17 Aug 2004
ChevronTexaco Asks Superior Court to Order Plaintiffs' Lawyers to Immediately Stop Tampering with Evidence by Drilling at Oil Sites
Drilling Ordered by Plaintiffs' Lawyers Constitutes Violation of Code of Civil Procedure
QUITO, Ecuador, Aug. 17, 2004 - Citing concerns over evidence tampering, ChevronTexaco said today it will submit a petition to the Superior Court in Nueva Loja asking the Court to order an immediate halt to drilling activities and other visible alterations of the site carried out on the instruction of the lawyers who have brought the lawsuit against ChevronTexaco. The company also expressed concern that the plaintiffs' improper drilling activities could in fact cause environmental contamination and harm to the local community.
ChevronTexaco is a defendant in a lawsuit sponsored by North American lawyers, alleging environmental and health damages resulting from the involvement of Texaco Petroleum Company (Texpet) as a minority partner in an oil consortium with Petroecuador. As part of the trial, the Court plans to conduct inspections of 122 oilfield properties in the concession area. Texpet exited all oil-producing activities in Ecuador in 1992, while Petroecuador has owned and operated the fields exclusively for the past twelve years.
Speaking at a news conference today in Quito, Ricardo Reis Veiga, vice president general counsel, Latin America Products for ChevronTexaco, said, "Since first learning of the sites that the Judge has selected to be inspected, plaintiffs have drilled multiple wells throughout those sites in clear violation of the spirit and letter of the judicial process. Simply put, Plaintiffs have put the cart before the horse: The rules require that the judge inspect a site in its original condition, not an altered state. By ordering this drilling, and clearing the sites of brush and vegetation to make pathways to the drilling locations, plaintiffs have irrevocably tampered with the sites - making a proper inspection impossible. Finally, by drilling multiple holes at these sites, the plaintiffs' lawyers and technicians may have inadvertently caused environmental harm by disturbing previously remediated sites where hydrocarbons were safely contained. We believe such activities should stop immediately."
Veiga noted the distinction between the sampling conducted by ChevronTexaco earlier this year, and the drilling ordered by the plaintiffs. "The most significant difference is that in the process of collecting representative samples at the sites remediated by Texpet, we took extraordinary care to preserve the integrity of those sites. We did not alter the sites in any way, or leave large holes as plaintiffs have done. We did not drill wells into groundwater, nor did we leave any markers at the areas where we sampled, as the plaintiffs' lawyers have done by placing concrete markers at their drilling sites. We also did not leave the site in such a condition that it is exposed to sabotage."
In discussing the sampling carried out by ChevronTexaco, Veiga said, "The result of these tests has shown that the levels of hydrocarbons and other petroleum related contaminants in streams and drinking water supplies sampled to date are safe according to the standards of the World Health Organization and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, therefore posing no risk to humans."
Testing Protocol Should be Based on Sound Science
Rodrigo Perez, legal representative of Texpet in Ecuador, said, "These inspections are critical to the judicial process because they must be based on sound science and proven fact, not baseless allegations, outrageous claims or unsound testing procedures. For example, if the inspections reveal evidence of hydrocarbons in the soil or water, the Court should ask not only what the source is, but also whether the levels are significant enough to cause risk, and who is responsible. Similarly, if health problems are claimed, the court should require clear, factual evidence not only of the condition, but also of the cause. People cannot become sick unless they are exposed to certain levels of contaminants over time."
Perez explained that during the judicial inspection process the court will be inspecting a variety of sites, including some that were excluded from Texpet's remediation program. He noted that while hydrocarbons may be observed during the proceedings, that alone does not demonstrate that the hydrocarbons are the result of Texpet operations, nor does it suggest that hydrocarbon levels exceed any environmental or health risk threshold levels; or that Texpet's remediation program was ineffective.
"Remediation is a process to make sites safe," said Perez. "It's a process by which potentially harmful materials are treated and contained so that people, animals and plant life, are not exposed to harmful levels of chemicals. While remediation technologies are not designed to remove every trace of oil, they are designed to ensure a safe environment. Our remediation program met that standard."
Perez also cautioned reporters and the public to be wary of the "history of misinformation" carried out by the plaintiffs' lawyers and activists. "We expect these lawyers and activists will continue to point to evidence of pollution caused by Petroecuador and assign blame to ChevronTexaco. We hope the court and the public will reject such baseless claims."
Perez continued, "ChevronTexaco has presented to the court a testing protocol based upon sound science, established and proven procedures, and carried out by qualified experts and fully accredited laboratories consistent with globally accepted standards." The parties agreed to the majority of the protocol, with two important exceptions: the use of highly unreliable field tests, biased and unrepresentative sampling, and the aforementioned improper drilling practices.
Perez continued, "The plaintiffs' lawyers have insisted on using a method of tests that is both flawed and insufficient. We have emphasized to the court that it should insist that all parties use strictly the most trustworthy and proven testing procedures. Justice and fairness require it."
PetroEcuador is Responsible
Jaime Varela, President of ChevronTexaco/Mexico, addressed Petroecuador's responsibility for environmental damage and its unfulfilled remediation obligations.
"The bottom line is that Petroecuador is responsible," Varela said. "As majority partner in the consortium, it had ultimate power in all substantive operating decisions. In addition, as part of the 1995 agreement by which Texpet agreed to remediate a number of sites proportional to its minority interest in the consortium, Petroecuador had the responsibility for all remaining remediation, and it has never offered an accounting for that. Petroecuador has been the sole owner and operator of the oil fields for over a decade, and its weak environmental performance during that period is well documented. Finally, Petroecuador has even acknowledged its responsibility by assuming the environmental liability of the oil fields as described in its decree outlining future investment in the field."
"ChevronTexaco understands the challenges faced by the people of the Oriente." Varela said. "But we firmly reject the notion that ChevronTexaco should be held accountable simply because it is a convenient target for lawyers and activists. The lawyers who brought this lawsuit would better serve their clients by pursuing Petroecuador, the sole owner and operator of the oil fields for the past 14 years, and the company truly responsible for environmental conditions in the Oriente today."
Contact: ChevronTexaco Press Contact, Ecuador -- 593 99 811 2907
BACKGROUND ON TEXPET REMEDIATION PROGRAM
In 1995 Texpet, the Government of Ecuador and Petroecuador agreed that Texpet would conduct a remediation program to address environmental conditions at a number of sites that was proportional to Texpet's minority interest in the oil consortium. Texpet used remediation experts and state-of-the-art technology in the program. Each remediated site was inspected and certified by the government of Ecuador, and in 1998, having expressed its full satisfaction with the remediation program, the government of Ecuador granted Texpet a full and complete release of all further claims, liabilities and obligations associated with Texpet's involvement with the oil consortium. ChevronTexaco environmental experts visited the proposed judicial inspection sites earlier this year and concluded that the sites remediated by Texpet were properly remediated. Further, environmental experts confirmed that any petroleum contamination remaining in the Oriente was either outside the scope of Texpet's responsibility as directed by the government Petroecuador, or clearly the result of the continuing oil operations of Petroecuador and oil activities occurring long after Texpet stopped operating in Ecuador in 1990.
Back to top