28 Aug 2007
Phase II Workplan Cannot Possible Produce Scientifically Valid Results
Environmental Experts Agree that Richard Cabrera's Plan Fails to Meet Court Objectives
Quito, Ecuador, August 28, 2007 - A panel of renowned environmental engineers has concluded that the inspection plan developed by Richard Cabrera in Ecuador is neither complete nor transparent, and will likely not yield results that can withstand a rigorous scientific review.
The independent analysis prepared at Chevron's request, and submitted to the Superior Court in Nueva Loja, concludes that Mr. Cabrera's plan "stands a very significant risk of failing to meet the court's general objectives and a very significant chance of producing a report that will not contain the scientific rigor required."
The authors of the report, Drs. Pedro J.J. Alvarez, Dr. Douglas Mackay and Dr. Robert Hinchee state, "We have doubts that the (Cabrera plan) could possibly achieve the court's presumed objective and produce a scientifically defensible assessment of this very complex topic."
Drs. Alvarez, Mackay and Hinchee have extensive experience evaluating, characterizing and remediating sites impacted by petroleum or other chemical substances. In commenting on the process, the authors note that the originally requested and subsequently ordered process for Phase One's collection of data was, without any stated and logical justification, radically altered to one that appears less rational and certainly less likely to yield a complete set of defensible data. Due to the truncation of the original Phase I process, many sites had not yet been inspected or sampled according to the carefully thought out and mutually accepted plans.
For these and other reasons, the authors stated that it is simply not possible for a single expert, even with the support of other experts, to undertake and complete the court's intent in a technically defensible way given the short timeframe of the order (120 working days).
Within the report submitted to the Court, the authors offer specific observations on the "critical elements" that are lacking in the Cabrera plan, including:
- A team of highly qualified, experienced, and unbiased technical experts
- A clear statement of scope
- A transparent process that allows both parties (Plaintiffs and Defendants) to participate in developing the strategy for collection of any additional samples and data.
- Detailed work plans describing the field work, what samples or data will be collected and how, what analysis will be used, what Quality Control and Quality Assurance procedures will be followed.
- A thorough and careful evaluation and analysis of all available and defensible data, including those derived from the earlier Phase I Judicial Inspections.
Their report also concludes, "While (Cabrera's) plan does appear to provide an outline of what might, given sufficient time and resources, lead to a reasonable result, it is far too general and lacking in detail to allow us or anyone to gain a reasonably complete understanding of what Cabrera's team will actually do to complete this very complex undertaking."
Commenting on the report, Ricardo Reis Veiga, vice president and general counsel of Latin America Products for Chevron said, "This report validates Chevron's concerns that we will be unable to receive a fair and impartial assessment during Phase Two. We have previously petitioned the court to disqualify Mr. Cabrera as the Phase Two expert and argued that his lack of competency and his clear bias in favor of the plaintiffs make him an unacceptable court expert. Along with the bias, Mr. Cabrera's work plan is unacceptable and violates the Court's orders regarding Phase Two."
Veiga continued, "Furthermore, Chevron is challenging the very legitimacy of the trial's second phase. The Superior Court is improperly allowing phase II to proceed without first establishing a complete and proper evidentiary record in Phase I. This trial has become a mockery of due process where science and technical merits of the case are being ignored."
Dr. Pedro J.J. Alvarez is the George R. Brown Professor and Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Rice University; Dr. Douglas Mackay is, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Land, Air & Water Resources at the University of California at Davis and Consulting Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University; and Dr. Robert Hinchee an environmental engineer with a Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Utah State University.
The lawsuit was filed in 2003 by U.S. and Ecuadorian attorneys against Chevron after a 10-year fight to have the case heard in the U.S., where it was dismissed on four separate occasions. The suit alleges that the past operations of Texaco Petroleum Company (TexPet) in Ecuador caused environmental contamination, which Chevron vigorously denies. Since commencing in October, 2003, the trial has been in an extended evidence-gathering process.
Petroecuador has been the exclusive owner and operator of the oil fields since 1992 and the sole operator of such fields for more than 17 years. Between 1995 and 1998, TexPet carried out a program to remediate a number of oil sites roughly proportional to its minority interest in the consortium. In an agreement between TexPet, Petroecuador and the Government, Petroecuador was responsible for the remediation of the remainder of the sites - an obligation it has yet to fulfill. Upon the Government's inspection of the sites remediated by TexPet, the Government released TexPet from all future claims or obligations.
A copy of the report by Drs. Alvarez, Mackay and Hinchee can be found at http://www.texaco.com/sitelets/ecuador/docs/cabrera_plan_evaluation_en.pdf (PDF, 195KB)
For more information on Chevron in Ecuador, see http://www.texaco.com/sitelets/ecuador/en/
Back to top