New York Times: Op-Ed Columnist, Disaster in the Amazon

By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 4, 2010

BP’s calamitous behavior in the Gulf of Mexico is the big oil story of the moment. But for many years, indigenous people from a formerly pristine region of the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador have been trying to get relief from an American company, Texaco (which later merged with Chevron), for what has been described as the largest oil-related environmental catastrophe ever.

“As horrible as the gulf spill has been, what happened in the Amazon was worse,” said Jonathan Abady, a New York lawyer who is part of the legal team that is suing Chevron on behalf of the rainforest inhabitants.

It has been a long and ugly legal fight and the outcome is uncertain. But what has happened in the rainforest is heartbreaking, although it has not gotten nearly the coverage that the BP spill has.

What’s not in dispute is that Texaco operated more than 300 oil wells for the better part of three decades in a vast swath of Ecuador’s northern Amazon region, just south of the border with Colombia. Much of that area has been horribly polluted. The lives and culture of the local inhabitants, who fished in the intricate waterways and cultivated the land as their ancestors had done for generations, have been upended in ways that have led to widespread misery.

Texaco came barreling into this delicate ancient landscape in the early 1960s with all the subtlety and grace of an invading army. And when it left in 1992, it left behind, according to the lawsuit, widespread toxic contamination that devastated the livelihoods and traditions of the local people, and took a severe toll on their physical well-being.

A brief filed by the plaintiffs said: “It deliberately dumped many billions of gallons of waste byproduct from oil drilling directly into the rivers and streams of the rainforest covering an area the size of Rhode Island. It gouged more than 900 unlined waste pits out of the jungle floor — pits which to this day leach toxic waste into soils and groundwater. It burned hundreds of millions of cubic feet of gas and waste oil into the atmosphere, poisoning the air and creating ‘black rain’ which inundated the area during tropical thunderstorms.”

The quest for oil is, by its nature, colossally destructive. And the giant oil companies, when left to their own devices, will treat even the most magnificent of nature’s wonders like a sewer. But the riches to be made are so vastly corrupting that governments refuse to impose the kinds of rigid oversight and safeguards that would mitigate the damage to the environment and its human and animal inhabitants.

Pick your venue. The families whose lives and culture are dependent upon the intricate web of waterways along the Gulf Coast of the United States are in a fix similar to that of the indigenous people zapped by nonstop oil spills and the oil-related pollution in the Ecuadorian rainforest. Each group is fearful about its future. Both have been treated contemptuously.

The oil companies don’t care. Shell can’t wait to begin drilling in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska, an area that would pose monumental problems for anyone trying to deal with a catastrophic spill. The companies pretend that the spills won’t happen. They always say that their drilling operations are safe. They said that before drilling off Santa Barbara, and in the rainforest in Ecuador, and in the Gulf of Mexico, and everywhere else they drill.

Their assurances mean nothing.

President Obama has suspended Shell’s Arctic drilling permits and has temporarily halted the so-called Arctic oil rush. What we’ve learned from the BP debacle in the gulf, and from the rainforest, and so many other places, is just how reckless and inept the oil companies can be when it comes to safeguarding life, limb and the environment.

They’re dangerous. They need the most stringent kind of oversight, and swift and severe sanctions for serious wrongdoing. At the same time, we need to be searching with a much, much greater sense of urgency for viable energy alternatives. Treating the Amazon and the gulf and the Arctic as if they were nothing more than toxic waste sites is an affront to the planet and all life-forms that inhabit it.

Chevron doesn’t believe it should be called to account for any of the sins Texaco may have committed in the Amazon. A spokesman told me that the allegations of environmental damage were wildly overstated and that even if Texaco had caused some pollution, it had cleaned it up and reached an agreement with the Ecuadorian government that precluded further liability.

The indigenous residents may be suffering (they’re in much worse shape than the people on the gulf coast) but the Chevron-Texaco crowd feels real good about itself. The big money was made, and the trash was left behind.
Read source article here.

