What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
226 Comments
- Velenne, on 05/10/2009, -13/+160So oil companies are evil? Huh. Duly noted.
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -21/+150Too perfect not to be true...
I was driving yesterday when I saw a guy driving a big ass Hummer with the following:
1) License Plate: Sci Fi 6
2) The Jesus Fish
3) Bush/Cheney sticker
4) A sticker saying "marriage = (man bathroom symbol) + (woman bathroom symbol)
5) a 9-11 "We'll never forget" thing..
So, he thinks that Jesus would vote for Bush, destroy the environment, deny people the choice of loving who they choose and refuse to forgive.
Too funny.
p.s. His nasty fat ass wife was wearing a big fur so I guess Jesus would also kill animals for fashion. - chrrie, on 05/10/2009, -11/+102I know I'm fighting a losing battle here, and you can go ahead and dig me down... but here goes anyway:
There's so much more to the case than what was shown on that 12 minute 60 minutes story. A lot of things were omitted, and downright wrong. I was most upset by the fact that all of the images they showed of the refining sights were NOT the Texaco sites, but those operated by Petroecuador, the company that was partnering with Texaco at the time and the one that is still operating today ever since Texaco left in 1992.
I just don't understand why the entire blame for the environmental problems is on Chevron, when they (Texaco) was working WITH the other company. Not to mention when Texaco left they spent 42 million dollars on a remediation project that was approved by the government and released them from any future liabilities.
So I'm not saying that Chevron isn't responsible for their share of issues, but it doesn't seem to me that they're the greedy ones in this particular picture.
I also work for Chevron, by the way, as a software engineer, and I love my company. I know I won't stop anyone from hating oil companies but man, they're not all out to destroy the planet. So yeah I'm biased, but this story was too. - chourobin, on 05/10/2009, -5/+77In chevron's defense, they inherited the actual company that did this 20 years ago. Chevron itself did not. Doesn't matter anyway since Chevron has no assets in Ecuador, so this suit is just a stunt.
I know the people that work at Chevron, and they are smart educated engineers who don't buy into the media skew against "big bad oil companies". They actually dedicate and hire a lot of environmental engineers to go above and beyond meeting current environmental regulations. - billricardi, on 05/10/2009, -10/+56Their policy is simple, pipe out the petrol products, leave the waste materials in the country they exploited. Take the benefit, leave the pain. The 'byproducts' that they left in Ecuador have caused toxic results that will forever scar the people there. It is, in a word, sickening.
- KibblesnBitts, on 05/10/2009, -16/+56Everyday I go on the Washington Metro, I see Chevron ads posted everywhere, stating how they are attempting to become eco-friendly. I feel like throwing up in my mouth every time I see them because it has always been a boldfaced lie.
- JimmyTheClam, on 05/10/2009, -7/+45I wouldn't get too worked up about this story, as it looks like the author, and known liar Julie Schwietert, got caught in another lie.
She's a shill for an attorney wanting to sue Chevron.
Doh!
From her getting called out:
"1. The claim that Texpet made over 4 billion in their venture in Ecudor. A close look at Texpet earnings show only a profit of 460 million while PetroEcudor made 21 billion. “60 Minutes” was told this fact and choose to ignore.
2. The sites that “60 Minutes” kept showing are current sites that PetroEcudor uses. These sites are not Texpet property. Also these sites were not Texpet responsiblity to clean up and remediate under the agreement with PetroEcudor. “60 Minutes” was made aware of this fact and choose to ignore.
3. The supposed expert, Richard Cabrera, was paid directly from the plantiffs attorney. His report contains exact sentences from the plantiffs attorney’s lawsuit. These sentences include sampling test results and dollar figures assigned to damage. “60 Minutes” was given pictures, legal documents, and check stubs from plantiffs attorneys and choose to ignore.
4. No responsibility assigned to PetroEcudor. The state owned company has been exclusively operating the oil industry in Ecudor since 1992 and has failed to maintain equipment, properly train personnel, or remediate mandated oil pits. There is a documented history of errors by PetroEcudor that has led to massive oil spills. “60 Minutes” was given facts about problems PetroEcudor has caused and choose to ignore.
