February 2, 2008
Plaintiffs' Evidence is Scientifically Unreliable, Say Environmental Experts
Flaws in Earlier Scientific Work Highlights Problems for Plaintiffs, Casts Doubt over Forthcoming Court Appointed "Expert" Report
Quito, Ecuador, February 2, 2008 – A panel of renowned environmental engineers has concluded that the Judicial Inspection (JI) reports prepared by Plaintiffs' technicians during the first three years of the environmental trial against Chevron in Ecuador contain so many errors in sampling and analytical processes, as well as obvious flaws in interpretations, that they do not meet scientific standards and are not scientifically defensible.
The independent analysis prepared at Chevron's request, and submitted to the Superior Court in Nueva Loja, provided a technical and scientific evaluation of a number of Judicial Inspections reports prepared by Plaintiffs' suggested "experts." In reviewing each of their conclusions, the panel found that the Plaintiffs' suggested "experts" "did not provide data or arguments supporting their claims in a scientifically defensible way."
This independent analysis is important because in the following weeks, Mr. Richard Cabrera, the court appointed "expert" for the second phase expert determination of the trial, is expected to submit his report to the Court. Chevron has voiced grave concerns regarding the process by which this second phase expert determination has been conducted by Mr. Cabrera.
The authors of the independent analysis prepared for Chevron, Drs. Pedro J.J. Alvarez, Douglas Mackay and Robert Hinchee, identified and detailed "major flaws" within Plaintiffs' suggested "experts" work. Among other conclusions, Alvarez, Mackay and Hinchee said the Plaintiffs' suggested "experts:"
- Failed to substantiate alleged impacts to human health and the environment.
- Produced questionable data because of many incorrect sampling and sample handling procedures.
- Frequently sampled in the wrong locations or incorrectly identified samples.
- Often used inappropriate or incorrect analytical procedures and did not follow scientifically based quality assurance and quality control procedures during analyses.
- Employed illogical and/or incorrect data interpretation.
- Made claims based on anecdotal information often unsubstantiated and flawed, or with little or no supporting evidence.
- Offered incorrect and unfounded criticisms of Texaco Petroleum's remediation.
"This independent analysis demonstrates, once again, that the plaintiffs' attorneys have failed to meet their burden of proof. That alone is sufficient grounds for the case to be dismissed," said Ricardo Reis Veiga, Managing Counsel for Chevron Latin America.
"If the conclusions of the upcoming Cabrera report are generated from the same biased approach and unscientific process observed in plaintiffs' suggested "experts" work during the Judicial Inspections, it will be clear that such report will also lack all credibility and scientific value", Veiga added.
Drs. Alvarez, Mackay and Hinchee have extensive experience evaluating, characterizing and remediating sites impacted by petroleum or other chemical substances. 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 current lawsuit was filed in 2003 by U.S. and Ecuadorian attorneys 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.
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.
For more information on Chevron in Ecuador, see http://www.texaco.com/sitelets/ecuador/en/.
Back to top