Amazon Watch claims Ecuador's not a party to Chevron lawsuit? Think again!

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

In the ongoing legal battle between Chevron and Ecuador (regarding the lawsuit filed against the oil giant for estimated alleged environmental damage done while Chevron Texaco was producing oil in the Amazon until 1992), there is charge made by some Chevron opponents, specifically the activist group Amazon Watch, that Ecuador should not be mentioned as a "party" to the lawsuit.

Before I continue, let's get the definition of "party to a lawsuit" out of the way. It's actually more complicated that the lay reader knows.

The common standard defintion of "party" is the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit. But even then, it depends on the nature of the case. According the Connecticut Supreme Court State of Conneticut v. Ralston Salmon, a "party" definition can be established by a court and is not "fixed", the "swing point" in the determination of who's has the right to be considered a "party" to a case and is "aggrieved".

"Aggrieved" means "Feeling distress or affliction." As I will demonstrate, Ecuador, from President Correa's statements and involvement, has established itself as an aggrieved party.

The actual legal name of the lawsuit commonly referred to as "Chevron v. Ecuador" is "Aguinda v. Chevron Texaco" and was originally filed in 1993. Because of this, Chevron opponents claim that Ecuador should not be written as if it was a party to the lawsuit, as I have done. Amazon Watch representatives have even went so far as to pressure SFGate.com editors to have me change my blogs to reflect their point of view.

Fortunately, the SFGate editors have resisted and asked me to provide this blog post and for good reason.

This is what Amazon Watch claims:

"The government of Ecuador is not the architect of the Chevron lawsuit, is not a party to the lawsuit, and will not be the recipient of any judgment paid by Chevron. This is a civil suit by private citizens."

That very broad and dangerous paragraph leaves much room for error.

President Correa is careful to publicly say that the lawsuit is "private" as in its not filed by the government of Ecuador. But in practice his actions - and those of other political operatives - prove that the Ecuadorian government is very much involved in the lawsuit and could be identified as a party to it in court.

For example, President Rafael Correa is commonly listed as a supporter of the lawsuit in several blogs and news sites, from Forbes, to Latin American Thought, to Gonzalo Raffo to Bob McCarty's Blog, where he reports that plaintiff attorneys visited the palace of President Correa, writing:

A reliable source, whose identity I cannot reveal for his own security, informed me today that at least three ADC principals — Steven R. Donziger, Pablo Fajardo and Luis Yanza, all attorneys — were in the South American nation’s capitol city of Quito Wednesday and met with tinpot dictator Correa at his presidential palace at 4 p.m. local time (same as U.S. Central time zone).

McCarty writes that he obtained the cell phone number of Steve Donziger, the lead lawyer who filed the lawsuit in 1993; Donziger did not return his call. McCarty says that Karen Hinton, who frankly has done a terrific job in this case, did "leave the door open" to confirming the meeting. McCarty writes:

She (Hinton) did, however, leave the door cracked open just a bit regarding whether or not such a meeting took place (i.e., she said she would get back to me with answers).


I’m not, however, going to hold my breath while waiting for it. I would advise you against doing it as well. Nearly two hours have passed since my phone call with Hinton. Don’t really expect a reply anytime soon.

And if one needs another example of Ecuador's involvement and why I and others recognize it as a party to this case, I point to the now famous set of hidden camera videos. But not the one with Judge Juan Nunez in them. No.

The one that refers to President Correa's sister as the one of the recipients of the "bribe" of $3 million for two environmental consultants to get work from the then-anticipated $27 billion award against Chevron.

In this video,



As I wrote after the bribery allegations were issued:

The second part of the video was filmed at Alianza PAIS (which means "Proud and Sovereign Fatherland" according to the Wikipedia listing) Offices June 22, 2009. PAIS is a political movement led by President Correa. Who Patricio Garcia is beyond his appearance in this video and his role in PAIS is still basically unknown as of this writing.


Garcia says that the President's sister Pierina will be helpful (presumably in making sure that the businessmen get their piece of the planned $27 billion pie) and will meet with "The Gringo" (that's Hansen). I checked and "Prierina" is indeed described here as "Pierina Correa, the president's sister and an Alianza PAIS leader in Guayas province". That confirms my assertion that Garcia is tied to the President and his family as he states in the video.

Now someone, perhaps from Amazon Watch, would counter, "That has nothing to do with the lawsuit award," but even that's not true. While the "cover story", as I call it, is that 30,000 indigenous tribes are represented in the lawsuit, the question of who collects the money and how has not been publicly answered. But it has been privately.

The Amazon Defense Coalition has been identified as but one "fiscal agent" of the award, should the court case go against Chevron. And the lawsuit has been paid for by the Philadelphia law firm of Kohn, Swift, and Graf, not "the indigenous tribes" of Ecuador.

Steve Donziger has worked on behalf of Kohn, Swift, and Graf apparently as far back as 2003 in the matter of this lawsuit.

But it's not clear who will get the award money and how it will get to the people of an area that the government has not only supported for oil production but seems clear to have it remain as a place for it. So far, the only clear Ecuadorian-based organization that is likely to be involved is Alianza PAIS, which is led by, again, President Correa, who's claimed the country has been aggrieved by Chevron Texaco.

