DOCSLIB.ORG

PHILLIPS 66 PROPANE RECOVERY PROJECT Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHILLIPS 66 PROPANE RECOVERY PROJECT Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No PHILLIPS 66 PROPANE RECOVERY PROJECT Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2012072046 County File No. LP12-2073 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development January 2015 PHILLIPS 66 PROPANE RECOVERY PROJECT Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2012072046 County File No. LP12-2073 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development January 2015 Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 120546 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3KLOOLSV3URSDQH5HFRYHU\3URMHFW 5HFLUFXODWHG)LQDO(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW 5HSRUW 5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQWV Page 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 The CEQA Process 1-1 1.2 Public Review and Response to Comments 1-2 1.3 List of Commenters 1-3 1.4 Method of Organization 1-5 2. Master Responses 2-1 2.1 Master Response – Extension of Public Comment Period 2-1 2.2 Piecemealing of the Proposed Project 2-2 2.3 Master Response – Non-CEQA Issues 2-4 2.4 Master Response – Relationship of Crude Feedstocks to the Proposed Project 2-5 2.5 Master Response – Accidents and Hazards 2-7 2.6 Master Response – Cumulative Impacts and Analysis 2-11 3. Responses to Comments 3-1 3.0 Structure of the Comments and Responses 3-1 3.1 Response to Agency Comments 3-1 3.1.1 Letter A1– Responses to Comments from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) 3.1-7 3.1.2 Letter A2 – Responses to Comments from San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 3.1-10 3.1.3 Letter A3 – Responses to Comments from Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 3.1-12 3.1.4 Letter A4 – Responses to Comments from Rodeo-Hercules Fire District 3.1-22 3.1.5 Letter A5 – Responses to Comments from City of San Pablo 3.1-27 3.1.6 Letter A6 – Responses to Comments from City of Berkeley 3.1-30 3.2 Response to Organization Comments 3.2-1 3.2.1 Letter B1 – Responses to Comments from Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardoza 3.2-5 Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project i January 2015 Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page 3. Responses to Comments (continued) 3.2.2 Letter B2 – Responses to Comments from Communities for a Better Environment 3.2-7 3.2.3 Letter B3 – Responses to Comments from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 3.2-10 3.2.4 Letter B4 – Responses to Comments from Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardoza 3.2-14 3.2.5 Letter B5 – Responses to Comments from Benicians for a Healthy and Safe Community 3.2-17 3.2.6 Letter B6 – Responses to Comments from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP 3.2-30 3.2.7 Letter B7 – Responses to Comments from the Sierra Club 3.2-42 3.2.8 Letter B8 – Responses to Comments from Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment 3.2-52 3.2.9 Letter B9 – Responses to Comments from Communities for a Better Environment 3.2-123 3.2.10 Letter B10 – Responses to Comments from Communities for a Better Environment 3.2-154 3.2.11 Letter B11 – Responses to Comments from Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardoza 3.2-242 3.3 Response to Individuals Comments 3.3-1 3.3.1 Letter C1 – Responses to Comments from Chris Lish 3.3-6 3.3.2 Letter C2 – Responses to Comments from James Neu 3.3-15 3.3.3 Letter C3 – Responses to Comments from Madelyn Morton 3.3-22 3.3.4 Letter C4 – Responses to Comments from Catherine DeMartini 3.3-26 3.3.5 Letter C5 – Responses to Comments from Tom 3.3-28 3.3.6 Letter C6– Responses to Comments from Tom 3.3-31 3.3.7 Letter C7 – Responses to Comments from Fred Clerici 3.3-33 3.3.8 Letter C8 – Responses to Comments from Teagan Clive 3.3-38 3.3.9 Letter C9 – Responses to Comments from Elizabeth Genai 3.3-43 3.3.10 Letter C10 – Responses from Carla Garbis 3.3-45 3.3.11 Letter C11 – Responses to Comments from Peter Turner 3.3-47 3.3.12 Letter C12 – Responses to Comments from Charles Davidson 3.3-53 3.4 Response to Public Hearing Comments 3.4-1 3.4.1 Responses to Comments from Roger Lin 3.4-28 3.4.2 Responses to Comments from Jim Neil 3.4-28 3.4.3 Responses to Comments from Bill Pinkham 3.4-28 3.4.4 Responses to Comments from Tom Griffith 3.4-28 3.4.5 Responses to Comments from Nancy Rieser 3.4-29 3.4.6 Responses to Comments from Shoshana Wechsler 3.4-30 3.4.7 Responses to Comments from Jonathan Garrett 3.4-30 3.4.8 Responses to Comments from Madelyn Morton 3.4-30 3.4.9 Responses to Comments from Janet Callaghan 3.4-30 3.4.10 Responses to Comments from Elsa Monroe 3.4-31 3.4.11 Responses to Comments from Ratha Lai 3.4-31 Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project ii January 2015 Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page 3. Responses to Comments (continued) 3.4.12 Responses to Comments from Ethan Buckner 3.4-31 3.4.13 Responses to Comments from Andres Soto 3.4-31 3.4.14 Responses to Comments from Eduardo Martinez 3.4-32 3.4.15 Responses to Comments from Raemona Williams 3.4-32 3.4.16 Responses to Comments from Charles Davidson 3.4-32 3.4.17 Response to Comment Letter from Rodeo Citizens Association 3.4-33 3.4.18 Responses to Comments from Carmen Gray 3.4-34 3.4.19 Responses to Comments from Ed Tannenbaum read by Janet Pygeorge 3.4-35 4. RDEIR Text Revisions 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Text Revisions 4-2 Appendices (provided on CD) A. 2013 Draft EIR and 2013 Final EIR A.1 2013 Draft EIR A.2 2013 Final EIR A.3 2013 Final EIR Appendices B. Recirculated Draft EIR and Appendices B.1 Recirculated Draft EIR B.2 Appendix A, Draft and Final EIR B.3 Appendix B, Air Quality B.4 Appendix C, Special-Status Species List B.5 Appendix D, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program B.6 Appendix E, Documents Submitted Relating to the January 21, 2014 Appeal Hearing before Board of Supervisors C. County Responses to Requests for Extension of Review Period Time D. Attachments to Comment Letters B5, B6, B7, B9, and B11 D.1 B5 from Benicians for a Healthy and Safe Community D.2 B6 from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP D.3 B7 from Sierra Club D.4 B9 from Communities for a Better Environment D.5 B11 from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo E. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project iii January 2015 Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This EIR BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion BPD barrels per day CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CO Carbon Monoxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalents DCD Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR Environmental Impact Report FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report GHG Greenhouse gas emissions HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan HRA Health Risk Assessment ICCTA Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISS Inherently Safer System LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas - (light hydrocarbons) MEIR maximum exposed individual receptor MW Megawatt, a million Watts NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrogen Oxides OTC Once Through Cooling PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PM10 PM less than 10 microns in size PM2.5 PM less than 2.5 microns in size POC Precursor Organic Compounds ppm Parts per million RDEIR Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report RFEIR Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report RFG refinery fuel gas RHFD Rodeo-Hercules Fire District RMP Risk Management Plan or Regional Monitoring Program ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SMF Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPP Steam Power Plant TAC Toxic Air Contaminants ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter of air US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project iv January 2015 Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report CHAPTER 1 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 1.1 The CEQA Process The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended,1 guides the process of environmental review in California. All aspects of the preparation and public review of a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), as well as the subsequent steps to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), are specifically outlined by the CEQA Guidelines.2 This Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report (RFEIR) is the last of multiple steps in the CEQA environmental review process for the Project. This process began in July 2012, when the County issued a Notice of Preparation for the DEIR on July 24, 2012. The DEIR was published on June 10, 2013. The public review and comment period duration for the DEIR began on this date and ended July 25, 2013. A public hearing before the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator took place during this comment period on July 15, 2013. The Contra Costa County Community Development Division granted a 15-day extension of the comment period to August 9, 2013. The FEIR was completed on November 6, 2013 and a public hearing was held by the Contra County Planning Commission on November 19, 2013.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • News: Icsid Tribunal Applies Ad Hoc Approach To
    Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development www.investmenttreatynews.org March 2010 PAGE 1 NEWS: NEWS: ICSID tribunal applies ad ICSID TRIBUNAL APPLIES AD HOC hoc approach to confidentiality in APPROACH TO CONFIDENTIALITY IN arbitral proceeding ARBITRAL PROCEEDING By Ugo Ukpabi* PAGE 2 In Giovanna A Beccara and Others v. the crux of the dispute centered on NEWS: A merits hearing takes place The Argentine Republic a tribunal the appropriate disclosure and use in protracted NAFTA dispute over composed of Pierre Tercier, Georges of personal information relating to US tobacco settlements Abi - Saab, and Albert Jan Van den individual claimants in the case. Berg has decided that questions of PAGE 3 NEWS: Ecuadorians battle Chevron in ICSID arbitrations should be in U.S. court over BIT arbitration confidentiality and transparency “…unless there [is] an in long-running environmental agreement of the [p]arties on damage dispute determined on a case by case basis. the issue of confidentiality/ of Argentina’s response to response PAGE 5 The dispute – one of many arising out transparency, the Tribunal NEWS: Tribunals have been shall decide on the matter constituted in ICSID cases involving to its financial crisis – concerns debt Egypt, Cambodia and Argentina Argentinesecurity issued creditors, by Argentina including and the [questions of confidentiality claimants.held by numerous In late 2001, non-Argentine Argentina and was and transparency] on a case PAGE 6 NEWS: Canadian mining firm by case basis…” accused of links to murder of underunable those to meet bond its instruments.financial obligations As an Disagreements between the parties protester, has Chiapas mine shut alternativeand failed to to pay meeting amounts its obligations owed began in March of 2008 when down under the bond issue, the Argentine Argentina requested production Republic launched an Exchange of certain electronic information PAGE 7 Offer (the “Exchange Offer”).
