Edhat Staff
By the edhat staff
A California jury has found the massive oil and gas company guilty of intentionally covering up a toxic pit in Santa Barbara County and selling the land to a local man who was later diagnosed with cancer.
Kevin Wright purchased a piece of land from Chevron and unknowingly built his home directly over a covered up chemical pit near Santa Barbara in 1985. Nearly three decades later he was diagnosed with multiple myeloma.
Union Oil Company, a subsidiary of Chevron, operated a sump pit for oil and gas production which left a carcinogenic chemical on the property. They buried the pit in 1974 and sold the land a decade later. Wright’s cancer diagnoses can be caused by exposure to this same chemical, according to the lawsuit.
On Wednesday, Santa Barbara County jurors voted in Wright’s favor and ordered Chevron to pay $63 million.
“Chevron’s continued denial of the harm they caused is a shameful reminder that this company values only profits, not people,” Wright said.
Wright’s cancer is in remission, but he continues chemotherapy to keep to illness from resurfacing.
Chevron does not admit wrongdoing and plans to appeal the judgment.
Awful. Weird that, in a recent article about the battery storage in Goleta, someone complained that there would be more upset if it were a gas station going in. This. Is. Why.
This is fear mongering. A gas station is nothing like what was going on at this industrial Chevron property, not even close.
Not really. How toxic do you think a gas station is?
Yes, really, SAC. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. An unregulated, industrial waste pit is nothing like a underground, isolated, dual layer (or more!) containment system for gasoline.
Granted, but I didn’t say people were complaining about this particular type of thing. Why do you insist on comparing them? My only point was, given how toxic oil facilities can be, I found it weird that people would complain about those who would protest a gas station but not a battery storage site. Oil/gasoline is toxic. Fact. Not my fault you insist on missing the point.
The benzene in gasoline is pretty toxic, and there have been numerous cases of filling station gas tanks corroding, leaking, and contaminating water tables.
7:06pm – EXACTLY. That’s been my point since comment #1.
And that spot is near a Goleta Water District well.
Where was this pit located? All articles I’ve found say “near Santa Barbara” but that could be anywhere in the county. Does anyone know the region?
That’s how the carbon fuels industry treats all of us.
Did the county order Chevron to clean up the pit?
How does that matter? Do you think oilies should only clean up after themselves if they’re ordered to do so?
The article doesn’t say if Chevron ever cleaned up the pit. From the judgement it appears that it didn’t. So, a reasonable question to ask is if the County or a state or federal agency ordered Chevron to clean up the pit. And yes, they should have cleaned it up, but we all know that big corporations try to weasel out of environmental cleans upside. Why? It eats into their profits.
Corporate lawyers are like the fund-raisers for non-profits: Their first obligation if to raise the money to pay their outsized salaries.
Chevron = Sociopaths in suits.
So are politicians.
$63,000,000 is excessive. These huge awards cost us consumers in the long run.
DAVID – it’s punitive damages as well. It’s to teach a lesson to all the other oil/gas companies: You’re not allowed to cover up toxic crap and sell the land to someone to live on. Seems like a fair punishment to me.
“us”? Use less of Chevron’s products and it will cost you less. Of course if you’re a major stockholder it will cost you.
I think this is much the same as when someone sells a car without telling the buyer every single last problem with the car. This applies to many things, such as houses, farms, and in this case, toxic property. Not sure why the person who bought the property did not do their research prior to the “as-is” purchase. $63 million is a lot of dough to win in a court decision, but the only folks who will see a penny are the lawyers. In the end though, we, the driving and petroleum-using public will pay via our purchases of the multitude of products that we buy each and every day (not just gasoline/diesel). The losers are each one of us….the winners, as usual = oil companies and their shareholders.