(Opponents should be very careful here; the challenge statement would be to prove that Ecuador has not been damaged at all.)

Messy.

Now, in fairness, Donziger has met with some of the people in the region, but he's openly stated he is aware that he stands to become a billionaire from this legal fight, even as he's stated he and his team would "likely" take a smaller percentage than the common one-third of the award.

<h3>Ecuador's people lose in the end </h3>

The legal battle obscures the real issue of poor economic development in Ecuador and of a country that's not getting its petrodollars or development investment to the people who need it the most, yet participating in the harm of the region of the country where they live. 

It also masks the more complex issue of class warfare in Ecuador and how its in some cases a life-threatening task to help some of the tribes in the Amazon. But that's another story for another blog post.

Ecuador's involved alright: headfake politics

Ecuador is trying to play both sides of the political economic fence. It wants to gain from a court victory against Chevron but not antagonize the oil industry with an officially public government lawsuit.

It's the perfect "head fake" politics of of the brilliant President Correa, using American activists to do his political dirty work, while leaving the Ecuadorian Amazon region 65 percent zoned for oil production and initiating a government takeover of privately held oil production.

Regardless of words, in reality Ecuador's a party to the lawsuit, alright. Believe it.

ACORN, Ecuador, Chevron, and the hidden video camera

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

Readers and viewers have asked me to offer my opinion on the discovery by a couple of conservative activists that a couple of workers at the Washington DC office of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN were giving advice on how a pimp and a prostitute can hide themselves from IRS scrutiny.

The "pimp" and the "prostitute" were "played" by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, she a columnist at TownHall.com in Washington, D.C, he a filmmaker and activist.

What they reportedly did was go around America on a tour of different ACORN offices posing as pimp and prostitute. According to CNN, most ACORN offices called the police on them with the exception of the Washington and Baltimore offices. Here's the video of what was said in the ACORN Washington office:



Now, what do I think? Well, the ACORN workers were wrong of course. Do you think I'm going to defend someone giving tax evasion tips to a pimp and his, well, you know. (I can't help but wonder if O'Keefe and Giles were sleeping together during their tour posing as people who were in the sex business. I mean all that talk and travel had to make them horny at some point, right?)

I also think it's a lot like the Chevron Ecuador case, where Ecuador Judge Juan Nunez was secretly caught on video in a meeting talking about the Chevron case and how he could rule and what the cost would be - $27 billion. Even though the Judge picked his words carefully, it was clear he knew about "that other thing" (because he used those words) which were the bribe arrangements where two environmental consultants would pay $3 million for the right to get a part of the remediation work the $27 billion was to pay for, in part.

Here's that video:



The cry in that case was that the consultants worked for Chevron; actually that's not exactly true but I'll deal with that in another blog post. The whine in the ACORN case was that the videos were made without the knowledge of the workers. In both episodes my response is if the subjects know that they're doing the right thing, they don't care if a camera or camcorder's in the room.

The simple fact that being secretely filmed is an issue for both the Judge and the ACORN workers means they knew they should not have been in those situations saying what they said.

Period.

The ACORN workers on camera were advocating a corrupt practice. The Judge and his friends in the Chevron video were caring out a corrupt practice.

I tell everyone I know this: if you're always in the right, you can't fear the use of a camera or camcorder because it will show that you were correct in your actions. The video made by O'Keefe and Giles doesn't damage the overall intent of ACORN at all; but it does call into question the ethics of some of the workers hired to staff the offices in certain cities, like DC.

The best action for anyone is to have their own camcorder. It's a good idea to have video evidence of one's actions anyway. But the bottom line is to just be on the right side of an ethics fight and to use the Golden Rule: do onto others as you would have others do on to you.

Chevron Ecuador: Amazon Defense Coalition's statement on Judges' recusal

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

The Amazon Defense Coalition sent this email to me containing their statement responding to the news that Ecuadorian Judge Juan Nunez recused himself in the wake of a video that captured him in a meeting explaining how he planned to rule in the Ecuador / ADC lawsuit against Chevron.

The statement:

Judge’s Recusal Clears Path For Legal Proceedings to Continue
Validates Chevron’s Initial Faith in Ecuadorian Court System

Quito, Ecuador (September 4, 2009) – Steven Donziger, attorney for the plaintiffs, said:

The judge’s decision to recuse himself clears the path for the legal proceedings to continue uninterrupted. This appears to have been done by the judge to disrupt Chevron's intention to further delay a litigation that has lasted 16 years. The judge’s action once again validates the effective functioning of the Ecuadorian legal system — a system that Chevron chose as the best forum to hear the lawsuit. The vast majority of the competent evidence in the case, including all the evidence used as a basis for the $27.3 billion damages assessment against Chevron, was received by the court prior to the tenure of Judge Nunez.

We again call on competent authorities in Ecuador and the United States to investigate any role Chevron and its officials might have played to script a bribery scheme for purposes of extracting an advantage in a private litigation.


