<span style="font-style: italic">though texaco started this mess, chevron is responsible for fixing it.</span>
Chevron: “We can’t let little countries screw around with big companies”
The world has witnessed a stunning consolidation of the multinational oil companies over the last decade.
One of the big winners was Chevron. It swallowed up Texaco and Unocal, among others. It was happy to absorb their revenue streams. It has been less willing to take responsibility for ecological and human rights abuses perpetrated by these companies.
One of the inherited legacies from Chevron’s 2001 acquisition of Texaco is litigation in Ecuador over the company’s alleged decimation of the Ecuadorian Amazon over a 20-year period of operation. In 1993, 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorians filed a class action suit in U.S. courts, alleging that Texaco had poisoned the land where they live and the waterways on which they rely, allowing billions of gallons of oil to spill and leaving hundreds of waste pits unlined and uncovered. They sought billions in compensation for the harm to their land and livelihood, and for alleged health harms. The Ecuadorians and their lawyers filed the case in U.S. courts because U.S. courts have more capacity to handle complex litigation, and procedures (including jury trials) that offer plaintiffs a better chance to challenge big corporations. Texaco, and later Chevron, deployed massive legal resources to defeat the lawsuit. Ultimately, a Chevron legal maneuver prevailed: At Chevron’s instigation, U.S. courts held that the case should be litigated in Ecuador, closer to where the alleged harms occurred.
Having argued vociferously that Ecuadorian courts were fair and impartial, Chevron is now unhappy with how the litigation has proceeded in that country. So unhappy, in fact, that it is lobbying the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to impose trade sanctions on Ecuador if the Ecuadorian government does not make the case go away.
<span style="font-weight: bold">“We can’t let little countries screw around with big companies like this — companies that have made big investments around the world,” </span> a Chevron lobbyist said to Newsweek in August. (Chevron subsequently stated that “the comments attributed to an unnamed lobbyist working for Chevron do not reflect our company’s views regarding the Ecuador case. They were not approved by the company and will not be tolerated.”)
Chevron is worried because a court-appointed special master found in March that the company was liable to plaintiffs for between $7 billion and $16 billion. The special master has made other findings that Chevron’s clean-up operations in Ecuador have been inadequate.
Another of Chevron’s inherited legacies is the Yadana natural gas pipeline in Burma, operated by a consortium in which Unocal was one of the lead partners. Human rights organizations have documented that the Yadana pipeline was constructed with forced labor, and associated with brutal human rights abuses by the Burmese military.
EarthRights International, a human rights group with offices in Washington, D.C. and Bangkok, has carefully tracked human rights abuses connected to the Yadana pipeline, and led a successful lawsuit against Unocal/Chevron. In an April 2008 report, the group states that “Chevron and its consortium partners continue to rely on the Burmese army for pipeline security, and those forces continue to conscript thousands of villagers for forced labor, and to commit torture, rape, murder and other serious abuses in the course of their operations.”
Money from the Yadana pipeline plays a crucial role in enabling the Burmese junta to maintain its grip on power. EarthRights International estimates the pipeline funneled roughly $1 billion to the military regime in 2007. The group also notes that, in late 2007, when the Burmese military violently suppressed political protests led by Buddhist monks, Chevron sat idly by.
Chevron has trouble in the United States, as well. In September, Earl Devaney, the inspector general for the Department of Interior, released an explosive report documenting “a culture of ethical failure” and a “culture of substance abuse and promiscuity” in the U.S. government program handling oil lease contracts on U.S. government lands and property. Government employees, Devaney found, accepted a stream of small gifts and favors from oil company representatives, and maintained sexual relations with them. (In one memorable passage, the inspector general report states that “sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition, be arms-length.”) The report showed that Chevron had conferred the largest number of gifts on federal employees. It also complained that Chevron refused to cooperate with the investigation, a claim Chevron subsequently disputed.
zellers is extremely expensive for what it sells i don't shop at either one. </div></div>
what di heller is zeller? </div></div>
owned by the Hudson's Bay Company (the "Bay". my sister shops at Zellers. she'll go there and buy a pair of slippers for anty for $25. i go to the no name discount store down the street and buy the exact pair for $10.
there used to be "family" department stores. i remember woolco, bi-way, towers, bargain harolds, simpson sears and zellers. hudson's bay bought out zellers and it is the only one that has survived. thde others have gone the way of the moa, or have morphed into something different, restructuring and all ... simpson sears was gobbled up by hudson's bay as well.
the other stores are actually large corporate conglomerates with a facade of being the "friendly neighbourhood everythingfor family stores". more often, the grandfather corporation is something like Dylex, Inc.
