Timeline of Events

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Mar 1964 — March 5, Exploration concession signed; Consortium formed (50% Texas Petroleum 50% Gulf Ecuatoriana)

1972 — Trans-Ecuadorian pipeline completed

Aug 1973 — Presidential Executive Decree gives government full regulatory and supervisory authority over Consortium operations

Jun 1974 — Petroecuador acquires 25% share of the Consortium

Dec 1976 — December 31, Petroecuador acquires Gulf's remaining share, increasing ownership of the Consortium to 62.5% majority interest

Mar 1986 — March 1, Petroecuador acquires 100% ownership of Trans-Ecuadorian pipeline

Oct 1989 — October 1, Petroecuador takes over operation of pipeline

Jun 1990 — June 30, Petroecuador takes over operation of all other Consortium facilities

Jun 1992 — June 7, Consortium contract expires; Petroecuador acquires 100% ownership of the Consortium

Aug 1993 — August 31, Ecuadorian Plaintiffs file Sequihua class action in Texas

Nov 1993 — November 3, Ecuadorian Plaintiffs file Aguinda class action in New York

Jan 1994 — January 27, Federal district court in Texas dismisses Sequihua; (no appeal filed)

Dec 1994 — December 28, Peruvian Plaintiffs, represented by Aguinda counsel, file Jota class action in New York

May 1995 — May 4, Texaco and the Republic of Ecuador sign a comprehensive Settlement Agreement. TexPet finances remediation, social projects, and medical centers

Jun 1996 — Texaco Petroleum signs Settlement Agreements with four municipalities where Consortium operated

Nov 1996 — November 13, Federal district court in New York dismisses Aguinda unconditionally

Aug 1997 — August 12, Federal district court in New York dismisses Jota unconditionally

Sep 1998 — TexPet receives final approval from Republic of Ecuador, certifying completion of work under Settlement Agreement

Oct 1998 — October 5, Second Circuit remands Aguinda and Jota to District Court for re-consideration, requiring Texaco consent to jurisdiction in Ecuador

Nov 1998 — November 11, Ecuador's Ambassador to U.S. submits letter to Judge Rakoff refusing to waive sovereign immunity in Aguinda and Jota

Nov 1998 — November 17, At post-remand hearing in the district court, Texaco orally consents to jurisdiction in Ecuador and Peru as to Aguinda and Jota plaintiffs

Jan 1999 — January 11, Texaco files its renewed motions to dismiss in Aguinda and Jota with written consents to jurisdiction in Ecuador and Peru

May 2001 — May 30, Federal District Court in New York (Judge Rakoff) dismisses Aguinda and Jota for the reasons and on the terms suggested by Texaco

Jun 2001 — June 29, Plaintiffs file Notices of Appeal in Aguinda and Jota

Oct 2001 — October 9, Chevron and Texaco complete merger to form ChevronTexaco

Nov 2001 — Aguinda and Jota file appellate briefs in the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Aug 2002 — August 16, Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upholds U.S. District Court decision to dismiss Aguinda and Jota

May 2003 — May 7, Plaintiffs file lawsuit before Superior Court of Nueva Loja in Lago Agrio, Ecuador

Aug 2003 — A second lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Tena in Tena, Ecuador

Sep 2003 — The Superior Court of Tena rejects the complaint based on failure to meet procedural requirements under Ecuadorian law

2003 — Phase one of the trial begins with agreement by the Court, plaintiffs' lawyers and Chevron to conduct 122 judicial site inspections at oil field sites

March 2004 — Recognized environmental experts commissioned by Chevron conduct inspections of the sites remediated by TexPet and find no evidence of hydrocarbon contamination. During their inspections, experts observed visible evidence of contamination at locations outside TexPet's area of responsibility, or that were associated Petroecuador's operations.