The recusal does not change the overwhelming evidence against Chevron in the underlying case. The evidence in that case demonstrates clearly Chevron’s responsibility for wrecking the rainforest, decimating indigenous groups, and putting thousands of Ecuadorian citizens at grave risk.”


NOTE: Chevron’s main defense is that a 1995 remediation agreement, signed with the government of Ecuador two years after the lawsuit was filed in the US in 1993, releases the company from all responsibility for the contamination. However, it is important to include that the agreement specifically carves out individual, third-party claims, such as ours, in the agreement. Chevron was not released from lawsuits such as the Aguinda vs Chevron case. Also, evidence in the Ecuadorian trial has found that the oil wells and pits that Texaco claimed to have cleaned in the remediation agreement test today at extremely high and illegal levels of toxic contamination. The plaintiffs maintain that the remediation agreement was a sham. Two Chevron lawyers, who worked for Texaco at the time, and seven former Ecuadorian officials have been indicted for fraud.

Chevron Ecuador Judge Nunez bribery scandal - implications

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

In a blockbuster development, Ecuador Judge Juan Nunez, the key legal figure in the Chevron Ecuador environmental damage case, is captured in a video shown here explaining that he plans to rule against the oil giant and for an award of $27 billion "more or less". The judge explains that the verdict will happen and that Chevron will be blocked from filing an appeal of his ruling. In that segment of the video, the Judge explains he's only there to talk about the verdict, not about "the other stuff" which refers to a $3 million payoff request. Later in the video its implied that Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa will benefit from the bribe amount.

On video today I talked to Chevron Media Relations representative Sean Comey about the video and Chevron's investigation.



In the video Judge Nunez, Aulo Gelio ServioTulio Avila ("Avila"), and Pablo Almeida and are talking with two gentleman, Wayne Hansen and Diego Borja who are environmental remediation contractors and in the Judge's chamber in Lago Agrio, Ecuador.  Hansen and Borja have pen-installed camcorders in their shirt pockets.  Diego Borja has worked for Chevron before, Hansen has not, according to Chevron.

Judge Nunez (on the left)

The idea of the meeting was for the Judge and his political associates to be paid by the environmental company for business that would come to them as a result of the Judge's planned verdict.  Here's what the Judge said from the video and the Amazonpost website:

Núñez:             “Any other questions for me as a judge?”
Hansen:           “Oh no, I, I know clearly how it is, you say, Chevron is the guilty party?”
Núñez:             “Yes Sir.”
Hansen:           “And the, the, the act (decision) is October or November of this year?”
Núñez:             “Yes Sir.”
Hansen:           “And it’s….?”
Núñez:             “No later than January.”
Hansen:           “January 2010. And the money is twenty-seven (billion dollars)?”
Núñez:             “It might be less, and it might be more.”

The Judge says "I have nothing to do with that other part" which is not explained in full but Garcia below fills in "the blanks" later, explaining that the Judge will be paid part of $3 million from the consulants.

 Patricio Garcia

The second part of the video has an operative Patricio Garcia (photo from the Amazonpost website) who's reportedly a member of Ecuador's ruling party talking about how the $3 million would be delivered and transfered. This is what was said by Garcia:

Borja: “OK. Of the three million … one million is for the judge?”


Garcia: “Yes.”


Borja: “One million for the presidency…?”


Garcia: “Yes.”


Borja: “And one million for the plaintiffs?”


Garcia: “Yes, that’s right.”


Borja: “But, Loco, for the plaintiffs, who gets the money? Fajardo?”


Garcia: “No. The thing is, we’re going to handle it here.”


Borja: “You mean Alianza PAIS would receive the payment here?”


Garcia: “Right.”

Here's the 30 minute version of the video (the full two hour version is here):



But there's more to this video than what's reported in the press thus far. The focus here is on President Rafael Correa, who's office is named by Patricio Garcia as a beneficiary of the planned bribe money as is "his sister" as stated in the video above. As of this writing Correa has not issued a statement, but his reputation has already come under attack.

The second part of the video was filmed at Alianza PAIS (which means "Proud and Sovereign Fatherland" according to the Wikepedia listing)  Offices June 22, 2009.   PAIS is a political movement led by President Correa.   Who Patricio Garcia is beyond his appearance in this video and his role in PAIS is still basically unknown as of this writing. 

Garcia says that the President's sister  Pierina will be helpful (presumably in making sure that the businessmen get their piece of the planned $27 billion pie) and will meet with "The Gringo" (that's Hansen).  I checked and "Prierina" is indeed  described here as "Pierina Correa, the president's sister and an Alianza País leader in Guayas province".  That confirms my assertion that Garcia is tied to the President and his family as he states in the video.


Shocking.  


Chevron wants Nunez taken off the case

The implication here is that as Chevron Media Relations representative Sean Corney said in my video above, Chevron wants Nunez taken off the environmental damage case.  But given that Chevron has informed the U.S. Department of Justice, the revalation could have deeper implications.  

It could cost the country its Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) status, which was just renewed in June of this year.  Whatever the case, this news sends a clear message that doing business in Ecuador is not the "clean" experience it should be. Until now, blogs have reported the problems of corruption in Ecuador and with respect to President Correa's involvement in the Chevron case, but now we have visible evidence to back those claims.

