugboat on the evening of May 27th (the night before the attack) to inform him that Chevron’s negotiator and the Ilaje elders had agreed to meet on May 29th in Ikorigho and that the elders would send boats to evacuate the protesters the following morning. Thus far, all of the protesters’ testimony that the they were preparing to leave on the 28th have been consistent.

That night Methuselah slept aboard the barge with Judah. The following morning he awoke to the sound of gunfire. He witnessed soldiers leaping out from a helicopter and opening fire.  When a youth ran past him screaming that the soldiers were killing the Ilaje, Methuselah dove into the sea and swam for the tugboat. Once aboard the tugboat, Methuselah helped pull other protesters from the water. He testified that a helicopter hovered over the tugboat and fired tear gas onto its deck.

At that point, he asked Captain Schull to pilot the boat to shore.  The captain refused and Methuselah pleaded that it was a matter of life and death.  According to his testimony, the captain didn’t give his consent, but he did show Methuselah how to operate the levers that steered the boat.

Methuselah described hearing over the radio that two Ilaje protesters had been shot dead and that 10 others had been locked inside a cargo container on the barge. Then, the youths decided to hold the captain and crew of the tugboat in order to eventually secure the release of the detainees and to reclaim the bodies of the dead. Once at shore, they transferred the crew to a speedboat, brought them upriver and held them in town for three days before the Ilaje king–the Olubo–brokered their release. In the end, Chevron and the Nigerian military did not free the detainees for a month afterwards.

It is perhaps important to note that Methuselah’s account of the holding of the tugboat captain and crew occurred after the raid at Parabe.  While the situation aboard the tugboat was by all accounts a hostage-taking, it should not be conflated (as the defense suggests) with the protest aboard the platform.  The Ilaje seized the tugboat under duress and fearing for their lives after the armed military intervention: this should count as a somewhat mitigating factor. Whether the jury will see it this way of course remains to be seen.

Methuselah held up better under cross-examination than many of the other Ilaje witnesses, thanks to his better command of English.   Sensitive to the defense attorneys’ interrogatory strategy, Methuselah’s responses seemed carefully chosen to avoid repeating potentially prejudicial terms.  He expressed his disapproval of commandeering the tugboat and her crew, but stated that it was a desperate act. “We learned that two peaceful protesters were shot dead, and others were incarcerated, plus others were scattered in the waters–I knew that lives were at stake, so we took the tugboat ashore.”

Mr. Mittelstaedt only scored a few points with his line of questioning on the oil blocs. He got Methuselah to admit that there was an established legal mechanism for disputing the community representatives chosen to negotiate with Chevron–one which presumable was not used.

Finally, Mr. Mittelstaedt questioned Methuselah’s version of the Parabe attack. Aside from insinuating that Methuselah stayed in the tugboat’s radio room in order to keep the captain from piloting away from the barge–a seemingly unfounded allegation–Mr. Mittelstaedt was unable to tease out any serious contradictions in his testimony.

Witness: Bassey Jeje

The plaintiffs then presented a videotaped deposition of Bassey Jeje–one of the Ilaje protesters aboard Parabe. Mr. Jeje’s interview was recorded with Bob Mittelstaedt and Bert Voorhees in Lagos, Nigeria in January, 2005.

Mr. Jeje described the attack on Parabe in great detail. By his account, the soldiers fired automatic rifles and shot numerous rounds at the protesters.  This somewhat contradicts previous testimony that only a few rounds were initially fired.  However, Mr. Jeje–who was shot in the hand and suffered from an injury to his ribs. He was directly in the line of fire and witnessed the shooting of Larry Bowoto and the corpse of Arolika–it’s not surprising that his description of bullets whizzing past his ears might be somewhat exaggerated.

At one point in the deposition, Mr. Mittelstaedt asked Jeje a rather strange question: “Did you think that if they hit you, the bullets would bounce off your body?”

What was this magical thinking all about? Was Mittelstaedt resorting to the ‘Heart of Darkness’ argument I described a few posts back? Was he subtly depicting the Ilaje plaintiffs as superstitious savages?  To me it seems unthinkable that Mr. Mittelstaedt would have asked the same question of any of the white witnesses in this trial.

After a pregnant silence–where Mr. Jeje seemed to puzzle over the odd question–he answered matter-of-factly, “If a bullet hits a body, it will penetrate–it will not bounce.”

