The Government of Ecuador launched an international campaign called "The Dirty Hand of Chevron" to defend itself against smear campaigns by Chevron-Texaco over environmental damage caused by the company in Ecuador. Chevron-Texaco operated in Ecuador from 1964-1990, extracting millions of barrels of oil without proper waste disposal techniques, causing serious pollution of the Amazon region. Despite this, Chevron-Texaco refuses to acknowledge responsibility and tries to blame the Ecuadorian state. Affected citizens have sued Chevron-Texaco, with the court ruling in 2011 that Chevron must pay $9.6 billion for damages, later increased to $19 billion which Chevron refuses to pay. Chevron is also suing Ecuador over

2. Introduction
The Government of the Republic of Ecuador decided to start an
international campaign, “The Dirty Hand of Chevron”, to defend
itself against the smear campaign that was initiated by the
multinational Chevron-Texaco corporation against Ecuador.
Chevron-Texaco operated in Ecuador from 1964 until 1990 and
extracted millions of barrels of oil without having applied the
techniques they agreed upon in the operating agreement for the
preservation of nature. This caused serious environmental disasters.
It left a trail of immeasurable contamination in the vast Amazon
region that up until now is still visible.
But Chevron-Texaco still refuses to acknowledge its responsibility
and even tries to blame the Ecuadorian State

3. Introduction
In the light of the multimillion-dollar campaign of ChevronTexaco to discredit the Ecuadorian State by all possible
means, the Government of the Citizen’s Revolution calls upon
the international community, States and journalists who seek
the truth, the intellectuals, all personalities, human rights
defenders and simple citizens and citizens of the world:To
come and see the TRUTH here in Ecuador!
To let the world know the TRUTH!

4. Texaco’s presence in Ecuador
•
1964: the Government of the Republic of Ecuador signs a concession agreement
with Texaco granting the company the right to explore for and produce oil in the
Amazon region. Texaco assigned half of its interests to the Ecuadorian Gulf Oil
company, creating a consortium in which Texaco is the sole operator of oil
operation and exploitation.
•
1967: The Texaco-Gulf Oil consortium drills the first commercial well in the
Ecuadorian Amazon.
•
February, 1972: the General Guillermo Rodríguez Lara regime establishes the
Ecuadorian State Petroleum Corporation (Corporación Estatal Petrolera
Ecuatoriana—CEPE) to buy the majority stake of the Texaco-Gulf consortium.

5. Texaco’s presence in Ecuador
•
1973: Texaco and Gulf celebrate a new concession agreement with Ecuador,
through CEPE, the government corporation that was created in 1971. CEPE
acquires 25% of the consortium and subsequently buys the interests of Gulf,
acquiring 62, 5% of the consortium. Texaco is, however, still the sole operator of
oil operation and exploitation of the consortium.
•
1990: Petroecuador (new name for CEPE) takes over as consortium operator
because the parties failed to reach an agreement to extend the term of the 1973
Agreement of which the expiration date was set for June the 6th, 1992.

6. What you need to know about
Texaco’s presence
Article 46 of the exploitation agreement signed by Texaco and Ecuador’s
state oil company clearly stipulated that the multinational company
committed itself to using technologies with safe reinjection systems of toxic
waste in the subsurface.
Despite this, though they used patented technologies that met these
requirements in the United States, they never used them in Ecuador. In our
country Texaco decided to use outdated techniques in order to have higher
profits.
The result: Texaco drilled and operated 356 oil wells and opened 1.000 pits
without any type of recoating. Texaco threw all kinds of waste, mainly oil, drilling
mud and toxic water into them, which caused immeasurable environmental
damage and deteriorated the quality of life of the communities. Altogether they
are responsible for spilling no less than 71 million of liters of waste oil and 64
millions of liters of crude oil on more than 2 million hectares of the Ecuadorian
Amazon.
6

7. Texaco leaves Ecuador
• 1992: Texaco leaves Ecuador (it no longer has assets in the country )
• 1995: Texaco signs a Remedial Action Plan that says that they commit
themselves to cleaning 162 pools
• 1998: The government of Jamil Mahuad signs a Deed of Settlement that
releases Texaco from any claim of the Ecuadorian State after Texaco’s
“environmental remediation”.
• 2001: Chevron (the second largest oil company in the United States and
the seventh largest of the world) engulfs Texaco knowing that it is being
sued by affected Ecuadorian citizens.

8. Texaco failed to meet its obligations of
environmental remediation
The US Company did not apply any effective remediation techniques, not
even for the 162 pools that they promised to clean.
The “remediation” technique applied by the Company consisted in covering
hundreds of pools of toxic waste, product of the extractive activities, with a
superficial layer and leaving them in the same pollutant state as before.
The Deed of Settlement signed by the Ecuadorian State considered the
relationship between the State and Texaco as finalized. Not concerned at all
with the Amazon communities and it was not a waiver on behalf of the third
parties, as confirmed by the Court of Arbitration constituted under the
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

9. Affected citizens
versus Chevron-Texaco

The Aguinda case : in 1993, a citizen of the affected indigenous communities
demands, the remediation of the environmental damage caused by Texaco in the Oriente
region, in eastern Ecuador, before the Courts of New York. From that moment on Texaco has
done everything in its power to move the trial to Ecuador and finally obtained what it
wanted: the Courts of New York decided that it should be the Ecuadorian court who deals
with this matter because they are acquainted with the process.
To achieve this, Texaco promised to
respect the decision of the
Ecuadorian court, describing it as
suitable and capable to know about
the case.