The news also forever destroys the claim made by Ecuador lawsuit legal advisor Steve Donziger and others who say that the lawsuit against Chevron has nothing to do with the Ecuadorian Government and is brought by citizens of the Amazon. But Correa has appeared with Donziger in public and has been interviewed about the case.

Right.  

One can see that the bribe money's not going anywhere near those groups of people Donziger claims to represent; the political party PAIS would get it and "handle it" as Garcia said in the video.  The question is, did Donziger or his associates in Ecuador and America know about this bribe plan?  Was he to be one of the plaitiffs that would get the bribe money? In the Amazon Defense Coalition statement today, he does not address the possibility that he may be involved, instead he said "As the facts come out it's going to backfire heavily on Chevron."



Amazon Defense Coalition defends Judge Nunez

Karen Hinton of the Amazon Defense Coalition told Reuters that the video shows Judge Nunez resisting the bribery matter. (This is Hinton's full statement.)  In point of fact, the video shows the judge saying that he's speaking in the role of Judge and "does not know about that other matter" which is a way of saying he does know but does not want it to be officially said that he does know.  It's called "plausible deniability ." 

Stay tuned.

Notes:

Full video transcripts:


Meeting 1 Transcript (228 KB)
Meeting 2 Transcript (195 KB)
Meeting 3 Transcript (218 KB)
Meeting 4 Transcript (217 KB)

Somehow U.S. Senators Get Suckered into asking for Ecuador Chevron trial without "U.S. Meddling"

Considering the smelly deals going on in Ecuador, like the plaintiff paying off the court-ordered environmental economist to the tune of $200K, that four great U.S Senators - Democratic Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Patrick Leahy of Vermont - could be suckered into calling for a "clean trial" without "U.S. Meddling" is totally funny. What about Ecuador meddling? I guess that's ok. With this kind of crap, the real problems in Ecuador of government and legal corruption will never be solved.

Amazon Defense Coalition A Fake Company Created By Hinton Communications For Chevron Ecuador Case

Ok.  Here's one for the books.  Because I dare bring a balanced view of the Chevron Ecuador case, Karen Hinton of Hinton Communications decides that I must be paid by Chevron.  In other words, no one can possibly take a middle ground position, or even think that one exists.

The problem is that it does.  Moreover, I have evidence here that the claims against Chevron are part of Ecuador's plan to clear the Amazon of foreign oil interests and replace them with state-owned Petroecuador's oil drilling activities.  Ecuador cares about the poor of the Amazon far less than it cares about extracting petrodollars from the Amazon. 

A Front For Ecuador and Petroecuador

Ok.  Let's do some house-cleaning over the mess Hinton Communications has left for me to clean up.  The first fact is this:  the "Amazon Defense Coalition" does not exist except in the mind of Karen Hinton.  It's presented as a firm, a group, a company, but Hinton is the only constant spokesperson who issues material for this supposedly operating organization.

In point of fact, there's no "Amazon Defense Coalition" there's no website, no office, no president, no secretary and no budget.  The only person who is consistently listed is Hinton herself.  What she's done, in a brilliant stroke of PR genius that I've got to stop and admire for a second, is to consistently flood the Internet with press release after press release with the words "Amazon Defense Coalition" on the title, so what comes up in a search is for "Amazon Defense Coalition" are results with that listing, so the layperson says "Well, there is an Amazon Defense Coalition because of all these search results."

Yeah.  Right.  Look deeper.

The vast majority of the results are reprints of the same press releases Hinton sends out.  There's no evidence of anyone consistently writing for the "Amazon Defense Coalition" other than Hinton herself or Hinton Communications.  It's no wonder a Google lookup of "Amazon Defense Coalition Hinton" shows over 3,000 results!  

Karen Hinton should come clean and reveal what I already know: that her American company is working for the President of Ecuador Rafael Correa as a foreign agent and appears to be financed by them.

Hinton's ties in this matter are deep.  She's linked with Washington lobbyist Ben Barnes, who's linked with Steve Donziger, of the law firm Kohn, Swift, and Graft (who hired Barnes), and who's the master lawyer in the lawsuit against Chevron and who may be getting resources from the Ecuadorian government, too.   Indeed, the The Ben Barnes Group is listed as one of Hinton's clients and Hinton's the Amazon Defense Coalition so one can effectively say that Barnes has a major role in the Amazon Defense Coalition because it's really just Hinton who's paid by Barnes, who in turn is paid by Donziger / Kohn, Swift, and Graft, who must get its money from the Ecuadorian government, because they too stand to rake in billions, even with the one-third award stake Donziger will gain should he prevail in these legal battles.    It's worth the investment. 

The Ben Barnes Group is an effective lobbying organization, and its founder, Barnes, has made millions doing deals between special interest groups, companies, and powerful Democratic office-holders.  Barnes has served as the spokesperson for R. Allen Stanford, who's the focal point of the Stanford Investment Scandal. (To be fair, Barnes says he has played no role in Stanford's business dealings and is said to be "shocked and saddened" by the allegations against his friend and client.) 

