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.