If anything, we all can agree that before plonking down our hard-earned money to buy a property to build on, we need to find out what was there before. Simple concept, but effective. If I had been looking at the same property, I would have determined that it was a covered-up toxic site within a day or two. Some people would do the same thing, but unfortunately this person did not. The oil companies will simply pass the $63 million “punishment” on to their customers to punish us…that’s just how it is whether or not you agree or not. Remember, money makes the world go around, but it also makes the world go down. Bottom line: caveat emptor.
Babycakes, how exactly would you have determined that there was a toxic site from the mid 1940’s there?
BABYCAKES – ” I would have determined that it was a covered-up toxic site within a day or two.” – Ok, how (in 1985)? Running a title search would show the prior owner, yeah, but it won’t show the land was filled with toxic chemicals and then buried. Get a soil sample? Maybe, but how deep does that go? The standard is about 6″ deep. Not sure how deep this was, but might not have shown. Did Chevron fail to provide mandatory disclosures? I don’t know….. and neither do you. Not a lot of info here, but you seem so eager to blame the buyer/victim here.
“every single last problem” – yeah, no. This isn’t failing to disclose a balding tire on a car, this is much, much worse. Covering up toxic substances and then selling the land to an individual for a home is outrageous. Just goes how far the oil lovers will go to defend their overlords.
BABY – YOU said ” I would have determined that it was a covered-up toxic site within a day or two.” OK, now tell us how you would do that. THAT is the point. YOU are blaming this guy for buying land that was filled with toxic substances and covered up 10 years prior to the sale. YOU said you would have discovered that info. OK, great….HOW?
You haven’t done any research at all, or you would know that it is incumbent on the seller of a property to disclose such hazardous conditions to potential buyers.
Comments are meant to be just that….comments. This forum is not graciously provided for engaging in nasty tit-for-tat comments that one disagrees with. For some, it’s impossible to simply “let it go.” The story is about a seller hiding “bad/nasty/horrible” fact about a property, and for doing that have to pay for their “mistake.” The person /victim who bought the property is hopefully going to get a couple of pennies (millions and millions) out of the settlement. I don’t understand why anyone is waiting with bated breath to understand how an anonymous commenter researches the purchase of anything (in this case property). I also know that answering a disingenuous query here only results in bashing, bullying, name-calling, and/or far-flung oddball accusations. I will give you one tidbit of info though: IF you plan to buy a property, hire a real-estate attorney in the locale that you plan to make the purchase/investment. Saves a lot of headaches.
Come on Babycakes, why on earth would you spend all these words responding with a non answer when you could answer a valuable question and provide information which could help other people avoid buying a toxic waste dump.
You said that you would figure it out in a day or two.
How?
LOL, all those words and you could have just told the truth:
“Actually I have no idea how one could know if a property is the site of a toxic dump.”
I fixed it for ya’!
” I will give you one tidbit of info though:” I have no idea what I’m talking about and definitely don’t know where to begin checking if the land I bought was secretly covered up toxic waste.
“IF you plan to buy a property, hire a real-estate attorney in the locale that you plan to make the purchase/investment.” – yes, definitely don’t really on BABYCAKES do it what he says he can do in “a day or two.”
Look man, you sit here tripling down on blaming a man filled with cancerous blood as a result of an oil company’s intentional deception and failure to disclose the hazardous condition of the property they sold him to live on. OF COURSE we’re going to badger you about it.
Long story short – the victim blaming and lying about how easy it was for him to find this out is tiresome, cruel and very much deserving of the “tit for tat” and ridicule that it’s garnering.
How I would do research on a property prior to purchasing has nothing to do with this article. The story behind the article is a lesson in how not to purchase land in a willy-nilly fashion where you end up buying an extremely dangerous chemical pit. The property most likely was passed over by any number of buyers who did their job researching the property, but when the price “was too good to pass”…..someone thought they were snatching up a “steal.” There’s an old saying: “If something seems too good to be true, then the likelihood of it being true is probably zero percent.” This is similar to folks buying ocean-front property in Florida, but did not do their research and ended up with alligator-infested swamp.