    [Show full text]
  • July 21, 2016 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-1090
    July 21, 2016 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-1090 Attn: File No. S7-06-16, Docket No. 33-10064, Business and Financial Disclosure Required by Regulation S-K The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law,1 University of Chicago Abrams Environmental Law Clinic,2 and Oceana3 respectfully submit these comments in response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s “concept release” on business and financial disclosures. Specifically, in response to the SEC’s question about increasing environmental disclosures,4 these comments advocate for either new rules or an interpretive release with guidance clarifying the disclosure requirements around the risks from offshore oil and gas operations, particularly in frontier areas like ultra-deepwater and the Arctic Ocean. The SEC is tasked with the tripartite mission of protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation.5 In pursuit of that mission, the SEC requires certain mandatory disclosures by issuers of securities. This disclosure regime is driven by the concept that all investors should have access to certain facts about an investment.6 The disclosure of meaningful information to the public creates a common pool of knowledge that investors may use to evaluate for themselves whether to buy, sell, or hold a particular security.7 With changing 1 Policy Integrity is a non-partisan think tank dedicated to improving the quality of government decision-making through advocacy and scholarship in the fields of administrative law, cost-benefit analysis, and public policy. These comments do not necessarily reflect the views of NYU School of Law, if any.
    [Show full text]
  • OPEC: Its Role and Influence Since 1960
    OPEC: Its Role and Influence since 1960 Prof. Dr J. Clifford Jones Download free books at Dr J. Clifford Jones OPEC: Its Role and Influence since 1960 2 Download free eBooks at bookboon.com OPEC: Its Role and Influence since 1960 1st edition © 2014 Dr J. Clifford Jones & bookboon.com ISBN 978-87-403-0748-1 3 Download free eBooks at bookboon.com Dedicated to the memory of: Anne Gray (Forshaw) 1936–2012 whose presence brought warmth to so many. 4 Download free eBooks at bookboon.com OPEC: Its Role and Influence since 1960 Contents Contents Preface 8 1 The origins of OPEC and its primary aims 9 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 Oil production in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in 1960 9 1.3 The OPEC conference in 1960 10 1.4 Other early OPEC conferences 11 1.5 Further information 13 1.6 The OPEC basket price 14 1.7 References 15 2 Entrants to OPEC after 1965 17 2.1 Algeria, entered 1969 17 2.2 Nigeria, entered 1971 19 2.3 Ecuador joined 1973, withdrew 1992, rejoined 2007 20 5 Click on the ad to read more Download free eBooks at bookboon.com OPEC: Its Role and Influence since 1960 Contents 2.4 Gabon, entered 1975, withdrew 1996 21 2.5 Angola, joined 2007 23 2.6 Further information 24 2.7 References 24 3 Production quotas 26 3.1 Background 26 3.2 Iran 26 3.3 Kuwait 27 3.4 Venezuela 27 3.5 Saudi Arabia 29 360° 3.6 Iraq 29 3.7 Qatar 31 3.8 Libya 33 thinking 3.9 Indonesia 360° 33 .