It's hotly rumored that The Barnes Group hired former Speaker of the California Assembly, San Francisco Mayor, and SF Chronicle Columnist Willie Brown to work with them and Donziger against Chevron in the Ecuador case, and that news is "loose" because my friends - and I have a lot of them - tell me Willie's yappin' about the deal all over San Francisco!  I wonder how much of this gravy train he's going to take in? 

Nice.

President Correa, Donziger, Barnes, and Hinton care about bucks, not the people of the Amazon.  And it's questionable at best that President Correa himself really cares about the poor people of the Amazon over oil exploration, as he would have others believe.  Indeed, in 2007, Correa's advanced a proposal where countries would pay them $4 billion to protect a part of their country called Yasuni National Park in the Amazon from oil exploration, but if they didn't get the money, Ecuador itself will drill for oil there anyway!

Guess what?  They didn't get the money!  That led to a new round of drilling that effected the Yasuni National Park, which is supposed to be the "protected area" according to the "World Rainforest Movement" which reports:

In December 2008, the Waorani denounced new oil exploration activities in the Cononaco oilfield. In order to appease the community, the Ecuadorian state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, paid them 35,000 dollars. But these new activities affect the Yasuní National Park, a protected area.

Previous oil operations in Cononaco have been inspected as part of the trial underway against Texaco, since the activities in the field were undertaken by this multinational oil giant. Of the 35 samples taken, 30 showed readings higher than those permitted by law.

The area in question forms part of both the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve and the Waorani people’s ancestral territory, and the contamination caused by oil activities there directly affects Yasuní National Park.

When the pipeline between the Auca and Cononaco oilfields burst in 2006, the resulting oil spill contaminated the Tiputini River which runs through the National Park. But the new exploration activity is even more menacing, because it is taking place in areas vital to the survival of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.

So much for Ecuador's real concern about their own people, let alone the environment. Ecuador fans will say President Correa stopped oil exploration in the area, but he didn't stop it.  He put a stay on it.  That means after June 2009, oil exploration activities start again.  The Amazon is a revenue generator for Ecuador, but Correa knows he can't effectively win a lawsuit against Chevron and stick it to Ecuador's poor at the same time, so he made a brilliant political move designed to get him good press.

For a month.

If the "Amazon Defense Coalition" really cares about the Amazon, ask Karen Hinton why Correa's planning another round of oil exploration in the Yasuni National Park area?   Don't ask "SOSYasuni" because they cover for the Ecuadorian Government.  Indeed, by first asking for Western oil companies for payment to protect Yasuni, then threatening to drill for oil themselves (using Petroecuador) if they don't get the money, Ecuador's trying to crowd-out its own oil market from foreign interests and pave the way for the state-owned Petroecuador and the Petroecuador-owned Petroamazonas S.A to drill and gain revenue.   A very clever campaign.

Petroamazonas S.A  got the rights to drill at "Block 31" from Ecuador, which retook control from the Brazilian-owned oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras in 2008:

Petroamazonas, which is majority-owned by state oil company Petroecuador, is looking for financing from multilateral lenders and foreign countries to develop block 31, but Pastor didn't give details.
"We are in talks to get financing. If we obtain financing this block will be developed this year. We plan to drill around 14 wells," Pastor said.
Last year, the Ecuadorian government and Brazil's state-run oil firm, Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras, agreed to finish the contract for block 31, which was transferred to the state.
Block 31 has 200,000 hectares, some of this within the Yasuni National Park, which Unesco has declared a world biosphere reserve.

To the press, it looked like Ecuador's Correa was being an environmental hero, but in point of fact, he was just gathering more Ecuadorian territory to be drilled by the Ecuadorian government.  U.S.-based Occidental Petroleum Corp was litterally kicked out of the country and while Chevron / Texaco left long ago, Ecuador's trying to extort money from them via this disingenuous environmental damage claim ; the indigenious people of the Yasuni area are an afterthought both to them and to Donziger's people; the color of money is the only green they care about.  Have doubts?  Ask Steve Donziger if he would work for free.

Chevron Accuses Richard Cabrera Of Voodoo Economic In Ecuador

Professor Richard Cabrera, the economist who's estimates have served to frame the environmental damage terms of debate in the court battle between giant oil company Chevron and the coutry of Ecuador, has been accused of what could be called "Voodoo Economics" by the San Ramon-based firm.

In a damaging press release, Chevron write the following:

Despite an awareness of these fundamental defects, Cabrera’s amended assessment makes no effort to correct any prior mistakes and introduces a new series
of egregious errors, such as:

• Recommending more than $9 billion in damages associated with “excess cancer deaths” without identifying a single victim, let alone providing any corroborating documentation such as a death certificate or a medical diagnosis.
• Recommending more than $3 billion in damages associated with groundwater contamination
even though his own data clearly indicate no such contamination exists, and Cabrera
acknowledges that he has no basis for devising a remediation plan or developing a cost estimate.
Rather, Cabrera simply adopts plaintiffs’ counsel’s demands to assess damages and repackages
them as fact.
• Conceding that his work was conducted in such a fashion as to assign blame to Chevron instead
of performing an objective and unbiased scientific analysis of current environmental conditions,
as the court had ordered.