Our "good neighbors"

While polished executives are getting cozy with your county commission, their companies are practicing a different kind of business.

Good neighbors abound

Well, I found a couple of article worthy of mention today. The first concerns Royal Dutch Shell, a company that has expressed interest in drilling for natural gas here in Mora County. Now, they have this "good neighbor" program that I hear a lot about. It sounds really great until you realize that your neighbor will be a gas well, not the executive telling you about their "good neighbor" program. And then you read articles like this...Personally, if my neighbor sues me to get their way, I will not feel like they are a good neighbor!

Court clears Shell for Sweden gas drilling
Published: 19 Apr 10 14:17 CET

UK-Dutch energy firm Royal Dutch Shell has received the retroactive backing of an environmental court over its test drilling for natural gas in Skåne in southern Sweden.

The court in Växjö has ruled in favour of the energy giant against 15 neighbours of the site in the small community of Ry near Lövestad.

The neighbours had appealed a Skåne county administrative board decision in November, which cleared the way for Shell to prospect for natural gas that it claims could supply Sweden's needs for a decade.

Shell confirmed in a February newsletter that it had completed its test drilling of the site having reached a depth of 950 metres.

"All work in Ry was completed in the beginning of February," the firm confirmed in the statement.

Shell's planned drilling in Skåne, which currently extends to two further sites in Tomelilla and Hörby, has met with opposition from environmental activists concerned over the impact that large scale exploitation could entail.

The Hörby site was sabotaged last Thursday night with damage to fences, electrical cables and tools reported, according to the Sydsvenskan daily. While the police have gathered some clues at the site they have not been able to identify any suspected saboteurs.

A network calling itself Heaven or sHell is among the groups organizing opposition to Shell's plans. The group has the backing of major landowner Carl Piper and was recently awarded the Guldklövern prize by the Centre Party for its work in generating debate over the issue.

The group is lobbying for changes to Swedish minerals legislation that they hope will prevent the continued test drilling. They also complain that the drilling has continued despite a series of appeals.

Shell has been given permission to search for gas in two areas which cover a total of 20 percent of Skåne's surface area over a period of three years.

The Local has made several attempts to contact Shell Sweden on Monday.


This is obviously a world-wide issue. We tend to pay most attention to what is happening in our own backyards, but natural gas production is a process that is impacting vast amounts of the world's population. So on to our next story of the day...

Published in The Green Muze

Ugly Reality of Fracking
Monday, 19 April 2010 Joyce Nelson/Watershed Sentinel

In a telephone interview, Jessica Ernst says she’s “still getting used to” being compared to Erin Brockovich (the environmental activist made famous by Julia Robert’s film portrayal ten years ago). The comparison comes easy because the outspoken Ernst, a landowner in the town of Rosebud, Alberta, is one of the few Albertans who have publicly criticized hydraulic fracturing (called “fracking,” in the trade).

Fracking is a technology used by the oil and gas industry to access “unconventional” natural gas deposits trapped in shale, coalbed, and tight-sand formations – potentially at the expense of underground water supplies.

After her well water was contaminated by nearby fracking in 2006, Ernst decided to go public, showing visiting reporters how she could light her tap water on fire, and speaking out about Alberta land owners’ problems with the industry, especially Calgary-based EnCana. EnCana is Canada’s second biggest energy company (after Suncor) and is now also a major player in British Columbia, with hundreds of natural-gas wells in the province.

Ernst, a biologist and environmental consultant to the oil and gas industry, says EnCana “told us ‘we would never fracture near your water.’ But the company fracked into our aquifer in that same year [2004].” By 2005, she says, “My water began dramatically changing, going bad. I was getting horrible burns and rashes from taking a shower, and then my dogs refused to drink the water. That’s when I began to pay attention.” More than fifteen water-wells had gone bad in the little community.

