Judicial Inspection of the Lago Agrio Central Production...
Transcript of 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
Expert Report of the LAGO AGRIO CENTRAL Production StationTrial No. 0022003 Corte Superior Nueva Loja
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
Dr. Luis VILLACRECES CARVAJALExecutive Summary 2
Expert Report of the LAGO AGRIO CENTRAL Production StationTrial No. 0022003 Corte Superior Nueva Loja
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.
Dr. Luis VILLACRECES CARVAJALExecutive Summary 3
Expert Report of the LAGO AGRIO CENTRAL Production StationTrial No. 0022003 Corte Superior Nueva Loja
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.
Dr. Luis VILLACRECES CARVAJALExecutive Summary 4