People aren’t really upset about leaving cancer causing chemicals in the ground, they are upset that it was done here. Holding a company responsible for this type of environmental contamination is a good thing. However, does anyone really believe it is more environmentally friendly to buy their oil from overseas? And for that matter, does anyone believe it is environmentally responsible to source rare earth minerals from overseas? I think we should hold corporations accountable for the environmental and humanitarian harm they cause “over there” in addition to what they do in our own back yard. Below is but one small example of the environmental destruction American corporations support overseas and its horrific humanitarian consequences. It’s time we start holding the corporations here at home accountable for supporting this exploitation of vulnerable people overseas. If we don’t like pollution in Santa Barbara, then we shouldn’t accept this sort of pollution elsewhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/06/pollution-causing-birth-defects-in-children-of-drc-cobalt-miners-study
CHIP, do YOU think that Sac thinks that child labor, slavery and birth defects are an acceptable price to pay?
Why do you couch insults as rhetorical questions?
These oil apologists and shills highlight the environmental costs of non-carbon technologies while totally ignoring the fact that those costs pale in comparison with the costs and subsidies of the carbon industries. Nothing is without cost, but only an idiot chooses to retain hugely harmful technologies when better ones are available.
VOICE AND CHIP – come on guys, answer the question. What energy source have you discovered that will power our planet and won’t require any environmental or human damage in its production? We’re all waiting eagerly for your solution!
CHIP – I agree 100%. They SHOULD be able to seek and receive justice. They shouldn’t have to be mining like that to begin with.
But this brings us back to my point – there are NO energy sources that don’t have at least some degree of damage (either environmental, human or both) in their production phase. Oil/gas – no brainer. Solar/Wind – cobalt, etc. Nuclear – uranium mining, risk of catastrophes. So, given that, why would we insist on the source of energy that causes the MOST damage right now? Nuclear will NEVER be 100% safe (or renewable) unless there’s some new cancer-free uranium we don’t know about and we find an endless supply. Wind and solar CAN be clean once we develop a cleaner way to source materials and already are 100% renewable.
We can keep arguing for decades, but the fact remains – we don’t have a perfect source of energy now.
I’ve already provided it Sacjon, you refuse to listen. Until we unlock the secrets of cold fusion nothing is perfect, and most likely cold fusion won’t be perfect. When weighing an energy sources +/-‘s like quantity of power generated, reliability of power generated, waste products / emissions produced, quantity of waste products produced, source materials, costs, safety, etc… nuclear power wins every time hands down. Net zero and climate alarmists proponents who don’t embrace nuclear power aren’t following the science and/or aren’t being honest about their goals.
Sac, I said I thought it was a good thing to hold corporations accountable for injustices like selling someone a contaminated property. I believe the families in the DRC should be able to seek justice too, in their case by suing the companies who exploited them in order to obtain cobalt to make EV batteries.
LOL…No. you forget about the THOUSANDS of dead uranium miners and the THOUSANDS that are prone to/afflicted with lung cancer. No. Try again.
1:14pm – it truly is funny/disturbing to see them flock and scramble to defend oil on each and every article about energy, regardless the specific situation/event/topic.
A man sits here riddled with cancer because an oil company lied to to him and sold him toxic land for his home and they STILL come out of the woodwork like a gaggle of tarred geese to squawk at all who dare be upset.
Anyone who is ok with cobalt mining in the DRC should have no qualms about uranium. Uranium is a byproduct of cobalt mining and has resulted in “alarming levels of radioactivity” in the region according to the Washington post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2018/02/28/the-cost-of-cobalt/
CHIP – NO one is “ok with cobalt mining in the DRC.” Why do you insist on LYING over and over? Here, let me help you with adult level reasoning: Just because someone is pro-renewable energy, doesn’t mean they are “ok with cobalt mining in the DRC” and are unable to be concerned about uranium. Is that still troubling you? I hope that helps you understand this all better.