Their assertions continue and essentially build a case to attack Cabrera's work. But my charge has been it's almost impossible to find anything about Cabrera online, other than his work on the Ecuador lawsuit against Chevron, where the country is attempting to have the oil firm pay entirely for environmental damage that Ecuador itself is largely responsible for. In this matter, Cabrera has filed fraudulent economic report claims, making estimates of monetary damage costs without providing substantiated evidence to support his report findings.

"Crude" Movie Lies - The Movie "Crude" Forgets About Ecuador

There's a new movie out called "Crude" which is a kind of documentary about the Ecuadorian oil spill problem. The trouble is, it forgets about how Petroecuador shirked its responsibility in maintaining the oil production facilities left behind after the transfer from Chevron / Texaco in 1998. I explained that in this video:



And now, there's a new website outlining the lies of "Crude" and called "Crude Movie Lies".

Multinational Monitor Erroneously Lists Ford Foundation's Community Friend Chevron as One Of 2008 Worst Corporations

It seems the Multinational Monitor has a habit of writing incorrect and critical news about American Corporations that support it. Support it? With a budget of over $1 million, it doesn't come from people on the street. But it takes that money from corporations and uses it to incorrectly shame them.

This is certainly true with Chevron, the company the "non-profit" organization publication owned by Essential Information, a firm founded by Ralph Nader, who's not involved with it as of this writing. It is Essential Information that receives a grant from The Ford Foundation, which in turn has recognized Chevron as a good company in the matter of community investment in America.

So what does the Multinational Monitor accuse Chervon of that makes it "so bad"? It's attempt to throw out a baseless lawsuit against it by Ecuador regarding oil wells that the country itself is responsible for taking care of and has been for almost 20 years.

Multinational Monitor and Robert Weissman, who made the list, should take Chevron off of it.

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.

The Pentagon's Image Problem in Latin America and Africa

 This is a must-read article for any Latin American and foreign policy enthusiast.  Indeed, Latin America is against U.S. interests and may not be safe for Americans to visit because of Pentagon activities. 

War Is Boring: The Pentagon's Image Problem in Latin America and Africa

David Axe - World Politics Review, October 15, 2008

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2776

The U.S.S. Kearsarge amphibious assault ship set sail from Norfolk, Va., in August, on a mission to provide free medical care to six Latin American countries. But five days into her four-month cruise, on Aug. 11, Kearsarge made an important detour, swinging within helicopter range of Miami to receive visitors. The roughly 20 people who clambered aboard from the hulking Marine Corps choppers represented a mix of U.S. military brass, civilian aid workers, local Miami elected officials and Spanish-language media.

"Our multinational team is dedicated to recommit and fortify our relationships in South America," Capt. Frank Ponds, ranking U.S. officer on Kearsarge, told the assembled VIPs in one of the 1,000-foot-long vessel's staterooms. He was specifically referring to the ship's current medical mission, but his words could also apply more generally to the July launch of the U.S. Fourth Fleet, a new headquarters for Latin American naval operations that is intended to boost U.S. military presence in what one analyst has called a traditionally "forgotten" part of the world. Kearsarge's cruise represented one of Fourth Fleet's first deployments.

Later, Ponds explained to the embarked reporters accompanying the vessel on her tour that ceremonies like the one on Aug. 11 were a key facet of Kearsarge's mission. Treating a few tens of thousands of patients in Latin America would not be enough: The Navy also needed to explain what it was doing, and why, to the hundreds of millions of people in the region who would not be receiving medical care. Ponds said this "strategic communications" was vital to "influencing generations to come."

But according to some experts, Ponds' efforts were too little, too late. Public opinion in Latin America has already turned against the Pentagon's reinvigorated activities in the region -- and against the United States in general. America's image has "eroded" in six Latin American countries surveyed in a recent Pew poll, according to the Associated Press. Meanwhile, a Chilean polling organization ranked President George W. Bush as the least popular world leader in the opinions of Latin Americans.

The United States has a major perception problem in the two world regions where the Pentagon has decided to focus greater effort. Latin America and Africa represent new frontiers for a military that in recent decades has mostly concerned itself with Western Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific. In addition to Fourth Fleet's recent launch, in October the Pentagon formally stood up Africa Command, a new headquarters overseeing all of Africa, save Egypt. The so-called AFRICOM has proved deeply unpopular among everyday Africans -- so much so that only one country, Liberia, offered to host the command's facilities. Rather than risk further alienating Africans, AFRICOM instead chose to keep its facilities in Germany.

Similarly, in the Southern Hemisphere, Fourth Fleet has been a magnet for criticism. Upon hearing of the Pentagon's intention to stand up the new headquarters, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez accused the U.S. of deliberately provoking a new "Cold War" in Latin America. Chávez followed up his accusation by inviting the Russian navy to conduct exercises off the Venezuelan coast. Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa supported the invitation. "The U.S. Fourth Fleet can come to Latin America but a Russian fleet can't?" Correa said.

