P. 1
The True Cost of Chevron

The True Cost of Chevron

|Views: 26|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Gulf Restoration Network on Jul 16, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





LEFT: In the heart of Manila, Pandacan residents live side-by-side with a massive depot and fueling stations RIGHT: Pandacan Depot
on the banks of the Pasig River





Chevron Alternative 2008 Annual Report 39

In March 2009, members of the Manila City Council
wrote an ordinance that, if passed, could allow the oil depot’s
continued stay. The proposed ordinance was written without
consultation of residents. Community groups including AESJ
have fled a complaint. 251

Chevron fails to meet existing legisla-
tion or to address the serious concerns of residents for their
safety and survival.

What Chevron Says

Mark Quebral, Chevron Philippine Inc.’s Manager for
Policy, Government, and Foreign Affairs, calls Pandacan the
“energy lifeline” of Manila and the country. In response to
letters of concern sent by FACES, Randy Johnson, Country
Chairman of the Philippines, wrote: “At Chevron, it is a core
belief that our long-term success is largely dependent on the
overall well-being of the communities where we operate...Chev-
ron Philippines, Inc. places the highest importance to the safety,
security, and environmental aspects in our business operations.
The Pandacan Terminal has operated more than 80 years safely
and without signifcant incident...Adequate internal security
measures are well in place at the Pandacan Terminal.”252

What Community Groups Want

For years, community members have demanded relocation
of the depot. “We ask that Chevron and the other oil compa-
nies implement the Supreme Court decision without delay,
and take away the constant shadow of a holocaust,” says Sixto
Carlos, community activist. Community members advocate for
a speedy but also thoughtful relocation and do not want simply
construction of “another Pandacan” that endangers another

Residents and stakeholders ask to be included in an in-
formed decision-making process. Chevron and its partners must
include health studies and proper environmental remediation,
ensuring that all toxic contamination of soil, water, land, and
permanent structures are cleaned up to standards appropriate
for commercial use. A relocation plan must ensure economic
redevelopment that benefts residents, brings alternative liveli-
hood jobs and affordable housing to the site, and protects the

2003 air monitoring samples found alarming levels of ben-
zene, a known carcinogen, in the air.244

A 2005 study reported
abnormal levels of lead in urine samples of Pandacan residents
and diagnosed lower rates of median neuropathy at increased
distances from the depot.245

Chevron has not implemented
regular air monitoring to detect hazardous chemicals.

Circumventing the Law

In response to the dangers posed by the depot, on De-
cember 28, 2001, the City of Manila passed Ordinance 8027,
reclassifying the area from industrial to commercial and man-
dating closure of the depot.246

The ordinance was enacted after

the 9/11 attacks in the United States.247

However, rather than
pursue outright removal of the depot, the Manila City Gov-
ernment and DOE entered a memorandum of understanding
with the oil companies, agreeing to a minimal “scaling down of

Chevron and its partners fled petitions seeking
injunctions to suspend the ordinance. Rather than construct a
true buffer zone, the oil companies constructed an inadequate
green zone or “linear park” a few meters wide and encircling
the depot, through which residents walk and children play. Fol-
lowing negotiations with government offcials, on January 12,
2004 Chevron and its partners were issued an Environmental
Compliance Certifcate.249
Social Justice Society (SJS) and other proponents fled a
case before the Supreme Court, seeking enforcement of the
ordinance. In March 2007, the SC upheld the ordinance and
ordered closure of the depot within six months. “The objective
of the ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from the
catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a ter-
rorist attack on the Pandacan terminals,” the SC said.
On February 13, 2008, the SC upheld its decision, reject-
ing the motion for reconsideration fled by the oil companies.
Chevron and its partners were given 90 days to submit a com-
prehensive relocation plan. “Essentially, the oil companies are
fghting for their right to property. They allege that they stand
to lose billions of pesos if forced to relocate. However, based
on the hierarchy of constitutionally protected rights, the right
to life enjoys precedence over the right to property,” said the
SC decision. “No reason exists why such a protective measure
should be delayed.”250

“We ask that Chevron along with the other oil companies implement the Supreme
Court decision without delay, and take away for the people of Pandacan the
constant shadow of a holocaust.”

—sixto Carlos, community activist with Advocates for Environment and Social Justice

40 Chevron Alternative 2008 Annual Report

Berkeley Boycotts Chevron: On January 29, 2008, the Berkeley City Council adopted a resolution mandating that the
city “cease all purchases from Chevron” as a result of the corporation’s record of ecological destruction and involvement in human
rights abuses in Angola, Burma, Ecuador, Nigeria, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Berkeley Commissioner Diana Bohn, said “The
City of Berkeley stood up today and sent a clear message to Chevron: your corporate recklessness will not be tolerated.”253

San Francisco Condemns Chevron: On June 2, 2008, the city and county of San Francisco passed a resolution which
“condemned Chevron Corporation for a systematic pattern of ethically questionable investments, complicity in human rights
abuses, and environmental devastation in countries and communities in which it operates.” “We expect there to be a growing num-
ber of similar resolutions adopted by cities across the U.S.,” said Mitch Anderson of Amazon Watch, one of more than a dozen
organizations backing the measure. “The fact that this resolution has now been passed in Chevron’s own backyard, shows how
Chevron CEO David O’Reilly has brought the company to the brink of losing its social license to operate.”254

Amnesty International Targets Chevron: Chevron is an Amnesty International “Target Company.” Citing Chev-
ron’s legacy of “toxic pollution with widespread human rights impacts,” including “turn[ing] its back on Amazon communities
poisoned by oil contamination left by their subsidiary, Texaco,” and “struggling with ongoing controversies in Nigeria, Angola,
and Myanmar... clear examples of the gravity of corporate human rights abuses,” Amnesty has fled several Chevron shareholder
resolutions and through its SHARE POWER campaign, has called on its millions of members to pressure universities and pension/
investment funds to support its Chevron shareholder resolutions and establish investor responsibility committees and proxy voting

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->