• Yes it should

    Chevron is defending itself against false allegations that it is responsible for alleged environmental and social harms in the Amazon region of Ecuador. In February 2011, an $18 billion judgment—later reduced to $9.5 billion—was rendered against Chevron by a court in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, for alleged contamination resulting from crude oil production in the region.

  • No, they were right.

    Ecuador should not be held for damages on Chevron. The government was right to terminate the contract under the circumstances present. The massive destruction and pollution of the Amazonian rain forest can not be ignored. Environment conservation must be prioritized regardless of the nature of the economic activity. Ecuador should stay put.

  • Yes, Ecuador should be responsible for damages to Chevron.

    Ecuador should be responsible for damages to Chevron. The country has cost the company billions of dollars. Chevron has spent considerable time and money defending itself against false allegations in Ecuador. Companies spend a lot of money when they invest in countries to do business. Therefore, countries should not unfairly take advantage of companies like Chevron that want to do legitimate business. In short, Ecuador needs to compensate Chevron for the costs of litigation in the country.

  • No, Ecuador should not be responsible to pay damages to Chevron.

    No, Ecuador should not be responsible for paying damages to Chevron. While Ecuador withdrew from its contract with Chevron in 1992, the country shouldn't be bound to corporate interests indefinitely. Chevron has caused irreparable environmental damage to the country's rain forests. Instead of Ecuador being ordered to pay Chevron, Chevron should be ordered to pay Ecuador to clean up the vast oil spills the company has left behind.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.