Anti-U.S. rhetoric might be expected from the region's most hardline leftist regimes, but even current and former U.S. allies have protested renewed U.S. military interest in Latin America. The same day Kearsarge began delivering aid to impoverished eastern Nicaragua, that country's president, Daniel Ortega, accused the vessel of carrying spies. Chile, perhaps the staunchest U.S. ally in Latin America, lately has been skeptical of the Pentagon's intentions in the region. And Brazil, which sent doctors to help out aboard Kearsarge, nevertheless cited Fourth Fleet as a potential military rival. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Brazil's navy must protect the nation's newly discovered "subsalt" offshore oil reserves "because the men of Fourth Fleet are almost there on top of the subsalt areas."

This despite Fourth Fleet's largely humanitarian focus, perfectly reflected in the Kearsarge cruise. "Adm. Jim Stavridis, who is the commander of SOUTHCOM, speaks very eloquently about these missions of peace," says Bob Work, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Of Fourth Fleet's five stated mission areas, three are humanitarian in nature. Nos. 4 and 5 are multinational naval training and counternarcotics. "Kinetic" combat doesn't even make the list.

But the Pentagon failed early on to impress upon Latin American leaders its essentially peaceful intentions in forming the new headquarters. According to Mark Schneider, an analyst with International Crisis Group, the U.S. government did not effectively consult with the region's governments before announcing Fourth Fleet. "If it had been done in a different way, it might have been accepted," Schneider says. "It needed to have been done in a collaborative way." The Pentagon should perhaps have expected a certain wariness among Latin Americans, especially considering the U.S. military's history in the region. "We know of many historical cases of U.S. intervention in Latin American countries," said Leonid Golubev, Russian ambassador to Bolivia. Indeed, the airstrip in eastern Nicaragua where Kearsarge landed her first batch of medical supplies in August was the same strip built by the U.S. as a base for the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion targeting Cuba.

AFRICOM's problems are similar in nature. Unlike Central Command, which has as its primary mission prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, AFRICOM is mostly a training and humanitarian organization, with only a few thousand combat troops (those assigned to a Special Forces base in Djibouti). "This is not a kinetic environment," said AFRICOM boss Gen. Kip Ward. "We are there to help our partner nations build their capacity, working in totality with the overall U.S. government program in a particular country."

"Not focused on war fighting," is how Theresa Whalen, the Pentagon's top Africa official, characterized the new command.

That may be so, but in failing to clearly communicate this focus to the continent's leaders and to everyday Africans, the Pentagon didn't take into account the lingering fear of colonialism that is widespread in Africa. "U.S. AFRICOM project has a hidden agenda," one Nigerian commenter wrote in a post on the command's official Web site. "Washington should understand that Africa does not need AFRICOM to solve her problems, many of which have foreign coloration."

Soon after AFRICOM was announced in late 2006, stories circulated in the African press claiming that the U.S. planned to build permanent bases on the continent, and already operated a secret airbase in Botswana. "We could just not kill that rumor," Whalen said. She said African reporting on AFRICOM, dominated by Nigerian, South African and Kenyan news organizations, was "not particularly sophisticated." And even today, two years later, there's a "great deal of speculation, misinformation," according to Jerry Lanier, a State Department adviser to AFRICOM.

The Pentagon is at least partly to blame, says Jose de Arimateia da Cruz, a professor at Armstrong Atlantic State University in Georgia. "Two years into AFRICOM planning and launch, there is still very little dissemination of information."

As for Latin America, press conferences aboard U.S.S. Kearsarge cannot undo the long months of relative silence that preceded Fourth Fleet's launch, and which have undermined the new headquarters' "mission of peace."

David Axe is an independent correspondent, a World Politics Review contributing editor, and the author of "War Bots." He blogs at War is Boring. His WPR column, "War is Boring," appears every two weeks.

Petroecuador Gets Revenue From Old Occidental Petroleum Company Fields

Look at this report, because it shows just how much of an impact the seisure of Occidential Petroleum oil production facilities had on Petroecuador's overall revenues.  Moreover, one has to ask how the company is maintaining those facilities given its past failures. 

Dow Jones International News, October 15, 2008

QUITO (Dow Jones)--Petroecuador reported Tuesday oil export revenue of $526.33 million in September, a 20% decrease from the $656.12 million registered in the previous month.

According to Petroecuador data, the company exported 5.91 million barrels of crude oil in September, down 10% from 6.56 million barrels registered in August.

Petroecuador's exports include Napo crude from former Occidental Petroleum Company fields that were seized May 15, 2006. Ecuador claims Occidental broke the terms of its operating contract.

Exports of Oriente crude in September were 4.47 million barrels, while exports of Napo crude were 1.44 million barrels.

The average price of Oriente in September fell 11% to $90.24 a barrel from $100.86 in August. The price of Napo crude was $85.15 per barrel, a 13% decrease against $97.68 registered one month before.

Figures have been rounded.

Petroecuador is Ecuador's state oil company.

Ecuador's Correa Names Fourth Finance Minister; Correa Says "Mafia" Runs Finance Ministry

This is interesting to me, because I hold that the cover-up of Petroecuador's involvement in oil spills in the Amazon is directly connected to Ecuadorian Government corruption.  Here's Ecuador's own governor talking about such problems in his own government...

