Emem Okon spoke for the women of the Niger Delta to Chevron shareholders on May 25, 2011. After the meeting, she came out to speak to the crowd rallying to support her and others who had traveled from locations around the world impacted by Chevron’s practices. Hear her response to what Chevron had to say.

Emem Okon at True Cost of Chevron Press Conference before 2011 Chevron Shareholders meeting

I am here to represent the women of the Niger Delta who live in communities near gas flares and who suffer health issues of infertility, early menopause, miscarriages, cancer, rashes; women who fish in waters polluted by Chevron; who drink Chevron polluted water because there is no other source of drinking water; women whose traditional means of livelihood of farming and fishing have been destroyed by Chevron oil business activities; the women who confronted Chevron years back over the injustice perpetrated by Chevron in their communities. Chevron claims to recognize the value of fresh water as a fundamental social, environmental and economic resource but Chevron pollutes the fresh water in the Niger Delta with impunity. I have questions from the Niger Delta women: WHEN WILL CHEVRON STOP ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN? WHEN WILL CHEVRON STOP THE TOXIC FLARES IN THE NIGER DELTA? WHEN WILL CHEVRON STOP DESTROYING THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF THE WOMEN IN THE NIGER DELTA REGION? If Chevron is not ready to stop the toxic flares, Niger Delta Women say:  ‘LEAVE THE OIL IN THE SOIL’

- Emem Okon, May 24, 2011

At a press conference today in San Francisco, Emem Okon from Nigeria and over one dozen community leaders from Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Alaska, Texas, across California, and more gathered at a Chevron gas station to expose the harms of Chevron’s operations in the communities where they live and advocate. See JINN’s photography from the event and  join JINN at the protest tomorrow at Chevron’s corporate headquarters to support those whose lives have been harmed by Chevron’s outdated practices.

All photos:  Todd Sanchioni

Shell breaks promises again and increases gas flaring in Nigeria, Environmental Rights Action (Friends of the Earth Nigeria) Press Release, posted Thursday, 21 April 2011 11:31

Despite promises made by Shell since the 1990s to stop flaring the ‘associated’ gas released in oil production in Nigeria, the oil concern flared more gas in 2010 than it did in 2009 in the West African country. This has come to light from the sustainability report brought out by Shell last week.

According to its own figures, Shell flared over 30 per cent more gas in 2010 than in 2009. This, according to them, was mainly due to increased production in Nigeria and new activities in Iraq.

Nnimmo Bassey, director of Friends of the Earth Nigeria and chair of Friends of the Earth International, said:

“Shell has been flaring gas in Nigeria since 1958. Though gas flaring has been illegal, to them it is a standard industry practice. They continue to reap obscene profits from the oil fields of Nigeria at the expense of the lives and the livelihoods of the poor people. While they speak from both sides of their mouths we see that they are increasing the volume of gas flared and are thus intensifying their poisoning of the environment and the peoples of the region. They engage in this unacceptable and illegal activity just for the maximisation of their profits. Gas flaring is an act of ecocide and everyone should join us to demand that Shell stops this madness.”

Gas flaring has serious negative impacts on the health of local residents and on the environment – while the flared gas could simply be captured and used as natural gas, to the benefit of local people who often do not even have electricity in their houses.  In 2007 Shell promised that it would stop flaring gas in Nigeria in 2009.

The meaningless promises and violations of environmental and human rights by the Dutch oil giant are a concern of the Dutch Parliament as well. In January of this year, it held a hearing on the conduct of Shell in Nigeria, were parliamentarians criticised the needless practice of flaring.

Shell’s sustainability report is available here.
An overview of the promises made by Shell to stop flaring gas is available here.

The President’s budget proposes to cut more than $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry. We need your help to convince Congress to make these cuts.

It won’t be easy. Over the last two years, Congress received more than $12 million from the oil industry. And for every $1 that Big Oil invests in campaign contributions to Congress, they get a payback of at least $332 in the form of subsidies.

That’s an unbelievable bargain. It’s no wonder that Big Oil and their allies in Congress are doing everything they can to keep those subsidies. But it’s not their money, after all, it’s yours.

