In order to implement its defense for the imminent trial, Chevron
and its team of experts manufactured the evidence in order to be
prepared for the expected judicial inspections.
Chevron used these pre-inspections with the purpose of locating specific sample sites where it could extract soil from the old oil wells.
In these oil sites, the result is as follows:
LAGO AGRIO 2
Chevron identified 4 pits and confirmed that there existed non- remediated hydrocarbons in at least one pit, number 3, which was opened before 1976 and closed by Texaco in 1990. It also confirmed that existing hydrocarbons had migrated through the sides of the pit and contaminated a nearby stream.
However, Texaco did not mention this pit in the release of liability agreement since Texaco maintained that that it had previously closed it and therefore there was nothing to remediate.
GUANTA 6
This is pit of burnt material, a type of oil swamp.
When Chevron investigated by its own account, it encountered contamination in the sediments. The documents establish that the contamination had spread 800 meters downstream, where the local habitants obtain water for their use.
In order to avoid problems, Chevron took samples from upstream waters instead of downstream waters where there was no contamination, according to their own report.
SHUSHUFINDI 25
Texaco began operations in this oil field in 1973. During the course of its operations, Chevron dug up 4 pits at this site, three of which were remediated as indicated in the agreement signed with the State in 1995.
Chevron experts found widespread contamination at this site during its investigations prior to the trial. The tests taken in January of 2004 revealed and documented the presence of high oil contamination. Such contamination was found under the ground of an apparently remediated area, which Texaco had covered with topsoil during the remediation process. Texaco confirmed that the contamination had reached underground waters.
AGUARICO 2
This well was never operated by CEPE. It was one of the last wells to be closed in 1990, and was included in the remediation plan with the Duran Balln administration. However, the remediation was inadequate.
During the pre-inspections at this site, Chevron experts found that contamination was present. Chevrons samples showed significant hydrocarbon contamination up to NINE TIMES higher than limits allowed by international regulations. The experts also confirmed that the contamination had drained into a nearby stream.
YUCA 2
In 2004 and 2006, Chevron experts confirmed that an oil spill, which occurred in mid eighties, still affects the pastures located northeast of this pit. This contamination was confirmed to have a level that is TEN TIMES higher than what is permitted. In its defense, Chevron alleged that the spill had occurred immediately prior to the judicial inspection.
All of this was denied by Chevron during the judicial process
CONCLUSION
According to the expert report by Mr. Bjorkman, retained by Chevron, and obtained legally by Ecuador, it concludes that:
CHEVRON TOOK OVER 1,500 DIFFERENT SAMPLES DURING ITS ATTEMPT TO FIND CLEAN LOCATIONS TO DEFEND ITS POSITION. THESE SAMPLES CONCLUDE THAT:
1. 162 OF THE SAMPLES OBTAINED FROM SEDIMENTS EXCEED INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS. 2. 264 OF THE SAMPLES OBTAINED FROM THE SOIL EXCEED INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS