16 Nov 2004

CHEVRONTEXACO ASKS COURT TO INVESTIGATE LAST-MINUTE CLAIM BY PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING TEST SAMPLES

Says Plaintiffs' Claim That Samples Were Opened by Customs Agents "Raises Very Serious Concerns" and is "Highly Suspicious"

Asks Court to Demand Proof and Order Plaintiffs to Comply With Inspection Procedures

QUITO, Ecuador, November 16, 2004 - ChevronTexaco today asked the Superior Court in Nueva Loja to investigate the last-minute claim by the plaintiffs' technical expert, Dr. Charles Calmbacher, asking to retest the first two sites that were inspected by the Court in August. The company said Dr. Calmbacher's November 11 claim that U.S. Customs agents affected the integrity of his samples less than a week before his report was due is "highly suspicious" and should be investigated by the Court.

In its petition to the Superior Court, ChevronTexaco has demanded a detailed inquiry to determine whether Dr. Calmbacher can provide any proof of his claim that customs agents, by opening some of the samples, broke the chain of custody procedures required by the Court. The company is also asking why Dr. Calmbacher is only now making this request, even though the samples should have been submitted to an accredited laboratory more than two months ago.

Rodrigo Perez, legal representative of Texaco Petroleum Company, said, "In our view, Dr. Calmbacher is not providing the full story to the court. If indeed the plaintiffs' test samples were somehow compromised by customs agents, it is a mystery why this is only being revealed to the Court now, when those samples should have been shipped more than two months ago. Frankly, such a claim raises very serious concerns."

Perez continued, "With this latest development, one must ask the question as to whether this process is being abused, and we have asked the Court to inquire how the plaintiffs' are conducting or directing their sampling and analysis."

Perez noted that should the Court grant the plaintiffs' request to conduct new tests at Sacha 6 and Sacha 21, that it require them to strictly follow the court-ordered testing and sampling plans and to adhere to accepted standards of science; neither of which the plaintiffs' technicians did during the initial testing in August.

"Perez continued, "Since the start of the inspections in August, we have seen a disturbing pattern of activity in which plaintiffs have violated the most basic scientific procedures, ignored the sampling and analytical protocols that were agreed to by both parties at the beginning of this process. Whether these actions are intentional or not, it does not change the outcome. Distinct from the issue of this dubious claim by Dr. Calmbacher, we have serious concerns about the accuracy and validity of their testing due to the manner in which it was carried out."

Back to top