Of course it turns out that independent experts who appraise the situation thoroughly disagree with Chevron’s self-interested assertions, so I guess that would be a bit inconvenient for an unquestioning Chevron booster to admit.

What’s really shameful about your behavior is that real people are suffering needlessly every day as a result. In all of these years that Chevron has been dragging this case out the sites have not been remediated and medical care for affected people has not been provided. This is not some rhetorical game you play on the internet - this is kids dying from cancer who might otherwise have lived normal, healthy lives.

Shame on you.

Texaco operated in line with the standards of the day. Although Texaco was the operator, they were still the minority partner in the consortium. All consortium decisions including system construction decisions were made in conjunction with the majority partner state-run Petroecudor.

The discharge of produced water was and is a safe and widespread practice. Texaco did not, as the plaintiffs say, discharge 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into rivers and streams.

As for the spills and actions that took place prior to 1992. Texaco remediated a share of pit and well sites that was comparable to its minority stake in the consortium. The government of Ecuador, Petroecuador and a number of other institutions certified this remediation and absolved Texaco of any further liability.

Petroecuador has yet to remediate the majority of the sites deemed as its responsibility under the 1998 remediation plan with Texaco. Many of the sites that are Petroecuador’s responsibility are pointed to by the plaintiffs. In fact, lead attorney for the plaintiffs Pablo Fajardo was quoted (Ecuadorian Newspapers) calling for Petroecuador to stop their remediation efforts as it was “changing his case” and presumably hurting his pr efforts.

The Amazon Defense Coalition (which in spite of some bloggers strange notions to the contrary DOES exist by the way - I sat at a desk in its offices in Quito in 2007 and spent time in its Lago Agrio and Coca offices in the Amazon) could not possibly afford yet another lawsuit.

I repeat that Texaco was sued back in 1993 shortly after it exited Ecuador. At that time Petroecuador had not done the damage it has since done USING TEXACO’S FAULTY INFRASTRUCTURE. This, as I mentioned in your own blog, is the key to the whole Petroecuador issue which Chevron constantly flaps around as a red herring:

The plaintiffs contend that by passing on a defective drilling system (that, remember, was DELIBERATELY sub-standard to save money), Texaco is equally responsible for all subsequent pollution by Petroecuador.

I also love that in an article entitled “Let the personal attacks continue” your response to me calling you out on a total lack of balance is to call me “another mindless Amazon Defense Coalition follower.” You don’t know me, and you’re already insulting me. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I used to work for the Amazon Defense Coalition in Ecuador. The whole point of the case against Texaco that Chevron inherited was that:

a) the company DELIBERATELY caused the contamination it did (very different from accidental spills like the Exxon Valdez, however irresponsible).

b) that the infrastructure passed on to Petroecuador was sub-standard and thus guaranteed continued pollution.

Everyone knows that Petroecuador has been responsible for further poisoning the Ecuadorian Amazon, but the case is against Chevron, not Petroecuador. The initial lawsuit was filed in 1993 for damage specifically caused by Texaco.

Texaco’s “remediation” was to essentially bulldoze over some of the pits, not clean them out and carefully deal with the toxic waste. Such action would never have been allowed in the US and Texaco knew it.

The company chose profit over people and used substandard drilling techniques to accomplish it’s goal. The only wealth distributed in Ecuador was to one or two corrupt politicians.

Oil is big business and the human and environmental rights of disenfranchised rainforest residents is, frankly, anathema to companies such as Chevron - however much its propaganda says it “cares”.