|
|
Nora Testerman
Smith College-Box 866398 Green Street
Northampton, MA 01063
|
May 30, 2002
David J. O’Reilly
Chevron Texaco
575 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. O’Reilly, Chairman of the Board of Chevron-Texaco:
I am enrolled in a course at Smith College entitled
"Native South Americans: Conquest and Resistance." We
have learned about both historical issues of outside influence in
South America, as well as current struggles of the native
populations as they continue to deal with enormous devastation
from outside contact and attempt to raise their voices above the
turmoil in demand of recognition. Their tragic histories are
unfortunate and their current struggles are even more disturbing
because it seems as if historical lessons would have been
internalized and avoided in the late 20th century. Are
you surprised that your company has been a focus of study in our
class? You shouldn’t be, because the case of Texaco’s
involvement in the extraction of oil in Ecuador’s rainforests is
a perfect example of native South American’s struggles in the
contemporary backdrop of exploitation and subjugation. Native
Ecuadorians groups have very little leverage against a large,
wealthy, powerful oil company like Texaco (now even more powerful
after the merger with Chevron.)
We have read about the case, watched numerous videos that
documented the widespread damage, and have even had the chance to
talk with one of the lawyers involved in the current lawsuit.
Every single source has shown the devastation caused by Texaco in
many parts of the rainforest. I’ve seen pictures of oil-covered
roads that cut directly in front of native’s houses. I’ve
watched people on film demonstrate how oil seeps from almost any
ground area with a gentle poke of a stick. I’ve read the health
reports that document problems ranging from cancer caused by
environmental toxins to skin irritations to spontaneous abortions
to respiratory infections to severe burns (San Sebastián). The
list goes on and on. Environmental damage includes many negative
impacts from production water holding ponds, oil spills, fires,
and pipeline leaks. These included: contaminated ground water (and
subsequently drinking water), a sharp decrease in fish and other
game (food supply has fallen), poor soil (land production has
suffered), and destroyed sense of normalcy. I couldn’t believe
many of the pictures taken from an airplane where I could see
acres of oily pits, black roads, and random blazes cutting through
what I could tell used to be beautiful rainforest. Native
populations in Ecuador have suffered from social disruption,
acculturation, health problems, a rapid decline in population,
poverty, and malnutrition, in addition to the blatant
environmental damage.
I highly challenge the assertion made by Texaco in a written
response to the lawsuit: "Texaco was firmly committed to the
protection of the people and the environment in those areas where
we operated" (Knight 2001). It is obvious to me and the rest
of the world that Texaco did not have the best interests of the
native population or the environment in mind as the oil company
caused enormous social and environmental devastation. If Texaco
had considered the negative impacts of its actions as a result of
the drilling in Ecuador, it would have been much more conscious
about drilling with current technology (i.e., injecting production
waters back into the ground). Additionally, it would have made
every effort to clean up subsequent damage to the environment, as
well as prevent and/or treat health issues that arose as a direct
effect from oil drilling. I wold argue that your company had what
most profit-making companies have in mind as the goal of drilling
in Ecuador-to make as much money as possible with the least amount
of opposition. To accomplish this goal, Texaco chose an area of
the world that no only had oil reserves, but also a country with a
government desperate for cash, which means that Texaco had
enormous influence over Ecuador’s officials. They would do
almost anything for some money as well and think that they had no
idea what to expect as far as the following events.
Lastly Texaco chose an area with huge populations of already
marginalized peoples that were unable to effectively fight off the
presence of the giant oil company and were also unable to receive
adequate compensation for the damage because their demands were
drowned out and their voices silenced with quick band-aid fixes by
Texaco in order to appear diplomatic. The $40 million clean-up was
not enough. The majority of indigenous tribes were politically
underrepresented, socially marginalized, and economically unsound.
Since Texaco’s first days of oil drilling, these native people
had to deal with in settling similar issues that native
populations have encountered since the arrival of Europeans back
in the 1500’s. Big, powerful entities have invaded South America
land for centuries, demanding resources and labor from indigenous
people without adequate compensation. Native groups in all parts
of the Amazon have been subjected to extractivist companies from
rubber tapping, mining, lumber, and oil industries have created
systems of dependency and degradation.
I have learned about the term "environmental racism"
in another r class this year that seems to fit this case as well.
It is defined as the unequal distribution of toxins where the
burdens of environmental risk are unequal across races. This
includes groups of people in poverty, people of color, and other
political minorities such as indigenous groups that are unable to
challenge policies and practices that affect them (Wheatley 2002).
Big companies all over the world seem to gravitate towards setting
up many of their industrial projects in areas that contain such
groups of people. It is interesting that you never see huge
dumping sites or chemical treatment plants in affluent, white
suburbs in industrialized countries. Companies like Texaco are
smart enough to know that they have more control and power over
areas where they can practice environmental racism without much
resistance.
Now, this lawsuit will attempt to hold your company responsible
for the damage is has done, despite the fact that you did nothing
wrong. Texaco did cause enormous damage to both the environment
and the people’s health in Ecuador’s Amazon, despite the fact
that it did not sign a contract making them directly responsible
for their actions. The company did all this horrific damage and
should be responsible for cleaning it up. I hope this case will be
tried in the United States and that it will ultimately set a
precedent for U.S. companies to follow the same environmental and
humanitarian guidelines that it would adhere to in any of the 50
states. I hope that the negative media attention and widespread
awareness about Texaco will make the company (and all other big
corporations) think twice before it would do something like this
again in any area of the world.
One of the reasons that this lawsuit is so relevant in our
class is that it really merges the study of contemporary native
struggles with the underlying historical context where indigenous
peoples have been plagued by similar issues for years. I’m
certain that Texaco would never have practiced such abysmal
drilling techniques or caused such damage if it not have been in
Ecuador’s rainforest, home of indigenous groups that have been
taken advantage of since the arrival of Europeans. In a lot of
respects, indigenous rights have come a long way, but on the other
hand, Texaco’s legacy in Ecuador suggests that we have much
lying ahead of us in order to make real progress. Paulina Garzon
from Center for Economic and Social Rights in Quito said:
"Now we find that the first thing [oil] companies say when
they come to Ecuador is that they are not like Texaco"
(Knight 2000). This statement instills a little confidence that at
least companies are aware that Texaco did something horribly wrong
and although it may not be considered "illegal" in the
strictest sense, all of the damage caused is seen by the rest of
the world as a violation of international and humanitarian law
nevertheless. Texaco as a specific company must be held
responsible for its actions in Ecuador and hopefully, native
populations from around the world will not be subjected to such
discrimination in the future.
Sincerely,
Nora Testerman
Sources:
Knight, Danielle. October 19, 2000. "Consumer
Environmental Group Blast Spate of Big Oil Mergers." Common
Dreams News Center. [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/101900-01.htm].
Knight, Danielle. August 6, 2001. "Ecuadorians Move to
Block Chevron-Texaco Merger." Forests.org [http://forests.org/archive/samerica/ecmoveto.htm].
San Sebastián, Miguel and J. Cordova. "Yana Curi Report:
The Impact of Oil Development on the Health of the People of the
Ecuadorian Amazon." [http://texacorainforest.org/case/YanaCuriReport.pdf].
Wheatly, Elizabeth. March 26, 2002. "Environmental
Racism." SOC 219 Medical Sociology Class Lecture.
|
|