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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

program, evidencing their continuing efforts to terminate the very remediation they have demanded from Chevron. 937 In 2008, PEPDA was replaced by UMR, which continues remediation efforts to this day, albeit at a much slower pace than promised by Petroecuador in 2007. And on June 21, 2009, Ecuador’s Ministry of the Environment announced an expansion of this plan, focusing on all areas in Ecuador impacted by petroleum production, again including former Consortium sites. 938 President Correa, in his November 7, 2009 weekly broadcast, likewise confirmed the Government’s responsibility, explaining that “[the Government] will not only clean new spills, but will remediate all environmental liabilities.” 939 Notably, the PEPDA/UMR program appears to involve generally the same steps that Woodward-Clyde employed when carrying out its remediation work for TexPet. 940 After all steps are completed at a particular site, the owner of the remediated land signs an Acta Entrega—Recepción (Remediated Pit Acknowledgement Certificate) together with the PEPDA/UMR coordinator and representatives from DINAPA and Petroproducción. 941 This document certifies that pit remediation was completed to the satisfaction of all interested and competent parties. 942 Petroecuador’s remediation costs are substantially lower than the enormous amounts suggested by the plaintiffs: 943 Mr. Cabrera, in “his” supplemental report dated November 26, 2008, estimates US$3.08 million per site, and in their submission of September 16, 2010, the plaintiffs request from US$531,080 to US$1,034,896 per pit. 944 However, as shown in my client’s filings of September 16, 2010 at 4:35 p.m. and October 29, 2010 at 5:20 p.m., these astronomical remediation cost estimates are far in 937 Plaintiffs’ motion, filed June 4, 2008, Record at 140460-62. 938 See State Assumes Environmental Remediation, El Universo, June 21, 2009, attached as Annex E to Chevron’s Rebuttal to the Barros Report, filed on Jan. 14, 2010, at 5:55 p.m., Record at 165383-84, 165384. 939 See Transcript, President Rafael Correa’s Broadcast, at Joya de Los Sachas (Sucumbíos) (Nov. 7, 2009), attached as Annex C to Chevron’s Rebuttal to the Barros Report, filed on Jan. 14, 2010, at 5:55 p.m., Record at 165378-380, 165379. 940 See Woodward-Clyde International, Remediation Action Project, Oriente Region, Ecuador, Final Report, Vol. I, May 2000, attached as Annex 44 to Chevron’s Motion filed Sept. 16, 2010 at 4:35 p.m., at 3-4 through 3-10. 941 BACA, Ernesto, Response to Mr. Cabrera Regarding his Evaluation of Petroecuador’s Pit Remediation Program (PEPDA), attached as an appendix to Chevron’s Objections to Expert Cabrera’s Global Report, filed Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:14 p.m., Record at 146992-148128, 147043. 942 See id. 943 For a more detailed discussion of the costs associated with the remediation of sites in the former concession area, see Chevron’s Motion filed Sept. 16, 2010 at 4:35 p.m., § IV, at 213-23. 944 Plaintiffs’ Motion filed Sept. 16, 2010 at 5:15 p.m., § 4.1.1, at 8. CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD - 211 -
excess of what any similar remediation has ever cost, are without technical basis, and are not realistic estimates of the actual cost of remediation. Oilfield pit-remediation costs are well known and well understood by everyone in the oil industry. This is because the approved cleanup processes are well established and have been employed at many sites worldwide. Information on many of these sites and the associated cleanup costs are publicly available. For example, Petroecuador has remediated oilfield pits both within the former concession and in other areas where Petroecuador operates, through the PEPDA/UMR program. According to Petroecuador’s 2007 Annual Report, the average remediation cost per pit is US$85,000 and the approximate cost of PEPDA’s pit remediation project is expected to be US$46.75 million (through 2010) for the 550 pits located within and outside the former concession area. For the pits within the former concession area, PEPDA/UMR estimated the total remediation cost to be US$31.45 million in 2007. 945 On June 21, 2009, the Ministry of the Environment announced that a comprehensive remediation plan for all areas in Ecuador affected by petroleum production, including sites formerly operated by the Consortium, will cost a total of US$97 million and will be conducted from 2009 to 2013. Furthermore, as part of the PEPDA/UMR remediation process, Petroecuador publicly revealed bids from four Ecuadorian remediation companies that sought to do soil remediation work. These bids ranged from US$29 per cubic meter to US$45 per cubic meter. These costs are similar to the costs incurred by PEPDA/UMR, and are less than ten percent of amount suggested by the Cabrera Report, as discussed below. 