You know, just like I don’t say “because you support nuclear power means you are OK with the thousands of people who have burned from the inside out due to radiation and/or uranium exposure.”
See how logic works?
CHIP – gold medal for whatabout today!
Tell us, CHIP, how do you propose SAFELY obtaining the minerals needed to power our civilization? Oil. Coal. Uranium. Cobalt. etc….. No one has ever said there’s a 100% clean/green/perfect form of energy. Sounds like you have some ideas though. Let’s hear them!
It’s environmental NIMBYism Chip. Out of sight, out of mind. Some think it’s better to have the oil we currently use extracted in a far away land with little to no environmental safeguards and zero regards to the local population, then ship it halfway around the world to the US than it is to have it extracted locally, with some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world, where oil corporations face lawsuits like this one when they skirt the regulations in place.
CHIP – ” I believe the USA is the best option for mining” – Ok, so you DO have some input on this. I agree. Since there’s no way around mining some of these elements, we might as well do it as safely and cleanly as possible. Unfortunately, we live in a profit driven society. Not much we can do about that.
Sac, are you really trying to justify the pollution described in the article that I linked? Do you think child labor, slavery, and birth defects are an acceptable consequence of getting the minerals you want as long as those consequences occur far away? I understand you are a major supporter of the mining industry sac. I have no problem with mining, but it must be done in an environmentally responsible manner and human rights must be respected. I believe the USA is the best option for mining since we have deposits of all the minerals we need and we have strict oversight to ensure human rights and the environment are respected in the process. It’s not as profitable as exploiting countries like the DRC, but it’s the right thing to do.
” I understand you are a major supporter of the mining industry sac.” – Then you’ve never read a comment I’ve ever written.
“Sac, are you really trying to justify the pollution described in the article that I linked?” – LOL no. Nothing in my comment would leave a reasonable person to believe that’s what I said. Please take off the blinders. I asked YOU, what your solution is. I “justified” nothing.
3:14 – Nuclear fission is hideously expensive, glacially slow to come online, and produces lethal waste products that persist for millennia. That’s why the carbon shills push for it – they know that it will prolong the use of fossil fuels. Nothing but lies come from that group.
A good article on what Finland is planning for nuclear waste disposal, and the possible consequences:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answer-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it
Bottom line – really expensive, and not guaranteed to be safe.
And, for those who believe vitrification (storage of radioactive waste in glass) is safe:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41529-021-00210-4
Native Americans lived successfully in this area for millenia. They had no need for fossil fuels for their transportation and gathered everything from the environment , Most important, they held sacred their relationship to the rest of Nature and would not do things to upset the Balance of Nature. All of nature was seen as a garden that they maintained as a sacred trust. How many multiple acts during each of our days do we violate that trust and contribute to environmental problems that are potentially destroying our very existence? This is the problem that we are so far from acknowledging.
HUMANITARIAN – Good points, but in today’s civilization, with global commerce and travel, transportation is required and that transportation runs on fuel. It’s a different era. BUT, with this new era, comes amazing energy technology which, while not yet completely, 100% green/clean, is still FAR more earth-friendly than digging for coal and oil. This is why we must encourage wind and solar and hydro and support development and research. We can’t afford to wait until we no longer need lithium batteries, etc. That tech will come, but waiting for it to be perfected and continuing to rely on coal and oil will only continue to destroy our planet.
WHERE is the pit?
What is the address of the house that Kevin Wright was exposed to the hazardous chemical waste?
From Cancer.net
The following factors can raise a person’s risk of developing myeloma:
Age. Myeloma occurs most commonly in people over 60. The average age at diagnosis is 70. Only 2% of cases occur in people under 40.
Race. Myeloma occurs twice as frequently in Black people than in White people. The reasons why are unclear, although the disease appears to also be more common in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Mediterranean.
Exposure to radiation or chemicals. People who have been exposed to radiation or to asbestos, benzene, pesticides, and other chemicals used in rubber manufacturing may be at higher risk for developing myeloma. People often exposed to wood products, such as carpenters, furniture makers, and paper makers, are also at higher risk. There is also a high incidence of myeloma among professional firefighters and those exposed to herbicides, including Agent Orange.