To make matters worse, these are the same politicians who say we need to stop spending and balance the budget. It’s time for them to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. It’s time to pay back the American people, not the oil industry.

Please send a letter to your representatives in Congress to demand that our government stop supporting Big Oil and Coal.

The oil industry wants you to ignore the way they buy your government, remain ignorant of their massive profits, overlook your pain at the pump, and forget about the environmental consequences caused by this dirty industry.

But we won’t forget, and neither will you. It’s time to take action to eliminate the billions of taxpayers’ dollars going into the pockets of Big Oil.

That’s what Oil Change International is fighting for and here is how you can help: Tell your Senators and Representatives to stop using your tax dollars to support this dirty industry.

It’s time for some payback of our own, as we remind Congress who they should be working for.

Chevron fined $8bn over Amazon ‘contamination’, by Dominic Rushe and Rory Carroll, guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 February 2011 23.30 GMT

Ecuadorian judge finds oil giant responsible for widespread damage to Amazon basin caused by drilling

An Ecuadorian judge has ruled that Chevron was responsible for widespread contamination of the country’s Amazon basin and fined the company $8bn (£5bn). The oil firm blasted the ruling as a “fraud”.

Pablo Fajardo, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, told Associated Press the judgement at the provincial court of justice of Sucumbíos in Lago Agrio was “a great step that we have made towards the crystallisation of justice”, but the fine was too small – far below the $27.3bn sought by the plaintiffs – and they may appeal.

The epic and bitterly fought lawsuit over the “Amazon Chernobyl” has been going on for 18 years. It was brought on behalf of 30,000 people whose health and environment were allegedly damaged by chemical-laden waste water dumped by Texaco’s operations from 1972 to 1990. Chevron bought Texaco in 2001.

The lawsuit alleges that Chevron should be held responsible for $27bn in damages from illness, deaths and economic loss suffered by the Amazon residents. The case was the subject of 2009′s award-winning documentary Crude and has attracted celebrity supporters including Sting, Trudie Styler and Daryl Hannah.

The case goes back to the 1970s when Texaco partnered the government oil company PetroEcuador to drill wells. Texaco ended its Ecuadorian operations in the 1990s and was assigned responsibility for cleaning up sites proportional to its share in the project. The company spent $40m on the clean-up and argues that it was legally released from further claims or liabilities. But the suit claims the clean-up failed to address faulty drilling practices by Texaco that caused damage to wide areas of jungle and harmed indigenous people.

The case has triggered a slew of related legal action in the US and international courts and has led to an arbitration case in The Hague. This month Chevron lawyers sued a group of trial lawyers and consultants, claiming they were organising a campaign to rig the Ecuadorian court system in a bid to win billions in the pollution claim.

Last week an international arbitration panel in The Hague ordered Ecuador to “take all measures at its disposal to suspend or cause to be suspended the enforcement or recognition within and without Ecuador of any judgment” against Chevron in the case. Chevron had claimed that Ecuador was violating the terms of a 1997 trade pact with the US.

A 2009 US state department report entitled Investment Climate Statement for Ecuador stated: “Systemic weakness and susceptibility to political or economic pressures in the rule of law constitute the most important problem faced by US companies investing in or trading with Ecuador.” The report claimed “corruption is a serious problem in Ecuador,” and that “the courts are often susceptible to outside pressure and bribes”.

Chevron said the judgment was “illegitimate and unenforceable”, adding: “It is the product of fraud and is contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence. Chevron will appeal against this decision in Ecuador and intends to see that justice prevails.

“United States and international tribunals already have taken steps to bar enforcement of the Ecuadorian ruling. Chevron does not believe that today’s judgment is enforceable in any court that observes the rule of law. Chevron intends to see that the perpetrators of this fraud are held accountable for their misconduct.”

In contrast, the advocacy groups Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network hailed the ruling. “It is time Chevron cleans up its disastrous mess in Ecuador.”

On the possibility of appealing, Fajardo said: “We believe the evidence before the court deserves international respect and the plaintiffs will take whatever actions are appropriate consistent with the law to press the claims to a final conclusion.”