946 Dr. 945 Similarly, one of plaintiffs’ consultants internally estimated in 2004 that remediation would cost about US$30 million. See Annex 1 to Chevron’s Fourth Supplemental Motion for Terminating Sanctions, filed Dec. 22, 2010 at 5:45 p.m. (DONZ00027273). 946 Petroecuador’s own costs are reported to be only US$22 per cubic meter of treated soil and water, and its remediation, as shown at Shushufindi 17, has been independently confirmed to meet applicable standards. See Petroecuador Report, “Applications of Biotechnology for Bioremediation of Soil and Water Contaminated by Oil Spills,” attached as Annex 12 to Chevron’s Fourth Supplemental Motion for Terminating Sanctions, filed Dec. 22, 2010 at 5:45 p.m.; see also Freire Acosta, Franklin, “Environmental Remediation Techniques for Soil Contaminated by Hydrocarbons in the Area of Influence of Petroproducción’s Operations in the Ecuadorian Northeast at the Shushufindi 17-1 Pit (PEPDA),” attached as Annex 14 to Chevron’s Fourth Supplemental Motion for Terminating Sanctions, filed Dec. 22, 2010 at 5:45 p.m. Another region where remediation costs are well known is in the U.S. states of Texas and Louisiana, where significant oil production activity occurs and where remediation of old wellsites occurs under “Orphan Well” programs. Compliance with those programs is documented, and the costs are publicly available. In Louisiana, for example, where thousands of wellsites have been remediated, the Louisiana Office of Conservation database shows 774 sites as of 2008 (most of these sites are old abandoned oil wells containing one or more pits) where final closure has been achieved. The total remediation cost has ranged from US$100 to US$242,000 per site, with an average cost of approximately US$20,000 per site. Another study conducted an analysis of approximately 210 pits at these sites remediated between the years 2003 and 2008, and found that the cost of remediation of those contaminated pits ranged between approximately US$10,000 and US$37,000 per pit at a unit cost of between US$13 and US$99 per cubic meter of contaminated soil. Finally, a detailed cost analysis of the closure and cleanup of an oilfield in the Netherlands that the oil company Schoonebeek operated between the years 1943 and 1996 indicates that the cost of remediating oil-contaminated soil averaged CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD - 212 -
Page 1 and 2:
TO THE SUBROGATE PRESIDENT OF THE P
Page 3 and 4:
3.4.3 Mr. Cabrera’s Fieldwork Was
Page 5 and 6:
7.3.1 Plaintiffs Have Failed to Pro
Page 7 and 8:
the arguments in the Cabrera Report
Page 9 and 10:
negligence where TexPet was directl
Page 11 and 12:
they not only secretly conspired us
Page 13 and 14:
has repeatedly shown to be corrupte
Page 15 and 16:
plaintiffs’ egregious and fraudul
Page 17 and 18:
to annul the rulings of Judge Núñ
Page 19 and 20:
filed on September 16, 2010 at 5:15
Page 21 and 22:
after the conclusion of the evident
Page 23 and 24:
conditions in the Amazon region rel
Page 25 and 26:
during Consortium operations, Chevr
Page 27 and 28:
alleged liability and obligations w
Page 29 and 30:
the basis of Article 2260 of the Ci
Page 31 and 32:
1.1 Chevron Never Operated in Ecuad
Page 33 and 34:
Plaintiffs allege that this corpora
Page 35 and 36:
in the complaints in the[] U.S. act
Page 37 and 38:
If the plaintiffs had timely sued T
Page 39 and 40:
2.1 The Plaintiffs Submitted Fabric
Page 41 and 42:
As Dr. Calmbacher’s testimony ind
Page 43 and 44:
were “choreographed”; just “a
Page 45 and 46:
in working clandestinely and in col
Page 47 and 48:
Rather, he worked alongside, and on
Page 49 and 50:
During this meeting of March 3, 200
Page 51 and 52:
course you really have to be comfor
Page 53 and 54:
David Mills, another of plaintiffs
Page 55 and 56:
consultants—it can no longer be c
Page 57 and 58:
ecome the Cabrera Report, a note ob
Page 59 and 60:
assembled a team of experts” beca
Page 61 and 62:
And even Mr. Donziger himself predi
Page 63 and 64:
from the supplemental report’s an
Page 65 and 66:
Mr. Cabrera repeatedly promised to
Page 67 and 68:
• Mr. Cabrera breached his obliga
Page 69 and 70:
Second, to exaggerate his volume fi
Page 71 and 72:
headquarters in Quito. The recordin
Page 73 and 74:
(viii) The award will be made in pa
Page 75 and 76:
Chevron which are unreasoned, viola
Page 77 and 78:
complete investigation, particularl
Page 79 and 80:
was submitted, Mr. Donziger told th
Page 81 and 82:
this case by completely dismissing
Page 83 and 84:
mechanism—a second, ad hoc eviden
Page 85 and 86:
attempted to confirm, it recognized
Page 87 and 88:
equested that Judge Ordóñez be re
Page 89 and 90:
protocols for analyzing samples tak
Page 91 and 92:
The plaintiffs first tried, in Janu
Page 93 and 94:
Accordingly, Chevron opposed the re
Page 95 and 96:
possibility to defend itself, refut
Page 97 and 98:
seen conceding in the Crude outtake
Page 99 and 100:
eport could be analyzed by the cour
Page 101 and 102:
lacked those qualifications. Indeed
Page 103 and 104:
and the installation of geomembrane
Page 105 and 106:
guessing . . . always confused.”
