Chevron, Shell and the True Cost of Oil, by Amy Goodman

[Echo In Light]

Chevron, Shell and the True Cost of Oil
by Amy Goodman

The economy is a shambles, unemployment is soaring, the auto industry is collapsing. But profits are higher than ever at oil companies Chevron and Shell. Yet across the globe, from the Ecuadorian jungle, to the Niger Delta in Nigeria, to the courtrooms and streets of New York and San Ramon, Calif., people are fighting back against the world's oil giants.

Shell and Chevron are in the spotlight this week, with shareholder meetings and a historic trial being held. On May 13, the Nigerian military launched an assault on villages in that nation's oil-rich Niger Delta. Hundreds of civilians are feared killed in the attack. According to Amnesty International, a celebration in the delta village of Oporoza was attacked. An eyewitness told the organization: "I heard the sound of aircraft; I saw two military helicopters, shooting at the houses, at the palace, shooting at us. We had to run for safety into the forest. In the bush, I heard adults crying, so many mothers could not find their children; everybody ran for their life."

Shell is facing a lawsuit in U.S. federal court, Wiwa v. Shell, based on Shell's alleged collaboration with the Nigerian dictatorship in the 1990s in the violent suppression of the grass-roots movement of the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta. Shell exploits the oil riches there, causing displacement, pollution and deforestation. The suit also alleges that Shell helped suppress the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People and its charismatic leader, Ken Saro-Wiwa. Saro-Wiwa had been the writer of the most famous soap opera in Nigeria, but decided to throw his lot in with the Ogoni, whose land near the Niger Delta was crisscrossed with pipelines. The children of Ogoniland did not know a dark night, living beneath the flame-apartment-building-size gas flares that burned day and night, and that are illegal in the U.S.

I interviewed Saro-Wiwa in 1994. He told me: "The oil companies like military dictatorships, because basically they can cheat with these dictatorships. The dictatorships are brutal to people, and they can deny the human rights of individuals and of communities quite easily, without compunction." He added, "I am a marked man." Saro-Wiwa returned to Nigeria and was arrested by the military junta. On Nov. 10, 1995, after a kangaroo show trial, Saro-Wiwa was hanged with eight other Ogoni activists.

In 1998, I traveled to the Niger Delta with journalist Jeremy Scahill. A Chevron executive there told us that Chevron flew troops from Nigeria's notorious mobile police, the "kill ‘n' go," in a Chevron company helicopter to an oil barge that had been occupied by nonviolent protesters. Two protesters were killed, and many more were arrested and tortured. Oronto Douglas, one of Saro-Wiwa's lawyers, told us: "It is very clear that Chevron, just like Shell, uses the military to protect its oil activities. They drill and they kill."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/27-0

[Echo In Light]

1. Ignored - bump

[taterguy]

2. Lesser of two evils, man

Other people suffering or me being able to get to work?

I choose the latter.

[Echo In Light]

3. Well, it's just such an obvious example of the corporation as a form of private tyranny

[taterguy]

5. Dude, how am I supposed to get to work?

Then I'll worry about tyranny

[montanto]

7. Stealing hubcaps at someone else's request

is still stealing.

[taterguy]

9. Once again, how am I supposed to get to work?

[montanto]

10. Hey, I understand what you're sayin'

I'm aware of my own hypocrisy, too. Every time I tank up I realize that its someone else's blood and sorrow I'm squirting into my tank and yet I do it (though mostly I walk. I only fill my car up once a month.)
Mainly my beef is with the oil companies, and my heart goes out to the Ogoni, who live on the land that the resources are ripped out of and don't receive a cent for it, plus are forced to live in a toxic waste-land. Ken Saro-Wiwa was the only voice for those people and the oil companies had him killed to shut him up. That's enough to put me off when I have to go to the gas pump. You can't even say, "well, thats Chevron or Mobil" because they all do it. I won't stop driving till the last drop is gone but I do recognize that my car is powered by grief.

[glitch]

11. Your sig line gives you away.

Nice sarcasm though. And if by some freakish irony you aren't being sarcastic, try Citgo, a bus, a bike, light rail or telecommute, whichever is most appropriate for you.

