196 comments on The Dubious Lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador - Part 1
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
196 comments on The Dubious Lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador - Part 1
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.”
—H. G. Wells, 1904
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Yeah, it looks like TOD is being used as a platform for corporate propaganda here.
It's reassuring to see that I'm not the only one with such a reaction to Gail's article. Recently, in my personal peak oil outreach, I've been steering friends to the Oildrum as the premier site for information on related topics. Frankly, this article, as well as some others that Gail has presented on the front page, undermines the credibility and reputation of this site. Her opinions are welcome. However, showcasing such industry bias is poor strategy.
This does present a credibility problem, especially from well informed scientific types who have real experience in the region, and the activist community that works with indigenous right groups that have the scars to prove it.
As someone who has spent a bit of time in South much to vivid America, the history of the region will not be favorable to the corporate exploitation of it's past.
Things are changing now, and this law suit is one of many signals that business as usual is a thing of the past
I too have an issue with Chevron providing transport, lodging, and meals to the article's author, and undoubtedly steering her in the direction of their spin. I believe Gail to be an honest person, but sometimes propagandists/lobbyists (redundant, I know) prey upon honest people.
"While I don't have direct evidence to show that all of these allegations are false, I think one should categorize the statements regarding harassment as myths, unless Fajardo or the ADC can produce evidence to back them up."
This means that sworn testimony should be disregarded, especially when the techniques used to perpetrate the allegations are invariably the kind where hard evidence virtually impossible to come by. I would recommend that we don't slant the playing field so obviously in future articles.
Isn't an all expenses trip a bribe? Why didn't Chevron instead hit the "Donate" button on the top left of this page without any conditions on the use of the funds? Should TOD have a simple ethics policy to guide editors and posters? At least the offer from Chevron should have been posted online for discussion.
I agree.
Alan
Um... yeah, this is pretty amazing. I can't think of a more efficient way for a key TOD writer to publicly self-destruct than by taking Chevron cash to gather the factoids for this little piece of off-topic corporate PR. What a disappointing and discrediting choice, for both Gail and TOD.
Who took the photos for this post? In figures 11 through 14 in the photos PDF the date is 07/07/2007. These are Chevron photos? The PDF properties says "Microsoft Word - Photos of the FDA and Cabrera.doc" and "Author: krdq".
The photos associated with Figure 1 (which is the ones I assume you are talking about) are Chevron photos. I don't know the details. A date of 07/07/2007 would be reasonable.
I have to say that Gail deserves a bit of congratulations for putting up such a controversial article. She did preframe the discussion well by saying that there are multiple points of view.
That said, a good read of the actions of "free market Milton (Mr Greed) Friedman Economics" might be the investigative reporting found in the book "The Shock Doctrine" By Naomi Klein.
Shock Doctrine
I found myself depressed after reading about half of it and just left it on the shelf....
No, she didn't. Another staff member, Super G, wrote an editor's note. (And he's actually listed as Technician, not editor.)
Absolutely everything Gail said in this post is decidedly on one side of the issue.
But it is based on my review of what I see, which includes a lot of digging. It comes out on one side of the issue, but that is how I see things. I try to document why.
I have no argument with your having a view on the issue -- what I argue against is any side of this argument being a proper topic as lead article at TOD. The oil companies have been complicit in or guilty of innunmerable wrong doings around the globe -- but I don't blame TOD for not exploring these issues, except insofar as they impact the energy situation. It takes away from the main focus. Some of this stuff shows up (legitimately IMO) in Drumbeat, and some firefights break out in the comments (legitimately and entertaining so IMO), but these are side discussions.
How does one decide what is and is not within the bounds for TOD lead articles? Surely it cannot be just any issue affecting an energy company. What is it about this issue? What justifies it being covered, even if the other side is given equal space? That's a serious dilution of focus. And again, I'm not an advocate of a narrow focus even in the lead articles. But I see here an abandonment of all focus, except that the company is an energy company.
The TOD and the peak oil movement have the great advantage of having oil company professionals, retired and not, as active commenters and participants. But the great danger and the natural suspicion is that TOD might be unduly influenced by more than just the professionals in the industry. From that point of view alone, it is an extremely unwise decision for the TOD to have entered this particular fray, and worse still on the corporate side. It's something that should be thought about from the point of view of what's best for TOD and its continuing role -- what harms it, what promotes it. This does not help.
+1
Well said, couldn't agree more.
I'm afraid I have to agree. It would be one thing if some of this got argued in the comment section of Drumbeat or something like that, but not as a lead article. It's totally off point as far as peak oil is concerned, and I am not one to narrowly construe the limits. If it were an article even by a CEO of an oil company championing some thing or another to do with energy, I would not be upset, but would simply rebut in the comments. But here? It's bad, bad, bad and harms the credibility of TOD.
Overall Gail and the editors have done a great job. They're permitted a stumble once in a while. But this is a stumble.
One of the main problems to me of having such corporate propaganda as lead articles on this forum is that it will likely lead some, who might otherwise be interested in learning important info here, to conclude that it is just another front for Big Oil, and to dismiss the site and its message out of hand.
At this point, it might be useful for the editors to make a full disclosure of any support they get or have gotten from the oil industry, just to clear the air.
gail, did they offer you any koolaid ?