January 25, 2006
Chevron Responds to Allegations Concerning Its Security Plans and the Postponement of the Judicial Inspection of the Guanta Production Station
SAN RAMON, Calif., January 25, 2006 - Chevron today issued the following statement in response to allegations made by Amazon Watch concerning the company's security plans for its personnel in Ecuador, and the October 18, 2005 decision of the Superior Court of Nueva Loja to postpone the inspection of the Guanta Production Station following reports of potential security risks.
As part of the judicial inspection process underway before the Superior Court of Nueva Loja, a number of Chevron employees and contractors are in the Oriente region of the Ecuadorian Rainforest on an ongoing basis. It has been well documented that this region is one of high risk with respect to criminal acts, including kidnapping.
According to the U.S. Department of State,
The U.S. Embassy in Quito advises against travel to the northern border of Ecuador, to include the provinces of Sucumbios, Orellana and Carchi and northern Esmeraldas Province. U.S. Government personnel are restricted from travel to these areas due to the spread of organized crime, drug trafficking, small arms trafficking, and incursions by various Colombian terrorist organizations. Since 1998, at least ten U.S. citizens have been kidnapped near Ecuador's border with Colombia. One U.S. citizen was murdered in January 2001 by kidnappers holding him for ransom.
As such, Chevron has undertaken all appropriate legal steps to provide adequate security, lodging, transportation and logistics to protect its employees and contractors involved in defending the company in this lawsuit.
While we do not discuss the specific details of security arrangements, Chevron has contracted with an Ecuadorian security service company named Servicios de Proteccion y Vigilancia (Sepriv), which has provided security to other oil companies in the area, including the OCP. Additionally, Chevron signed an agreement with the Ecuadorian military for lodging at the military base in Nueva Loja during the period of the judicial inspections.
The company's security plans have been known by the Superior Court of Nueva Loja and the plaintiffs' attorneys and supporters since the very inception of the lawsuit in May 2003. Ultimately, the protection provided through Chevron's security plans benefited not only its personnel but the Judge, Court's personnel and experts and the plaintiffs' attorneys themselves.
Chevron takes the safety and security of its employees and contractors very seriously and we cannot help but note the irony of having the plaintiffs' attorneys criticizing Chevron for obtaining adequate security from a local security company and the Ecuadorian military in order to ensure the safety of its personnel, while at the same time calling on the Government of Ecuador to take measures to provide protection for their own personnel.
Furthermore, the allegations made by the plaintiffs' attorneys and supporters that Chevron has inferred or in any way manipulated the evidence or reports by the Ecuadorian military with respect to the safety conditions that determined the Court to declare the postponement of the Guanta station judicial inspection are false, irresponsible and defamatory.
The decision of the Court was the Court's alone. As explained in Judge Novillo's order, his ruling was based on the government's own information, and was done strictly out of concern for the safety of the people, including Court's personnel and experts, and the security of Petroecuador's production station itself, which is an asset of the State.
Additionally, to suggest that Chevron wanted the judicial inspection cancelled because of any concern over what the inspection would show is just ludicrous. In fact, it was Chevron that had requested to the Court that the Guanta Station be inspected so that we could demonstrate the effectiveness of Texaco Petroleum Company (Texpet)'s remediation program, and at the same time illustrate Petroecuador's record of negligence and operational mismanagement since assuming operations of the station in 1990. At least 18 oil spills have been recorded at the site since 2000, and although Texpet installed produced water injection technology at the Guanta Station in 1996, Petroecuador has not been utilizing this technology at the site.
We are disappointed by the plaintiffs' attorneys' false and irresponsible accusations and their willingness to manipulate legitimate safety concerns in an attempt to deceive the public and to deflect attention away from the evidence that is being presented to the Court.
Back to top