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Chevron Ecuador Litigation: the Proposed Intervenors’ Perspective
    KIMERLING_FINAL_VOL.1.2.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 10/14/13 6:46 PM LESSONS FROM THE CHEVRON ECUADOR LITIGATION: THE PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ PERSPECTIVE Judith Kimerling* INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 241 I. APPLICATION OF THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE BY THE AGUINDA V. TEXACO COURT .............................................................................. 245 II. THE HUAORANI AND TEXACO ........................................................................... 261 III. THE LAGO AGRIO LAWSUIT AND RELATED LITIGATION ................................... 271 CONCLUSION AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................... 291 INTRODUCTION This symposium provides a welcome opportunity for scholars and practitioners with a wide range of perspectives to examine issues raised by the increasingly complex litigation related to Texaco’s oil extraction operations in the Amazon Rainforest in Ecuador. I have worked in the affected region since 1989, and my original research was the basis for the environmental allegations in the initial class action lawsuit that launched the ongoing litigation that has come to be known as “the Chevron-Ecuador Litigation.” That lawsuit, Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., was filed in federal court in New York in 1993, and asserted claims on behalf of Indigenous and settler residents who have been harmed by pollution from Texaco’s Ecuador operations. I was not involved in bringing either that case or the subsequent
    [Show full text]
  • Harmonizing Forum Non Conveniens and Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Through International Arbitration
    Emory International Law Review Volume 29 Issue 2 Theme Issue: Women in International Law 2014 Harmonizing Forum Non Conveniens and Foreign Money Judgment Recognition through International Arbitration Jungmoo Lee Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr Recommended Citation Jungmoo Lee, Harmonizing Forum Non Conveniens and Foreign Money Judgment Recognition through International Arbitration, 29 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 451 (2014). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol29/iss2/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory International Law Review by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEE GALLEYSPROOFS2 11/18/2014 1:17 PM HARMONIZING FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENT RECOGNITION THROUGH INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION INTRODUCTION Picture this: A defendant argues that a dispute should be taken abroad. The plaintiff responds and pleads that the available foreign court is riddled with fraud and begs to keep the case in the United States. Fast forward twelve years. The defendant having successfully taken the claim abroad now claims that the judgment from the very same court that it advocated for is “a product of bribery, fraud and is illegitimate” and that the “judgment is [not] enforceable in any court that observes the rule of law.”1 The plaintiff, on the other hand, vehemently defends the judgment of the foreign court, stating that the ruling “marks the first time indigenous people have won a judgment against a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Peoples and the Oil Frontier in Amazonia: the Case of Ecuador, Chevrontexaco, and Aguinda V
    \\server05\productn\N\NYI\38-3\NYI301.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-NOV-06 13:23 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THE OIL FRONTIER IN AMAZONIA: THE CASE OF ECUADOR, CHEVRONTEXACO, AND AGUINDA V. TEXACO* JUDITH KIMERLING** I. Introduction.................................... 414 R II. Governments and Policy in Ecuador ............ 417 R A. Government Instability and Petroleum Politics ... 417 R B. Amazon Policy and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ...................................... 426 R C. Environmental Protection Policy ................ 433 R III. Texaco’s Operations and Impact ............... 449 R IV. Environmental Audit ........................... 468 R V. Aguinda v. Texaco: “The Rainforest Indians’ Lawsuit” in Texaco’s Homeland ................ 474 R * In addition to the sources cited infra, this Article draws on the author’s observations during regular visits since 1989 to oil field facilities and affected communities in Ecuador’s Amazon region; participation in local, national, and international fora; and interviews and ongoing dialogue with local residents, oil company workers and executives, and governmental officials, including environment officials in successive Ecuadorian governments and some U.S. and European officials. ** Associate Professor of Law and Policy, The City University of New York, Queens College and School of Law; J.D., Yale Law School, 1982; B.A., University of Michigan, 1978. The author has worked on issues discussed in this Article in various capacities since 1989 and participated in some of the events reported herein. At the time this Article was written, she served as the international representative of thirty-one indigenous Kichwa and Huaorani communities who came together in the wake of the dismissal of Aguinda v. Texaco to take legal action to remedy environmental and social injuries caused by Texaco’s operations in Ecuador and was accompanying them in a lawsuit against ChevronTexaco Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Claimants' Memorial on the Merits
    IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW ________________________________________________________________________ CHEVRON CORPORATION and TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, CLAIMANTS, v. THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, RESPONDENT. ________________________________________________________________________ CLAIMANTS’ MEMORIAL ON THE MERITS ________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................... 12 A. TexPet’s Operations in Ecuador ........................................................................... 12 1. The TexPet-Petroecuador Consortium...................................................... 12 2. Ecuador’s Control over the Consortium ................................................... 15 3. The Consortium’s Operations................................................................... 17 4. TexPet’s Operations Complied with Then-Prevailing Industry Standards................................................................................................... 20 5. The Government Required TexPet to Build Public Infrastructure ........... 23 B. Post-Consortium Negotiations and Environmental Audits................................... 26 1. HBT AGRA’s Audit ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dark Sound Mikel R