Judge Nicolas Zambrano, who made the ruling from the provincial town of Lago Agrio, gave Chevron 60 days to set up an escrow account in Ecuador through which the damages would be distributed. Analysts said appeals meant the case probably had years to run but that the oil industry had been dealt a warning to clean up its act.

According to a report by Sweden’s Umeå International School of Public Health more than 30bn gallons of toxic wastes and crude oil had been discharged into the land and waterways of Ecuador’s Amazon basin – or “Oriente”. This compares to the 10.8m gallons spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989 in Alaska or 205m gallons spilt in BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster. The report claims there are at least two big oil spills per week in the area.

Nigeria: U.S. Court Declines to Hear Suit Against Shell, Chika Amanze-Nwachuku, This Day, AllAfrica Global Media, 8 February 2011

A United States Appeal Court on Friday refused to entertain a lawsuit that accused Royal Dutch Shell Plc of helping Nigerian authorities violently to suppress protests against oil exploration in the 1990s.

Specifically, the plaintiffs, families of seven Ogoni indigenes who were executed by the regime of the late General Sani Abacha, had accused the oil giant of violations related to the 1995 hangings of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other protesters by Nigeria’s then-military government.

The Ogoni Nine

In the case – Kiobel et al v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 06-4800 and 06-4876, the plaintiffs had sought their claims from the oil giant under a 1789 U.S. law known as the Alien Tort Statute.

The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) was adopted in 1789 as part of the original Judiciary Act. It gave the federal courts jurisdiction to hear tort claims brought by foreigners who allege a violation of international law or a treaty to which the United States is a party. For almost two centuries, the statute was relatively dormant, supporting jurisdiction in only a handful of cases. However, it was later invoked in several cases involving torture, disappearances, or killings committed by non-Americans in foreign countries.

In a divided vote that prompted a bitter debate among some of its judges, the US appellate court affirmed a September ruling, which held that companies cannot be liable in U.S. courts for violations of international human rights law.

Reuters reported that the full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York declined to hear the case by a 5-5 vote and instead left intact the original 2-1 panel ruling from September. Separately, the judges in that panel voted 2-1 not to rehear the case, the report said, added that the Friday ruling may not be the end of the lawsuit.

“The 2nd Circuit is alone among federal circuit courts in concluding that corporations cannot be responsible under U.S. law for human rights violations, ” the newswire quoted an international law professor at George Washington University, Ralph Steinhardt as saying. “This clears the way for the plaintiffs to seek review at the Supreme Court,” he added. The report added that a lawyer who has represented the families, Paul Hoffman, and Shell, did not immediately return requests for comment.

Shell had since denied allegations it is involved in human rights abuses.The 2nd Circuit ruling, the report said, applies in New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The Alien Tort Statute had underpinned other human rights cases. Reuters reported that in one, mining company Rio Tinto Plc was accused of forcing workers in Papua New Guinea to live in “slave like” conditions, and pushing the government to exact retribution after a mine was sabotaged.

The report cited another case where plaintiffs sought to hold Ford Motor Co. General Motors Co. and International Business Machines Corp liable for helping South African authorities when apartheid was in force more than two decades ago.

Friday’s split ruling showed major differences in the judges’ thinking. Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, part of the September panel that ruled for Shell, wrote that the original ruling “has no great practical effect except for the considerable benefit of avoiding abuse of the courts to extort settlements.”

He chided what he called fears by dissenting Judge Pierre Leval that “slavers and pirates will now rush into corporate transactions,” resulting in “absolution to moral monsters. For the record: even moral monsters are humans, and I would happily see them hanged.” Leval countered that Jacobs’ opinion evinces an “intense, multi-faceted policy agenda” underlying an effort “to exempt corporations from the law of nations.”

The report noted that other judges who favored a rehearing by the entire court said the case presented “a significant issue,” and that September’s ruling conflicted with a 2008 ruling from the 11th Circuit appeals court, which sits in Atlanta.

See another article on this story:  Shell not liable for rights violations, UPI, published: Feb. 8, 2011 at 9:44 AM