judicial inspection of the lago agrio central production...

Expert Report of the LAGO AGRIO CENTRAL Production StationTrial No. 0022003 Corte Superior Nueva Loja

Expert Report, Dr. Luis Villacreces Carvajal

Judicial Inspection of the Lago Agrio Central Production Station

María Aguinda et. Al. Vs. ChevronTexaco Corporation

Trial No. 002-2003, Superior Justice Court, Nueva Loja, Ecuador

Dr. Luis VILLACRECES CARVAJALExecutive Summary 1


0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Having analyzed field data, related documents and lab results, the following can be concluded:

a. Contamination produced by Texaco’s operations exists even today

The level of hydrocarbons found in a Lago Agrio Central Station pit that was dug and used

exclusively by Texaco, and buried before 1984 (Contaminated Pit 1), surpasses the maximum

allowed limit for soil, established by current Ecuadorian environmental laws, by more than 316.4

times. Also, Chromium VI levels were found in an excess of 23% over the allowed standard. (See

Section 4).

For easier viewing, data and areas have been drawn and added over the 1976 picture.

The natural receiver of discharges and spills (a body of water that crosses the station) contains

deep hydrocarbon contamination that exceeds the TPH standard by 90%. This stream has

influence over another body of water that comes from the SOTE Pumping Station, specifically



from a zone where several spills have occurred since the era when Texaco operated the

Consortium (See Documents Annex).

Evidence of contamination occurred after 1990 can also be currently found in the area. However,

this contamination can be distinguished from Texaco’s spills and pollution.

b. Pollution caused by the Defendant was a result of its subpar operational practices.

At Lago Agrio Central Station, Texaco’ s inappropriate operations are evidenced by:

The construction of the station and several access roads have permanently altered the

ecosystem.

• The station operated for almost 20 years disregarding environmental previsions, then

transferred the same operational style to its successor, leaving behind a legacy of

obsolete equipment.

• Texaco dug and used open air pits that lacked any type of lining in the vicinity of a body

of water, with the intention that any discharges or spills would follow the flow of the

water and natural slopes.

• Up until June 1990, the station had produced 6,134,111 MPCS of natural gas and

12,795,679 BLS of production water. The whereabouts of these massive quantities of

contaminants are unaccounted for, but it is safe to presume the gas was burnt in the

station’ s burners, and the water was spilled directly into the area’ s water bodies (and

eventually into the Aguarico river) without any kind of effective treatment.

• Negligence regarding existing environmental damages at the time of its departure from

the area.

This is how nearby settlements and the environment itself were damaged.

c. Defendant’s pollution is causing risks and damages

There exists proof of the contamination caused by Texaco. Given the nature of the soil, the

possibility of the contaminated spot migrating to other areas (specially the Aguarico river) has

also been proven.

At least 5,175 m3 of contaminated material has been found in Contaminated Pits 1 and 2; the

natural slope in this areas means that the natural receiver of any subterranean or superficial

migration will be the body of water that crosses the station (Contaminated Area 1), and

eventually the Aguarico.



Contaminated Pit 1 Contaminated Pit 2 Contaminated Area 1

d. Better ways of operating the station and treating the environment were available at the time. Texaco should’ve known this.

• Several laws from different States of the Defendant’ s home country, States were it operated

(Louisiana, Texas, California), outlawed contamination well before the 60s. (see Section 5,

Annex G)

• Ecuadorian laws such as “L ey de Yacimientos” (1921), “ Ley de Hidrocarburos” ( 1971), “L ey de

Aguas” ( 1972) (Ver Anexo V)

e. Post1990 operations also have an impact. Current operations of the station are negatively influencing the environment as well. In this

case, influence can be verified at the station’s pits surroundings, and in the modification of

waterways and the presence of hydrocarbons.