    Dark Sound Mikel R. Nieto Dark Sound | Mikel R. Nieto Field Recording Series by Gruenrekorder Germany / 2016 / Gruen 167 / LC 09488 / EAN 4050486956762 ISBN 978-3-00-052370-0 Depósito Legal: SS230-2016 Rebisioak / Revisiones / Revision: Illart Alkorta & Blanca Rego Tradukzioak / Traducciones / Translations: 11itzulpen Diseinua / Diseño / Design: Sonia Ciriza Imprimatzailea / Imprenta / Printed in: Leitzarán Grafikak, S.L. Papera / Papel / Paper: Dark Beltz / Negro / Black polycarbonate CD Azken edizioa, masterizazioa eta karbono aztarna Irlandatik Slavek Kwi-k, 2016ko Otsaila Edición final, masterizado y huella de carbono desde Irlanda por Slavek Kwi, Febrero 2016 Final editing, mastering and carbon print from Ireland by Slavek Kwi, February 2016 Eusko Jaurlaritzak emandako laguntzari esker gauzatu ahal izan da argitalpen hau, Arte Plastikoen eta Ikusizkoen eremuko jarduerak sustatzeko eta garatzeko diru-laguntzen programaren barruan, argitalpenen modalitatean (2015). Esta publicación ha sido posible gracias al apoyo del Gobierno Vasco, dentro del programa de Subvenciones para el fomento y desarrollo de actividades en el área de las Artes Plásticas y Visuales, en la modalidad de publicaciones (2015). This publication has been possible thanks to the support of the Basque Government as part of its programme of grants for the encouragement and development of plastic and visual arts, in the publications category (2015). Liburu hau erostean, planeta suntsitzen laguntzen ari zara. Brent petrolio-upelak (LCO) ezartzen du liburu honen prezioa. Con la compra de este libro estás colaborando con la destrucción del planeta. El precio de este libro lo establece la cotización del barril de petróleo Brent (LCO). By buying this book you are contributing to the destruction of the planet.
    [Show full text]
  • Amazon Awakening American Oil, Rainforest
    From: Steven Donziger [[email protected] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:04 PM To: David Kuhn Subject: Book Proposal attached Attachments: kuhn Itr1S.doc; Chapter Outline2.doc; Characters.doc Let me know what you think ... I am certainly willing to do another draft, so do not hesitate to come back at me. Tks, SRD Steven Danziger 212-570-4499 (land) 212-570-9944 (fax) 917-566-2526 (cell) Steven R. Donziger Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, P.C. 245 W. 104th St., #5 New York, New York 10025 Email: [email protected] PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 806# 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK) DONZ00006706 Page 1 of 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 806# p. 1 of 40 Amazon Awakening American Oil, Rainforest Indians, and the Epic Legal Battle of Our Time By Steven R. Donziger Summary I propose a book, Amazon Awakening, documenting one of the epic environmental battles of contemporary times -- one that traverses two continents, pits indigenous groups in a remote part of Ecuador's Amazon rainforest against a giant American oil company, spans four decades, has billions of dollars in play in a high-stakes trial, involves a team of highly dedicated American lawyers including myself, and could end up saving the lives of thousands of rainforest dwellers. The battle is over who is responsible for the $6 billion clean-up of what experts believe is the worst oil contamination on the planet, created deliberately by Texaco (now Chevron) in Ecuador's rainforest from 1964 to 1992 to save a few cents on the barrel. This contamination is thirty times larger than the spill produced by the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • The Texaco-Chevron Case in Ecuador Fact Sheet 042
    August 02, 2015 - Page 1 EJOLT The Texaco-Chevron Case in Ecuador Fact sheet 042 Fossil Fuels & 1. Factual background Climate Justice/ Energy Texaco-Gulf operated in Ecuador for almost thirty years, between 1964 and Keywords – title 1992, in the Ecuadorian Amazon region. 1 The Ecuadorian state’s original > Texaco-Chevron concession to the Texaco-Gulf > Ecuador Amazon consortium included 1,500,000 hectares for petroleum exploration and > Oil spill exploitation. 2 However, on 4 August > Oil extraction 1973, the state signed a new contract > Texaco suit with the petroleum companies limiting the area of the concession to 491,355 ha. During this period, Texaco drilled 339 wells in 15 petroleum fields and 627 Map of Ecuador toxic wastewater pits were abandoned, http://www.sarayaku.com/mapa_sarayaku.jpg along with other elements of petroleum infrastructure. Moreover, obsolete and been presented during the legal process highly polluting technologies were used in Ecuador. Some highlights of these during these years of exploitation. The include: deforestation of 2,000,000 hectares of - Higher levels of child malnutrition land is attributed to petroleum operations (43%) compared to the population living in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, as in areas removed from the petroleum well as massive water contamination activities (21.5%), with an infant mortality with toxic substances and heavy metals. rate of 143/1,000 births. The wastes derived from petroleum - The primary cause of death in the operations and accidental crude oil spills area is cancer, at 32% of total deaths, © 2004 Lou Dematteis – Gas have had a major effect on forests, three times higher than Ecuador’s burning outside the town of rivers, and estuaries: national average of deaths by cancer Shushufindi “It has also been estimated that the (12%) and four to five times higher than company deliberately dumped tons of in Orellana (7.9%) and Sucumbíos 1 Fajardo, Pablo and de Heredia, María toxic drilling and maintenance wastes (5.6%).