With that, the videotape ended.

In the final minutes, the plaintiffs called one last witness, but I will treat his testimony in its entirety tomorrow.

* Plaintiffs’ counsel announced tomorrow’s witnesses: Louis Wells and Majemu Osupayojo (by video)

▶ Comment
Day Six 11.4.08
In Uncategorized on November 5, 2008 at 3:37 pm
All apologies for missing Tuesday’s session.  I hope to link to another synopsis of the day’s events however. Check in later…

▶ Comment
BOWOTO V. CHEVRON, CHEVRON, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, HOSTAGES, NEGOTIATION, NIGERIA, RANSOM, USE OF FORCE
Day Five 11.3.08....CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Chevron v. Ecuador - Can Chevron Get A Fair Trial? Appellate Court Screws Up

As some of you know, we've been following the Chevron - Ecuador story for some time now.  To recap, the problem is that in the 1960s Texaco produced oil out of that country and through 1990 and in partnership with the Country of Ecuador .  During that time, there were oil spills and economic damage due to oil production.  Texaco spent $40 million in "environmental remediation" which is another term for carrying out a cleanup program.  


Chevron purchased Texaco in 2001 for 46.3 billion, thus assuming Texaco's work and responsibilities in Ecuador.  By that time, Ecuador's then-new state-owned petroleum organization Petroecuador assumed responsibility for the oil wells that were once the product of the partnership.  But the problem is that since that time and through today, oil spills and environmental damage have continued, but Petroecuador has done nothing to either prevent the occurrence of or clean up what was done.  


Meanwhile, the Country of Ecuador has moved to work on three fronts: 


1) Nationalize the oil industry via Petroecuador
2) Kick out American oil companies like Occidental Petroleum and take over their production facilities.
3. Sued Chevron Texaco to get money to pay for environmental damage that their own state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, caused



The third point is the focus of my blog.  Ecuador's suing Chevron to have them pay the afforementioned damange.  To that end, they were assisted by a lawyer by the name of Steve Donziger, who had been working on the case as an "American Legal Advisor",  but who has also admitted his own financial ambitions as he could gain $5 billion from a victory .  The lawsuit -- valued at $16.5 billion by one estimate -- has been the focus of much legal movement.  The latest action by Chevron had it file an appeal to have Ecuador enter into arbitration discussions regarding the level of liability each party is responsible for.  But there's one large problem. 


The appellate court doesn't understand the contractual relationships. It calls Chevron a "third party."  


What!?!


When Chevron purchased Texaco it essentially became Texaco, with all of its obligations and problems. Thus, it's not a third party.  But even with this fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York took the step of ignoring Chevron's claims of being able to pursue arbitration by seeing it as a "third party" when it's not.


The result of this failure means that Chevron now must seek other legal tools to get Ecuador to pay its fair share, but the other problem is more sinister: Ecuador's rich continue to cover-up their behavior and irresponsibility toward that country's poorest people.  Making it look like it was just Chevron's fault does not erase the fact that Ecuador has been harming its poorest people.


The bottom line here is that just because a firm's an oil company does not mean it should be treated unfairly, especially when the lives of the poor of Ecuador are at stake.  Chevron / Texaco has paid and does its share; the Country of Ecuador, which by the way will never give Chevron a fair trial, has not done so. 

Richard Cabrera Files Fraudulent Report: Chevron Claim

The "Richard Cabrera Report" is the basis for the much-used number "$16 billion" as the cost of Ecuador's lawsuit against Chevron. Now, Chevron representatives hammered this claim for the following reasons:

1. Cabrera manipulated and altered findings to justify false conclusions, including backdating photos;

2. He presented no evidence of pollution by Texaco Petroleum, erroneously assigning $1.4 billion in remediation costs to pits he did not visit and do not exist;

3. He presented no evidence to support cancer claims - neither identifying a single individual nor including a single medical report;

4. He did not take a single drinking water sample to establish contamination, yet he assigned $428 million in damages to be paid to improve Ecuador's potable water system;

5. Plaintiffs helped Cabrera compile the report, accompanying and assisting him on field trips, influencing the content of his report by providing him methodological tools such as questionable surveys and pre-written reports to use as report exhibits;

Item number 5 is key, because it's another example of how the government of Ecuador has been assisting the lawsuit against Chevron. Finding evidence to support this claim has been hard but this is one more item.