Ecuador president names fourth finance minister, slams predecessors for low public spending

Associated Press Newswires, September 17, 2008

QUITO, Ecuador (AP) - Ecuador has a new finance minister after the unexpected resignation of Wilma Salgado.

President Rafael Correa criticized Salgado Tuesday, accusing her of blocking his efforts to boost government spending on roads, hydroelectric and oil projects during her 10 weeks in office.

Correa said a "mafia" has run the finance ministry, "demonizing" public spending in order to use Ecuador's cash to service its foreign debt.

Ecuador has US$6 billion in foreign currency reserves, and Correa wants new finance minister Maria Elsa Viteri to tap that cash to triple public spending to US$300 million a month.

Viteri is Ecuador's fourth finance minister since Correa took office 20 months ago.

Chevron v. Ecuador - Chevron Files Response To "Fraudulent" Court Report

I'm just updating you on news related to the ongoing legal battle between Chevron and Ecuador:

California-based oil major Chevron (NYSE: CVX) has filed a written response to a court-ordered report in a trial related to alleged environmental damage in Ecuador.

The superior court in Nueva Loja, Ecuador, asked Richard Cabrera to write the report after the plaintiffs aborted a judicial inspection process of the alleged pollution in Ecuador, Chevron said in a statement.

"The findings of the Cabrera report are clearly fraudulent and intended to cause damage to this US company and its shareholders," Chevron general counsel Charles James told reporters in a conference call.

"This report would not withstand scrutiny - be it technical, scientific or legal - in any responsible independent court anywhere in the world," he said.

Chevron believes Cabrera, helped by the plaintiffs, "manipulated" findings to justify false conclusions. Cabrera failed to present evidence for a number of claims and did not look at drinking water samples to prove contamination, according to the Chevron statement.

"It is hard to read Mr Cabrera's report and find a single table, page, assertion or data point that we wouldn't take issue with," James said when asked whether there was any truth to the Cabrera report. "He did put his name on the report and I presume that's correct."

The Cabrera report estimates damages of US$7bn-16bn - a "reasonable" amount that actually "underestimated the number of deaths from cancer due to the oil contamination," the Amazon Defense Coalition, a NGO that supports the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

In fact, plaintiffs have submitted papers to the court asking Cabrera to calculate how much it would cost to remediate groundwater and surface water not included in the assessment.

"There is significant evidence of groundwater and surface water contamination in the record yet no damages to remediate the impacts," Pablo Fajardo, the Ecuadorian lawyer for "dozens" of Amazon communities and five indigenous groups suing Chevron, said in the NGO's statement.

The trial stems back decades, when Ecuador's state oil company Petroecuador led an E&P project with partner Texaco Petroleum (Texpet), which years later merged into Chevron. The Petroecuador-Texpet partnership resulted in total crude production of 1.7Mb, with Texpet - which stopped operating in the country in 1992 - taking 5% of the financial proceeds, according to Chevron figures.

Ecuador's government in 1999 enacted a new environmental statute that allows any Ecuadorian resident to file a collective suit for environmental reparations. As a result, plaintiffs filed suit against Chevron in 2003, alleging environmental damage under the Texpet project.

Although Texpet had a minority stake in the project, plaintiffs allege it did substandard work and made major decisions about project technology and methodology.

Chevron denies the allegations and says it performed a US$40mn remediation project that gave it final immunity from claims resulting from its participation in the consortium.

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.

Wayne Berman, Top McCain Fundraiser, Also Lobbyist For Big Oil

Wayne Berman's a key fundraiser for the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain and a member of the government relations staff of Oglivy, a PR firm with a Washington office. 

Berman's a prime example of why people say that McCain's in the pocket of Big Oil.  Wayne Berman's serving as a lobbyist for Chevron in their legal battle against the country of Ecuador.

Berman has taken the incredible step of trying to get the Bush Administration to take special trade preferences away from Ecuador if that country doesn't drop its billion dollar lawsuit against Chevron.

I can personally save Wayne Berman the trouble by telling him Chevron's not at fault to anywhere near the levels charged by Ecuador.  But the other side of this story has nothing to do with Chevron and everything to do with Wayne Berman's key involvement in McCain's campaign. 

With ties like Wayne Berman, it's impossible for McCain to claim he's not a friend of Big Oil.

Petroecuador Employees Fight Over Occidential Petroleum's Left Over Luxury Cars

If one needs any evidence of how divided Ecuador's class culture really is, and of how this still-poor country (even with its oil industry) has so little that its citizens scrap for everything, we have this report of Petroecuador employees actually coming to blows over luxury cars left behind after the state forced that American oil company out of the country.


Now, the resulting "wake" has improved the oil sector, if not the messy politics that defines it in this country. Now, Petroecuador controls 50 percent of all oil export production in Ecuador. And while Occidental has approached the Bush Administration for help in re-acquiring the assets seized by Ecuador, the nation's representatives are taking a hard line stance, not allowing a "an arrogant, portentous transnational that doesn’t respect Ecuadoran laws to harm our country,” according to Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa.