Chevron's Rainforest Chernobyl
In Ecuador, Oil Giant Responsible
For Creating Toxic Contamination 30 Times Larger Than The Exxon
Valdez
by Amazon Watch
www.chevrontoxico.com/
A troubling corporate cover-up is underway
in Ecuador. Chevron (formerly ChevronTexaco), a U.S. company that
constantly touts its environmental record, seems more interested
in cleaning up its image than the toxic mess it left in the Ecuadorian
rainforest.
It's no wonder Chevron is worried about
its image. The company dumped billions of gallons of toxic wastewater
into Ecuador's rainforest, threatening the survival of five indigenous
groups and creating what is likely the worst oil-related disaster
on the planet. Texaco's decades of dumping in Ecuador have resulted
in 30 times more oil spilt than Exxon Valdez. Since Texaco was
bought by Chevron in 2002, the mess is now Chevron's responsibility.
Much to Chevron's dismay, 30,000 rainforest
dwellers stood up to this corporate goliath and filed a historic
class-action lawsuit in Ecuador against the company in 2003. The
lawsuit (Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco) has the potential to
set an important legal precedent that could benefit millions of
vulnerable people worldwide-those whose human rights are violated
by irresponsible corporations.
The rainforest dwellers assert that from
1970 to 1992, the company systematically dumped 18.5 billion
gallons of highly carcinogenic toxic waste into unlined pits,
swamps, streams, and rivers. This toxic dumping disaster-dubbed
the "Rainforest Chernobyl" by locals-is connected to
numerous deaths from cancer.1 Indeed, some experts consider the
ecological impact to be the worst catastrophe on the planet other
than Chernobyl. Once a pristine rainforest, the area where Texaco
operated is now filled with more than 700 open-air toxic waste
pits and hundreds of swamps and streams filled with oil muck.
Some of the waste pits are the size of a football field, and many
contain the carcasses of cows and horses that have fallen into
the pits and asphyxiated.
Over the years, the toxic contents of
the waste pits have leeched into the groundwater, streams and
rivers, contaminating the larger ecosystem and sending toxins
downstream into Peru. Since there are no other options for obtaining
water, local people now depend on these contaminated sources for
drinking water. Thousands of people are slowly poisoning themselves
several times daily as they consume the water, bathe in local
waterways, and breathe the vapors in the air from the pits. Childhood
leukemia rates are four times higher in this area than in other
parts of Ecuador. Estimates of the number of local people who
have died from oil-related diseases (such as cancer) are in the
hundreds, and actual numbers likely range into the thousands-a
shockingly high number, given the sparse population.2
Texaco's devastating contamination of
the rainforest was not an accident; it was the direct result of
the company's decision to prioritize short-term profits over people's
lives and the environment. To further increase profits from its
operations in Ecuador, the company deliberately decided to forego
the installation of re-injection technology, a standard industry
practice that disposes toxic waste hundreds of feet back into
the well cavity in order to protect the environment. This technology
was in use for more than a half-century in the United States at
the time Texaco began drilling in Ecuador. By not using this cleaner
technology, Texaco saved itself $3 per barrel-a total of approximately
$4.5 billion over the life of its operations in Ecuador. But despite
these short-term gains for company shareholders, the long-term
environmental and human costs are too large to measure. Today,
affected communities are demanding that Chevron foot the $6 billion
clean-up bill-a modest portion of the estimated $30 billion in
profits that the company extracted from its dirty Ecuadorian operations.3
Although the rainforest dwellers affected
by Chevron's toxic legacy can never fully be compensated for their
suffering and loss, they hope to win their historic class-action
lawsuit against the company so a comprehensive clean-up can take
place.4 The trial has three phases: a proof period, where witnesses
testify and evidence is presented; a judicial inspection period,
where the judge and technical experts visit and assess the contaminated
sites; and a period for clean-up cost assessment. The trial is
currently in the inspections phase. Water and soil samples collected
by both sides point strongly to Chevron's culpability. For example,
75 of 77 water samples taken by Chevron surpass Ecuadorian contamination
norms and 100% of the sites inspected thus far show extensive
levels of toxic contamination.
Chevron's trial strategy is to rely on
technical defenses, including a release secured from Ecuador's
government in 1995 after the company supposedly "remediated"
a limited number of toxic waste pits. Chevron's "remediation"
of the pits amounted to little more than smoothing dirt over the
tops of the pits without cleaning them out, which failed to lower
contamination levels. The trial is expected to end in 2007.
For more information, contact AmazonWatch
at 415-487-9600 or visit www.chevrontoxico.com. Updated 10/05.
1 San Sebastian M., Armstrong B., Cordoba
JA. and Stephens C., Exposures and cancer incidence near oil fields
in the Amazon basin of Ecuador, Occupational & Environmental
Medicine, 58(8):517-22 (2001); San Sebastian M., Armstrong B.
and Stephens C., Outcomes of pregnancy among women living in the
proximity of oil fields in the Amazon basin of Ecuador, International
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Health, 8(4):312-9
(2002); Hurtig AK. and San Sebastian M., Gynecologic and breast
malignancies in the Amazon basin of Ecuador, 1985-1998, International
Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 76(2):199-201 (2002);
San Sebastian M., Armstrong B. and Stephens C., La salud de mujeres
que viven cerca de pozos y estaciones de petróleo en la
Amazonía ecuatoriana, Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica,
9(6): 375-384 (2001).
2 Id.
3 Chevron claims its profits from Ecuadorian operations were significantly
lower than $30 billion; however, Chevron defines its "profits"
as the amount grossed by Texpet, Chevron's fourth-tier subsidiary
in Ecuador, instead of also factoring in profits earned after
the oil left Ecuador and was sold on the international market
by the parent company.
4 The plaintiffs are suing only for environmental clean-up, not
personal damages. Under Ecuadorian procedural law, class-action
cases are not permitted for individual damages.
Boycotts paage
Home Page