Tests revealed high levels of ethane, methane, and benzene in Ernst’s water. “EnCana told us they use the same gelled [fracking] fluids as in the States.” Fracking has become a huge controversy in the US, with pending legislation that would impact its regulation.

Ernst says she heard from “at least fifty other landowners the first year” she went public, and she continues to get calls. Groundwater contamination from fracking “is pretty widespread” in Alberta, “but they’re trying to keep it hidden.” Canada has no national water standards and conducts little information gathering about groundwater.

Chromium-6 In The WaterBeing an activist on behalf of her community is not the only connection Ernst has with Brockovich. Through expensive Freedom of Information requests, Ernst obtained post-fracking water well monitoring data that showed the Alberta Environment people had found hexavalent chromium in Rosebud’s well water. “The government hasn’t told this to people” in the hamlet, says Ernst.

Hexavalent chromium, otherwise known as chromium-6, is the extremely toxic substance Brockovich found in the drinking water in Hinkley, California, which led to a major class action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric, which finally paid the plaintiffs more than $200 million (€146M) in 2006.

Ernst, who knows the industry well, says chromium-6 “is used in fracking and drilling.” In an odd coincidence, Erin Brockovich herself is currently involved in investigating a mile-long plume of chromium-6 contamination of drinking water – apparently caused by fracking and drilling – in Midland, Texas. In July 2009, Brockovich investigators told the press they have evidence that hydraulic fracturing specialist Schlumberger is to blame. In the continuing case, Brockovich is representing 40 householders whose water has been contaminated. More>>>

Shell fights shareholders' campaign for oil sands review

Photograph: John Vidal
• Investors table special resolution prior to May meeting
• Campaigners argue project is an environmental liability
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 April 2010 21.29 BST
A group of institutional investors want Shell to review the commerical and environmental viability of its oil sands project.

Shell has dismissed shareholder calls for a review of its controversial oil sands developments.

A group of institutional investors, led by campaign group FairPensions, had tabled a special resolution ahead of the Anglo-Dutch company's annual meeting next month. They want Shell to review the commercial and environmental viability of going ahead with its new projects in Canada's boreal forests.

But the Anglo-Dutch oil company today urged other investors to vote down the resolution. "Whilst the issues raised by the group of shareholders ... are valid and appreciated ... it would set a precedent which, if applied more generally to the company's major investment opportunities, would add unnecessary costs and duplication of effort."

The letter to shareholders, giving notice of the meeting in the Hague on 18 May, added that the company had already provided all the non commercially sensitive information to shareholders about its oil sands projects. BP, whose annual meeting takes place on Thursday, is facing similar pressure from shareholders over its own oil sands activities. More>>>

Exxon, Shell Sign Final Deal for Iraq's West Qurna Oil Field

Jan 25th, 2010 by John Donovan.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
JANUARY 25, 2010

By Hassan Hafidh

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

A consortium made up of Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) finalized a deal in Baghdad Monday to develop the West Qurna phase 1 oil field in southern Iraq, Iraqi oil officials said.

It represents the first time a U.S.-led group has been allowed into Iraq’s oil patch since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Exxon and Shell won the right to develop the field following the country’s first postwar licensing auction held last year. The license to develop the field wasn’t initially awarded in the auction in June, but a deal was reached following subsequent negotiations. More>>>

Shell faces legal fight over Arctic wells

Nick Mathiason guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 January 2010 17.08 GMT
Shell could extract billions of barrels of oils from the US part of the Chukchi Sea if its controversial plans go ahead.

Royal Dutch Shell's controversial plans to drill for billions of barrels of oil in the Arctic's environmentally sensitive frozen waters face a potentially damaging legal challenge.

An alliance of conservation and Alaskan indigenous groups has filed a legal claim to prevent Shell drilling for oil this year in the Arctic Ocean's Chukchi Sea. Two years ago, Shell paid $2.1bn (£1.3bn) to the US government for 275 oil leases there.

The legal claim accuses the US's minerals management service, part of the federal interior department, of waving through permission to allow Shell to drill wells on the basis of an "abbreviated and internal review" of the environmental dangers of exploration.

The US portion of the Chukchi Sea, which separates north-western Alaska from north-eastern Siberia, is believed to hold 15bn barrels of recoverable oil and 76tn cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, according to the interior department.

It is also home to endangered bowhead whales, threatened polar bears and rich and varied fish stock. There are further concerns that more drilling in the region will increase warming in the Arctic, which is heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world.

"Shell's drilling brings with it the risk of large oil spills," said Pamela Miller, Alaska programme director for the Northern Alaska Environmental Center. "Chronic spills are a fact of life from oil and gas operations on Alaska's North Slope, where over 6,000 spills have occurred since 1996, and more than 400 of these took place at offshore oil fields. In the icy conditions of the Arctic Ocean, there is no way to effectively clean up spilled oil."

Shell also needs air emission, oil discharge and marine mammal harassment permits before it can extract oil. Last year, the Anglo-Dutch oil group was forced to scale down oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska amid concerns that oil spillages would cause devastation to marine life.

A Shell spokesman said: "The Chukchi Sea alone could be home to some of the most prolific undiscovered hydrocarbon basins in the US, and we believe those oil and natural gas reserves could play a major role in reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Extensive scientific studies and technological advances demonstrate that we can operate in the Arctic in an environmentally responsible manner; it seems there are groups who are opposed to Arctic exploration, even though it can be done responsibly."

Shell is one of the few companies to have been given permission to drill for Arctic oil. The region may be home to 30% of the planet's undiscovered natural gas reserves and 13% of its undiscovered oil, according to recent findings by the US Geological Survey.

But the issue has become increasingly fraught for environmentalists and, in a further embarrassment to Shell, one of the world's leading marine conservation scientists has resigned from the University of Alaska, claiming he lost state funding partly because of his criticism of Shell's Alaskan activities.

Professor Rick Steiner, who is one of the most respected and outspoken academics on the oil industry's environmental record, claims that the oil industry pays $300m to the University of Alaska – a sum which, he says, compromises its academic integrity. Steiner alleges the university was told by a state environmental funding agency that his stance on oil exploration was "a problem" which led to his grant being withdrawn.
More>>>

Dutch Court to Decide on Shell Lawsuits

Dutch Court to Decide on Shell Lawsuits
Jan 9th, 2010 by John Donovan.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
JANUARY 9, 2010

By SPENCER SWARTZ
LONDON — A Dutch civil court in The Hague is expected to decide Wednesday whether to hear two lawsuits accusing Royal Dutch Shell PLC of failing to properly maintain pipelines.

According to the suits, Shell’s lax maintenance led to spills in late 2005 that eventually ruined some Nigerian fishing areas and farmland.

Last month, the same Dutch court ruled that a similar case against Shell will go to trial starting Feb. 10. The three cases against Shell seek unspecified financial damages and were filed by the U.K. advocacy group, Friends of the Earth, on behalf of Nigerian farmers.

Friends of the Earth thinks the lawsuits have a better chance of succeeding in the Netherlands because of delays in Nigeria’s legal system, said Geert Ritsema, a spokesman for the group.

The suits mark the first time that oil spills in Nigeria have brought Shell before a European court, according to the Anglo-Dutch company. Shell says the cases are without merit because the oil spills happened after Nigerian militants blew up its pipelines.

“Shell has maintained the spills in all three cases were caused by sabotage,” said Shell spokesman Rainer Winzenried. “Our cleanups of the areas in dispute were approved and certified by the relevant Nigerian authorities.”

Mr. Ritsema said he thinks there is enough evidence to show that the Shell oil pipeline spills weren’t the result of sabotage and that Shell took too long to clean up the oil. More>>>