18 Aug 2004

ChevronTexaco Reports on First Judicial Site Inspection

NUEVA LOJA, Ecuador, August 18, 2004 - The Superior Court of Nueva Loja today conducted its first site inspection in the environmental lawsuit filed against ChevronTexaco. The inspection took place at PetroEcuador's currently active well site, Sacha-06. Among the highlights:

  • Judge Efrain Novillo denied the plaintiffs' request and ruled that the parties are prohibited from disclosing any information from preliminary tests conducted during the site inspections until they have been subjected to the proper analysis at an accredited laboratory.
  • Plaintiffs admitted that the one field test they conducted was inconclusive.
  • Following a strategic blunder, plaintiffs were forced to withdraw their sole witness after ChevronTexaco pointed out that the witness had unsuccessfully brought an environmental lawsuit against Texaco Petroleum Company, which he subsequently lost. Plaintiffs' attorneys had to concede that the witness lacked credibility.
  • Plaintiffs admitted to conducting drilling activities prior to the judicial inspections without the knowledge, or express order by the judge, and which were also conducted outside of the presence of experts as required by the Court.
  • Plaintiffs' rationale for drilling multiple holes was that they needed to obtain technical information and thus had to conduct extensive exploration in an attempt to find contamination-an assertion that fundamentally undermines past allegations of widespread contamination.

In his remarks before the court, Adolfo Callejas, legal counsel for ChevronTexaco repeated his request that the improper practices being carried out by plaintiffs be immediately put to a halt. Callejas said, "Neither you, the president of the Court, nor ChevronTexaco can have confidence in what is encountered in the soil and subsoil of the area now that it has been altered, manipulated and possibly environmentally impacted."

"All of these acts create a false impression and an unacceptable result from a procedural point of view, constitutes a violation of the judicial process guaranteed by the Constitution, and impedes the completion of this process."

Back to top