Community | May 04, 2009 | 13 comments

Chevron lawyer stumbles in 60 Minutes interview about Ecuador oil pollution

source: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4988079n

Image
JanforGore
Chevron shocked the public relations and legal worlds Sunday by allowing a relatively unknown in-house lawyer to stumble through an interview trying to defend the company on 60 Minutes against charges that it is responsible for the world's largest oil contamination in Ecuador, where it faces a $27 billion liability.

The spokesperson, Sylvia Garrigo, did not disappoint the company's detractors – she quickly made the bizarre claim that trace amounts of oil in the makeup on her face was no more harmful that the toxic sludge filmed by 60 Minutes in hundreds of unlined waste pits Texaco built in Ecuador's rainforest that are still polluting soils and groundwater, according to an independent court expert.

One viewer who posted comments on the internet compared Garrigo's performance to satirical appearances by Dan Akroyd on Saturday Night Live. Another found it shocking that Chevron did not put forth David O'Reilly, the company's CEO, to defend the company in what 60 Minutes called the largest environmental legal case ever.

Sadly for Chevron, Garrigo's performance had nothing to do with satire.

"Chevron's effort to duck, dodge, bob and weave by not making available a senior level executive such as the CEO, Board Member or officer is the public relations equivalent of a criminal defendant on trial for a heinous crime not taking the witness stand in their own defense – it communicates to everyone that you must be guilty," said Chris Lehane, a political and media consultant and former White House lawyer under the Clinton Administration.

"This has to be one of the more shocking and sickening performances by a corporate spokesperson in the history of journalism," said Drew_6583, in a typical online posting on the 60 Minutes website. "The moment could not have been more important for the company and they blew it by not putting forth their CEO."

Garrigo, who spoke to CBS correspondent Scott Pelley from a corporate office in the U.S., denied that Chevron had found toxins in the environment despite visual images of oil in streams next to abandoned company well sites. Her claim directly contradicts laboratory reports Chevron has submitted as evidence in the trial, which are available as public records.

The highlight of the Garrigo interview – or lowlight, depending on one's perspective – was when CBS asked her about the 916 toxic waste pits that Texaco abandoned in the jungle over an area roughly the size of the state of Rhode Island. Garrigo apparently was trying to downplay the danger of the oil in the pits by comparing them to oil in her own makeup.

The only problem is that the trial evidence shows the pits contain contaminants and carcinogens up to thousands of times higher than norms allow. Many of the pits are the size of Olympic-sized swimming pools and are filled with toxic sludge, as shocking visuals in the 60 Minutes broadcast made evident.

"I have make-up on, and that's naturally occurring oil on my face," Garrigo told Pelley. "Doesn't mean that I'm going to get sick from it."

Julio Prieto, a lawyer for the Amazonian communities, said Garrigo "would not be able to survive one hour if she plastered benzene and TPHs on her face at levels being found in Texaco's waste pits in Ecuador."

Garrigo's title at Chevron is manager of global issues and policy, but there is no evidence she has meaningful litigation or public relations experience. Her biography is not listed on the company's website and no press release was issued when she was hired for her current job.

Amazon Defense Coalition
4 May 2009 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Video plays at the link.

end of excerpt.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Culture,   Earth and Science,   1 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Culture,  Green,  Earth and Science,  11 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

13 comments // Chevron lawyer stumbles in 60 Minutes interview about Ecuador oil pollution

  • EmilyCoralyne
    • 0
      EmilyCoralyne  

    • "unfair to chevron"?!?!?!? chevron has damaged one of the world's indigenous community! Thats a crime of history! Not to mention what we know about all of the human rights that have been violated.
      Being fined 27 billion is a drop in the bucket for Chevron, why don't they just give it up and get it over with? god forbid its to HELP humans.

    • 1 year ago
  • chevron_justinh
    • 0
      chevron_justinh  
    • Image

    • This is Justin with Chevron Corporation and I’d like to bring to your attention a recent story published by the Columbia Journalism Review’s The Audit. In its assessment of CBS’s coverage of the Ecuador lawsuit The Audit concludes that there are elements of the 60 Minutes story that are unfair to Chevron and that the overall segment “was an exercise in innuendo.” The Audit goes on to say that, “Even in these days of cutbacks to news operations, 60 Minutes could have—and should have—done better.” I encourage those that have watched or a planning to view the segment to take a moment to read the following article: http://www.cjr.org/audit_arbiter/a_polluted_60_minutes_story.php

    • 2 years ago
  • masterzip
    • 0
      masterzip  

    • An oil company shirking environmental responsibility,.....say it ain't sooooo!!!
      Understand by now that all oil companies will do everything in their power to:
      a) remain in power
      b) fight any government court that rules against them
      c) continue to pollute our air, water, and land, with no concern for anything except the almighty dollar.
      d) charge for goods sold by the 1/100 of a cent even though no such currency exists.....

