[useragent86]

So in your previous comment, you lied:

> Not to worry about Chevron, because they did not give a single cent of the 9.5B$ to the Ecuador government, or indigenous communities who got toxic waste dumped in their drinking water, or Ecuadorians who discovered oil pools on their property. 30'000 people are represented in that case, with 1000 separate complaints.

Then LurkingPenguin corrected your misinformation:

> Chevron was in Ecuador through a subsidiary that had a partnership with Ecuador's state-owned oil company, which owned the majority (62.5%) of the partnership. Chevron's subsidiary completed environmental remediation required by the Ecuadorian government and signed a settlement agreement with the government in 1995 releasing it from all environmental claims.

Then you replied without admitting your false statement, and his comment remains downvoted.

This whole discussion is a prime example of how unfair and biased most people are. It's a wonder any semblance of justice is ever done in this world.

[mrpopo]

Where did I lie?

This is what Chevron-owned Texaco has done in the 90's :

> Chevron has argued that Texaco spent $40m ($31m) cleaning up the area during the 1990s, and signed an agreement with Ecuador in 1998 absolving it of any further responsibility.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45455984

This is the real corruption here. No way to make a thorough clean-up of 16 billion gallons of toxic waste water with that amount of money, let alone compensate the victims. Do you think this is justice? Do you think this agreement didn't deserve to be overturned? Is that what you're defending? Meanwhile Chevron's lawsuit against Donzinger ended up in a several million dollars fine against a single individual.

Indeed, it's a wonder any semblance of justice is ever done in this world.

[LurkingPenguin]

> This is the real corruption here. No way to make a thorough clean-up of 16 billion liters of toxic waste water with that amount of money, let alone compensate the victims. Do you think this is justice? Do you think this agreement didn't deserve to be overturned?

This is how things work in banana republics. The state sacrifices the health of its citizens for the gain of the state, which basically operates for the benefit of the political elites.

State-owned oil companies partner with oil majors, usually because they lack the expertise and capital to exploit their own resources.

In this case, the state-owned oil company owned 62.5% of the consortium. When Chevron's subsidiary exited, it made an agreement with Ecuador under which Chevron's subsidiary performed the environmental remediation the state required and was released from future environmental claims.

This is really straightforward legally. There is no legitimate legal basis for this agreement to be overturned, which is why multiple courts have refused to recognize the judgment, and why multiple countries, including Canada, Argentina and Brazil, have refused to allow collection of Chevron assets in their countries upon this judgment.

If international law allowed corrupt courts to overturn valid legal agreements for any reason, or no reason, it would threaten the stability of the global economy and the economies of banana republics like Ecuador would be even more avoided than they already are, which would also hurt the Ecuadorian people.

The Ecuadorian people affected by this situation should first and foremost be angry at their corrupt government.

> Meanwhile Chevron's lawsuit against Donzinger ended up in a several million dollars fine for a single individual.

Because the court found that he used illegal tactics (fraud, bribery, etc.) to obtain a judgment in Ecuador. Injustice, real or perceived, does not make another injustice permissible.

[modo_mario]

>Because the court found that he used illegal tactics (fraud, bribery, etc.) to obtain a judgment in Ecuador. Injustice, real or perceived, does not make another injustice permissible.

Are you saying there's been lied about the various contacts chevron had with this witness and about him admitting to falsification of his testimony?