Ecuador Lawyer Pablo Fajardo Says Chevron Ecuador Case Could End In 2011

This is new and extraordinary news, considering that both sides expected a ruling this year. Well, someone's going to have to finance Steve Donziger for another three years!

By Mercedes Alvaro - Dow Jones Newswires, September 16, 2008: 5:47 PM

QUITO - (Dow Jones)- A five-year-old environmental-damage trial in Ecuador against U.S. oil company Chevron Corp. (CVX) could take at least two or three more years, lawyers said Tuesday.

The delay is expected after objections to an April report from a court- appointed expert were received by a court in Lago Agrio.

The report prepared by Richard Cabrera, a geologist and environmental consultant, recommended that Chevron pay at least $8.3 billion, and maybe as much as $16 billion, in compensation for environmental damage in Ecuador.

Chevron is facing the lawsuit in Ecuador for alleged contamination by its Texaco unit in the Amazon region of Lago Agrio. The company is accused of having used out-of-date technology that led to environmental damage.

The complaint was launched in 1993 in a lawsuit in New York courts, which ruled that the case should be tried in Ecuador. In May 2003, several indigenous groups filed a lawsuit against the company in Lago Agrio (Nueva Loja).

The judge is expected to give Cabrera a reasonable timeframe to answer the objections from both Chevron and the plaintiffs.

Pablo Fajardo, one of the plaintiffs lawyers, told Dow Jones Newswires that he expects a final decision in 2011.

Chevron on Monday submitted its objections to Cabrera's report, saying that it contains "fabricated and erroneous evidence," exaggerated claims for damages and "was developed in collusion with the plaintiffs and their attorneys."

The company urged the court to reject Cabrera's report and accused him of manipulating and altering findings to justify false conclusions, including backdating photos.

The aim, said the company, is to make Chevron liable for all the environmental impact caused solely by Ecuadorian state oil company Petroecuador during 18-plus years of operation of the concession.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs submitted their objections on Tuesday.

Fajardo said the plaintiffs are asking Cabrera to calculate the amount of damage to water supplies, and other damages.

Chevron has said several times that it has met all the requirements for environmental cleanup that were agreed upon with Petroecuador.

Chevron also has said that in 1998 Petroecuador released the U.S.-based company from any liabilities regarding cleanup efforts.

The plaintiffs said that this release isn't from individual claims and that the so-called "cleaned up" pits remain contaminated.

Ecuador Lawyer Pablo Fajardo Says Chevron Ecuador Case Could End In 2011

This is new and extraordinary news, considering that both sides expected a ruling this year. Well, someone's going to have to finance Steve Donziger for another three years!

By Mercedes Alvaro - Dow Jones Newswires, September 16, 2008: 5:47 PM

QUITO - (Dow Jones)- A five-year-old environmental-damage trial in Ecuador against U.S. oil company Chevron Corp. (CVX) could take at least two or three more years, lawyers said Tuesday.

The delay is expected after objections to an April report from a court- appointed expert were received by a court in Lago Agrio.

The report prepared by Richard Cabrera, a geologist and environmental consultant, recommended that Chevron pay at least $8.3 billion, and maybe as much as $16 billion, in compensation for environmental damage in Ecuador.

Chevron is facing the lawsuit in Ecuador for alleged contamination by its Texaco unit in the Amazon region of Lago Agrio. The company is accused of having used out-of-date technology that led to environmental damage.

The complaint was launched in 1993 in a lawsuit in New York courts, which ruled that the case should be tried in Ecuador. In May 2003, several indigenous groups filed a lawsuit against the company in Lago Agrio (Nueva Loja).

The judge is expected to give Cabrera a reasonable timeframe to answer the objections from both Chevron and the plaintiffs.

Pablo Fajardo, one of the plaintiffs lawyers, told Dow Jones Newswires that he expects a final decision in 2011.

Chevron on Monday submitted its objections to Cabrera's report, saying that it contains "fabricated and erroneous evidence," exaggerated claims for damages and "was developed in collusion with the plaintiffs and their attorneys."

The company urged the court to reject Cabrera's report and accused him of manipulating and altering findings to justify false conclusions, including backdating photos.

