-i- TO THE SUBROGATE PRESIDENT OF THE ... - Chevron

United States Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water standards for metals
and relevant petroleum hydrocarbons. 441
Mr. Cabrera selectively discarded twenty-seven percent of his soil samples that
had no hydrocarbon odor or visible contamination and therefore, according to his criteria,
were free of hydrocarbons. 442 In doing so, Mr. Cabrera, at best, assessed isolated
pockets of contamination rather than assessing the sites, or the former concession, as a
whole. Of the discarded samples, twenty-two correspond to nineteen pits at thirteen
sites that he visited. When challenged about his skewed sampling, Mr. Cabrera replied
that his “mission is to investigate the contamination.” 443 Of course, Mr. Cabrera’s
mission was to seek the truth, not to reach a predetermined result, but evidently he did
not see it that way, for the reasons I have now made public. Indeed, in discussing what
samples to take in the "global" report, one of the plaintiffs' consultants took the position
that “[i]f we don't find anything then we don't ever report it.” 444
Even with respect to those samples that Mr. Cabrera did collect, the analyses
performed upon them were scientifically flawed. Proper analysis of various elements
(water, soil, sediments, etc.) is one of the cornerstones to the environmental
investigation of potentially affected sites. 445 Establishing or, at a minimum, identifying
the analytical protocols used in the course of an investigation (and any deviations from
those methods) is the only way an expert can produce scientifically reliable results
capable of being independently evaluated and confirmed. Prior to the start of judicial
inspections, the parties negotiated and agreed to sampling and analytical protocols that
would ensure transparency and reliability. 446 Although the Court approved these
methodologies, neither the plaintiffs nor Mr. Cabrera applied even the most basic
portions of those protocols, such as using a laboratory accredited to perform the proper
analytical tests at the time such tests were performed.
441 DOUGLAS, Gregory S., Refutation of Mr. Cabrera’s Analytical Data and Evaluation of the
Validity of his Sampling and Analysis Programs, attached as Appendix to Chevron’s Objections to Expert
Cabrera’s Global Report, filed Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:14 p.m., Record at 148180-267, 148192.
442 DOUGLAS, Gregory S., Refutation of Mr. Cabrera’s Analytical Data and Evaluation of the
Validity of his Sampling and Analysis Programs, attached as Appendix to Chevron’s Objections to Expert
Cabrera’s Global Report, filed Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:14 p.m., Record at 148180-267, 148199.
443 Chevron Motion, filed July 31, 2007 at 3:20 p.m., Record at 132063-66,132063; Chevron
Motion, filed May 21, 2010 at 4:35 p.m., at 49, Record at 178982-179041, 179030.
444 Transcript of Crude Outtakes, attached as Annex 8 to Chevron’s Motion filed Dec. 22, 2010 at
5:45 p.m. (CRS CRS-197-00-01).
445 See DOUGLAS, Gregory S., Evaluation of the Validity of the Plaintiffs’ Suggested Experts’
Analytical Data from the Judicial Inspections, attached as Appendix to Chevron’s Objections to Expert
Cabrera’s Global Report, filed Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:14 p.m., Record at 146197-268, 146202-03.
446 See Chevron’s Objections to Expert Cabrera’s Global Report, filed Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:14
p.m., Record at 141082-203, 141090.
CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD
- 103 -