Page 107 and 108:
samples of doubtful origin and inad
Page 109 and 110:
Indeed, although Mr. Cabrera stated
Page 111 and 112:
degree of scientific certainty that
Page 113 and 114:
pathways”-to “recommend that th
Page 115 and 116:
ecommended an economic value of bil
Page 117 and 118:
Chevron also invoked its constituti
Page 119 and 120:
postponed a decision. 497 For insta
Page 121 and 122:
“was not engaging in any exercise
Page 123 and 124:
jurisdiction over Chevron. Then, as
Page 125 and 126:
hasten a large judgment against Che
Page 127 and 128:
Mr. Berlinger recently corroborated
Page 129 and 130:
with him.” 536 The plaintiffs eve
Page 131 and 132:
has “the most ridiculous legal cu
Page 133 and 134:
Government “already [knew] about
Page 135 and 136:
gathering evidence” against Chevr
Page 137 and 138:
amount of money, and there are no a
Page 139 and 140:
ecommended dismissal of the 2003 cr
Page 141 and 142:
to settle the civil case. 608 Docum
Page 143 and 144:
that the Government was managing Ju
Page 145 and 146:
essential formalities with nullity
Page 147 and 148:
4.2 Nullity Due to This Court’s L
Page 149 and 150:
oth on the provisions of the Civil
Page 151 and 152:
4.4 Nullity Due to the Lack of Lega
Page 153 and 154:
The common legal representative’s
Page 155 and 156:
continue to hear [the case] until t
Page 157 and 158:
the right to bring all indivisible
Page 159 and 160:
Each municipal suit was settled in
Page 161 and 162:
Like the local governments, the Gov
Page 163 and 164:
These services were to be administe
Page 165 and 166: 5.2.4 The Settlement Agreements Sig
Page 167 and 168: elease collective claims based on t
Page 169 and 170: effect of administrative acts “is
Page 171 and 172: i.e., to the inability to anticipat
Page 173 and 174: This was expressly acknowledged by
Page 175 and 176: plaintiffs’ alleged claims, it co
Page 177 and 178: the complaint.” 768 Accordingly,
Page 179 and 180: management of natural resources, an
Page 181 and 182: Article 43 created a new course [si
Page 183 and 184: plaintiff shall not amend it, nor s
Page 185 and 186: Because the complaint sought compen
Page 187 and 188: category of damages we possibly can
Page 189 and 190: ecovery for such a claim must go di
Page 191 and 192: v. “Recovery of the land and cult
Page 193 and 194: Plaintiffs’ argument is wrong on
Page 195 and 196: damages, based on conduct preceding
Page 197 and 198: 7.2 Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove
Page 199 and 200: tripled the requested damages from
Page 201 and 202: damages. Moreover, the new reports
Page 203 and 204: conditions and liabilities within t
Page 205 and 206: ing them below 1,000 mg TCLP-TPH pe
Page 207 and 208: The areas remediated by TexPet requ
Page 209 and 210: cleanup of the very sites in questi
Page 211 and 212: water resource, under any hypotheti
Page 213 and 214: None of this could have been a surp
Page 215: with TexPet. 927 In September 2007,
Page 219 and 220: plaintiffs’ proposed plans to ins
Page 221 and 222: extra petita. In all events, any su
Page 223 and 224: epresentative of the Frente—the n
Page 225 and 226: establish a causal connection betwe
Page 227 and 228: Stratus, the paid consultants hired
Page 229 and 230: eached by disregarding the data pro
Page 231 and 232: As the Government had intended, col
Page 233 and 234: equests for damages. 1021 For examp
Page 235 and 236: of a particular hazardous substance
Page 237 and 238: Agreement, Scope of Work, and RAP,
Page 239 and 240: detected. However, none of these co
Page 241 and 242: contamination. 1050 This Court shou
Page 243 and 244: enrichment for the victim.” 1062
Page 245 and 246: accord, and acknowledge that a clai
Page 247 and 248: In any event, even if an unjust enr
Page 249 and 250: Second, since TexPet already undert
Page 251 and 252: • With regard to pit remediation,
Page 253 and 254: away from the figures” in the pla
Page 255 and 256: maintained, and corroded pipelines.
Page 257 and 258: the claimed health effects they all
Page 259 and 260: Article 7(20) of the Civil Code pro
Page 261 and 262: 3. As Your Honor is aware since it
Page 263: g) Total lack of effective and time
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?