5. The water that “60 Minutes” showed flowing directly into the Amazon River was tested and showed no amounts of petroleum products. However large amounts of bacteria from human waste did show up. Thus indicating that dumping of human was by an Ecudor company was occuring. Once again “60 Minutes” was given copies of these sampling and test results but ignored this fact and choose to report otherwise.
So this should be a lesson for all posting on this board to truely investigate any claim on your own and stop being controlled by false reporting." - derek20cali, on 05/10/2009, -1/+29nurbsenvi
A 26 year-old guy from San Francisco, ca - JonTheGoose, on 05/10/2009, -0/+27Actually, the term is "bald faced lie". It comes from ye olde days when businessmen grew big bushy beards to hide subtle facial cues that would indicate they were lying. If your face was clean shaven i.e. "bald" then you would be brazen to try to lie.
- RiMac, on 05/10/2009, -3/+28If you're a true intellectual, you won't be swayed by caricatures and cartoon graphs. Do your own research. I trust digg users.
- VyRuZ, on 05/10/2009, -5/+28WHY SHOULD I TRUST A FOXIFIED NAZI?!
- didgital, on 05/10/2009, -3/+24So who's the least evil company? I'll go there...
- Ecl1pse, on 05/10/2009, -2/+22All he needs now is the "Support our troops and fetuses" rear window mural.
- tech9, on 05/10/2009, -1/+21It wont even let me click on the 60 minutes full report video play button. the power of silence....
- weeFred, on 05/10/2009, -0/+17One safe can only hold so much.
- MicrosoftBob, on 05/10/2009, -1/+18Yeah, because we *all* work for and/or support Chevron.
Idiot. - Logrusmage, on 05/10/2009, -6/+23Shhh you're bringing all the corporation hatin' hippies down with your logic and experience!
- simoom22, on 05/10/2009, -1/+17Well if they bought the company, they also bought its liabilities.
- JES0484, on 05/10/2009, -9/+24Chevron is in NO WAY responsible for this mess, but Ecuador's state run oil company, PetroEcuador, should pay dearly for their decision to maximize the bottom line at the expense of the environment and peoples lives.
Im so tired of hearing adolescent whining about how BIG oil is so evil. Oil companies spend billions on minimizing impacts of their operations on the environment and they spend just as much on safety equipment and creating processes to keep their employees and others safe from harm.
Yes more can and is being done to provide consumers with alternative fuels for their vehicles and homes, but fact is oil and gas is here to stay because our way of life depends on it.
Are you wearing clothes? Do you have a battery in your car? Did you not use a computer to post your message on this site? Did you eat today? Did you use a cell phone lately? A toothbrush? Do you have a milk jug in the fridge? Did you use a pen to write your name on something today? I can go on and on. Fact is almost every consumer product available to day is largely made possible by oil byproducts.
A simple google search can enlighten you to this fact.
Hypocrisy is sickening. - Yarkz, on 05/10/2009, -1/+16Why does he have gold inside and outside of his safe?
- askantik, on 05/10/2009, -2/+16You must be one of the guys who when I tell them I don't use or eat anything from animals, they're like, "But you're wearing a leather belt! Your shoes are leather! Ha! I caught you!" As if I hadn't thought of that already.
- catalysis, on 05/10/2009, -0/+13No truck nuts? Fail
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -15/+28Sadly it seems almost all of the big corporations in America are completely corrupt.
It all about profit. And if damage is done in someone else country in the process of making a buck they couldnt care less.
Also, why would a congressman/president try to crack down on an oil company that donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to their campaign?
Its all a big ***** mountain - alexgdorman, on 05/10/2009, -8/+21and the rest of the world is sooo much better huh?
- peters1023, on 05/10/2009, -0/+13Troll
- brimister, on 05/10/2009, -2/+14@bratterscain:
You're wrong. "Just getting by" is a load. If you read the article, you would have noticed that Chevron scored a 25% year over year profit increase with $263 BILLION in PROFIT in 2008 alone during a world-wide recession. That's not getting by. That's called being completely and utterly filthy rich. Getting by is when your income barely covers your expenses, and you turn a modest profit. Even some of the most prosperous companies in the U.S. are, in fact, barely getting by, and they're doing bad things too, but they're not poisoning entire communities and ecosystems in the process.
People should be OUTRAGED by this. The problem is, we're all stuck watching TV, and besides, since most U.S. workers have some kind of 401k, we're all stakeholders, and to a certain extent responsible.
