In his answer to Question 11 posed by Mr. Pablo Fajardo (attorney for the Plaintiffs) inthe document “Respuestas a las Preguntas de la Parte Demandante Relacionadas con elInforme Pericial,” Mr. Cabrera says “…additional research is needed in order to developa plan and to evaluate the cost of cleaning up the groundwater” and “This is why I amunable to define the cost of cleaning up the groundwater.” Nevertheless, despite the factthat Mr. Cabrera says he needs additional data and information in order to calculate thegroundwater remediation cost, and he presents no new data, he proceeds to present agrossly exaggerated and technically indefensible estimate of groundwater remediationcost. In doing so, Mr. Cabrera 1) ignores the facts showing the absence of groundwatercontamination in the former Petroecuador-Texaco concession area, and 2) usesinappropriate groundwater remediation technologies, remediation costs, and numbers of supposedly contaminated sites. This is explained in greater detail in the followingsections.
There are no impacts on drinking water from Texpet operations within the former Petroecuador-Texpet concession area, and no evidence of the need for groundwater remediation.
Comprehensive sampling done by the experts suggested to the court by the Defendant(134 samples at 32 sites) of actual drinking water wells in the proximity of pits found noexceedance of USEPA or WHO drinking water criteria for metals and hydrocarbons
.Additionally, the Chevron field team collected samples of drinking water from 28household wells located in the immediate vicinity of the sites visited by Mr. Cabrera andfound no evidence of impact by oilfield operations (Connor and Landazuri, 2008). Withrespect to supposed groundwater contamination in the former concession area, it isimportant to note that Mr. Cabrera:
took no samples of drinking water,
took no samples representative of groundwater,
muddy water samples from open boreholes within pits, and the sourceof this water was more likely to be either runoff or perched water than agroundwater aquifer,
reported results for samples collected by other people without informing the courtor Chevron that such sampling was occurring, and Mr. Cabrera himself was notpresent at the sites for this sampling,
appears to have ignored the results of samples collected by the Defendant’sexperts during the judicial inspections, and
ignored the results of his own data, since his own data indicate that all his watersamples meet USEPA drinking water standards for the analyzed metals andhydrocarbons.
1One well located in the vicinity of SSF-45A had a very low estimated concentration of dibenoz(a,h)anthracene; this wellwas resampled at a later date and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene was not detected in this sample or in its duplicate. SSF-45Awas the location of a subsurface produced water leak from a Petroecuador injection well.2Table 2 in the expert report of Dr. Gregory Douglas (2008a) states that 5 muddy water samples were collected. This isbecause Dr. Douglas excluded the one “groundwater” sample from Mr. Cabrera’s sampling trip that occurred from August16 to August 24, 2007 because Mr. Cabrera failed to submit the chains of custody and laboratory reports. Mr. Cabreralater submitted this information to the court with his “muestras testigos” which allows this sample to be counted in thisreport.