    [Show full text]
  • Transnational Operations, Bi-National Injustice: Chevrontexaco and Indigenous Huaorani and Kichwa in the Amazon Rainforest in Ecuador
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research CUNY School of Law 2007 Transnational Operations, Bi-National Injustice: Chevrontexaco and Indigenous Huaorani and Kichwa in the Amazon Rainforest in Ecuador Judith Kimerling CUNY School of Law How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cl_pubs/160 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] TRANSNATIONAL OPERATIONS, BI-NATIONAL INJUSTICE: CHEVRONTEXACO AND INDIGENOUS HUAORANI AND KICHWA IN THE AMAZON RAINFOREST IN ECUADOR Judith Kimerling" Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................ 445 II. Background: Governments and Policy in Ecuador ............. 447 III. Texaco's Operations and the Affected Peoples ............... 457 IV. Aguinda v. Texaco ..................................... 463 V. In The Wake of Aguinda: Indigenous Kichwa and Huaorani Unite to Protect and Assert Their Claims ....................... 475 VI. Outside Court and Other Courts ........................... 483 VII. Conclusion and Recommendations ........................ 503 L Introduction In 1967, a consortium of foreign companies (wholly owned subsidiaries of Texaco and Gulf Oil, both now part of Chevron Corporation), struck oil in the Amazon Rainforest in Ecuador. The discovery was heralded as the salvation of Ecuador's economy, the product that would pull the nation out © 2007 Judith Kimerling * Associate Professor of Law and Policy, The City University of New York, Queens College and School of Law. J.D., 1982, Yale Law School; B.A., 1978, University of Michigan. The author has worked on issues discussed in this article in various capacities since 1989 and participated in some of the events reported herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Law and Global Political Economy
    STREAM READINGS PRIVATE LAW AND GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY IGLP SCHOLARS WORKSHOP | BANGKOK, THAILAND | JANUARY 7 - 11, 2018 OVERVIEW Private Law and Global Political Economy Faculty • Jorge Esquirol (United States) Florida International University • Horatia Muir Watt (France) Sciences Po Law School • Robert Wai (Canada) Osgoode Hall Law School Description This stream will examine the role of private law – both nationally and transnationally – in structuring global political and economic affairs. We are particularly interested in the political choices embedded in private law regimes as they affect inequality and opportunities for development. We will also consider the relationship between formal or official entitlement schemes and the unofficial and often informal world of customary law and social norms for the economic life of both the global poor and the global elite. STREAM READING | OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS Private Law and Global Political Economy Source Location Hale, R., ‘Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State’, Political Science Pages 1-4 Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1923, pp. 470-494 (excerpts). Fitzpatrick, P., ‘Marxism and Legal Pluralism’, Australian Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 1, No. Pages 5-12 2, 1983, pp. 45-59. The Song Mao Case Study – UK High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Page 13 Court), Song Mao v. Tate & Lyle Industry Limited and T & L Sugars Limited. Ferrando, T., Land and Territory in Global Production: A Critical Legal Chain Analysis, Doctoral Pages 14-22 Dissertation, 2015 (excerpts). The Lago Agrio Litigation – Original Case: Court of Sucumbíos, Lago Agrio (Judgment of 14 Pages 23-32 February 2011). Then: UNCITRAL Arb., Chevron Corp.
    [Show full text]