Chev-wrong or Chevron?

Although Chevron may be a household brand, its name has become increasingly popular over the last 10 years, especially in Ecuador. After over two decades of oil refining in Ecuador, Chevron allegedly left behind billions of dollars worth of damages to the Amazon Rainforest. After viewing the two opposing videos on the topic, it is very hard to say who is correct.

In the first video, a 60 Minutes special, it contained an eclectic group of interviews. These interviews included views from Chevron consultants, Steven Donziger (the Plaintiff’s lawyer), Sequoyah Indians, the judge for the case, the EPA, and residents from the surrounding area. The video showed many vivid images of the damages that were left behind. It also stated that Chevron thinks it’s only responsible from 40 percent of the clean up. This is because Chevron was 40 percent partner with Ecuador’s oil company, Petroecuador. However, scientist proved that a near 100 percent of the oil that was being used was from Texaco, which was bought by Chevron. In response, Chevron denied the claim and stated that it was the “biggest falsehood they’d ever heard”. After being asked who made the pits, Chevron said that the consortion was responsible and that Texaco was the operator but the Consortion partners had selected Texaco to operate the oil fields.

In the second video, a video constructed by Chevron employees, it contained a marginalize group of interviews. All of the people, excluding one person, that were interviewed were Chevron consultants. This misinforms the public due to the obvious biases. The video showed many images of the areas that Chevron had cleaned up. The video claims that most of the health problems from the people are due to the widespread bacteria in the drinking water from raw sewage. It also claims that all the pipes leading into the Rainforest were analyzed by a toxicologist and determined to be nothing unnatural to the environment and harmless. The Chevron employees believe the Ecuadorian government is trying to “re-write the past” and that the judge has a bias towards Chevron to begin with. The validity of the arguments is skewed because Chevron consultants presented all of the information