Litigation	3 Months Ended
Litigation	Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation Ecuador Texaco Petroleum Company (Texpet), a subsidiary of Texaco Inc., was a minority member of an oil production consortium with Ecuadorian state-owned Petroecuador from 1967 until 1992. After termination of the consortium and a third-party environmental audit, Ecuador and the consortium parties entered into a settlement agreement specifying Texpet’s remediation obligations. Following Texpet’s completion of a three-year remediation program, Ecuador certified the remediation as proper and released Texpet and its affiliates from environmental liability. In May 2003, plaintiffs alleging environmental harm from the consortium’s activities sued Chevron in the Superior Court in Lago Agrio, Ecuador. In February 2011, that court entered a judgment against Chevron for approximately $9.5 billion plus additional punitive damages. An appellate panel affirmed, and Ecuador’s National Court of Justice ratified the judgment but nullified the punitive damages, resulting in a judgment of approximately $9.5 billion. Ecuador’s highest Constitutional Court rejected Chevron’s final appeal in July 2018. In February 2011, Chevron sued the Lago Agrio plaintiffs and several of their lawyers and supporters in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and state law. The SDNY court ruled that the Ecuadorian judgment had been procured through fraud, bribery, and corruption, and prohibited the RICO defendants from seeking to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment in the United States or profiting from their illegal acts. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in June 2017, rendering final the U.S. judgment in favor of Chevron. The Lago Agrio plaintiffs sought to have the Ecuadorian judgment recognized and enforced in Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. All of those recognition and enforcement actions were dismissed and resolved in Chevron’s favor. Chevron and Texpet filed an arbitration claim against Ecuador in September 2009 before an arbitral tribunal administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, under the United States-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty. In August 2018, the Tribunal issued an award holding that the Ecuadorian judgment was based on environmental claims that Ecuador had settled and released, and that it was procured through fraud, bribery, and corruption. According to the Tribunal, the Ecuadorian judgment “violates international public policy” and “should not be recognized or enforced by the courts of other States.” The Tribunal ordered Ecuador to remove the status of enforceability from the Ecuadorian judgment and to compensate Chevron for any injuries resulting from the judgment. The third and final phase of the arbitration, to determine the amount of compensation Ecuador owes to Chevron, is ongoing. In September 2020, the District Court of The Hague denied Ecuador’s request to set aside the Tribunal’s award, stating that it now is “common ground” between Ecuador and Chevron that the Ecuadorian judgment is fraudulent. In December 2020, Ecuador appealed the District Court’s decision to The Hague Court of Appeals. In a separate proceeding, Ecuador also admitted that the Ecuadorian judgment is fraudulent in a public filing with the Office of the United States Trade Representative in July 2020. Management continues to believe that the Ecuadorian judgment is illegitimate and unenforceable and will vigorously defend against any further attempts to have it recognized or enforced. Climate Change Governmental and other entities in various jurisdictions across the United States have filed legal proceedings against fossil fuel producing companies, including Chevron entities, purporting to seek legal and equitable relief to address alleged impacts of climate change. Chevron entities are or were among the codefendants in 21 separate lawsuits brought by 17 U.S. cities and counties, two U.S. states, the District of Columbia and a trade group. One of the city lawsuits was dismissed on the merits, and one of the county lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The lawsuits assert various causes of action, including public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn, design defect, product defect, trespass, negligence, impairment of public trust, and violations of consumer protection statutes, based upon the company’s production of oil and gas products and alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to climate change risks associated with those products. The unprecedented legal theories set forth in these proceedings entail the possibility of damages liability (both compensatory and punitive), injunctive and other forms of equitable relief, including without limitation abatement and disgorgement of profits, civil penalties and liability for fees and costs of suits, that, while we believe remote, could have a material adverse effect on the company’s results of operations and financial condition. Further such proceedings are likely to be filed by other parties. Management believes that these proceedings are legally and factually meritless and detract from constructive efforts to address the important policy issues presented by climate change, and will vigorously defend against such proceedings. Louisiana Seven coastal parishes and the State of Louisiana have filed lawsuits in Louisiana against numerous oil and gas companies seeking damages for coastal erosion in or near oil fields located within Louisiana’s coastal zone under Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SLCRMA). Chevron entities are defendants in 39 of these cases. The lawsuits allege that the defendants’ historical operations were conducted without necessary permits or failed to comply with permits obtained and seek damages and other relief, including the costs of restoring coastal wetlands allegedly impacted by oil field operations. Plaintiffs’ SLCRMA theories are unprecedented; thus, there remains significant uncertainty about the scope of the claims and alleged damages and any potential effects on the company’s results of operations and financial condition. Management believes that the claims lack legal and factual merit and will continue to vigorously defend against such proceedings.