Showing posts with label chevron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chevron. Show all posts
Monday, December 08, 2008
Friday, December 05, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
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.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
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.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
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.
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
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)