[taterguy]

12. How does one safely bike in an area with no bike paths or bike lanes?

Since you made the suggestion I would appreciate any helpful advice you have on the matter.

[glitch]

18. If safety is your only priority and you can't bike try something else.

Seriously, are you joking? It's hard to tell without seeing your face. But I'll answer as if you are serious.

If none of my suggestions work for you and you are unable to think of any on your own, you could think about finding a way to work without commuting, even if it means looking for another job. Or even moving closer to your work.
Or at the very least mitigate your consumption by carpooling.

What you choose to do may not be easy.

What you don't have to do is support people who murder to get you gasoline.

[taterguy]

20. Seriously, it's an interesting philosophical question

How does one calculate when the benefits to society at large outweigh personal inconvenience?

Theoretically I could walk or bike to buy groceries, but that would take multiple trips.

What takes half an hour in a car would take half a day.

Is that worth it just to save a quart of gas?

I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts about the safety of cycling. I never expect to be hit when I'm on a bike, but in the back of my mind I realize that it's a possibility.

How much danger should people be expected to expose themselves to? Especially when their efforts seem like a drop in the ocean. Difficult to get too motivated when one lives in a place where they can hear the sounds of car races every Saturday night.

[montanto]

4. God keep you Ken Saro-Wiwa. A true hero whose voice, snuffed out,

was the only voice for the poor Ogoni who virtually live inside the toxic confines of a giant, unregulated oil refinery and enjoy absolutely no fruit whatsoever from that which riseth from their own land. No. Not even jobs.

[montanto]

6. self delete. wrong place.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. "Chevron, just like Shell, uses the military to protect its oil activities" QFT. k+r, n/t

[ThomWV]

13. After watching Amy Goodman on TV for years no I no longer find her credible at all

She misleads more or less constantly and while I tend to agree with her basic stance on many issues I simply do not know what to believe and what not to when she speaks. I hear her exaggerate or simply misstate as fact things that I know to be false and so on the things that I don't have background on I don't think she can be trusted anymore. Just my feeling, it might be shared by others and might not.

[taterguy]

14. Her article cites Amnesty International. Do you trust them?

Or are you just grasping at straws?

[ThomWV]

15. I certainly do, but I do not accept evidence of anything from her

Also, if you read the beginning of one of the lower paragraphs it begins with her telling us what someone told her - and at that very moment the article loses it credibility for me.

I'm not kidding, listen to her some evening on a subject you know something about and you'll be howling in a minute. The woman flat out misleads. I know of no more straight forward way to say it.

[taterguy]

17. The gist of the article seems credible to me

I honestly don't know anything about Amy Goodman since I avoid cable TV.

I've read plenty of articles about the abuses of oil companies though.

If you have any facts to refute those charges please share it with us.

[Echo In Light]

16. She's not personally connected w/Bilderberg, if that's what you're driving at?

Democracy Now is funded by the Ford Foundation, among others, and the FF directly funds the Bilderbergers. I haven't any issues w/Goodman, and although I don't watch or listen to her regularly, I did catch her on CSPAN's WJ yrs back where she did lend some credence to the 9/11 truth movement - which caught me by surprise as she was/is one the individuals often assailed as "Left Gatekeepers" by some within the VERY broad segments of those questioning 9/11

[glitch]

19. That is interesting. The 9/11 truth movement doesn't get a lot of press from the left.

Or anyone else for that matter, unless it's scornful. Doesn't matter, people who refuse to consider the issue damage their own credibility. IMO.

I am undecided on the whole left gatekeeper issue, with her anyway. I definitely think Chomsky is one. :hide:
The great thing about Amy Goodman is you do get exponentially more information from her than you would from the corporate media, but I certainly wouldn't stop with her, or take on her opinions as my own.

[Echo In Light]

21. I disagree with the idea that Chomsky is somehow a 'plant'

Maybe it's because I've read him for so long, and he was an early influence on my thinking ... but really, he's been at it since the 1960s, has encyclopedic knowledge of numerous U.S. war atrocities/aggression/terrorism that many 9/11 truthers probably aren't even all that familiar with, and aside from not seriously addressing the inside job angle of either JFK or 9/11, has been one of the most steadfast, comprehensive dissident voices re the American empire and its war machine - for decades - yet, how many average people do you suppose even know who he is, what he does, what his views are? .....