But the notion that being outraged makes one chemically imbalanced is a childish response. There are some things in the world that are worth being outraged over, and it is, in fact, anti-american to sit back and do nothing (even if that's what most of us do).
Your argument that corporations themselves can become chemically imbalanced is non-sensical. Corporations have people who are responsible for making decisions about how the company is run, and when decisions to leave open, leaking, poisonous wells that can make people and animals sick, then they should be held responsible, and taken to task for those actions.
The true problem is not that corporations become "chemically imbalanced" (the term itself is ridiculous), the problem is that there is no accountability. Companies have no loyalty to people, and people have no loyalties to companies. Companies lay off thousands during difficult times, and strip benefits, while people jump at the next opportunity where there is a better buck. No one has any long term investment in any company. This creates a situation where there is no accountability.
In this situation, "people" didn't do it, the "company" did it. And the people who run the show now, weren't the ones who ran the show when it all started, so they don't feel like they need to be responsible, they simply continued company policies that began before they arrived.
The company may suffer, but that's ok because it's a Non-Entity. If it ceased to exist, it will restructure, rename, re-invigorate with new blood and re-make and re-market it's new image so that people will buy from then again (except in this case, there is no choice. If you buy gasoline, you really don't get much choice over the origins of the gasoline, and almost everyone buys gasoline).
And the notion that the oil provided can be used for good is not a good argument. Ends do not justify means, and this company should have used all necessary precautions to safeguard the places and people they were working with.
I've long supported the ideal that companies doing business in the United States should be held to the same wage, health and safety standards no matter where they do business, and when something like this comes out, their right to do business in the United States should be revoked and they should be fined. - HappyScrappy, on 05/10/2009, -1/+1360% owned by PetroEcuador.
The Ecuadorians have to look at themselves as much as at Chevron. - sportbikepilot, on 05/10/2009, -8/+20Texaco was a 40% partner with Ecuador's leading oil company, Texaco was in charge of drilling and site management. Texaco did clean up around 10% of the toxic sites while the Ecuador partners cleaned up ZERO. When Chevron bought Texaco, contracts with the Ecuador government made them LEGALLY not liable for any further clean up of toxic sites. This a suit brought forward by a attorney for the native indians living near these toxic sites, who's argument is that the indians didn't sign the contracts so the indians never agreed that Chevron was not liable for further clean up. the case is *****, this ***** attorney is just suing a company with deep pockets and relying on public opinion to shame Chevron into paying for something that is not their legal responsibility. The case was already thrown out of U.S, federal court, and now they have filed with the Ecuador courts. They should have sued the Ecuadorian government....
- sndream, on 05/10/2009, -1/+12Oh please, the state owned PetroEcuador been running the site for the past 2 decades. And Chevron never have any oil well there, all they did is brought a company who used to run it before PetroEcuador took over.
- youngdb, on 05/10/2009, -4/+15The problem is people have to DO SOMETHING about it. We are American citizens, and our voice can be heard far more (by a bit) than these oppressed people. These corporations think they can get away with this in far out areas of South America, Africa, and Asia because they think no one cares or is paying attention.
The most sickening terrible fact is how many executives, government officials, and others are complicit in these atrocities, and turn a blind eye for their salary. - mirox, on 05/10/2009, -0/+10Here it is on you tube...
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRfYLkAwfI
Part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GBDBzmkLiY - Snarfy, on 05/10/2009, -4/+14LOL. They are all evil.
Here is Iran before the Islamic revolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQy0ZGjAqM8
Good job BP and the CIA!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#History
It's not just chevron folks. - doraemonxo, on 05/10/2009, -2/+12yup. we need to stop perpetuating the system and stop using gas.
- APTriggerMan, on 05/10/2009, -4/+14naw dawg we as dumb as tha rest of em
fo reals - Logicexe, on 05/10/2009, -2/+11You know that if they made pro-torture bumper stickers he'd buy one in a second.
What is it with people displaying their political opinions on their cars? Like I ***** care whether you're pro choice or pro life when stuck behind you in traffic. - toekneebullard, on 05/10/2009, -2/+11Barely attainable? You can get a bike at any Wal-Mart or Target.
