Today, Texaco, one of America's biggest energy corporations and oil provider to just over 180 countries worldwide is under attack from human rights activists from Ecuador. This problem which started off as a seemingly small molehill is now definitely changing into a mountain and as it is continuing to gain momentum and support from all around the world Texaco is finally coming forward with it's side of the story.
To begin with the claim the from the activists and attorneys on the side of Ecuador is that Texaco is responsible for health and environmental impacts form oil operations in Ecuador over 16 years ago. This had led to unusable land, water supplies and the inability for anything in that area to flourish in the area due to the extreme pollution. As well as damage done to the environment there are also claims that the pollution has incidence of cancer in the area. The area did undergo 'cleansing' carried out by Texaco before they left the area but with the effects of the oil still heavily evident, there are calls from the locals for Texaco to pay for the probably irreversible destruction they have caused to the land.
The officials on the side of the Ecuadorian people have collected soil, and water samples, held and rallies and launched a lawsuit against the company but Texaco has refuted the supposed evidence with a lot of equally substantial evidence. This evidence refutes not only their oppositions original claims of damage but the means by which they came to this conclusion. It argues against many things including; the legitimacy of scientific evidence of judicial inspection, the amount of toxic waste and water produced, the over estimation of remediation of the area, Petroecuadors responsibility to the area, the question of fraud, the down fall of health in the area, the accusation of genocide, the over estimation of Texaco's earnings in Ecuador.
The evidence shown in the articles produced by Texaco are, it has to be said, very convincing but can we trust them alone?
Therefore, I looked upon a few other seemingly impartial articles from other sources and one in convertible but equally balanced one was one by Michael A. Kelsh, a public health administrator. His report outlines the issues surrounding the accusations of health issues as a direct result of Texaco's activities in Ecuador and analyses the evidence given for and against the claim. His report ends with the statement,
'The national mortality collected and summarized by the INEC does not currently support a relationship of oil extraction activities and adverse health outcomes in potentially exposed communities.'
This I think is an interesting twist to the tale the Texaco vs. Ecuador battle, because now it is evidence from sources outside of the Texaco corporation which are backing up their rebuttals of claims.
In conclusion, I think there is no way to deny that this case is an extremely complex and intricate one. I think that the time given to it over the past few years has definitely been worthwhile because we need to really come a true conclusion at the end of it. Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence against Texaco given by the Ecuadorian authorities we still need to discover whether a country angry at being left stripped of its resources is exaggerating the effects of the company's presence there. But we equally need to be wary of the potentially huge power a multi-billion pound company has over so many influential people in this case.
