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

Robert Hinchee, an environmental expert specializing in petroleum remediation, agrees
that PEPDA’s remediation costs and estimates are reasonable. 947
7.3.2 Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove That Chevron Is Responsible for Public
Costs of Healthcare in the Oriente.
Plaintiffs, through the Cabrera Report and Carlos E. Picone, 948 have requested
funding for a “comprehensive public health infrastructure and health/environmental
monitoring.” 949 As extensively discussed in Chevron’s filings of September 16, 2010 at
4:35 p.m. and October 29, 2010 at 5:20 p.m., this claim for damages, however, is
unsupported by the evidence presented in this case.
First, ordinarily, such a claim would seek to vindicate the “individual homogenous
rights” that belong to the “residents” of the allegedly affected communities. Yet no
individualized proof has been offered of any harm or threat of harm to the health of such
residents. To the extent that the plaintiffs seek relief for alleged harm to the “public
health,” not to any particular individual, they have offered no legal basis (or, once again,
evidence) for doing so. Second, there is no reliable scientific evidence showing that any
alleged adverse health impacts are attributable to petroleum activities. As Chevron has
repeatedly explained, the health studies and health surveys claiming to find a causal
link between various ailments and petroleum operations are riddled with methodological
errors and biases and cannot form the basis of an inference of causation. 950 Third, the
(continued…)
between US$32 and US$81 per cubic meter of soil. See Chevron’s Motion filed Sept. 16, 2010 at 4:35
p.m., at 218-19.
947 See ALVAREZ, Pedro J., MACKAY, Douglas M., and HINCHEE, Robert E., Expert Report on
Remedial Cost: Rebuttal to Environmental Damages Valuation – Texpet-Ecuador Concession Area
Authored by Douglas C. Allen, dated September 2010, at 15-16, attached as Annex 2 to Chevron’s
Motion, filed Oct. 29, 2010 at 5:20 p.m. And it is, of course, the State and Petroecuador which bear
exclusive responsibility for alleged environmental impacts in the former concession area, and any
injunction against them would have to be narrowly tailored to address the specific items requested by the
plaintiffs and any damages award against them would have to be tethered to a concrete work plan that
identifies, among other things, the companies that would perform the remediation and their actual costs.
The EMA, even when it applies, authorizes an award only in the amount required to repair the alleged
environmental damage. Yet neither Mr. Cabrera nor the plaintiffs has offered anything even approaching
a viable work plan, and their remediation estimates are grossly exorbitant.
948 See PICONE, Carlos E., Estimated Cost of Delivering Health Care to the Affected Population
of the Concession Area of Ecuador, attached as Annex C to Plaintiffs’ Motion filed Sept. 16, 2010 at 5:15
p.m.
949 See KELSH, Michael A., Rebuttal to Mr. Cabrera’s Excess Cancer Death and Other Health
Effects Claims, and His Proposal for a New Health Infrastructure, filed as Appendix to Chevron’s
Objections to Expert Cabrera’s Global Report, filed Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:14 p.m., Record at 146378-423,
146382.
950 See discussion of plaintiffs’ claimed damages for excess cancer deaths in Chevron’s Motion
filed Sep. 16, 2010 at 4:35 p.m., § II.B.4.c., at 149-164, including but not limited to all references cited
therein.
CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD
- 213 -