The aim, said the company, is to make Chevron liable for all the environmental impact caused solely by Ecuadorian state oil company Petroecuador during 18-plus years of operation of the concession.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs submitted their objections on Tuesday.

Fajardo said the plaintiffs are asking Cabrera to calculate the amount of damage to water supplies, and other damages.

Chevron has said several times that it has met all the requirements for environmental cleanup that were agreed upon with Petroecuador.

Chevron also has said that in 1998 Petroecuador released the U.S.-based company from any liabilities regarding cleanup efforts.

The plaintiffs said that this release isn't from individual claims and that the so-called "cleaned up" pits remain contaminated.

Chevron Pipelines Attacked In Nigeria and Columbia; FARC May Be Responsible In Columbia

In the ongoing matter of Chevron and Nigeria comes a report from UPI declaring that "Nigeria attack cripples Chevron". Moreover, the same report points a finger at militant groups like the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). And while there's no recorded link between MEND and Chevron accuser Larry Bowoto, it seems the two have similar aims: to cripple Chevron's presence in the region, as well as that of Royal Dutch Shell.

Consider this UPI report:

Chevron Corp. has declared a force majeure on its oil exports following a particularly destructive attack on one of its installations in the Niger Delta.
Officials at the U.S. oil company said that though production was unaffected at offshore installations, Chevron could not meet its production quotas for customers because of shortfalls caused by the pipeline attack last week at the Escravos oil field in the delta.

Though Chevron would not say just how much production was lost due to the attack, Nigerian energy officials estimated the losses at over 100,000 barrels per day, a blow that prompted the company to declare force majeure, relieving them of their contractual obligations until the assaulted pipeline can be repaired and secured.

Chevron, meanwhile, is not the only company reeling from the recent increase in violence against foreign oil interests by armed militant groups in the delta. Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS-A), the leading foreign petroleum company operating in Nigeria, suffered yet another in a long list of attacks at its Bonga facility last week, prompting the Anglo-Dutch company to halt production for several days.

It wasn't the first time Shell was forced to scale back production due to militant violence. In January, Shell shut down operations at its Forcados terminal following pipeline attacks that threw its 100,000 barrel-per-day production offline. The terminal already had been shut once before because of violence and reopened in October 2007 after more than a year of halted production. Since its reopening, the facility, which can produce some 450,000 barrels per day, had been operating at a fraction of its capacity.

FARC May Be Behind Anti-Chevron Ecuador Efforts

It seem that MEND has something in common with FARC, the same organization that kidnapped now freed politician Ingrid Betancourt: both have apparently bombed Chevron pipelines. in FARK's case, such an activity has been ongoing since 2001, but not limited to Chevron at that time; Petroecuador pipelines -- Petroecuador has long been a partner to Chevron in the region -- were the targets of that Columbian rebel group and that continues today.

Since Ecuador's charging that Columbia's using U.S. made weapons, it seems that Chevron's made as the scapegoat, when it provides much needed employment to the region as is true in Nigeria.

Chevron v. Larry Bowoto - Nigerian Accuser In Court To Explain Why Half Of Case Was Dropped

Larry Bowoto, the Nigerian Accuser who claimed that Chevron hired people who then shot him and violated his human rights, is the focus of a court hearing that starts today according to the SF Sentinel, and which seeks to learn why Bowoto dropped half the charges that he brought before Chevron.

Chevron has claimed that Bowoto and more than 100 members of his paramilitary group stormed the Parabe oil platform, 9 miles off the Nigerian coast and held its employees hostage until Nigerian police and military intervened and helped save the Chevron Nigeria employees.

It reads like another version of the Ecuador Shakedown. I am getting updates on this via the Internet so visit this blog for more news on this investigation.

Chevron Attacker Larry Bowoto Avoids Human Rights Violation Claim - SF Sentinel

The SF Sentinel now reports a story we first broke over at this blog where Larry Bowoto, the Nigerian man who claims he was shot by persons employed by Chevron, and whom Chevron points to as the person who held their employees hostage for several days, has dropped his lawsuit claim of human rights violations.

The Sentinel observes:

It is looking more and more likely that Bowoto and 150 of his compatriots took over the Chevron oil platform off Nigeria in a hostage takeover — which is far different from their claims of human rights abuse.

The trial is in September.