December 1, 2004
Plaintiffs' Claims About Sacha-53 Technical Report Are Completely Without Merit; Based on Flawed Sampling and Analysis; Incorrect Interpretations of Data and Biased Science
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
Company Registers Strong Protest with Court Over Plaintiff's Violation of Court-Ordered Rules Governing Reports
QUITO, Ecuador, December 1, 2004 - ChevronTexaco, the defendant in an environmental lawsuit brought by North American lawyers on behalf of residents of the Oriente, today called worthless claims made by a plaintiffs' attorney about their technical expert's report on the Sacha-53 site. The Company also said the press comments the plaintiffs' lawyer made on the report were "irresponsible and deliberately misleading."
Responding to the news conference held today by Steven Donziger, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Rodrigo Perez, legal representative of Texaco Petroleum Company, said, "The technical report discussed today by the plaintiffs' attorney is completely without merit because it is based on reports from persons who are not qualified to assess impacts to human health from exploration and production operations and remediated sites and flawed sampling, analysis and data interpretation."
Perez continued, "In yet another indication that Plaintiffs' attorneys are more concerned with newspaper headlines than with sound science and due process, they have shown their utter disdain for the judicial process by violating the Court's specific order on how these technical reports should be handled. Whether they fear an honest review of the facts, or seek to deceive the public, their actions are wrong and serve only to undermine the integrity of the judicial process. We have registered our strong protest with the Superior Court in Nueva Loja because we believe the comments by Mr. Donziger -- who ironically was involved in the development of the very procedures governing these reports -- are irresponsible, and his characterization of the Sacha-53 site underscores his deliberate attempts to mislead the public about the truth in this case and Petroecuador's responsibility.
Perez noted that the preliminary analysis by the technicians who inspected the site for ChevronTexaco shows that the remediation work done by Texaco Petroleum effectively eliminated the potential risk of harmful contamination, and that the soil samples from the remediated pit areas taken at the site were well within Ecuadorian and international standards for safety. Drinking water sources in the area show no evidence of any petroleum impacts or any toxic chemical associated with petroleum that could pose a risk to human health.
It is important to note that during the judicial inspection of Sacha-53, residents in the area testified before Judge Novillo and did not present any testimony of health complaints.
Perez explained that under the rules ordered by the Court, the technical experts for each party are required to submit a report on each site inspected. The reports are considered preliminary, and are subject to challenge by the other party, and by the technical expert appointed by the Court. According to the Court's order, no party may speak publicly about its respective report until both reports for a given site have been presented to the Court and entered into the record. This procedure is designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that the facts are fairly presented. The technical expert for ChevronTexaco has not yet submitted his report for the Sacha-53 well site, because the Court-ordered due date is December 21.
Perez also raised serious concerns with the manner in which soil and water samples are being tested by technicians working on behalf of the plaintiffs, and has called into question the scientific validity of any results to be issued by the plaintiffs, for any of the sites inspected thus far. In describing the plaintiffs' failure to comply with sampling and analytical protocols as ruled by Judge Efrain Novillo (President of the Superior Court of Justice of Nueva Loja), Perez said, "These actions raise grave concerns about the plaintiffs' technical ability to properly handle and analyze evidence in a sound scientific manner."
According to Sara McMillen, ChevronTexaco's senior scientific advisor for the case, "Since the start of the judicial inspection process in August, we have seen a disturbing pattern of activity in which the plaintiffs' technicians 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, and disregarded the instructions of the court as to how the sampling and analysis should be conducted. Based on what we have witnessed, we have serious concerns about the accuracy and validity of any results that are reported from the testing carried out by the plaintiffs' technicians.'
McMillen continued, "ChevronTexaco has taken every precaution to ensure that the results of the testing undertaken by our technicians are as accurate and scientifically valid as possible, and consistent with the agreed-upon protocols and the instructions of the court. To that end, we use only the most precise, commonly accepted testing methods, our samples are analyzed in an accredited and internationally recognized laboratory, and our tests are performed by highly trained experts in a controlled environment in accordance with strict scientific protocols. The plaintiffs simply cannot say the same."
"At the beginning of this inspection process we said it was critical to the judicial process that these inspections be based on sound science and proven fact," said Perez. "From the pattern of behavior we have witnessed in the plaintiffs' technicians, they have failed that test. The result unequivocally undermines the credibility of any conclusions drawn from their testing results."
BACKGROUND: 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. Texpet ceased its operatorship in 1990 and exited all oil-producing activities in Ecuador in 1992, while Petroecuador has owned and operated the fields exclusively for the past twelve years. As part of the trial, the Court began conducting inspections of 122 oilfield properties in the concession area in mid-August.
During the inspections that have taken place since then, separate technical teams working for the plaintiffs and ChevronTexaco have collected soil and water samples. The collection and analysis of the samples are governed by Sampling and Analysis Plans that were approved and signed by both plaintiffs' and ChevronTexaco's legal counsel, as well as the President of the Court.
Back to top