10. Affected citizens
versus Chevron-Texaco

The Lago Agrio case: citizens of the same indigenous communities sue ChevronTexaco, before the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos in 2003. The first instance ended
in 2011 with a verdict in favor of those affected. The Ecuadorian court sentenced Chevron to
pay $ 9,6 billion and to apology in public within the next two weeks. Otherwise, the amount
would be doubled. Chevron refused to do so, which led to the ratification of the sentence
and the multinational was obliged to pay $ 19 billion.
The judicial sentence was
ratified under appeal and is
currently pending on cassation
appeal before the National
Court of Justice of Ecuador. So
strictly speaking, the process is
not over yet.

11. Affected citizens
versus Chevron-Texaco
• The RICO case:
Chevron sues the defenders of the Amazon Defense Coalition under
the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) before the Federal Court of
New York in 2010, claiming that the plaintiffs are part of a criminal organization whose
business is to extort the company…
This is what Chevron, within the
framework of its social media
campaign, calls
“The Fraud of the Century”.
• This October 15th the judicial process begins before the Federal Court of New York.

12. Chevron-Texaco versus the Ecuadorian
State: The “Chevron I” case
• The case: In 2004, Chevron-Texaco initiates an arbitration process in New
York against PETROECUADOR based on two clauses of the Joint Operating
Agreement (JOA) signed in 1965 by Gulf and Texaco: an arbitration clause and an
indemnity clause which required the non-operating parties of the JOA to
indemnify the operator for any sentence rendered against him related to the
developed activities.
In 2009 a New York federal judge
accepts the position of the Ecuadorian
State that Petroecuador was not obliged
to attend an arbitration initiated by
Chevron- Texaco.
• The case is closed.

13. Chevron-Texaco versus the Ecuadorian
State: The “Chevron II” case
• The case: In 2006, Chevron-Texaco initiates an arbitration process against the
•
•
Ecuadorian Sate before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague based on:
-the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPA) between Ecuador and
the United States
-7 commercial lawsuits initiated by Texaco against Ecuador before Ecuador`s National Court in
the early nineties that remained unsettled, which establishes this as an alleged case of
“undue delay” in the Administration of Justice under International Law.
• The current situation of the case : the Court assumed jurisdiction and
ordered the State of Ecuador to pay the sum of $ 96 million for the violation of Article II (7)
of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), signed between Ecuador and the United States, for
not having granted the Chevron-Texaco Corporation any effective means to resolve its
disputes.
Ecuador has filed a nullity action
against the decision.

14. The “Chevron II” case:
what you need to know
The BIT between Ecuador and the United States was signed in 1993 and took
effect in 1997 or in other words, five years after Texaco’s investments in the
country. Assuming jurisdiction based on this BIT is a retroactive action.
The BIT between Ecuador and the United States does not include any
retroactive clauses.
The fact that the lawsuits of Texaco remained unsettled before the Courts
until 2006 proves that Texaco had not taken the necessary steps to settle
them (they did not send the documents that the Courts were asking for).

15. Chevron-Texaco versus the Ecuadorian
State: The “Chevron III” case
• The case: In 2009
, Chevron-Texaco sues the Ecuadorian State before
the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague to manifest:
- that Ecuador breached the BIT with the US (again)
- that Chevron-Texaco is not responsible for the environmental damage caused in
the Amazon region but that it is Petroecuador who is responsible for this, which is
why the Ecuadorian State has to pay the amount of the sentence of the Lago Agrio trial
- that Chevron is not responsible for the environmental damage caused in the
Amazon after their operation in Ecuador since it has been released by the 1998 Deed of
Settlement
-that Chevron-Texaco should be morally compensated!
Chevron spends hundreds of dollars
on their smear campaign against
Ecuador to evade its responsibility and
we would have to pay those campaign
expenses!

16. Chevron-Texaco versus the Ecuadorian
State: The “Chevron III” case
• The current situation of the case: The Court has assumed
jurisdiction under the BIT but is still evaluating whether or not it has jurisdiction.
On September the 17th the Court declared that it has not released Chevron-Texaco
of its responsibility towards the citizens of Ecuador.
Meanwhile, the Court ordered Ecuador to take “all available steps to suspend the
enforcement or recognition of any sentences against Chevron in the Lago Agrio
case in Ecuador and abroad” and condemns the Ecuadorian State not to execute
this measure.
The Ecuadorian State cannot do this! We are
a Government ruled by Law; there is a clear
separation between State powers. The
sentence is being executed since October the
17th with the royalties of the Chevron brands.