....Exactly. Which prompts the question: what good would his supposed 'shill' status be if not to sway public opinion in favor of the aims/goals of the corporate/state nexus? How is it possible for him to bring about that effect if he's largely unknown?

How is he (or Howard Zinn, for that matter, since he's often accused of the same) fulfilling the role as 'shill' if the majority of the American populace doesn't even know who he is? And presumably, it would have to be a role he took on back in the 1960s...and that's quite a while, yet he's still unknown as he gets well on in age. Doesn't quite add up if one walks the premise through. If he or Zinn were shills, it would logically follow that the Powers That Be would ensure that their views were widely disseminated throughout the broad mainline culture as to reach and influence a larger % of the populace.

Plus - and please don't read this post as my attacking you or anything, I'm not, and suspect you and I are often on the same page - another dispelling aspect of the left gatekeeper/shill accusation is this: Zogby, and others, have conducted polls re public views on 9/11 being an inside job, and those poll results often reveal that many do NOT buy the official CT at all, and those views were apparently reached w/o a majority of those individuals consulting Chomsky, Goodman or Zinn. In other words, those few could shout "INSIDE JOB!" from the rooftops, so to speak, and it likely wouldn't produce that substantial of a result or shift in the public mind re the matter.

*edit - there was a doc film on Chomsky w/footage taken just before the U.S. invaded Iraq, and various friends/colleagues of Chomsky interviewed claim he of course receives threats and death threats, but the most frightening and violent ones come from Zionist groups, and that if Chomsky were to be perceived as heading-up a left movement in the U.S. he would be in grave danger.

[glitch]

22. I am an ex-fan, I read/listen to him with a grain of salt now. He's right about a lot of things, but

not everything. He talks about systemic changes but discounts looking at the actual crimes and prosecuting actual criminals attacking the system we do have.

Meanwhile, the crimes add up and what little government we do have remains under attack. In that way he is helpful as a left-gatekeeper, whether he intends to be or not.

I have no doubt anyone perceived as leading a viable left movement in the U.S. (or anywhere global corporations have economic interests requiring the U.S. war machine "support") would be in grave danger, and not just from right-wing Zionist groups.

[Echo In Light]

23. Well, sure. It's not practical though to think one can or will agree with another's every view

I used to get that back when I was more interested in online 9/11 debates. It usually went something like this:

"Your HERO, Chomsky, doesn't even think 9/11 was an inside job... (although he's quoted as saying "possible, but not probable.") "...so why are you sourcing him on anything else?"

Well, because there are many people I like, am friends with, am a co-worker with, am family with, etc whom I don't agree with on some views, while on others I do, ya know. That's how it works.

As much as I'm convinced 110% that 9/11 was an inside job (PNAC) I find that too many of the online proponents insist on an all-or-none stance, and if one deviates to any degree, they're suddenly a 'shill' or blah-blah name-calling. You know the tune, and the song remains the same.

That aside, despite remaining relatively unknown in the States, Chomsky does carry more political weight as a theoretician/sociopolitical philosopher than do many others, and hence I'm sure he would indeed have an even bigger bullseye on him if he were to be perceived as taking the helm, as it were.

Carry on...

[glitch]

24. But what do you think about his disdain for pursuing criminals; since he feels the entire system is

corrupt why bother? I consider it at best a major flaw in his logic and at worst intentional gatekeeping -- his position ultimately protects the people who are destroying what little power we do have. Since he does carry hefty weight, his attitude may very well help neutralize any potential left flank.

And I hope you are not confusing me with other people you've discussed 9/11 and who have blasted Chomsky for his lack of interest in it. He doesn't have to be a JFK conspiracy theorist or a 9/11 truther, but what he says does have influence and his disdain for those issues is damaging.
He has his good points, I did not deny that. He also has his bad points.

FWIW, I have never met anyone in this life I agreed with 100%, not even me, myself or even I. Disagreement doesn't cause me to despise who I disagree with.

I concede: Chomsky can have the biggest bulls-eye should he decide to lead a viable left movement.