Dec. 2004 — Chevron registers strong protest with the Court - Plaintiffs' violate court rules on sampling and testing process; Fail to follow most basic scientific procedures; disturbing pattern in plaintiffs' conduct seen as attempt to mislead the public and distort test results

Jan. 2005 — Scientific tests confirm first four sites inspected by Judge are safe - Laboratory findings verify effectiveness of Texpet's environmental remediation; TexPet met or exceeded all applicable international evaluation criteria

Feb. 2005 — Experts say health studies promoted by lawyers and activists are flawed, biased and inconclusive

Feb. 2005 — Safety of Remediated Sites Confirmed by six scientific reports; No threat to human health from oil-related contaminants

July 2005 — Scientific Analysis from the Judicial Site Inspections Prove No Risks to Health or the Environment Exist; Drinking Water Highly Contaminated from Human and Animal Waste, Not Petroleum Activities

Oct. 2005 — Plaintiffs' expert reports show pattern of flaws and distortions; Reports lack credible scientific support to validate claims

Feb. 2006 — Plaintiffs lawyers prevent Judge from inspecting laboratory used to analyze their samples; Chevron suspects problems with laboratory technical capability, competency and credentials

Feb. 2006 — Court's "Expert Report" on Sacha 53 confirms TexPet's remediation effective and in compliance with legal standards; No significant risk to human health from remediated site

March 2006 — Dr. Michael Kelsh, a renowned expert on environmental health, informed the Court that health studies promoted by plaintiffs "do not provide evidence that diseases were caused by petroleum."

March 2006 — Superior Court Judge denied for a second time access to laboratory used by plaintiffs; plaintiffs and laboratory in defiance of Court order

March 2006 — Superior Court Judge denied for a third time access to laboratory used by plaintiffs; plaintiffs and laboratory in defiance of Court order

April 2006 — Official court document proves plaintiffs' attempt to obstruct justice by misrepresenting information to the Court; Plaintiff's own technical expert submits declaration to protect himself from plaintiffs' unethical actions

April 2006 — Expert on indigenous cultures presents Court with demographic studies disproving Plaintiffs' claims about indigenous populations in the Ecuadorian Amazon

Aug. 2006 — Evidence from two years of judicial site inspections shows no significant health risk from oil in areas remediated by TexPet

Oct. 2006 — For sixth time, Judge is prevented from conducting Judicial Inspection on laboratory used by plaintiffs

Nov. 2006 — World renowned experts find Chevron's sampling and analysis plan effective, comprehensive and scientifically sound for evaluating oilfield sites; Experts find plaintiffs' allegations baseless and seriously flawed

April 2007 — Laboratory used by Plaintiffs experts blocked for judicial inspection for 7th time; Clear attempt to obstruct justice

April 2007 — Government of Ecuador officials' visit oil field sites with plaintiffs' lawyers and improperly interfere in the judicial process

June 2007 — Chevron challenges Court for appointment of Richard Cabrera as the sole expert in the evidentiary phase for determination of the environmental effects of activities related to the production of hydrocarbons in all the fields operated by Texpet; sites violation of the Court's 2003 order

July 2007 — Epidemiology experts find serious errors in plaintiffs' cancer studies; Actual cancer rates lower than claimed by Plaintiffs; Findings published in International Medical Journal

July 2007 — Chevron names highly respected independent observer to help ensure integrity of judicial examination; Action necessary given multiple irregularities systematically committed by expert Cabrera

Aug 7 2007 — Federal Court in San Franciso Dismisses Ecuadorian Cancer Claims Against Chevron As Knowingly False

Aug 20 2007 — Chevron Calls for Recusal of Judge in Ecuador Suit

Sep 3, 2007 — Superior Court Again Blocked in 8th Attempt to Inspect Laboratory used by Plaintiffs' Experts in Environmental Trial Against Chevron

Sep 19, 2007 — Ecuador Plaintiffs' Have Provided No Evidence to Support Their Cancer Claims

Sep 13 2007 — Use of Secret, Unapproved Research Teams Further Demonstrates Bias and Lack of Transparency in Ecuador Suit

For the latest information on the case go to Chevron.com/Ecuador.

Back to top