Chevron Rejects Report in Ecuadorian Court for Bias

Chevron Corporation said that it will petition the Superior Court in Lago Agrio to strike from the record a flawed and patently partisan report submitted in the ongoing environmental lawsuit filed by Ecuadorian citizens against Chevron.

"This is a defining moment for the Superior Court of Ecuador," said Ricardo Reis Veiga, managing counsel for Chevron Latin America. "The Court's appointee has knowingly violated the judge's orders and delivered a report that is biased and scientifically indefensible. No legitimate court in the world would permit such a charade. If the Court fails in this respect, it will be absolute proof that this trial has deteriorated beyond any shred of legitimacy."

The purported purpose of the report, presented to the Court yesterday by Richard Cabrera, a mining engineer appointed by the Court, was to evaluate what, if any, environmental effects exist in the area of the former consortium between Petroecuador, the state-owned oil company of Ecuador, and Texaco Petroleum Company ("Texpet"), a Chevron subsidiary. Chevron has repeatedly presented objections to the Court about Cabrera's lack of qualifications and expertise, bias in favor of the plaintiffs, and violation of Court orders.

"In considering the report, it should be noted that Cabrera was selected with the full support of plaintiffs' attorneys. Cabrera is being paid solely by the organization that stands to be the financial beneficiary of any ruling and his work plan and product is aligned with the plaintiffs' attorneys' strategy and objectives," Veiga added. "It should come as no surprise that the plaintiffs' attorneys knew the day and hour the Court's appointee would deliver his report, let alone its content before it was available to Chevron and the public. This demonstrates clear, undeniable and highly unethical cooperation between the plaintiffs' attorneys, their surrogates and Cabrera."

Chevron objects to the report for several reasons. First, Cabrera, whose appointment violated Ecuadorian law, refused to follow numerous Court orders on how to conduct the evaluation of the former consortium area. Second, Cabrera relied on a scientifically flawed work plan for his environmental evaluation. Third, Cabrera conducted field work that ignored all scientifically accepted technical procedures for site assessment. Lastly, the fact that Cabrera's field support team was comprised of members and supporters of the Frente de la Defensa de la Amazonia (the entity designated by plaintiffs in the complaint as the recipient of any potential payment in the litigation) raises serious questions about Cabrera's objectivity.

Cabrera has also disregarded the obvious fact that Petroecuador, owner of an approximate two-thirds share of the venture, became the operator of the consortium area in 1990 and the sole owner in 1992. Since then, Petroecuador has amassed a record of mismanagement, operational neglect and environmental damage. It has been publicly reported that the company is responsible for more than 1,000 oil spills from 2002 through 2007.

The appointment of Cabrera to prepare this report marks a deviation from prior Court orders as well as the Ecuador Code of Civil Procedure. This phase of the trial was to occur only after 122 site inspections had concluded and a credible evidentiary record had been established.

"To date, only 47 inspections have occurred, and only one has been seen through to completion. Notably, the report that settles the findings was favorable to Chevron. Unable to contradict the findings from that first site inspection, plaintiffs' attorneys brought the inspections to a halt. They then succeeded in securing the illegitimate nomination of Cabrera, in total violation of existing Court orders and the law," Veiga said.

Chevron is preparing a detailed rebuttal to the report and will petition the Court to declare the report null and void, and strike it from the record.