Gemilangtrimeidhasari's Blog

i say whatever

Texaco- case 2 November 2009

Filed under: Kasus — gemilangtrimeidhasari @ 7:49 AM

TEXACO : THE ECUADOR ISSUE

1. Should Ecuadorians be able to sue Texaco in U.S. courts ?

Yes, the case Ecuadorians be able to sue Texaco was first filed in the United States in 1993 courts because the indigeneous communities are demanding $ 800 million compensation for damages. But the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals last year affirmed a ruling that Ecuador was a more appropriate venue. And the same statement of the oil company’s lawyers and spokesperson feel the trial should take place in Ecuador, since “the plaintiffs are in Ecuador, the operations occurred in Ecuador, the state Oil Company, which is a major partner in the consortium, is in Ecuador, and the evidence is in Ecuador”.

2. If an oil spill was caused by an act of God, an earthquake, should Texaco be held responsible ?

In 1987, an earthquake hit Ecuador causing damages to the Trans Ecuadorian Pipeline. TexPet responded to the oil spill, which was caused by the earthquake, and the land, water, and air were tested to make sure that no lasting environmental impact would occur from its operations. However, TexPet agreed to correct the impacts attributed to the operations. “On May 4, 1995, Ecuador’s Minister of Energy and Mines, the President of Petroecuador, and TexPet signed the Contract for Implementing of Environmental Remedial Work and Release from Obligations, Liability, and Claims following negotiations with Ecuadorian government officials representing the interests of indigenous groups in the Orient. That contract settled all claims by Petroecuador and the Republic of Ecuador against TexPet, Texaco and their affiliates, for all matters arising out of the consortium’s operations”. In the summer of 1998, the remediation project of $ 40 million was completed.

3. Do you find Texaco’s arguments against the lawsuits convincing ?Why and why not ?

ChevronTexaco’s response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit included several legal arguments why this case should not proceed, including:
• Allegations made against the company have not been supported with any credible, substantiated scientific evidence.
• In 1998, following a $40 million remediation program, Texaco Petroleum Company, Texaco Inc. and all other related companies were released by the Government of Ecuador and four municipalities located near consortium operations, from any legal liabilities for the operations. Therefore ChevronTexaco does not believe the court can hold the company responsible for any claims given the government’s full release granted five years ago.
• Since the Government released the company from any future liabilities or obligations, any claims should be made against the government and not the company.
• All operations complied with Ecuadorian laws and regulations as well as standard industry technical practices of the time.
• Under the terms of our Joint Operating Agreement the government is responsible for third party claims. ChevronTexaco can not be held responsible for the actions of a third party.
• Laws referenced in the suit did not exist at the time of the operations and are not applicable. Moreover, the statute of limitations has expired.

TEXACO : THE ECUADOR ISSUE

1. Should Ecuadorians be able to sue Texaco in U.S. courts ?
Yes, the case Ecuadorians be able to sue Texaco was first filed in the United States in 1993 courts because the indigeneous communities are demanding $ 800 million compensation for damages. But the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals last year affirmed a ruling that Ecuador was a more appropriate venue. And the same statement of the oil company’s lawyers and spokesperson feel the trial should take place in Ecuador, since “the plaintiffs are in Ecuador, the operations occurred in Ecuador, the state Oil Company, which is a major partner in the consortium, is in Ecuador, and the evidence is in Ecuador”.
2. If an oil spill was caused by an act of God, an earthquake, should Texaco be held responsible ?
In 1987, an earthquake hit Ecuador causing damages to the Trans Ecuadorian Pipeline. TexPet responded to the oil spill, which was caused by the earthquake, and the land, water, and air were tested to make sure that no lasting environmental impact would occur from its operations. However, TexPet agreed to correct the impacts attributed to the operations. “On May 4, 1995, Ecuador’s Minister of Energy and Mines, the President of Petroecuador, and TexPet signed the Contract for Implementing of Environmental Remedial Work and Release from Obligations, Liability, and Claims following negotiations with Ecuadorian government officials representing the interests of indigenous groups in the Orient. That contract settled all claims by Petroecuador and the Republic of Ecuador against TexPet, Texaco and their affiliates, for all matters arising out of the consortium’s operations”. In the summer of 1998, the remediation project of $ 40 million was completed.
3. Do you find Texaco’s arguments against the lawsuits convincing ?Why and why not ?
ChevronTexaco’s response to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit included several legal arguments why this case should not proceed, including:
• Allegations made against the company have not been supported with any credible, substantiated scientific evidence.
• In 1998, following a $40 million remediation program, Texaco Petroleum Company, Texaco Inc. and all other related companies were released by the Government of Ecuador and four municipalities located near consortium operations, from any legal liabilities for the operations. Therefore ChevronTexaco does not believe the court can hold the company responsible for any claims given the government’s full release granted five years ago.
• Since the Government released the company from any future liabilities or obligations, any claims should be made against the government and not the company.
• All operations complied with Ecuadorian laws and regulations as well as standard industry technical practices of the time.
• Under the terms of our Joint Operating Agreement the government is responsible for third party claims. ChevronTexaco can not be held responsible for the actions of a third party.
• Laws referenced in the suit did not exist at the time of the operations and are not applicable. Moreover, the statute of limitations has expired.

 

2 Responses to “Texaco- case”

  1. WP Themes Says:

    Genial fill someone in on and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you seeking your information.

  2. Vigrx Plus Says:

    Brim over I acquiesce in but I contemplate the collection should have more info then it has.


Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s