News Releases & Statements

June 16, 2005

Chevron Finds Plaintiffs' Report on Sacha-94 So Misleading, Inaccurate and Riddled with Errors it 'Should Not Be Considered Valid by the Court'

QUITO, Ecuador, June 16, 2005 - Chevron has formally notified the Superior Court in Nueva Loja that the claims, assertions and accusations in plaintiffs' Sacha 94 report contain so many scientific errors that it demonstrates basic "technical incompetence" and should not be considered as evidence by the Court in the judicial process. Plaintiffs' SA-94 report was compiled by Charles Calmbacher based on the corresponding site inspection that took place on September 8, 2004.

In its rebuttal of the plaintiffs' technical report for Sacha 94, Chevron told the Court, "The expert report contains serious technical errors, omissions, contradictions and conclusions that are not supported with scientific data. When scientific data is used, the interpretation of this data is incomplete or inaccurate. These serious technical deficiencies distort the facts and seem designed to mislead the Superior Court of Justice of Nueva Loja. Despite this deceptive use of scientific information to support erroneous conclusions, when examined fully, the data clearly shows that additional remediation is unnecessary and that any hydrocarbons present at the site are within levels safe for public health."

Sara McMillen, Chevron's senior scientific advisor for the case, said, "The technical report on Sacha-94 continues the willful misinterpretation of data to make false claims. Plaintiffs' own laboratory data clearly demonstrates that the remediation met all applicable Ecuadorian and International standards at that time, pervasive contamination does not exist, harmful levels of chemicals are not present, and there is no scientific evidence to support plaintiffs' claims"

Some of the more serious errors more from the Report include:

  • Irresponsible accusations that the 1995 Texpet remediation was either not conducted or insufficient. This conclusion is based on visual observation, rather than legitimate scientific arguments. In fact, scientific analysis of soil samples proves exactly the opposite since they do not display high levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The data also show that the remediation met internationally acceptable techniques and the program was completed in accordance with the laws that were in effect during the time in which the remediation was conducted.
  • No data substantiates the need for additional remediation. The plaintiffs' report erroneously proposes a remediation of soil to a depth of 8 meters. Since no samples were taken at a depth greater than 3.15 meters and the analytical results of all samples taken demonstrate that the soil and ground water meet all applicable Ecuadorian and International environmental criteria there is no need for additional remediation.
  • Improper Sampling Methods Lead to Irrelevant and Unsubstantiated Conclusions. The plaintiffs sampling methods are technically dubious and raise serious doubts regarding the integrity of the samples. For example, during the inspection of SA-94, muddy samples from standing water in open holes were collected and called "ground water samples". Any environmental scientist recognizes that water samples taken under these conditions cannot possibly be used to determine the quality of ground water.
  • In Violation of Court Order, Not All Samples Collected Are Being Analyzed or Presented in Reports. An enormous discrepancy exists between the number of samples that were taken by the plaintiffs' technicians (19), the number of samples that were sent to the laboratory (7), and the number of samples discussed in the report (3). In any legitimate scientific study, all results would have been tested and analyzed. Thus it is clear that plaintiffs' observations are biased, and reflect only the data that supports their pre-ordained conclusions.
  • Unsuitable Use of Criteria. Plaintiffs' report ignored Judge Novillo's instruction to evaluate the remediation techniques employed by Texpet at the sites under standards that applied during the time in which Texpet conducted its remediation. For example, the plaintiffs compare Texpet's data for production water that that was treated and safely discharged with drinking water levels established five to seven years following the Texpet remediation program - an illogical comparison that has no scientific or legal validity.
  • Irresponsible Accusations of Potential Public Health Impact. The report falsely infers that a single soil sample with elevated hydrocarbon concentrations is a threat to public health. The report contains numerous references to highly toxic chemicals, and the migration of toxic materials. These accusations ignore basic principles of risk evaluation -- a risk can only exist if a substance is present in sufficient concentrations, and if there are routes by which exposure could occur. The data reveals that no hydrocarbons were detected in one of the sites, and the other site tested produced only one sample with a high concentration of any substance. In neither of these areas is there any risk of human or animal exposure.

Back to top