PDA

View Full Version : Texaco dumped 18 billion gallons of oil in rainforest, Amazon tribe sues for $6bn


AlonzoMourning23
03-26-2007, 08:30 PM
A landmark trial is unfolding in Ecuadorian Amazon, where a group of rainforest residents is suing Texaco for $6bn in oil clean-up costs.

Texaco, now part of Chevron, admits to dumping 18 billion gallons of run-off while drilling for oil in the rainforest, but the company says it did so legally and according to industry standards.

Environmentalists call it the worst oil-related disaster in the world – Texaco allegedly dumped 30 times the amount of crude spilled by the Exxon Valdez.

Al Jazeera's Mariana Sanchez reports that the plaintiffs say the company left hundreds of dump sites, many of them unlined, and open-air pits that ooze toxic sludge into what was once pristine rainforest.

The Cofan, an indigenous nation of less than 500 men and women, say their land is contaminated and are filing a lawsuit against the giant oil company.

Texaco allegedly dumped 30 times the amount of crude spilled by the Exxon Valdez
Toribio Aguinda, one member of the Cofan tribe, remembers when the waters of the Aguarico river turned dark.

"The water stunk and so did our fish. In the end, we were left there, with sadness, thinking where will we get fresh water?"

These tribesmen are demanding a clean-up. They are part of the 30,000 plaintiffs who filed a class action lawsuit in New York in 1993 and lost the case. The case is now being tried in Ecuador.

In 2001 Chevron bought Texaco, taking over its assets and this legal battle.

"Texaco created a system where they dumped literally billions of gallons of toxic waste water", said Steven Donziger, legal counsel.

Donziger, who represents the plaintiffs, says the dumping saved the company billions of dollars in operating costs.

"When you do this every day with 300 well sites in 28 years you have an ecological disaster and that’s what we are looking out today," he said.

Meanwhile, Ricardo Reis Vega, Chevron’s legal counsel and vice president, argues the company cleaned up the areas under Chevron’s obligation.

"The part that was in our responsibility inside the scope of work was done 100 percent," Vega said.

In 1995 the Ecuadorian government agreed to release the company from further responsibilities after they cleaned up.

The American company says it spent $40m on remediation but that is only one per cent of the amount the Cofan’s lawyers estimate is needed for a real clean up.

The Amazon Defence Front, also representing the 30,000 plaintiffs, says most of the damage has been left untouched. And the pollution, they say, is not biodegradable.

"This is how Texaco designed their pits and they are still working today. The pollutants come from a pool through a tube into the swamp and the swamp feeds the river from which the Cofan take their water."

The American company says it spent $40m on remediation but that’s only 1per cent of the amount the Cofan’s lawyers estimate is needed for a real clean up.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/74412E3C-AEDD-475C-91E0-C6EE7B84B792.htm

Sugar
04-22-2007, 07:39 AM
An ecological disaster indeed. Texaco must pay for its deeds for ruining the environment for years. Now that Texaco has admitted the govt mus leave no stone unturned to see the Texaco pays or cleans up its act.

bobbylien
04-22-2007, 08:03 AM
So let me get this straight... they are only actually going to get 2billion if they win this lawsuit? They should sue for 20 billion. Send a message to companies that think they can trash the environment without prosecution. I think its ridiculous that the government of Equador isn't pushing for charges against the executives who allowed this to happen. But then again how can you seek to prosecute an American oil company with former oil executives in the highest levels of government unless you want bombers or 'regime change' coming your way.

micfranklin
04-22-2007, 07:30 PM
Texaco better clean that shit up, we got enough environmental-related problems to deal with.

Mayberry
04-23-2007, 12:55 PM
Not to downplay this, but It wasn't 18 billion gallons of oil. The exact phrase was admits to dumping 18 billion gallons of run-off while drilling for oil . It would be pretty foolish for an oil company to purposely dump their product, now wouldn't it? The article made mention of open, unlined pits. These were drilling mud pits. It is the drilling mud that was allowed to run off, as it is only used once, and formulated specifically for each well. Perhaps a small amount of oil escaped when the well was drilled, but that is part of the purpose of the mud, to seal the well until it can be capped. Again, not a good thing to dump this stuff, but it's not the Exxon Valdez as the article suggests.

piratemonkey
04-23-2007, 02:15 PM
Not to downplay this, but It wasn't 18 billion gallons of oil. The exact phrase was admits to dumping 18 billion gallons of run-off while drilling for oil . It would be pretty foolish for an oil company to purposely dump their product, now wouldn't it?

The title of this thread is, indeed, incorrect.

Having said that, the article correctly states that it was "billions of gallons of toxic waste water."

Is billions of gallons of toxic waste water any easier to clean up than billions of gallons of oil?

AlonzoMourning23
04-23-2007, 03:01 PM
I'm not really sure there's a difference between oil and toxic sludge in terms of the environmental impact.

