Chevron and the Amazon
By Phil Robibero on 06/05/2009
Category: AwarenessWhen you think "oil", the Amazon Forest doesn't really seem to come to mind (Cheney more so). But these days oil giant, Chevron, can't stop thinking about the Amazon. No, it's not their seemingly genuine clean energy initiative, rather there is a public relations debacle over ten years in the making rising from the jungle. While Chevron might blow past ordinary bad press and still procure significant profits, this story is carrying a hefty price tag. For Chevron, now more than ever, image is everything.
In a small Ecuadorian town the largest environmental case ever (27 billion dollars) is being decided by a single judge. First presented by locals in the early 1990's the lawsuit pertains to Texaco's dumping of 18 billion gallons of oil into the Amazon. Chevron is now dragged into the lawsuit because of it's assimilation of Texaco in 2001. If the lawsuit sways in favor of the Ecuadorians, Chevron will still fight teeth and nail to refuse payment. Their rationale; nepotism within the Ecuadorian court room.
As the case looms large among the parties heads, both are looking to show perspective in the matter with the general public. The environmental advocacy group, Amazon Watch, launched an online campaign against Chevron called ChevronToxico. While effective at communicating their message, it did little to change public opinion stateside or rattle Chevron. It wasn't until seven years later that a new player's entrance forced Chevron to get serious.
"60 Minutes" had an exposé on the incident ready for prime time. The second Chevron learned of this possibly detrimental coverage, Chevron sought to mirror their efforts. Chevron hired an ex-news reporter, Gene Randall, and created a faux news report displaying Chevron's side of the story. The video was posted 3 weeks before the "60 Minutes'" report.
The video can be easily mistaken for real journalism, even though Mr. Randall exclaimed in an interview that, "This is not a news report". Gene's final words in the Chevron video are "Gene Randall reporting." Though the "report" went out, no one took the bait. The video posted on Youtube procured less than 6,000 views. The "60 Minutes" episode was watched by 12 million people.
In the wake of the exposé ChevronToxico.com has had a 350% jump in internet traffic over the last three months.
[Additional Photos: "ChevronToxico", ChevronToxico.com, 2009; "60 Minutes", CBS, 2009]
- Permalink
- Comment
John R. Maerzke
Re: Article, "Chevron and the Amazon" - Clearly this is more one-sided "so called journalism". Where can one go to find unbiased, comprehensive reporting of such situations?
As I am humbled to even be named a "so called journalist", to think that you can get unbiased and comprehensive news from a single news site is ill advised. Only by gathering different perspectives and sources can you come to a comprehensive, yet subjective, conclusion. I appreciate the fact that you took my perspective into account.
Daniel
It is amazing that people still aren't aware of the ecological disasters that Chevron has caused in Ecuador. In regards to the two previous comments it is hard to find a case that supports both sides of the Chevron vs. Ecuador case since Chevron rarely replies to the allegations. The truth is that 18 billion gallons of oil have been dumped into the rivers of the Ecuadorian Amazon which supports 30,000 people. Chevron dumped them into the river instead of disposing of it properly to save $3 a barrel when they already make record profits. In addition the disaster is directly related to the deaths of 1401 people and a 300 percent rise in cancer rates. The people of this region already live on a meager salary of $200 a month and now they have to confront something like this. I have lived in Ecuador for 4 years and I have seen what has happened in the area, and let me tell it is not pretty. Right now I am writing my extended essay on the topic and I have tried to find unbiased info but it seems impossible.
ACCESS
