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

Second, to exaggerate his volume figures and compound the overestimate
of soil remediation costs, Mr. Cabrera’s report assumes a pit depth greater
than the evidence can support and makes the unfounded and arbitrary
supposition that each pit has a large "halo" of contaminated soil around it.
Neither plaintiffs nor Mr. Cabrera conducted the methodical sampling
necessary to determine the existence and/or extent of any such halo. 237
• Mr. Cabrera’s report estimated the cost of repairing supposed “ecological”
damages at nearly US$1.7 billion; in this category it included work to
restore areas previously covered by natural rainforests to their former
state, including places where roads and other infrastructure had been
constructed. These infrastructure improvements were planned and
approved by the Government of Ecuador, and in many cases inhabitants
not only requested the work but also demanded it at public protests. 238
• Mr. Cabrera’s report recommends that Chevron be forced to build a new
potable-water system at a cost of US$428 million, even though drinking
water samples taken as part of this trial clearly show contamination by
untreated sewage and not by hydrocarbons attributable to activities of the
Consortium. 239
• The Cabrera Report also assesses hundreds of millions of dollars to pay
for a cultural center, a new health care system, and modernization of
Petroecuador’s oil infrastructure, without any attempt to link these
damages to any operations of TexPet. 240
The errors in, and lack of scientific basis for, Mr. Cabrera’s fieldwork and
conclusions in his report illustrate the fraudulent nature of his role in this case. The
Cabrera Report should be stricken from the record because it lacks evidentiary value.
Without it, there is no evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations, and therefore this
action should be dismissed. Notably, the plaintiffs’ submission of September 16, 2010,
at 5:15 p.m., contains no new data, sampling, or analysis, but rather relies heavily on
the tainted data that the plaintiffs had themselves created and then delivered to
Mr. Cabrera for inclusion in his report. See infra §§ 3.1, 3.5.
237 Cabrera Omnibus, filed May 21, 2010 at 4:35 p.m., at 40, Record at 178982-179041, 179021;
see also HINCHEE, Robert E., Rebuttal of the Method Used by Mr. Cabrera to Determine the Supposed
Necessity and Cost of Remediation at 20-21, attached as Appendix to Chevron’s Objections to Expert
Cabrera’s Global Report, filed Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:14 p.m., Record at 148129-173, 148148-149.
238 Cabrera Omnibus, filed May 21, 2010 at 4:35 p.m., at 41, Record at 178982-179041, 179022.
239 Cabrera Omnibus, filed May 21, 2010 at 4:35 p.m., at 41-42, Record at 178982-179041,
179022-23.
240 Cabrera Omnibus, filed May 21, 2010 at 4:35 p.m., at 42-43, Record at 178982-179041,
179023-24.
CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD
- 64 -