Personal history. People with a history of a solitary plasmacytoma of the bone are at greater risk for developing multiple myeloma.
Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). As explained in the Introduction, a person with a small amount of M protein in their blood has a 1% to 2% chance of developing myeloma, lymphoma, or another blood-related cancer called Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia per year (see the Stages section for more information).
Sex. Myeloma is slightly more common in men.
EDNEY – yeah, cancer, of any kind, is nothing to sneeze at. It’s awful that Chevron would have the gall to try to deny fault, but not surprising.
I MIGHT get cancer from the materials that are made to produce my EV, and yes, I know it takes oil to produce and charge an EV….but it sure beats giving my $$$ directly to these criminal thugs at the gas pump. #NoICEforMe
I am guessing Chevron will appeal, and will probably have the amount reduced. Not sure why they did not settle confidentially unless this was settlement was way less that what the opposition was asking and also if they thought it could be reduced upon appeal. Sometimes these things are driven by lawyer gamesmanship
It’s in a pretty densely populated neighborhood, so I hope the neighbors join forces and hold the oilies accountable, too.
The saddest part about this whole story to me is the last sentence:
“Chevron does not admit wrongdoing and plans to appeal the judgment.”
This means:
– The case will be tied up in courts for a loooooooooooong time.
– Mr. Wright and/or his heirs probably won’t see a penny.
– Chevron gets to keep their dough and continue to make profits from all of their petroleum and non-petroleum business ventures/investments.
– Mr. Wright’s chemical-pit property is nearly worthless or certainly much less valuable if it were not a chemical dump site.
No one wins in this case as far as I can see….except the lawyers. Very sad no matter how you look at it….incredibly sad.
BABY – really? Not one penny? Of course that’s not true.
I owned and lived on a piece of property south of Cliff Drive that used to have an oil well on it, It was disclosed to me and I bought it anyway. SB Bank and Trust on the Mesa used to have a photo map on the wall that showed all of the lots that had wells on them. I sold that house and land in 1998 and haven’t had any health problems from it.
I do think if Chevron sold the property without full disclosure, they should pay. If they had disclosed the conditions on property, I’d be less generous with the settlement. That said, for me this is correlation with maybe causation, but causation is very hard to prove beyond doubt, which is why civil matters are preponderance of evidence. I would have found for Mr. Wright on non-disclosure, but would not have given him $63 million because people get myeloma from many different items including asbestos exposure, genetic pre-disposition etc. and there is no real way to prove how Mr Wright got myeloma even if he lived on a benzene pit. People used to work at gas stations pumping gas and one would think they should have all died of cancer.
I’m not against holding corporations accountable, but I am a skeptic when is comes to causation vs. correlation which is why I’d have found for Wright but not for a huge payday.
EDNEY – I can absolutely guarantee you that the jury heard hours of medical expert witness testimony on the causation part of the trial. Thanks for your generosity, but had you sat through that same testimony, as opposed to just deciding on your own without any evidence to look at/listen to, you might be singing a different tune. Heck, I might be as well! That’s the thing with these huge trials – none of us know all the facts or what evidence was presented to support such facts.
The house is located in a Santa Maria neighborhood. Nick Welsh has more details on the location in his piece.
Thanks, I too was wondering “Where”… :https://www.independent.com/2023/06/14/santa-maria-jury-hammers-chevron-with-63-million-verdict/
pics and nice overhead shot…
I can’t believe it took me this long to “Figure out where”… Nick, Nick, oh, NIck you’ve led me astray! The address listed is 2822 Starfire Street in Santa Maria, BUT after a semi-diligent Google search the address is actually 2833 (!) (it can be seen on the curb in the photo)… It’s located in a populated neighborhood (now). “Benzene escapes,” … “That’s what it does.”