17. The “Chevron III” case:
what you need to know
The BIT between Ecuador and the United States was signed in 1993 and took effect in
1997 or in other words, five years after Texaco’s investments in the country. Assuming
jurisdiction based on this BIT is a retroactive action and this BIT does not include any
retroactive clauses.
Texaco is responsible for the contamination and not Petroecuador. There are plenty of witnesses and
evidence. In fact:
- the citizens of the indigenous communities have never filed lawsuit against Petroecuador
which they did do against Chevron-Texaco.
- no court decision has determined the responsibility of Petroecuador, but there is,
however, a court decision that determines the responsibility of Chevron Texaco.
- there are pools that have never been exploited by Petroecuador that are still
contaminated. People all over the world were able to see this due to “The Dirty Hand of
Chevron” campaign.
Chevron-Texaco has never been released from its responsibility towards
the affected citizens, which was confirmed by the Court’s decision on
September the 17th.

18. Chevron’s smear campaign
and the TRUTH (1)
CHEVRON CONSISTENTLY LIES ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY FOR THE AFFECTED
CITIZENS TO SUE THEM
• Chevron says: “The authorities of the Republic of Ecuador approved the
remediation and released Texaco of any past and future environmental
responsibility.”
• It’s a lie! Texaco was never released of its past and future environmental
responsibility”. In 1998, the government of Jamil Mahuad signed a Deed
of Settlement releasing Texaco from any claims from the Ecuadorian State
but not from those presented by the people. The Deed of Settlement
considered the relationship between the State and Texaco as finalized. Not
concerned at all with the Amazon communities and it was not a waiver on
behalf of the third parties. In fact, it is the Amazon Defense Coalition, a
group of affected communities in the Amazon who is suing Chevron, not
the government.

19. Chevron’s smear campaign
and the TRUTH (2)
CHEVRON CONSISTENTLY LIES ABOUT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE IT CAUSED
•
•
Chevron says: “President Correa provided a distorted and inaccurate account of
the history of these oil fields and who is responsible for any environmental
impact.”
It’s a lie! Texaco was the sole operator of oil exploitation in the Amazon region
until 1990. It carelessly poured formation water (with oil residues) into the
Amazon region. It clearly had to undertake remediation of the environmental
catastrophe that was caused due to its actions. Chevron-Texaco is obviously
responsible for the environmental damage caused in the region. There are plenty
of witnesses and evidence. Until today, people still find pools that have
been kept hidden by Chevron-Texaco instead of performing the
environmental remediation that it was obliged to do.

20. Chevron’s smear campaign
and the TRUTH (2)
•
•
•
•
Chevron says: “Any environmental impact on the extinct consortium area is
exclusive to Petroecuador, which for more than 20 years, continues to operate
here”
It’s a lie! Texaco drilled and operated 356 oil wells and opened 1.000 pits without
any type of recoating. Texaco threw all kinds of waste in them, which caused
immeasurable environmental damage. The US Company did not apply any effective
remediation techniques, not even for the 162 pools that they promised to clean. The
damage is still visible, as shown by President Correa, who put his hand into well AG-4
on Tuesday, September 17.
Chevron says: “Any environmental impact in the region is the sole and full
responsibility of Petroecuador, a fact that the authorities of Ecuador have
recognized publicly and privately on several occasions”
It’s a lie! The authorities of Ecuador have never “admitted” such a thing. It is a
distortion of the facts. The contamination denied by Chevron is a direct result of
Texaco’s oil exploitation and of a poor remediation technique, which is far from
fulfilling its objective and continues to harm the people and the environment.

21. Chevron’s smear campaign
and the TRUTH (3)
CHEVRON CONSISTENTLY LIES SAYING THAT THE ECUADORIAN STATE
INTERFERES IN THE LAGO AGRIO CASE
•
Chevron says: “President Correa decided to interfere once again in the Chevron case,
despite the cassation appeal filed by the Company before the National Court of Justice”
•
It’s a lie! President Correa is not interfering in the Lago Agrio case (the case Chevron refers
to when they talk about appeal in cassation) and has never done or is able to do so because
in Ecuador there is a clear separation between State powers. He visited the region to check
the environmental damage of which the existence has been denied by Chevron and who
wants to blame the state company Petroecuador. This does not prove at all that the executive
interferes in the Ecuadorian judiciary.

22. Chevron’s smear campaign
and the TRUTH (4)
•
Chevron says: “The interference of the Ecuadorian government in the trial against Chevron
has been evident”
•
It`s a lie! The President decided to listen to the concerns of the affected citizens. But this is
no evidence of interference in the judiciary. In fact, the representatives of previous
governments held eleven official meetings with representatives of Chevron. These
interviews were assisted by, not one but two Presidents, a Vice President, two ministers of
Energy, an Interior minister and an Attorney. But they never talked about “interference in the
trial”. The double standard is obvious.

23. Come and see the environmental damage of
Chevron-Texaco with your own eyes
Denounce lies and ask for truth to those who lie
Let the world know the TRUTH!