Mayberry
04-23-2007, 05:24 PM
Is billions of gallons of toxic waste water any easier to clean up than billions of gallons of oil?
Probably not. Oil at least floats on the surface of the water where it can be skimmed off relatively easily. This mud will settle into the ground and the river bed. Not good. I'm not really sure there's a difference between oil and toxic sludge in terms of the environmental impact. Actually I think the oil would have had less of an impact. This stuff is going to be extremely hard to clean up. The river will probably have to be dredged, and the pits excavated. Sad stuff.

micfranklin
04-23-2007, 05:30 PM
Is billions of gallons of toxic waste water any easier to clean up than billions of gallons of oil?

Would it be any safer, either?

Mayberry
04-23-2007, 05:44 PM
Would it be any safer, either? The oil would have been much safer (for the critters involved). It would have floated on the surface, and only touched the banks of the river, instead of settling to the bottom to leach contaminants for years to come. And the pits in the ground could have been simply covered over after the oil was pumped out (this is a viable option, as put forth by the National Oil Spill Control School here at Texas A&M Corpus Christi, which I attended). The residual oil will pretty much become fertilizer.

micfranklin
04-23-2007, 05:48 PM
Would it be any safer, either? The oil would have been much safer (for the critters involved). It would have floated on the surface, and only touched the banks of the river, instead of settling to the bottom to leach contaminants for years to come. And the pits in the ground could have been simply covered over after the oil was pumped out (this is a viable option, as put forth by the National Oil Spill Control School here at Texas A&M Corpus Christi, which I attended). The residual oil will pretty much become fertilizer.


And what about the fish and plants? I'm pretty sure at least one of each can't tolerate oil spills.

Mayberry
04-23-2007, 05:58 PM
And what about the fish and plants? I'm pretty sure at least one of each can't tolerate oil spills. True, there would be some damage in those areas, as well as birds, reptiles, and mammals. But overall, an oil spill on the water is much easier to clean up, and the damage is less due to the fact that the oil is confined to the surface of the water for the most part. This drilling mud will settle into the riverbed and leach contaminants for decades if it isn't dredged out, which in itself will cause a lot of damage to aquatic life. Drilling mud contains caustic soda, heavy metals, and all sorts of icky stuff. Unrefined crude is a natural substance, and the biggest danger it poses is coating it's victims. Sure, you don't want billions of gallons of crude floating around, it makes quite a mess. But the mud is much worse in the long run.

bluchap
04-24-2007, 04:11 PM
Only a ecologist will be able to tell the exact impact of the spill on the environment. The govt. must immediately take action and order an environment impact assessment to be done by experts in the field and then ask Texaco to do the needful.

nmspl
04-28-2007, 01:56 PM
Outrageous crime against humanity. Such collosal waste of the country's natural resources and also the polluction cause is a unpardonable crime. Appropraite action against Texaco must be demanded from the government.

micfranklin
04-28-2007, 02:37 PM
I know that the Amazon tribe suing is one case of a lawsuit that is very well-placed.

deepk
04-30-2007, 04:56 PM
We must all support the amazon tribe which has sued Texaco and help them if possible monetarily or in any manner we can to bring the monster corporation Texaco to its knees.

Sugar
05-01-2007, 03:01 PM
I am fully ready with my $50 donation but can any one tell me where to send.

AlonzoMourning23
05-02-2007, 12:01 AM
Sugar, try here: http://www.chevrontoxico.com/

bluchap
05-03-2007, 04:40 PM
Is this your pic of the amazon tribe - the ill fed and only bones!!!!!!!!

deepk
05-20-2007, 04:54 PM
And what about the fish and plants? I'm pretty sure at least one of each can't tolerate oil spills. True, there would be some damage in those areas, as well as birds, reptiles, and mammals. But overall, an oil spill on the water is much easier to clean up, and the damage is less due to the fact that the oil is confined to the surface of the water for the most part. This drilling mud will settle into the riverbed and leach contaminants for decades if it isn't dredged out, which in itself will cause a lot of damage to aquatic life. Drilling mud contains caustic soda, heavy metals, and all sorts of icky stuff. Unrefined crude is a natural substance, and the biggest danger it poses is coating it's victims. Sure, you don't want billions of gallons of crude floating around, it makes quite a mess. But the mud is much worse in the long run.



The damage to the environment is irreversible in the short run. no amount of compensation is going to bring it back to the original shape.

Mayberry
05-20-2007, 07:53 PM
The damage to the environment is irreversible in the short run. no amount of compensation is going to bring it back to the original shape. Really? Been to Prince William Sound lately? You'd never know there was a spill there. We've had spills here in Texas as well, one huge one back in the '79 that came from Mexico. The currents deposited the oil on Padre Island. Huge amounts. No trace of it today, not one. The cleanup crews did an excellent job. Check it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I