- merlinr68, on 05/10/2009, -1/+10I wouldn't be so quick to trust Digg users. I bet 99% of the commenters (myself included) haven't any real knowledge about what is going on in Ecuador, Chevron/Texaco pollution history, or applicable law suits. The digg quantity and story frequency of anything with solid science and stated resources pales in comparison to articles about junk science, marijuana, and Kevin Rose. Digg should only be relied on for geeky entertainment. That said, my *opinion* is that whomever created the waste in Ecuador needs and should be made to clean it up. If it was Texaco, no corporate change of hands should absolve that responsibility. If it was an energy company owned by the Ecuadorian government, said government should be held responsible. If it were both (likely the case) they should work together to get it cleaned up.
- jtbradley, on 05/10/2009, -0/+9BioDiesel Willie!
- SirBruce, on 05/10/2009, -6/+15Chevron may be liable for improper cleanup of pits they said they cleaned up. But Ecuador signed an agreement with Chevron (Texaco) the relieve them of liability. Ecuador's government made millions by allowing the oil companies in; millions they would not have made otherwise. It's their responsibility to make sure the citizens LEGALLY IMPACTACT by Chevron's activities are cared for. I don't see any wrongdoing by Chevron here. If the government says you can dump stuff in pits and don't worry about the cleanup, how is it your fault?
- APTriggerMan, on 05/10/2009, -3/+11yeah! lets depend less on petroleum!
oh wait.... - chourobin, on 05/10/2009, -1/+9The media needs to re-educate themselves on science/environmental reporting. It is disappointing to see articles citing mercury content in drinking water, yet they don't emphasize the quantity. Anything can be toxic at the right concentrations. It's almost impossible to trust any article reporting on science if it isn't published by a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
- djphilos, on 05/10/2009, -3/+11Wow. Are you trying to break the record for negative diggs?
- JimmyTheClam, on 05/10/2009, -1/+9It's the rebuttal on the Julie Schwietert's blog (hence the quotes), you dope.
Go read it. - Mutton, on 05/10/2009, -0/+8I'm pretty sure the engineers at Chevron are not mustache-twirling villainous archetypes, but that doesn't mean Chevron or oil companies like them are doing business ethically. However, it would be unfair to think that it's not also the faults and failures both the American government and the host government.
- billricardi, on 05/10/2009, -2/+9No. By "They" I mean Chevron, who bought the entire operation when they bought Texaco in 2001. When they bought the 'asset', they also bought the liability of the toxic waste.
Their policy is CLEARLY reflected in their campaign of denial, which is being ripped apart in court. They said 'these wells show no sign of pollution by petroleum products'. AFTER it was proved in court that the wells contained indeno, benzo, and cadmium from the failure of toxic containment.
By the way, 42 million? They're being sued for 27 BILLION right now, please don't make me laugh at a half assed 'cleanup' attempt that weighs in at anything under 2 billion. - r0g3r, on 05/10/2009, -7/+14I hope one day Bush's place in history will reflect his connections with big oil and the evils that they have inflicted on humanity.
Condoleezza Rice just happened to be on the Chevron board of directors right up until she went to work for Bush. - KibblesnBitts, on 05/10/2009, -2/+9Oh wow, the more you know I guess. Thanks.
- fixty, on 05/10/2009, -2/+8Temporal "love it or leave it"? Wonderful logic.
- JasonHaley, on 05/10/2009, -2/+8@sportbikepilot
1)No the lawyers were NOT thrown out of a US court Chevron had fought for the case to be taken up by Equador. That's why this case has been going on since the 90s.
2)Now that the judge has hired an independent researcher on the damage he has estimated the damage to be near 6-8 billion dollars and so Chevron is now back-peddling and saying they want the case to go back to the US and that it's not all their petroleum (despite what the independent researcher confirmed).
3) Where are your sources for anything you said? Here are mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsjtN4zOz8I&fea ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBYWpfJJvzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1DzyxH-4zE
and documents: http://chevrontoxico.com/news-and-multimedia/2009/ ...
and here's an Associate Press article on the issue: http://amazonwatch.org/documents/crude-press-kit/a ...
Maybe some of the stuff you said is right, but without any sources from you I'll have to go with what the scientists, lawyers and congressmen are saying. - holyskeleton, on 05/10/2009, -0/+6female software engineer? dugg.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 231 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is