</div></div>
and HBC has now been bought out by an american company
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i take it that yuh empty the bp, chevron or whatevah petrol yuh have up deh outa yuh gas tank last night </div></div>
If you shop at Wal-Mart to finish up that last bit of holiday shopping this week, you may be coming home with more than a good deal--you might be exposed to contagious illnesses like colds and the flu.
Why? As the New York Times recently reported, "At Wal-Mart, when employees miss one or more days because of illness or other reasons, they generally get a demerit point. Once employees obtain four points over a six-month period, they begin receiving warnings that can lead to dismissal." [1] The article continues, showcasing people who say that this type policy means that they've had no choice but to go to work sick. Sadly, for Wal-Mart employees, staying home when they're sick hurts their family's budget and puts their future employment status at risk.
The demerit policy is backward and unfair. It's Wal-Mart the company, not it's employees, that really deserves the demerits -- for their unhealthy and unfair policy that's bad for employees and customers.
If you don't fight for what you deserve, you deserve what you get.
We are > Fossil Fuels --- Bill McKibben 350.org
I had to pick up some cheap little things and I would have saved money running into WalMart to get the things and done but I couldnt bring myself to do it
I drove up the road to a next store and bought the things....I hate Superstore as well but it was the lesser of the two evils. They have a union that at least keeps some of the management B.S. in check ( I worked there during school).
Sorry cant do it.
My manicurist rents space now in a WalMart closer to than her original stand alone shop, so I venture in there to use her services and come out...I wish she would have chosen a different spot thugh and I have told her so
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kia</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you shop at Wal-Mart to finish up that last bit of holiday shopping this week, you may be coming home with more than a good deal--you might be exposed to contagious illnesses like colds and the flu.
Why? As the New York Times recently reported, "At Wal-Mart, when employees miss one or more days because of illness or other reasons, they generally get a demerit point. Once employees obtain four points over a six-month period, they begin receiving warnings that can lead to dismissal." [1] The article continues, showcasing people who say that this type policy means that they've had no choice but to go to work sick. Sadly, for Wal-Mart employees, staying home when they're sick hurts their family's budget and puts their future employment status at risk.
The demerit policy is backward and unfair. It's Wal-Mart the company, not it's employees, that really deserves the demerits -- for their unhealthy and unfair policy that's bad for employees and customers.
</div></div>
I would cough and sneeze all over everybody...boss included
Anyways, mi been shoppign at good ole Wally fi bout a decade and still no SARS, H1N1, nor bird flu
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i take it that yuh empty the bp, chevron or whatevah petrol yuh have up deh outa yuh gas tank last night </div></div>
speaking of Pepsi, the new title is Pepsi Rebel Salute 2010
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In the first year of a three-year agreement, Rebel Salute will be officially Pepsi Rebel Salute</div></div>
$500K n sponsorship it would seem...gone from Tru Juice di lass one to Pepsi...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Jahyudah said while there were alcohol and meat companies willing to provide sponsorship, they were not in line with Rebel Salute's stance, which stipulates no alcohol and no meat. Also, Flames recognised that there would be difficulty in securing sponsorship through the accustomed avenues, as alcohol and meat are part and parcel of most concert and party experiences. </div></div>
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
mi hope nuhbady in yah nah use chevron 
a Chevron lobbyist said to Newsweek in August. (Chevron subsequently stated that “the comments attributed to an unnamed lobbyist working for Chevron do not reflect our company’s views regarding the Ecuador case. They were not approved by the company and will not be tolerated.”)
i don't shop at either one. </div></div>
. my sister shops at Zellers. she'll go there and buy a pair of slippers for anty for $25. i go to the no name discount store down the street and buy the exact pair for $10. 
i thought not
Tweet
Comment