    • 3 years ago
  • RRnnRR
    • 0
      RRnnRR  

    • Amazing. Texaco and the Ecuadorian government are mostly at fault for allowing these things to happen and remain as badly managed as they are. "Back in the day" this was business as usual and the government didn't protect their country's interests sufficiently. That is typical for revenue & operations responsibility sharing agreements. Lack of foresight and saving money for adequate cleanup is a common problem.

      Chevron is a good company, but they are definitely the loser for taking on Texaco's holdings and responsibilities without adequately judging their risk and mitigation requirements.

      This case is sad, and unfortunately not rare.

      It really shows the value of clean energy...

      [And the Chinese need to save the crude.]

    • 3 years ago
  • cybexg
    • 0
      cybexg  

    • There are legal theories of causation for exactly the problem you mentioned Jan.

      See Allen v. US 588 F.Supp 247 (Individualized model wrt to plaintiff indeterminacy)

      See In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation 597 F. Supp 740.

      On a different note, I think one of the worse problems the various environmental causes suffer from is their demonizing of the lawyers. A few good lawyers would really help these various causes. I know EVERY time I've tried to help a cause, I've lived to regret it (so now, I help individuals...sad...a few good lawyers enabled w/ support and funding might just be able to change a bit of the world).

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Well, as the lawyers for Chevron already stated, the people would have to prove their cancer came from their oil dumping. It's the same MO used by all companies. Perhaps it was then felt that including them might actually do harm to the overall case, which is to get compensation from those responsible to clean up the environmental devastation they made. My question is, had this land been left untouched where would they get such cancers from? And in my view, the amount of compensation asked for considering the generations this will span doesn't even come to enough.

    • 3 years ago
  • korourke
    • 0
      korourke  

    • My knee jerk reaction was also to take Chevron for every last penny. However, from the interview on 60 Minutes there are several holes in the case, and although Chevron should have to pay perhaps a majority of those 27 billion in damages, the overall sum does seem a little unjust.

      The main issue I have is for the 9 billion in compensatory damages for cancer in residents of the Amazon despite there not being anyone in the lawsuit with cancer. While there is no doubt a mess that Chevron is obligated to clean up, and an award of punative damages is necessary to deter this type of future behavior, the defense lawyers needed to show actual evidence of cancer in these people or bring those with cancer into the lawsuit.

      If someone has further information on this case, please post. Thanks.

    • 3 years ago
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  

    • Sick. Nice to seem some actual reporting on the environmental impact of oil drilling though. I don't believe I've ever seen that before.

      That woman looked like she was trying to repress her humanity. People like this, if they would ever face reality and admit the truth to themselves would likely put a shotgun barrel in their mouths. You have to either be in extreme denial or a sociopath to be in that line of business.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Oh, and hopefully, the judge will not have an "accident" before the day of the verdict. This is the largest environmental lawsuit in history, and encompasses everything about man's greed and apathy and how it destroys life and the progress to bring us to a better world. Personally, I think it should rate just a little more in importance here.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • There is actually no dollar amount that can be put on the environmental destruction to these beautiful places for generations to come. How will their children and their children be able to live? They most definitely need to pay for that.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • This is for sure a devastating crime of nature. I think the ruling should also include the Ceos and lawyers having to drink their water and live there for a year since they think the oil is no more dangerous than the make up on that ******* 's face. We must watch this verdict carefully, because it will set a precedent for other companies that should also be held liable for their environmental destruction throughout the world instead of being allowed to hide behind their "corporations aren't people" rhetoric.

    • 3 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • I actually felt like slapping her face. To see the devastation done to this pristine beautiful place and to then see these weasals trying to wiggle out of responsibility is sickening. I hope the judge hands down his ruling to have Chevron pay most of it and also holds Petro Ecuador liable for part of it as well. That way we can get beyond the bickering and get to cleaning up this nightmare, if that is even possible now. People who would do this have no souls. Simple as that. And they now must pay.

    • 3 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos