EXPERT OPINION OF JOHN A. CONNOR, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E ... · EXPERT OPINION OF JOHN A. CONNOR, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E., REGARDING REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

EXPERT OPINION OF JOHN A. CONNOR, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E.,

REGARDING REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE FORMER PETROECUADOR-TEXACO CONCESSION, ORIENTE REGION, ECUADOR

In the Matter of An Arbitration Under the Rules of the United Nations

Commission on International Trade Law: Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company vs. the Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23

Issued: 3 September 2010 Volume 1 of 4 Prepared for: Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company

GSI Environmental Inc. 2211 Norfolk, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77098-4054 tel. 713.522.6300

Case: 11-1264 Document: 80-7 Page: 2 06/24/2011 323417 134

EXPERT OPINION OF JOHN A. CONNOR, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E., REGARDING REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE FORMER POETROECUADOR-TEXACO CONCESSION, ORIENTE REGION, ECUADOR

In the Matter of An Arbitration Under the Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law: Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company vs. the Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23

Prepared for: Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company

Prepared by: GSI Environmental Inc. 2211 Norfolk, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77098-4054 713/522-6300 GSI Job No. G-2841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010

John A. Connor, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E.

3 September 2010

Date

Houston, Texas U.S.A.

Location


Issued: 3 September 2010

EXPERT OPINION OF JOHN A. CONNOR, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E., REGARDING REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

IN THE FORMER PETROECUADOR-TEXACO CONCESSION, ORIENTE REGION, ECUADOR

Table of Contents

Evaluation of Remediation Activities iii Expert Opinion of

Former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession John A. Connor, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E.

VOLUME 1 of 6

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Personal Qualifications and Experience ........................................................................ 1

1.2 Scope of Investigation ................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Summary of Opinions .................................................................................................... 5

2.0 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 15

2.1 Overview of Environmental Management Practices for Oilfield Operations ................ 15

2.1.1 Use of Earthen Pits .......................................................................................... 16

2.1.2 Management of Produced Water ..................................................................... 22

2.1.3 Flaring of Natural Gas ...................................................................................... 27

2.1.4 Environmental Audits of Former Concession Operations, 1992 - 1993 ........... 28

2.2 Summary of Texpet Remediation Program, 1995 to 1998 .......................................... 30

2.2.1 History of Oilfield Development in the Petroecuador-Texaco Concession ...... 30

2.2.2 Memorandum of Understanding, December 1994 ........................................... 31

2.2.3 Contract and Scope of Work for Texpet Remediation Project, May 1995 ....... 31

2.2.4 Remedial Site Investigation, July 1995 ............................................................ 32

2.2.5 Remedial Action Plan, September 1995 .......................................................... 33

2.2.6 Implementation of Remediation Project by Texpet, 1995 - 1998 ..................... 34

2.3 Background on Soil Remediation Criteria.................................................................... 35

2.4 Environmental Investigation of Texpet Remediation Sites, 2003 – 2009 .................... 40

2.4.1 Locations and Scope of Site Inspections, 2003 - 2009 .................................... 40

2.4.2 Database of Environmental Test Results, 2003 - 2009 ................................... 41

2.5 Evaluation of Human Health and Environmental Risks ............................................... 45

3.0 OPINIONS REGARDING TEXPET REMEDIATION PROGRAM AND CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 53

4.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 79

5.0 CITED DOCUMENTS .......................................................................................................... 80

TABLES

Table 1A: Summary of Texpet Remediation Program: Pits and Spills Table 1B: Summary of Texpet Remediation Program: Affected Soil Areas Table 1C: Summary of Texpet Remediation Program: Produced Water Systems Table 1D: Summary of Texpet Remediation Program: Well Plugging and Abandonment Table 1E: Summary of Texpet Remediation Program: Containment Dikes Table 2A: Summary of Sites and RAP Items Inspected by J. Connor and/or others on Behalf

of Chevron, 2003-2009





Table of Contents

Evaluation of Remediation Activities iv Expert Opinion of


Table 2B: Summary of Sites Operated by Texpet in the Former Concession Area Table 2C: Oilfield Sites Inspected by J. Connor and/or others on Behalf of Chevron, 2003 – 2009 Table 2D: Findings of Inspections by Experts for Chevron: Confirmation of Remediated Items at

RAP Sites Table 3: Summary of Sampling and Testing Programs Conducted by Various Parties in the

Former Concession Area: 1995 - 2009 Table 4: Summary of Soil Samples Collected by Various Parties in the Former Concession

Area, 1995 - 2009 Table 5: Summary of Test Results for All Parties: Soil vs. RAP Cleanup Criteria – Pits and

Spills at RAP Sites Table 6A: Samples Collected from RAP Remediated Pits with Exceedances of the RAP Soil TPH

Limit (5000 mg/Kg) – All Sampling Parties Table 6B: Detailed Backup Data for Average TPH Concentrations from RAP Remediated After

March 20, 1997 Exceeding the RAP Soil TPH Limit (5000 mg/Kg) – All Sampling Parties

Table 6C: Average TPH Concentrations from RAP Pits Remediated Pits After March 20, 1997 Exceeding the RAP Soil TPH Limit (5000 mg/Kg) – All Sampling Parties

Table 7: Health-Based Screening Levels for Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Metals Used for Evaluation of Soil and Water in Former Petroecuador-Texpet Concession

Table 8A: Summary of Chevron Data Solid Samples: Soils, Sediments, and other Solids Table 8B: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Chevron Data Solid Samples: Soils, Sediments,

and other Solids Table 8C Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Chevron Data Solid Samples: Sediments, and

other Solids Location Description Table 8D Risk Assessment / Summary of Chevron Data Solid Samples: Soils, Sediments, and

other Solids Table 9A: Summary of Chevron Data: Water Samples Table 9B: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Chevron Data: Water Samples Table 9C: Detailed Back-Up Data Summary of Chevron Data: Water Samples Location

Description Table 9D: Risk Assessment / Summary of Chevron Data: Water Samples Table 10A: Summary of Data of other Parties Solid Samples: Soils, Sediments, and other Solids Table 10B.1: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Data of other Parties Solid Samples: Soils,

Sediments, and other Solids Table 10B.2: Detailed Back-Up Data (Comparison with Chevron Data) / Summary of Data of other

Parties Solid Samples: Soils, Sediments, and other Solids Table 10C: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Data of other Parties Solid Samples: Soils,

Sediments, and other Solids Table 11A: Summary of Data of other Parties: Water Samples Table 11B.1: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of other Parties: Water Samples Table 11B.2: Detailed Back-Up Data (Comparison with Chevron Data) / Summary of Data of other

Parties: Water Samples Table 11C: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Data of other Parties: Water Samples





Table of Contents

Evaluation of Remediation Activities v Expert Opinion of


Table 12A: Summary of Data of other Parties: Liquids from Open Boreholes, Excavations, or Pits Table 12B: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Data of other Parties: Liquids from Open

Boreholes, Excavations, or Pits Table 12C: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Data of other Parties: Liquids from Open

Boreholes, Excavations, or Pits Table 13A: Summary of Pit Sediment Samples (All Parties) Table 13B: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Pit Sediment Samples (All Parties) Table 13C: Risk Assessment / Summary of Pit Sediment Samples (All Parties) Table 14A: Summary of Soil Samples Collected by Consultants to the Fiscalía General Table 14B: Soil Samples from Consultants to the Fiscalía General: Soil vs. RAP Cleanup Criteria

– Pits and Spills at RAP Sites Table 14C: Samples Collected from RAP Pits Remediated After March 20, 1997 with

Exceedances of the RAP Soil TPH Limit (5000 mg/Kg) - Consultants To The Fiscalía General

Table 14D: Average TPH Concentrations from RAP Pits Remediated After March 20, 1997 Exceeding the RAP Soil TPH Limit (5000 mg/Kg) - Consultants to the Fiscalía General

Table 14E: Samples from Other Parties at Pits With Possible Exceedances of the RAP Soil TPH Limit (5000 mg/Kg) - Controller General's Soil Samples

Table 15A: Summary of Data by Consultants to the Fiscalía General Table 15B: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Data by Consultants to the Fiscalía General:

Liquids from Open Boreholes, Excavations, or Pits Table 15C: Detailed Back-Up Data / Summary of Data by Consultants to the Fiscalía General:

Liquids from Open Boreholes, Excavations, or Pits

FIGURES

Figure 1: Environmental Investigation of RAP and Non-RAP Sites, 2003 – 2009 Figure 2: Texpet Remediation Project, 1995 – 1998: Implementation & Verification Figure 3: Example of Texpet Photographic Record of Pit Remediation: Before and After

Remediation, 1995 - 1996 Figure 4: Produced Water from Oil & Gas Wells Figure 5: Use of Earthen Pits in Oil Well Drilling and Production Figure 6: Number of Earthen Pits in Use in Oilfields in the U.S.A.: 1980”s to Today Figure 7: Recent Photos of Earthen Oilfield Pits in Active Use in the U.S. Figure 8: Recent Photos of Earthen Oilfield Pits in Active Use in Ecuador Figure 8: Examples of Earthen Pits in Oilfields in Ecuador: 2009 Figure 9A: Volume of Produced Water Discharged Onshore in North America: 1963 - 2008 Figure 9B: Volume of Produced Water Discharged Onshore Worldwide: 2003 - 2008 Figure 10: Produced Water Volumes and Management in Former Petroecuador-Texaco

Concession: 1990 – 2005 Figure 11: Results of Surface Water Testing in Former Concession: 2004 - 2008 Figure 12: Volumes of Co-Produced Natural Gas Flared in Various Regions Worldwide in 2008 Figure 13: Timeline of Texpet Remediation Project and Associated Events Figure 14: Production of Petroleum and Gas in the Amazon Region of Ecuador, 2008





Table of Contents

Evaluation of Remediation Activities vi Expert Opinion of


Figure 15: General Process for Pit Remediation Specified in Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Figure 16: Soil Cleanup Criteria: TPH vs. TCLP Figure 17: Soil TPH Limit Used in Texpet RAP vs. Prevailing Oilfield Cleanup Criteria Today Figure 18: Breakdown of Soil Sampling Programs by RAP vs. Non-Rap Sites Figure 19: Risk Assessment Process for Sites Impacted by Chemical Releases Figure 20: TPH Content of Household Products Figure 21: Derivation of Health-Based Screening Levels Figure 22: Allowable Risk Limits Used for Development of Health-Based Screening Levels Figure 23: Potential Pathways for Human Exposure to Affected Media Considered in Risk

Evaluation Figure 24: GOE Inspection and Approval Process for Texpet Project (1995 – 1998) Figure 25: Recent Photographs (2004 – 2005) of Former Locations of Pit Remediated by

Texpet in the Period of 1996 - 1997 Figure 26: Summary of Pit/Spill Conditions Observed in Investigations of RAP Sites, 2003 -

2009 Figure 27: Summary of Soil Test Results for Remediated Pits at RAP Sites, 2004 - 2009 Figure 28: Recent Photographs (2007 – 2008) of Non-RAP Pits Still Present in the Former

Concession Area Figure 29: Summary of Risk-Based Evaluation for Human Health Effects for Test Results by

Experts Nominated on Behalf of Chevron Figure 30: Results of Drinking Water Sampling and Testing in Former Concession (2004 -

2009) Figure 31: Inspections Conducted on Behalf of the Fiscalía General of Ecuador Figure 32: Evaluation of Site Information Presented by the Controller General

ATTACHMENTS

VOLUME 2 of 4 Attachment A Curriculum Vitae for J. Connor, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E. Attachment B Tabulation of Task Specification, Completion, Verification, and Approval for

Texpet Remediation Program, 1995 – 1998 Attachment C Tabulation of Sample Test Results for Remediation Confirmation Samples by

Woodward-Clyde, Inc., 1995 – 1998 Attachment D Summary of Approval Actas Issued by GOE for Texpet Remediation Program,

1995 – 1998 Attachment E Environmental Database of Test Results by All Parties, 2004 – 2009

VOLUME 3 to 4 Attachment F Photographic Record of Texpet Remediation Sites



Evaluation of Remediation Activities vii Expert Opinion of


Glossary of Selected Terms Used in This Report

• Site: The physical area of an oilfield facility, such as an oil and gas well site, a production station, or a refinery.

• RAP Item: A work task and location which was specified under the terms of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), issued in September 1995, and/or required by the subsequent modifications and additions to the Texpet remediation program specified by the Government of Ecuador and Petroecuador in the period of 1995 to 1998. RAP Items include closure of specific pits at specific well sites; remediation of affected soils at specific well sites and production stations; plugging and abandonment of specific wells; provision of equipment, labor, and/or funding for installation of produced water reinjection facilities at specific production stations; and design, installation, and/or funding of secondary containment dikes for tank systems at specific production stations.

• RAP Site: A site for which one or more RAP Items were required under the terms of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and/or required by the subsequent modifications and additions to the Texpet remediation program specified by the Government of Ecuador and Petroecuador.

• Non-RAP Site: A site for which no RAP Items were required under either the terms of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) or the subsequent modifications and additions to the Texpet remediation program specified by the Government of Ecuador and Petroecuador.

• Applicable Remediation Criteria: The numerical soil cleanup standards that were applicable to the Texpet remediation project at the time the remediation work was conducted, as specified in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) or subsequent modifications issued by the Government of Ecuador (GOE) and Petroecuador. Specifically, for all remedial actions conducted by Texpet with regard to pits or affected soils prior to March 20, 1997, the applicable remediation criterion was a test result of less than 1000 mg/L for the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) content of a soil leachate sample prepared on a composite sample of the treated soils in accordance with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). For remediation work conducted after March 20, 1997, when Acta 12 was issued by the GOE and Petroecuador, an additional criterion also applied to remediation of pits and affected soils, i.e., a TPH content of less than 5000 mg/kg on a composite sample of the treated soils.

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Analysis: A laboratory test which measures the total content of petroleum hydrocarbons within a soil sample, typically in units of milligrams (mg) of petroleum per kilogram of soil. Various laboratory methods are used for TPH analyses of soil, serving to measure separate fractions of the petroleum (e.g., Gasoline Range Organics [GRO], Diesel Range Organics [DRO], and Oil Range Organics [ORO]). In addition, the laboratory methods may differ significantly in terms of their relative precision and accuracy. For example, USEPA Method 8015, a gas chromatography method, has been shown to provide reliable estimates of petroleum content in the GRO, DRO, and ORO ranges, while Method 418.1, which employs an infrared detector, often greatly over-estimates the TPH content of soil and water, due



Evaluation of Remediation Activities viii Expert Opinion of


to misidentification of other naturally-occurring organics (e.g., decaying plant matter) as petroleum.

• Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP): A laboratory test procedure developed by the USEPA (Method 1311) that is used to derive a “leachate” sample from a solid material, such as a waste material or a soil sample, by first mixing the material with acidic water, letting the mixture stand for several hours, and then filtering the mixture to extract a water sample, known as “leachate.” Water-soluble contaminants are released from the solid material into the water much as tea is dissolved from a tea bag into water. The resultant leachate sample can then be analyzed for the chemicals of interest to assess the degree to which the soil or waste material could potentially release these chemicals during a “real world” leaching process, such as rainwater infiltrating downward through petroleum-affected soils.

• Composite Soil Sample: A soil sample that is prepared by mixing individual soil samples collected from multiple locations or depths so as to provide a single sample that is representative of the average conditions within the area of interest. For the purpose of the Texpet remediation project, the RAP specified that individual soil samples be collected from 5 locations across the base of the remediated pit, i.e., the 4 corners and center of the treated area, and mixed to form a single composite soil sample for laboratory analysis of the applicable remediation criteria.

• Groundwater: Water encountered below the ground surface within the pore spaces or fractures of soil or rock deposits at depths below the “water table,” i.e., the depth at which these pore spaces are fully saturated with water.

• Surface Water: Water that flows or collects above the ground surface in natural or man-made water bodies, such as streams, rivers, ponds, or lakes.

• Produced Water: Groundwater from a subsurface geologic formation that is produced by an oil and gas well in conjunction with crude oil or natural gas. Oil and gas wells commonly produce a mixture of crude oil, produced water, and natural gas, and these three streams must be separated prior to processing of the crude oil and natural gas. “Produced water” is water that, in many cases, has resided in the geologic formation for many thousands of years and may be moderately to highly saline as a result of the slow dissolution of salt minerals from the soil or rock formation over time. Today, in oilfields that generate highly saline produced water, the produced water is most commonly disposed by reinjection into the geologic formation from which it came or into another formation containing highly saline water.

• Drinking Water: A domestic or public water supply that is used for human consumption. Drinking water may be obtained from household water wells, local surface water streams, local water distribution systems, or public water supplies. Water resources that may be used for purposes other than drinking (agricultural, industrial, etc.) are not considered drinking water.

• Weathered Crude Oil: Crude oil that has been exposed to the effects of the environment (wind, sun, rain, heat, bacteria, etc.) for sufficient time to have undergone changes in its initial composition and physical-chemical characteristics. Specifically, weathered crude oil tends to have lost some or all of the more volatile, water-soluble, bio-degradable petroleum hydrocarbons, leaving only the heavier,



Evaluation of Remediation Activities ix Expert Opinion of


more viscous and insoluble portions of the crude oil, such as resins and asphaltic materials, that are relatively immobile in soil and water.

• USEPA: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal environmental regulatory agency in the United States that is tasked with protecting human health and safeguarding the natural environment (air, water, land). USEPA develops and enforces national environmental regulations and issues technical guidelines with regard to a broad range of scientific matters, including environmental risk assessment, sampling and laboratory testing, and environmental remediation.

• WHO: The World Health Organization (WHO) was established in 1948 by the United Nations to provide leadership on global health issues, direct health research agenda, set norms and standards, articulate evidence-based policy options, provide technical support to countries, and monitor and assess health trends.

• ASTM International: ASTM International, formed in 1898, is a voluntary standards development organization, providing technical standards for a broad range of materials, products, and services, including technical guidelines for environmental investigations, modeling, risk assessment, and corrective action. ASTM has more than 30,000 members in 120 countries that work cooperatively to provide consensus standards for numerous industries.



Evaluation of Remediation Activities 1 Expert Opinion of


Expert Opinion of John A. Connor, P.E., P.G., B.C.E.E., Regarding Remediation Activities and Environmental

Conditions in the Former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, Oriente Region, Ecuador

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Personal Qualifications and Experience

1. I, John A. Connor, am President of GSI Environmental Inc., and a Registered

Professional Engineer (P.E.), a Licensed Professional Geoscientist (P.G.), and a Board Certified Environmental Engineer (B.C.E.E.) by the American Academy of Environmental Engineering. I have 30 years of professional experience in environmental engineering, specializing in the areas of environmental site investigation, human and ecological risk assessment, and corrective action design. I received an M.S. in Civil Engineering from Stanford University, and I have served as an Instructor in the Graduate Environmental Engineering Program at the University of Houston. I have also served as a Certified Trainer for the USEPA / ASTM Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) Training Initiative, under which I have served as a technical consultant for development of risk-based environmental regulatory programs in approximately 15 states across the U.S. In addition, I have authored numerous technical publications regarding chemical fate and transport in the environment, human health and ecological risk assessment, and environmental remediation technologies, and I have developed and/or presented technical training programs on these topics throughout the U.S., Canada, the Middle East, and Latin America, including Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Puerto Rico.

2. I am the principal author of the “RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases,” one of the most

widely used software programs for evaluation of soil and groundwater remediation sites, which is currently used in over 38 countries worldwide. In my 30 years in the environmental industry, I have personally conducted hundreds of environmental site investigation and remediation projects for oil and gas, petrochemical, and industrial properties throughout the U.S. and internationally. In addition to industrial work, I and my firm have been contracted by the various government organizations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Energy, and state regulatory agencies, as well as various public-private partnerships, to conduct research and development work related to improved methods for site assessment, risk characterization, and environmental cleanup.

3. Specifically with regard to the present matter, my professional experience includes

audits of oilfield operations in the U.S., Canada, Colombia, and the Middle East to assess environmental management and/or remediation practices; development of a technical guidance document for the American Petroleum Institute (API) for management of produced water impacts on soil and water; development of technical guidelines for appropriate reuse of oilfield wastes for road oiling and maintenance; and





environmental investigation, modeling, and remediation of petroleum or produced water impacts on numerous oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) sites.

4. As a volunteer, I have served as Chairman of the Houston Local Emergency Planning

Committee (LEPC), Vice-Chair and board member of the Citizen’s Environmental Coalition, and a board member of the Houston Land Redevelopment Committee. A true and correct copy of my resume that accurately sets forth my qualifications is provided in Attachment A of this report.

5. I am an independent consultant with respect to the work that I have performed on this

matter at the request of King & Spalding LLC on behalf of Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company. Over the past 24 years, my firm has provided independent consulting services to a wide array of clients, including industrial companies, state and federal regulatory authorities, government and/or industry research organizations, financial institutions, and law firms, completing over 2500 projects for over 400 separate clients. My work includes prior projects for King & Spalding LLP, in the capacity of an expert witness on various matters, as well as for Chevron Corporation, for environmental remediation projects as well as expert witness services. I have never been an employee of either of these parties, nor have they ever held an ownership interest in my firm. Rather, on the current matter, as in prior work for these and other clients, I have provided an independent assessment of the technical questions at hand, consistent with sound scientific principles and applicable standards of practice for the field of environmental engineering. I believe to the best of my professional knowledge that the affirmations stated herein are true and correct. 1.2 Scope of Investigation

6. I have been retained as an independent expert by King & Spalding, LLP, on behalf of

Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company (Texpet) in this matter to: i) assess the environmental remediation program implemented by Texpet during the period of 1995 to 1998 in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession in the Oriente region of Ecuador, specifically with regard to completion of the specified scope of work and consistency with applicable regulations and prevailing practices for oilfield remediation work at that time; ii) evaluate the risks, if any, posed to human health and the environment by current environmental conditions in the former Concession area, and iii) review the technical reports issued on behalf of the Fiscalía General of Ecuador, including those by the Controller General of Ecuador, with regard to alleged deficiencies in the remediation work conducted by Texpet. In addition, I have evaluated the consistency of the environmental management practices employed by Texpet during their period of operation (1972 to 1990) with the prevailing practices of that time. For the purpose of this evaluation, I have completed the following principal tasks:

a) Consideration of Applicable Technical Guidelines and Regulatory Criteria: Compilation and review of relevant information regarding the prevailing practices for environmental management and remediation during the time period of Texpet operations in Ecuador (1972 – 1990) and the Texpet remediation project (1995 – 1998), including applicable regulatory requirements and industry guidelines in





Ecuador, the U.S., and worldwide for oil and gas exploration and production operations at that time.

b) Consideration of Contract Requirements for Texpet Remediation Project: Review of the requirements of the Contract Scope of Work (SOW) and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approved by the Government of Ecuador (GOE) and Petroecuador for the Texpet remediation project, with specific regard to the locations of oilfield facilities that were included (“RAP sites”) or excluded (“Non-RAP sites”) from the work program, as well as the work tasks (“RAP items”) to be completed at each location.

c) Review of Project Documentation from Texpet Remediation Project (1995 – 1998): Detailed review of field records, photographs, laboratory test results, and project reports generated by Texpet and its contractors to assess the completeness and quality of the remediation work conducted by Texpet with regard to the technical specifications of the SOW and the RAP, as well as subsequent modifications and additions specified by the GOE and Petroecuador.

d) Review of Government Inspection and Approval Actas (1995 – 1998): Detailed review of the Actas issued by representatives of the GOE and Petroecuador, evaluating and ultimately approving the satisfactory completion of the work program by Texpet.

e) Physical Inspection and Environmental Sampling and Testing of Remediated Sites (2003 – 2009): During the period of 2003 to 2009, a series of environmental inspections were conducted in the former Petroecuador-Texpet Concession area, with regard to the matter of Maria Aguinda et al. vs. Chevron, to assess alleged environmental impacts at a number of oilfield facilities (see Section 2.4.1 of my report). This inspection process included: i) Judicial Inspections of 56 oilfield facilities (i.e., well sites, production stations, etc.) conducted during the period of 2004 to 2009 under the direction of the Corte Superior de Nueva Loja by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron, experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs, or Court experts (i.e., 45 inspections by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron and the Plaintiffs, and 11 inspections by a Court expert only); ii) an additional 49 site inspections conducted by the “global” Court expert, Mr. Richard Cabrera, in 2007; and iii) additional site investigations and sampling programs conducted in support of this inspection process.

I served as an expert nominated on behalf of Chevron for five of the Judicial Inspections. In total, for the various inspection programs identified above, during the period of 2003 to 2005, I personally visited 86 oilfield facilities (70 well sites and 16 production stations) in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, corresponding to 82 RAP sites, which were part of the Texpet remediation program, and 4 Non-RAP sites, which were not included in the remediation program. In addition, I have reviewed the data compiled by other parties for site visits in which I did not directly participate, that, in combination with my own site inspections, correspond to a population of 108 RAP sites and 53 Non-RAP sites (see Figure 1) for which site investigations were conducted to characterize current environmental site conditions and/or to assess the compliance of Texpet with the specified work program. In sum, these site inspections addressed 63% (108 of 172) of the RAP sites, comprising an extensive audit of the Texpet remediation program.





Figure 1: Environmental Investigations of RAP and Non-RAP Sites, 2003 – 2009

Total No. of Sites Inspected: 161 of 344 (47%)

RAP Sites Inspected: 108 of 172 (63%)

Non-Rap Sites Inspected: 53 of 172 (31%)

f) Compilation and Review of Laboratory Test Results of All Parties: To develop

my independent opinion regarding the Texpet remediation work and related environmental conditions, I have considered the complete record of field and laboratory information collected by all parties, including the experts nominated on behalf of Chevron, experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and Court experts, including Mr. Richard Cabrera. In this regard, I have also evaluated the reliability of the laboratory test results provided by these various parties, based upon the Quality Control/ Quality Assurance (QA/QC) information documented by the laboratories.

Non-RAP PIT: Shushufindi-61 Pit 1, 9 May 2008

Former RAP pits have been properly remediated and are covered by firm, clean soils and thick vegetation. However, many Non-RAP pits have yet to be remediated by Petroecuador.

RAP PIT: Sacha 53, Former Pits 1 & 2; Nov. 2004

Former Pit 1 Former

Pit 2

SITE INSPECTIONS: 2003 - 2009

SITE INSPECTIONS: 2003 - 2009





QA/QC considerations were particularly important for those samples for which the test results of the various parties were inconsistent.

g) Review of Petroecuador Operating Records and Reports (1990 – 2010): I have compiled and reviewed available information regarding the on-going operations of Petroecuador, the sole operator of the former Concession since 1990 and the sole owner since 1992, particularly with regard to their on-going use of earthen pits, the related remediation program, and the management of produced water.

h) Review of Technical Reports Issued on Behalf of the Fiscalía General of Ecuador: I have reviewed reports prepared by the Office of the Controller General (2003 and 2004), Sr. Gutiérrez (2004), Sr. Narváez and Sr. Garcia (2005), Ms. Enriquez (2006), Sr. Bedón (2009), and Sr. Pasquel and Sr. Lincango (2009) on behalf of the Fiscalía General of Ecuador, documenting their evaluation of the Texpet remediation project.

i) Evaluation of Texpet Remediation Program: Based on the information provided in the Texpet project documentation, the Actas issued by the GOE and Petroecuador, and the more recent site inspections identified above, I have evaluated the completeness and quality of the Texpet remediation program with regard to the technical specifications of the SOW and the RAP, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and prevailing environmental practices of that time.

j) Evaluation of Potential Risks Posed to Human Health by Remediated or Non-Remediated Facilities: In accordance with guidelines set forth by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1993, 1994), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1989, 1996, 2008), and ASTM International (ASTM, 1995, 2000), I have evaluated the potential risks (if any) posed to human health by past oilfield operations in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession area (see Section 2.5 of my report). For this purpose, I have compared the concentrations of petroleum–related chemicals measured in soils, groundwater, surface water, sediments, or other media at each oilfield facility to relevant “health-based screening criteria,” i.e., safe concentrations of these chemicals that would not pose a measurable risk to human health even in the event of long-term direct exposure (e.g., dermal contact, incidental ingestion, inhalation of dust and vapors from affected soils on daily basis for 30 years; or daily ingestion in a drinking water supply).

7. The principal documents upon which I have relied for my evaluation are listed in Section 5 of this report. 1.3 Summary of Opinions

8. Based upon this evaluation, my opinions, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, are that:

• Texpet operations in Ecuador from 1972 to 1990 were consistent with applicable regulations and prevailing practices for environmental management for oilfield operations at that time.

• The extensive documentation from the Texpet remediation project, including photographs, field records, laboratory test results, and the final project report, demonstrates that Texpet completed the remediation work during the period of 1995 to 1998 in accordance with the Scope of Work (SOW), the Remedial Action Plan





(RAP), and the subsequent modifications and additions specified by the GOE and Petroecuador (see Figure 2);

• Representatives of the GOE and Petroecuador certified the satisfactory completion of the Texpet remediation program in September 1998, based upon site inspections and testing conducted during the period of 1995 to 1998;

• Inspection of 108 of the 172 RAP sites (63%) during the period of 2003 to 2009 has confirmed that Texpet completed the remediation of pits, soils, and spill sites, and other required tasks, in accordance with applicable specifications. The un-remediated pits remaining in the Concession area today were not included in the Texpet remediation program.

• The residual impacts (if any) on soils, groundwater, or surface water remaining today from the historical operations of the Consortium pose no measurable risk to human health. However, applicable regulations and industry guidelines require proper remediation of the Non-RAP oilfield pits that remain open or poorly remediated today in the former Concession area.

• The allegations by the Fiscalía General regarding improper remediation by Texpet are invalid, as, of the more than 128 sites investigated by the various parties on behalf of the Fiscalía, no pit specified for remediation by Texpet was found either not to have been remediated or to have been remediated in a manner that did not comply with the procedures and/or numerical criteria applicable at the time that the remediation work was conducted, with the possible exception of 1 single soil test result.

Figure 2: Texpet Remediation Project, 1995 – 1998: Implementation & Verification





9. Additional findings related to these key opinions are as follows: 1) Texpet operations in Ecuador from 1972 to 1990 were consistent with

applicable regulations and prevailing practices for environmental management for oilfield operations at that time.

Environmental audits conducted for the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession area following termination of Texpet operations by two independent parties, HBT-Agra (1993) and Fugro-McClelland (1992), found that Texpet operations were in conformance not only with the environmental regulations of Ecuador but also with the prevailing industry practices for oil and gas exploration and production in similar regions worldwide at that time. The audit reports did, however, note the presence of various environmental conditions associated with normal oilfield operations of that era, such as the presence of open pits, oil-affected soils, and produced water discharges, and recommended that a remediation program be implemented to address these conditions.

My evaluation of available information confirms the findings of the HBT-Agra and Fugro-McClelland audit reports. Specifically, during the time period that Texpet served as operator of the Concession (1972 through June 1990), the use of earthen pits to contain oily waste liquids at well sites; the management of the produced water by means of treatment and discharge to surface streams; and the flaring of unused natural gas were consistent with applicable Ecuadorian regulations, as well as the prevailing practices in the oil industry at that time in the U.S. and worldwide.

2) The extensive documentation from the Texpet remediation project, including

photographs, field records, laboratory test results, and the final project report, demonstrates that Texpet completed the remediation work during the period of 1995 to 1998 in accordance with the SOW, the RAP, and the subsequent modification and additions specified by the GOE and Petroecuador.

a) The SOW and RAP documents approved for this project identified a specific list of sites and a specific list of work items to be completed at those sites by Texpet: The Scope of Work (SOW; MEM, 1995) issued as Anexo A of the Contract of May 4, 1995, and signed by representatives of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroecuador, and Texpet, and the Remedial Action Plan (RAP; WCII and SETC, 1995), issued September 8, 1995, and signed by these same parties, identified the specific list of oilfield facilities (i.e., well sites and production stations) to be included in the Texpet remediation program and the specific work items to be conducted at those sites (i.e., specific pits to be closed, soil areas to be remediated, wells to be plugged, etc.), as well as the methodologies to be employed (e.g., multi-step process for pit remediation) and the criteria (e.g., numerical soil cleanup standards) to be used to demonstrate satisfactory completion of the work, subject to the review and approval of government inspectors. The work program defined in the SOW and RAP documents addressed roughly 40% of the oilfield installations present in the Concession at that time and did not require Texpet to address other sites or other environmental conditions. During the course of the remediation project, representatives of the GOE and Petroecuador specified certain modifications and additions to this work program, which were implemented by Texpet.





In this report, based upon the work program described above, I have designated those sites for which any work task was specified in the RAP, subject to subsequent modifications by GOE and/or Petroecuador, as “RAP sites” and the work tasks at these sites as “RAP items.” Conversely, sites that were not included in the specified work program are referred to as “Non-RAP sites,” and work tasks not required in this work program are termed “Non-RAP items” (e.g., pits at Non-RAP sites, as well at pits at RAP sites that were exempted from remediation by Texpet).

b) The extensive Texpet project documentation confirms the full and proper completion of the specified work program, including remediation of additional pit and oil spill locations identified during implementation of the project: I have compiled and reviewed the following documentation generated during implementation of the Texpet remediation project in the period of 1995 to 1998: i) photo-documentation of site remediation activities, including before and after photographs of the pit and affected soil areas specified in the RAP (see Figure 3); ii) field records documenting day-by-day activities; iii) laboratory test results for hundreds of soil samples collected from the remediated pit, spill, and affected soil locations and analyzed at a laboratory operated by the Universidad Central; and iv) the Final Report (WCI, 2000) documenting completion of each specified work item. These documents demonstrate that Texpet complied with the scope, technical procedures, and numerical remediation criteria specified for this remediation project.

Figure 3: Example of Texpet Photographic Record of Pit Remediation: Before and After Remediation, 1995 - 1996

Before Remediation: Sacha 10, Pit 1 (17 November 95).

After Remediation: Sacha 10, Pit 1 (30 April 96).

c) The procedures employed for pit and soil remediation were consistent with

the prevailing practices at that time, and even today, in oilfields in the U.S., Ecuador, and worldwide: The RAP specified a step-by-step process for pit closure that served to remove free oil and water, treat and/or solidify the pit sediments, and overlay the site with a clean, firm soil cover and vegetation, as needed to prevent impacts on land use, water resources, or public health. This same process is recognized as an appropriate procedure for pit remediation in Ecuador, the U.S., and worldwide today.

Photo documentation confirms remediation of all RAP sites in 1995 – 1998.





d) Use of TCLP and TPH soil cleanup criteria was consistent with applicable guidelines for oilfield remediation: The Texpet remediation program employed two test methods to assess the adequacy of soil remediation: i) the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) content of a soil leachate sample prepared from the remediated soil using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), which applied to all soil and pit remediation work throughout the project, and ii) the TPH content of the remediated soil itself, which was an additional criterion that applied only to pit and soil remediation work conducted after March 20, 1997. The TCLP test and similar leachate test procedures are used today in a number of U.S. states to assess the potential for an affected soil or waste material to impact underlying groundwater by “leaching” of chemical contaminants into rainwater percolating downward through the soil. The Technical Arbiter for the Texpet remediation project affirmed that use of the TCLP leachate test was a more appropriate method than soil TPH testing to evaluate the potential impacts of the remediated pits to underlying groundwater.

Although the RAP specified that the TPH content of the TCLP soil leachate not exceed 1000 mg/L, actual test results conducted during the remediation project showed that the TPH levels in the soil leachate samples from the remediated pits never exceeded 5 mg/L and were less than the only leachate criterion in effect for oilfield remediation at that time, i.e., the 10 mg/L TPH limit for soil leachate specified under Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B.

These test results confirmed that the remediated pits posed no threat to groundwater quality. The additional remediation criterion later imposed for soil TPH (i.e., soil TPH < 5000 mg/kg), which measured the total oil content of the soil itself (rather than the leachate), was more stringent than TPH limits commonly applied at that time, and even today, in many oilfields in the U.S. and Latin America (i.e., soil TPH < 10,000 to 30,000 mg/kg).

3) The Government of Ecuador and Petroecuador inspected and approved of the remediation work conducted by Texpet, based upon detailed inspection of site conditions and associated verification test results.

As specified in the SOW and RAP documents, all remediation work conducted by Texpet was subject to review and approval by representatives of the GOE and Petroecuador. The 52 inspection reports (designated “RAT Actas”) issued during the course of the work demonstrate that Government inspectors routinely visited the remediation sites and documented any concerns regarding the on-going work. Upon satisfactory resolution of these concerns, representatives of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroecuador, and Petroproducción formally approved the proper completion of the remediation work in a series of “Approval Actas” issued in the period of 1995 to 1998 (Actas 1 to 19). Final approval of the satisfactory completion of the specified work program is documented in the Acta Final, issued by the GOE, Petroecuador, and Petroproducción on September 30, 1998.

4) The results of the environmental investigations conducted at former RAP sites during the period of 2003 to 2009 confirm that Texpet completed the specified work program in accordance with applicable specifications.

Based upon the information collected in the environmental site inspections which I





and others completed at a total of 108 RAP sites (88 well sites and 20 production stations) and 53 Non-RAP sites during the period of 2003 to 2009 in the former Concession area (see Figure 1), I have reached the following conclusions regarding the remediation work conducted by Texpet:

a) Full completion of RAP work items at RAP sites: At the 108 RAP sites that were inspected, the work items specified in the RAP were found to have been properly completed. For example, in all cases, pits that had been designated for remediation in the RAP were found to have been properly remediated; the underlying remediated soils, when sampled, were found to be properly treated and stabilized (solid and firm), without free oil; and the former pit location was capped with clean firm soil, and the area had been re-vegetated with natural vegetation or crops. These observed conditions are consistent with appropriate pit remediation methods, as well as the specific requirements of the RAP. In addition, oil wells that had been specified for plugging and abandonment were found to have been properly closed, and the various tanks and pumping systems specified for reinjection of produced water were observed to be present at production stations. These site inspections found no exception to the full implementation of the scope of work specified for Texpet.

b) Compliance with applicable cleanup criteria for RAP pits: Of the 47 RAP pits from which soil samples were collected and analyzed by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron, laboratory test results demonstrate that 46 of 47 complied with the soil remediation criteria that was applicable at the time that the cleanup was implemented (i.e., concentration limits for TCLP and/or TPH). In general, the experts on behalf of Plaintiffs, the Court experts, and the global Court expert Mr. Cabrera failed to analyze the remediated soils for the remediation criteria applicable at the time of the remediation. However, for those remediated soils that were analyzed for the relevant criteria, the test results of these other parties suggested only 2 remediated pits to contain soils exceeding the applicable numerical limits (i.e., soil TPH > 5000 mg/kg for pits remediated after March 20, 1997); and, in both of these pits, proper averaging of the individual sample test results to estimate the “composite sample” TPH, per the RAP specifications, shows the pit soils to meet the applicable TPH limit. In addition, test results for these same 2 pit locations by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron show no exceedance of the relevant remediation criteria.

For the 1 RAP pit for which the test results by the experts on behalf of Chevron indicated the remediated soils to exceed the applicable RAP criteria (i.e., Pit 4 at well site SSF-48, due to an elevated TPH content), it is important to note that the soil test results obtained at the time of the Texpet remediation, as well as the more recent soil test results obtained by experts appointed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, indicated no exceedance of the TPH limit (i.e., TPH < 5000 mg/kg on a composite soil sample).

Therefore, in sum, my evaluation of available data confirms that the Texpet remediation work complied with the requirements of the SOW and RAP documents.

c) Open pits remaining in the former Concession area today were not included in the Texpet remediation program: My investigation found there to be open





pits present at a number of well sites and production stations in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession. However, comparison of these pit locations to the RAP specifications and the work scope modifications and additions subsequently specified by the GOE and Petroecuador shows that these pits are unrelated to and/or were specifically excluded from the remediation program implemented by Texpet in the period of 1995 to 1998 (i.e., all open pits are Non-RAP items).

5) Affected soils, water, and sediments associated with historical operations of the Consortium pose no measurable risk to human health.

In addition to analyses of remediation criteria (soil leachate TPH and soil TPH), the experts nominated on behalf of Chevron also conducted analyses for a broad range of chemical components which are indicative of the potential risk that soil, sediments, or water affected by oilfield operations (i.e., crude oil or produced water spills) could pose to human health. Similar analyses were conducted on a smaller number of soil samples and a limited number of water samples by experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Court experts, and the global Court expert Mr. Cabrera. In accordance with guidelines established by the WHO, USEPA, and ASTM International, I have compared the measured concentrations of these chemicals components to conservative “health-based screening limits” that provide a large margin of safety against health problems for persons that could be exposed on a daily basis to affected soils, sediments, or water.

The results of this comprehensive risk evaluation show that the soils, sediments, and water affected by the historical oilfield operations of the Consortium do not pose a measurable risk to the health of local residents or workers. However, the drinking water supplies in this region, while free of impacts associated with oilfield operations, are unsafe due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria caused by poor sanitation. In addition, open inactive oilfield pits should be remediated in accordance with applicable regulations and industry guidelines.

6) The findings of the Fiscalía General regarding improper completion of the remediation program by Texpet are erroneous and unreliable.

In April 2010, the Fiscalía General of Ecuador issued an “Acusación” that alleged that the environmental remediation work conducted by Texpet over the period of 1995 to 1998 was incomplete and improper and, on this basis, leveled charges of fraud against the representatives of the GOE, Petroecuador, and Texpet who had reviewed and approved of this work (Fiscalía General, 2010). These claims were based principally upon field inspections conducted by the Office of the State Controller General of Ecuador over the period of 1997 to 2004 (Contraloría General del Estado, 2003; Dirección de Control de Obras Públicas, 2004), as well as inspections conducted by other consultants to the Fiscalía General over the period of 2004 to 2009, i.e., Sr. Gutierrez Granja (2004), Sr. Narvaez and Sr. Garcia (2005), Ms. Enriquez Sanchez (2006), Sr. Bedón (2009), and Sr. Pasquel and Sr. Lincango (2009).

I find the conclusions regarding inadequate remediation by Texpet to be erroneous and unreliable. Specifically, of the more than 128 sites investigated by the various parties on behalf of the Fiscalía, no pit specified for remediation by Texpet was found





either not to have been remediated or to have been remediated in a manner that did not comply with the procedures and/or numerical criteria applicable at the time that the remediation work was conducted, with the possible exception of 1 single test result.

My findings regarding the various reports prepared on behalf of the Fiscalía General are summarized below.

a) Controller General: The findings of the Controller General regarding incomplete and improper remediation work by Texpet are incorrect because: i) 92 of the 144 (64%) well sites investigated by the Controller General are either located outside the Concession area or were not included in the Texpet remediation program, ii) at the 52 RAP sites investigated by the Controller General where pit or soil remediation was required, only 2 of the pits remediated by Texpet were reported by the Controller General to contain soils exceeding the remediation criteria applicable at the time that the cleanup was implemented (i.e., TPH > 5000 mg/kg), and, in both cases, subsequent sampling of these same 2 pits by the Controller General and others found no such exceedance to be present; iii) the Controller General does not evaluate the Texpet work based upon the soil cleanup criteria specified in the RAP but instead employs an incorrect and non-existent “international norm” for TPH (i.e., 300 mg/kg), for which no valid basis is provided; iv) the soil and water samples analyzed by the Controller General for potentially toxic components of crude oil found no exceedances of relevant health-based screening levels, demonstrating there to be no measurable risk to human health; v) the Controller General ignores the testimony provided by former GOE and Petroecuador inspectors who informed the Controller General that the report addressed the wrong sites with the wrong standards, and vi) the Controller General provides absolutely no documentation to support the validity or reliability of their sampling and testing work.

Furthermore, statements by the Controller General that the remediation criteria employed in the Texpet remediation project were inappropriate are invalid, as both the soil leachate TPH test and the soil TPH test used by Texpet are commonly employed for this purpose. Indeed, the Technical Arbiter for the Texpet remediation project specifically endorsed the use of the TCLP soil leachate procedure; use of the TCLP test procedure is required today under Ecuador regulations (Decreto 1215), as well as in certain U.S. states. The verification tests conducted during the Texpet remediation project found the TPH levels in all soil leachate samples to be non-detectable at a detection limit of 5 mg/L, which met the oilfield standard in effect in Louisiana at that time (i.e., all TPH levels in soil leachate < 10 mg/L, per Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B).

b) Other Consultants to the Fiscalía General: The other five investigations conducted on behalf of the Fiscalía General over the period of 2004 to 2009 similarly provide no indication that the pits required to be remediated by Texpet were either not remediated or were remediated in a manner that did not comply with the specified procedures and numerical remediation criteria, with the possible exception of 1 single test result. Specific findings regarding these additional investigations are as follows:





i) Sr. Gutiérrez Granja (2004): From August 14 to November 25, 2004, Sr. Jaime Gutiérrez Granja conducted visual inspections of pits at 78 well sites, 74 of which were RAP well sites. No sampling or testing results are presented. The only possible exception to proper remediation noted by Sr. Gutiérrez was the presence of “black material” observed on the ground surface at 3 well sites, but the reported locations of this material were not associated with RAP items in the Texpet remediation project.

ii) Sr. Narvaez and Sr. Garcia (2005): During the period of August 2004 to January 2005, Sr. Ian Narváez Troncoso and Sr. Bolívar García Pinos investigated a total of 130 well sites, and collected and analyzed 96 soil samples from 85 of those well sites. Of the 51 total pits for which soil samples were collected and analyzed, only 45 were RAP pits for which remediation had been required, and, of these, the test results indicated only 1 soil sample from one pit to possibly exceed the numerical remediation criteria applicable at the time of the remedial action (i.e., Well Sacha 95, Pit 1). The moderately elevated soil TPH reported by Narváez and Garcia was for an individual soil sample, not a composite soil sample, and therefore is not directly comparable to the remediation criterion (see Section 2.3.3 of my report). The analysis of a composite soil sample from this same pit location at the time of the remediation in 1997 showed the soil TPH to be less than 5000 mg/kg, as required. Furthermore, the field logs from Narváez and Garcia indicate that this pit had been remediated by solidification of the pit sediments and placement of a clean soil cover and vegetation, as required by RAP specifications.

Sr. Narváez and Sr. Garcia suggest that pits remediated prior to March 1997 would be subject to a soil TPH limit of 20,000 mg/kg; however, no such criterion was specified in the RAP or applied by the GOE or Petroecuador at that time. Their report states that the pits remediated by Texpet pose no risk to wildlife. In addition, soil samples collected around the perimeter of remediated pits found no evidence of lateral or vertical seepage from the pit location.

iii) Ms. Enriquez Sanchez (2006): Ms. Adriana Maribel Enríquez Sánchez conducted a visual survey of an unspecified number of well sites in the Sacha, Shushufindi, Guanta, and Lago Agrio fields in July 2006. No sampling or laboratory testing was conducted. She observed no hydrocarbon seepage at the location of any remediated pit and concludes that none of the sites pose a risk to human health, flora, or fauna.

iv) Sr. Bedón (2009): Sr. William Mauricio Bedón Sánchez investigated a total of 11 RAP well sites during the periods of May to July 2009 and September 2009, and provided sampling and testing results for soils at 13 pits, which included 2 NFA pits and 11 RAP pits. Field observations indicated that all of the RAP pits had been remediated by Texpet, and soil test results found the remediated pits to comply with the numerical remediation criteria applicable at the time of the remediation work. Sr. Bedón incorrectly identifies one of the pits that he investigated as having been remediated after March 20, 1997, but,





in fact, all pits investigated by Sr. Bedón had been remediated prior to that date.

v) Sr. Pasquel and Sr. Lincango (2009): Sr. Paul Pasquel Pazmiño and Sr. Roberto Lincango Guañuna are police officers who conducted a visual inspection of 9 RAP well sites on May 26 to 28, 2009. None of the open pits or oil spills that they identified at these sites were RAP items included in the Texpet remediation project.

10. A more detailed discussion of the basis for my opinions on these matters is presented in this expert report. I am continuing to review available information, and I reserve the right to supplement this report or the opinions contained in this report should new information become available which would have a bearing on my opinions.





2.0 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Overview of Environmental Management Practices for Oilfield Operations

11. Oilfield operations commonly involve co-production of crude oil, natural gas, and

produced water, which must be separated and managed as separate streams (see Figure 4). Of these three components, crude oil represents the greatest economic value, while the commercial value of natural gas depends on the infrastructure available for its processing and transportation to market. In most cases, the water generated in conjunction with the oil and natural gas (termed “produced water”) is a waste material that must be managed and disposed. Figure 4: Produced Water from Oil & Gas Wells

12. Oilfield operators and government regulators have historically shared a strong economic incentive to conserve crude oil and prevent releases of this valuable product to the environment. Although natural gas can represent a valuable energy resource, burning of gas in oilfield flares remains a common practice due to the economic and technical limitations specific to each oilfield, including low volumes of gas which are not economically viable, absence of pipelines for collection and distribution, lack of a local market for the gas, and/or insufficient infrastructure to access the international market. Management of produced water, whose volume commonly increases with the maturing of the oilfield, has represented perhaps the most significant environmental challenge associated with oil production. Traditionally, in oilfields throughout the world, produced water was discharged to the ground surface or to nearby surface water streams.





Environmental concerns have also been raised with regard to earthen pits, which, have long been an essential element of oilfield operations, serving to hold drilling fluids and cuttings or to contain the oily waste liquids generated during well “workovers” (i.e., well repair and maintenance work).

13. Over the past few decades, environmental regulations and recommended practices for the oilfield have evolved significantly and now, in many cases, require reinjection of produced water to minimize environmental impacts, as well as the use or reinjection of natural gas to conserve natural resources. In addition, depending on local soil conditions and pit contents, some regulatory authorities now require use of liners in earthen oilfield pits, when needed to protect local groundwater resources. Evaluation of Texpet operations in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession with regard to these evolving practices is provided below. 2.1.1 Use of Earthen Pits

14. In the period of the 1970’s to the 1980’s, when the Petroecuador-Texpet Concession was developed, the use of earthen pits was a common practice in the oil industry worldwide, including the U.S. and many other oil-producing countries (see Figure 5). Pits are shallow excavations dug into the ground surface to contain drilling fluids, cuttings, or waste materials. These pits essentially serve as “waste containers” to minimize the possible impacts of oilfield operations on the surrounding land, nearby streams or rivers, and underlying groundwater resources. The pits may either be underlain by natural soils (termed “unlined pits”) or by liners composed of compacted clay soils or synthetic membranes (termed “lined pits”). Hundreds of thousands of oilfield pits have been used in the U.S., and such earthen pits continue to be built and used in the U.S., Ecuador, and many other countries, subject to applicable technical and regulatory guidelines. The various types of oilfield pits, and their use in the U.S., Latin America, and Ecuador, are discussed below.

Types of Pits Used in Oilfield Operations

15. Technical guidelines for oilfield exploration and production (E&P) activities have long recognized that “the use of pits, both lined and unlined, is an integral part of E&P waste management operations” (E&P Forum, 1993). The most common uses of oilfield pits fall into 3 general categories: i) drilling pits, to contain drilling mud and cuttings, ii) special purpose pits (also known as “workover pits” or “test pits”), to contain wastes associated with well maintenance or repair activities or other operations, and iii) produced water pits, to contain and treat produced water (IOGCC, 2000). In the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, drilling pits and workover pits were used at the individual well sites, while produced water pits were located at the production stations for centralized collection and management of produced water.





Figure 5: Use of Earthen Pits in Oil Well Drilling and Production

Drilling of Oil Well

~ Operation of Oil We ll

Decommissioning of all Well

Liquids removed, solids stabliled, backfilled , lind Clipped .

Well Bore: Sellied wilh

COnctete plu(p.

-

W. II SOr.

Drilling Platform

IIIIIJII IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL

Used to contain o~y waste associated with wei repair or testing

Platfonn


~ Operation of Oil Well

Decommissioning of 011 Well

Pi!!I0'

Liquids removed, soIi:ls stablized. Well Bore: backfilled, Sealed wnh and capped eor.crete Plugs.

-

Drilling Platform

Platform

ENVIRONMENTAL



e Decommissioning of 011 Well

Liquids

~"". soIi:ls stablized. Well Bore: backfilled, Sealed wnh lind capped cor.crete Plu(p.

Wi ll Borl

Drilling Platform

Platfonn

ENVIRONMENTAL

------------------.. .-----------------



e Decommissioning of 011 Well

Liquids removed, soIi:ls stablized. Well Bore: backfilled, Sealed wnh and aopped cor.cte!e Plu(p.

------------------..

Will BOrl

Drilling Platform

Platfonn






16. Figure 5 illustrates the use of earthen pits at an individual well site through the various stages of well drilling and production. As shown on Figure 5A, during the drilling of an oil and gas well, a “water pit” is used to store fresh water, for use in mixing the drilling mud needed for drilling, while a “reserve pit” is used to hold additional drilling mud and collect the soil and rock cuttings that are generated as the borehole is drilled deep into the ground. After completion of the oil and gas well (see Figure 5B), the reserve pit is no longer needed and is commonly closed by removing free liquids, solidifying the soil cuttings, and capping the site with clean soil and vegetation.

17. To accommodate the management of oily liquids and other wastes generated during routine maintenance operations on an active oil well, workover pits and test pits are commonly constructed in the vicinity of the well. Once the well can no longer produce economical levels of oil and gas and is not amenable to other possible uses, the operator may elect to “decommission” the well site (see Figure 5C), which entails removal of equipment and piping, plugging of the well with concrete, and closure of remaining pits.

18. In the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, the pits addressed by the Texpet remediation program were principally workover pits, test pits, and water pits, with, on average, 2 pits at each well site and average pit areas of approximately 900 square meters. In some cases, at the request of the landowner, the former water pit remained on site after the remediation activity for agricultural, livestock, or other uses.

Use of Oilfield Pits in the U.S.A.

19. Until the mid-1980’s, oilfield regulations and industry guidelines in the U.S. did not provide technical criteria for the design and construction of oilfield pits. Rather, oilfield pits commonly consisted of shallow excavations into the natural soil, with the excavated soils used to build earthen berms around the pit, as needed to achieve greater holding capacity and minimize overflows or rainwater run-on. The first regulations governing the construction and closure of oilfield pits in the U.S. were issued at the state level in the mid-1980’s, specifically in Texas (RRC, 1984) and Louisiana (LADOC, 1986), with the goal of protecting water resources and agricultural land. In 1990, guidelines issued by the U.S. Interstate Oil Compact Commission (IOCC, 1990) recommended the use of a liner on the pit base (i.e., clay soil or a synthetic material) to better contain certain wastes (e.g., oily liquids or highly saline produced water) at those locations where site conditions created the potential for leakage and possible impacts on surface water or groundwater resources. Similarly, technical guidelines issued by the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1989, and expanded in 1997, recommended the use of liners for reserve pits, production pits, and other special use pits in environmentally sensitive areas (API, 1989, 1997).

20. In the period of the 1970’s to 1980’s (the same time as Texpet served as the operator of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession in Ecuador), unlined earthen pits were commonly used in oilfields in the U.S. (see Figure 6). In 1984, according to an industry survey conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1986), approximately 125,000 earthen pits were in use in U.S. oilfields, 97.5% of which were constructed without synthetic liners. In 1983 alone, the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oilfield activities in Texas, received over 11,000 requests for drilling permits, each of which involved construction of at least one reserve pit (IOCC, 1983). In the state of Louisiana, it is estimated that at least 82,000 unlined earthen pits used for





drilling mud and cuttings storage were constructed between 1970 and 1985 (Louisiana State University, 2005).

Figure 6: Number of Earthen Pits in Use in Oilfields in the U.S.A: 1980’s to Today

21. By 1995, in response to new regulations requiring the closure of old, inactive pits, the number of earthen pits in use in the U.S. had diminished to 55,000, of which 40% (22,000) were unlined (ICF, 2000). However, in 1995, the state of Louisiana still had 8,099 earthen pits, most of which were in active use and 95% of which were without liners (ICF, 2000). In addition, between 1997 and 1999, an additional survey by USEPA found there to be approximately 27,680 earthen pits in oilfields within the mountain region states of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and North and South Dakota (USEPA Region 8, 2003).

22. Unlined earthen pits remain in common use today in the U.S. for management of certain types of oilfield wastes, particularly for reserve pits used to contain drilling mud and cuttings (see Figure 7). For example, in Texas, data from 2009 show that, of the 12,059 permitted pits on record, 7,560 (63%) do not have synthetic liners (Texas Railroad Commission, 2009), as the nature of the pit wastes and/or the natural soil conditions did not require the use of a liner.

Use of Oilfield Pits in Latin America and Ecuador

23. As with oilfield operations worldwide, throughout Latin America, earthen pits are commonly employed for containment of drilling mud, cuttings, and other wastes associated with oil and gas well drilling and production. The technical guidelines issued in 2005 by ARPEL, the Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean (ARPEL, 2005) provide general specifications for design and construction of earthen pits for drilling operations and recommend use of clay soil liners, when needed, to provide an impervious base. However, the ARPEL guidelines note that, as demonstrated in prior studies (Deeley, 1986), the drilling muds themselves can

Earthen pits are commonly used in U.S. oilfield operations, typically without synthetic liners.





establish a natural low-permeability filter cake on the pit base, serving to minimize potential groundwater impacts.

Figure 7: Recent Photos of Earthen Oilfield Pits in Active Use in the U.S.

Wyoming, USA, 1996: USFW Region 6

Texas, USA, 2009: Raccoon Bend, Bellville, Texas

(23 Nov 2009).

24. In certain Latin American countries, government regulations for management and closure of inactive oilfield pits first appeared in the 1990’s. For example, in Venezuela, Decreto 2635 issued in August 1998 established procedures for the closure of oilfield pits that are comparable to the technical guidelines of Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B, specifying a TPH cleanup limit of 10,000 mg/kg for soil remediation (and, in some cases up to 30,000 mg/kg). In 2001, PDVSA, the national Venezuelan oil company, announced plans to commence elimination of over 12,300 oilfield pits, containing over 9 million barrels of weathered petroleum, 70 million barrels of water, and 50 million barrels of sediments, that had accumulated over the prior decades of oil exploration and production (El Mundo, 18 April 2001). In Colombia, although numeric cleanup standards had not been established for oilfield pits in the 1990’s, the Ministry of the Environment allowed use of the ASTM Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) process to develop site-specific remediation goals. Pursuant to this approach, the Concesión de Petróleo Neiva remediated 244 oilfield, pits, based upon a TPH cleanup of 30,000 mg/kg for soils and sediments in open pits (Villegas, 1998). Based on my personal project experience, in 2006, EcoPetrol, the national oil company of Colombia, established a soil cleanup standard of 20,000 mg/kg TPH to address remediation of oilfield pits at 50 locations in the La Cira-Enfantas oilfield.

25. In Ecuador, Acuerdo 621, issued in 1992 (two years after termination of operations by Texpet), established the first regulations addressing the design and construction of oilfield pits. Specifically, for earthen oilfield pits used to contain drilling mud, cuttings, or oilfield wastes, the soils on the pit walls and base were to be compacted to achieve low-permeability conditions (Acuerdo 621, Articulo 13). Ecuador Decreto 2982, which superseded Acuerdo 621 in August 1995, first established the general procedures for closure of oilfield pits; however, numerical criteria for remediation of soils in oilfield pits (i.e., soil TPH and TCLP limits) were not established until February 2001, when Ecuador Decreto 1215 was issued.

26. None of these regulations require the use of synthetic liners in oilfield pits, and Petroecuador continues to construct and use unlined earthen pits in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession today. Since 1990, Petroecuador has more than





doubled the number of wells in the former Concession, drilling more than 414 new oil and gas wells (IHS, 2009; Petroecuador, 2009), each of which entails use of earthen pits for management of drilling muds, cuttings, and wastes. In the past 3 years alone, Petroecuador has constructed more than 277 unlined earthen pits associated with drilling of 63 new wells in the Guanta, Shushufindi, and Sacha oilfields (see Figure 8; Attachment I, Chevron Response to Sr. Barros, January 14, 2010).

Figure 8: Recent Photos of Earthen Oilfield Pits in Active Use in Ecuador

Petroecuador Operations, 2009: Yuca 10 (6 May 2009).

Petroecuador Operations, 2007) Sacha 67 (7 July 2007)

Accepted Procedures for Remediation of Oilfield Pits

27. Following termination of use and permanent removal from service, earthen pits are commonly closed by in-place burial (API, 1989; API, 1997; E&P Forum, 1993; IOCC, 1990; Texas RRC, 1984; World Bank, 1998). A survey published in 1990 regarding policies and procedures in use for oilfield pit closure in 12 U.S. states found that, in most states, 70% to 98% of reserve pits were closed simply by allowing the liquid contents to air dry and burying the solid contents of the pit beneath a soil cover (Jones and Leuterman, 1990). For earthen pits containing ponded water or oil, the most common closure methods involved removal of free oil by skimming or filtration; dewatering of pit contents, and disposal, treatment, or injection of the liquids; stabilization of the pit contents by mixing and tilling with soil; and placement of a clean soil cover (API, 1989; API, 1997; E&P Forum, 1993; 1996; IOCC, 1990; Texas RRC, 1984, World Bank, 1998). This same in-place closure procedure remains the principal method of pit remediation today under applicable regulations in Texas and Louisiana (Texas RRC, 1984; LADOC 1986). Soil mixing and tilling is also the most frequently used method to address soil impacts associated with crude oil spills (API, 1989; API, 1997; Texas RRC, 1993).

Ecuadorian Regulations for Pit Closure and Recent Actions by Petroecuador

28. In August 1995 (roughly coincident with the start of the Texpet remediation program), the same general procedure for pit closure as defined under international guidelines was codified under Ecuador Decreto 2982, Articulo 30, which was subsequently updated and expanded under Ecuador Decreto 1215, Articulo 59, in February 2001. Today, Petroecuador is employing this same general procedure in their effort to close all remaining pits within the former Concession area (PEPDA, 2007). In June 2005,





Petroecuador commenced work on the “PEPDA” program to remediate a reported total of 550 pits, 870 fosas (dry or water pits), spills, tanks, and sewage/residual waters in the whole production area of the Oriente, at an estimated cost of $121.2 million (Cronograma para la Eliminación de Pasivos Ambientales, PEPDA, 2007a). This remediation program includes the pits in the former Petroecuador-Texpet Concession that date from the Texpet era, but have not yet been remediated by Petroecuador (El Telegrafo, 20 October 2006; El Comercio, 29 October 2006; Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2007).

29. As of December 2007, only 1.5 years after start-up, the PEPDA program had initiated or completed the remediation of 228 of the estimated 550 open pits in the Oriente region, including Petroecuador operations beyond the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession as well as 148 (40%) of the estimated 370 pits located within the former Concession itself (PEPDA, 2007b). In February 2008, Petroecuador established the Corporate Vicepresidency of the Environment, Social Responsibility, Safety, and Health, and changed the PEPDA program to the Unit of Mitigation and Remediation (UMR) (Petroecuador, 2009a), with the stated goal of eliminating all remaining pits and other environmental liabilities by 2013 (El Universo, 21 June 2009). 2.1.2 Management of Produced Water

30. Produced water,” which is also referred to as “formation water,” is water that is present within a geologic formation that contains crude oil or natural gas and is extracted (i.e., “produced”) from an oil well along with the oil and natural gas, as part of normal operations. The produced water must be separated from the oil and gas streams prior to their processing and is commonly handled as a waste material. Over time, the amount of water produced from an oil well (i.e., the “water cut”) can increase, as the crude oil deposit is depleted and the well draws more and more water from the formation for every barrel of oil generated. In the U.S., on average, more than 7 barrels of produced water is generated per barrel of oil (Veil et al, 2004). Management of produced water can pose an increasing challenge in “maturing oilfields,” as facilities must be expanded to handle greater volumes of water over time.

31. Over the past few decades, for onshore operations, the prevailing practice for management of produced water has changed considerably. While, in the past, produced water was commonly discharged to nearby surface water bodies (e.g., rivers and streams), today produced water is often reinjected into an oil and gas reservoir, which contains water of a similar salinity. Reinjection serves not only to dispose of the produced water, but, in many cases, is designed to augment oil production through a technology called “waterflooding.” Nevertheless, in many oilfields around the world, discharge of produced water to surface water continues to be a common practice (see Figures 9A and 9B).

32. The chemical composition of produced water, as well as the history of its management in oilfields around the world and in Ecuador, is discussed below.

Chemical Composition of Produced Water

33. The chemical composition of produced water varies considerably, depending on the geochemical characteristics of the oil reservoir from which it is produced (Veil et al, 2004). Produced water, which has been in contact with the formation rock for many





thousands of years, can dissolve a portion of the rock minerals (or “salts”), and, as a result, may be moderately to highly saline. However, the salinity of produced water varies dramatically among geologic formations and geographic regions, ranging from fresh to highly brackish, even exceeding the salinity of seawater in some oilfields. For example, within the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, the chloride concentrations in produced water from the various oilfields vary from as low as 700 mg/L to 30,000 mg/L, and average 15,000 mg/L – which is approximately 4 times lower than the typical chloride level in produced water from U.S. oilfields (USGS, 2009; Neff, 2006). Produced water also contains small concentrations of dispersed oil droplets (Veil, 2004). In addition, the produced water may contain some of the same metals that are found in crude oil (e.g., zinc, lead, manganese, iron, and barium) and traces of the chemical products that were used for well drilling and development (Veil et al, 2004).

Figure 9A: Volume of Produced Water Discharged Onshore in North America: 1963 - 2008

Figure 9B: Volume of Produced Water Discharged Onshore

Worldwide: 2003 - 2008

NOTES:

1) Volume reported for 1963 in United States includes non-registered discharges (1000 million barrels), assumed to have been discharged onshore. (IOCC, 1965)

2) Volumes reported for 1985 and 1995 in United States include discharges from methane production in coal reservoirs and coastal discharges (discharges to marshes and bays). (Wakim, 1987; ICF, 2000)

3) Volumes reported for 2003 - 2008 correspond to those of North America. (OGP, 2006, 2009)

NOTES:

1) Data presented by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, OGP, and are based on volumes reported by 27-32 oil and gas in 54-62 countries. Data reflect the production of companies reporting which ranges from 20% to 98% of total production; therefore, the figure represents trends in discharge over time rather than total volume.

2) Volumes reported for 2003-2005 obtained from OGP, 2006; and volumes for 2006-2008 from OGP, 2009.

History of Produced Water Management in U.S. and Worldwide

34. In the decades of the 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s, the common practice for management of produced water in the U.S. as well as other countries around the world was treatment in a series of tanks or earthen ponds to remove oil, emulsions, and solids, followed by discharge to nearby surface water or the ground surface. In the past two decades, in response to regulations issued in various countries, reinjection into the geologic formation from which the oil was produced has been established as the recommended method for disposal of produced water. Nevertheless, even today, over 930 million barrels per year of produced water are still discharged to the surface in onshore oilfield operations worldwide (OGP, 2009; see Figure 9B). In the U.S., the level of onshore





discharges remained relatively steady through the decades of the 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s, but diminished significantly after 1985 due to implementation of new regulations at the federal level (see Figure 9A). In the U.S., the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rules of 1979 marked the initial regulation of produced water at the federal level in the U.S., as, for the first time, criteria were established regarding the location and chemical composition of such discharges to surface water. However, under state and federal permits, significant volumes of produced water continued to be discharged to surface water throughout the 1980’s, with more than 1180 million barrels discharged in the U.S. in 1985 (Wakim, 1987; also see Figure 9A).

35. In 1991, the U.S. EPA published the “General Permit” for onshore discharges, which prohibited discharges to surface water, except for wells producing formation water suitable for other uses or wells producing less than 10 barrels of oil per day (USEPA, 1991; Zachos, 1993). By 1995, the reported volumes of produced water discharged to surface water diminished to 537 million barrels per year and to 33 million barrels per year in 2003 (ICF, 2000; OGP, 2006, 2009). Nevertheless, in U.S. states like Louisiana, operators continued to discharge produced water onshore until the late 1990’s, under extensions granted by the state regulatory agency (LADEQ, 1997), and, in 1992, the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oilfield operations in Texas, accepted 85 applications for discharges of produced water (McFaddin, 1996).

36. Recent surveys indicate that, by 2003 in the U.S., approximately 92% of produced water is reinjected, of which 71% is injected as a waterflooding operation to enhance oil recovery (Veil et al, 2004). Of the 8% of the produced water volume that is not reinjected, 5% is either treated and discharged or is suitable for reuse, due to low salinity, while 3% is managed in evaporation or percolation ponds. Moderate increases in produced water discharges in the U.S. after 2004 (see Figure 9A) may reflect the increased development of coalbed methane in the U.S., which can entail discharge of significant volumes of low-salinity produced water.

37. The reported volumes of produced water discharged onshore over the past decade in various oil-production regions around the world are plotted on Figure 9B. As shown, over the period of 2003 to 2008, reported produced water discharges have increased dramatically in Asia and moderately in the Middle East (OGP, 2006, 2009). However, in Latin America, onshore discharge of produced water has diminished, as the conversion from surface discharge to reinjection of produced water has roughly paralleled the process in the U.S., although at a slower pace (see Figure 9B). Nevertheless, the available data indicate that, as of 2008, over 930 million barrels per year of produced water were still being discharged in onshore oilfield operations worldwide, including 28 million barrels per year in Latin America (OGP, 2009).

38. In Venezuela, Decreto 2224 of 1992 established reinjection as the preferred method of management; however, continued surface discharge to rivers, streams, lakes or estuaries is allowed pursuant to the water quality requirements of Decreto No. 883 of 1995. Mexico issued similar effluent limitations for produced water discharge for the first time in 2005 (NOM 143). In Colombia, Decreto 1594 of 1984 also set standards for allowable discharge of produced water, subject to considerations of possible impacts on the receiving waters; however, as of 2006, when I conducted an environmental audit of the La Cira-Enfantas oilfield, Ecopetrol was still discharging approximately 17,500 barrels per day of produced water from that one oilfield.





39. Technical guidelines published by the World Bank in 1998 for oilfield operations (World Bank, 1998) identify surface discharge as an acceptable practice for produced water disposal, subject to water quality considerations. Similarly, in 1992, the technical guidelines of the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (formerly known as “E&P Forum,” 1991) recommended reinjection of produced waters for oilfield operations in tropical regions, but also allowed for surface discharge in those cases where proper treatment and discharge would not impacts the ecosystem or human health.

History of Produced Water Management in Ecuador

40. In Ecuador, Acuerdo 621, issued in 1992, two years after termination of Texpet operations, established the first numerical limits that were specific to the discharge of produced water to surface water. Prior to that time, produced water from the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession was discharged to surface water, as allowed under applicable regulations. However, over the period of 1993 to 2004, supported in part by equipment and funds provided by Texpet, Petroecuador installed reinjection systems for produced water at each of the 18 production stations in the former Concession, beginning with the Auca Sur, Auca Central, and Yuca production stations in 1993 and completing the conversion in 2004, with activation of the reinjection system at the Cononaco production station (see Figure 10; Attachment D, Chevron Response to Sr. Barros, January 14, 2010).

Figure 10: Produced Water Volumes and Management in Former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession: 1990 – 2005

41. Today, all production stations in the former Concession are equipped with reinjection

systems; however, under Petroecuador management, surface discharges of produced water persist at a number of locations due to operating and maintenance problems (Controlaría General del Estado, 2005; Petroproducción, 2008). Indeed, available operating records indicate that, due to the increasing volumes of produced water generated in the oilfields and the on-going discharges by Petroecuador, more produced water was discharged to surface water by Petroecuador over the period of 1990 to 2007 (861 million barrels produced, of which 394 million barrels were discharged) than had been discharged in the prior 18-year period of Texpet operations from 1972 to 1990 (377 million barrels produced and discharged) (Attachment D, Chevron Response to Sr. Barros, January 14, 2010).

Over the period of 1993 to 2004, Petroecuador converted to reinjection of produced water.

However, due to increasing volumes of produced water and operating problems, 394 million bbls were discharged from 1990 – 2007.





42. The potential impact of produced water on the surface water body into which it is discharged depends upon the chemical composition of the produced water, the degree of dilution that occurs upon mixing with the flow in the river or stream, and the flushing of the saline water by rainfall and surface water flow after the discharge terminates. In the period of 2004 to 2009, sampling and testing of surface water from rivers and streams at hundreds of locations across the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession found that 98% (173 of 175) of the locations met the standards for drinking water, as established by the WHO and USEPA (Connor et al, 2008a; see Figure 11 below). These sampling locations included points directly downstream of the former points of produced water discharge at all 11 production stations in the former Concession, and found there to be no current impact on surface water quality from the historical discharges of produced water in the former Concession area. Indeed, the only 2 sampling locations where surface water impacts were observed (i.e., streams with elevated salinity or petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations) were associated with on-going releases of produced water by Petroecuador.

Figure 11: Results of Surface Water Testing in Former Concession: 2004 - 2008

SSF-45A WELL:

Leak from Petroecuador

AGUARICO PRODUCTION STATION:

Leak from Petroecuador

173 of 175 (99%) sampling points meet WHO an USEPA drinking water standards today.

Only exceptions are 2 locations impacted by current Petroecuador operations.

SURFACE WATER TEST RESULTS

KEY POINT: No CURRENT surface water impacts by historical discharge of produced water.





43. Furthermore, the results of a survey of vegetative conditions at 14 former discharge points found the vegetation to be dense and healthy at all 14 production stations investigated, with no indication of vegetative stress as a result of the past discharge of produced water (Connor et al, 2008b). 2.1.3 Flaring of Natural Gas

44. In 2008, approximately 141 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas associated with oil production was burned annually in oilfields around the world, a level that has remained relatively stable since 1994 (NOAA, 2010). Although natural gas can represent a valuable energy resource, burning of gas in oilfield flares remains a common practice due to the economic and technical limitations specific to each oilfield, including low volumes of gas which are not economically viable, absence of pipelines for collection and distribution, lack of a local market for the gas, and/or insufficient infrastructure to access the international market. As shown on Figure 12, in 2008, significant volumes of gas were still being burned in all of the principal oil-producing regions of the world. In Central and South America specifically, approximately 6.3 bcm of gas is burned annually by flares in Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil alone (NOAA, 2010).

Figure 12: Volumes of Co-Produced Natural Gas Flared in Various Regions Worldwide in 2008

SOURCE: NOAA, 2010. "Gas Flaring Estimates," National Geophysical Data Center, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/interest/gas_flares.html..

Flare total for Central/ South America includes the following (gas flare noted in billions of cubic meters) Argentina 0.75; Bolivia 0.074; Brazil 1.1; Chile 0.071 Colombia 0.37; Ecuador 1.1; Mexico 2.6; Peru 0.056 Trinidad 0.18; Venezuela 2.6

45. Internationally, including Ecuador and the U.S., flares are recognized by government regulatory agencies as an efficient and safe method to dispose of excess natural gas, and, in most cases, flares are required in order to prevent direct discharge of gas to the environment. The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) has recognized that “the option to release gas to the atmosphere by flaring and venting is an essential practice in oil and gas production, primarily for safety reasons” (OGP, 2000).

Natural gas flare at Shushufindi Central production station, 28 May 2004





46. In the U.S., the USEPA has published various technical guidelines (USEPA, 1978, 1992)

that describe gas flaring as a common and effective method for controlling gas emissions in oilfields. Burning gas in flares fulfills two important functions: i) prevention of potential explosions caused by the direct discharge of gas, and ii) control of hydrocarbon emissions to the atmosphere. Studies conducted by the USEPA have shown that flares are extremely efficient at destroying hydrocarbon gases, with destruction rates generally exceeding 98% (see the list of references regarding “Efficiency of Flares for Gas Combustion” in Section 5 of this report).

47. According to the Texpet Concession Contract and Decree 925, issued by the government of Ecuador in August 1973, all of the natural gas produced in the Petroecuador-Texaco Concession belonged to the government, which retained exclusive rights over the use and/or disposal of gas for the full period of Texpet operations. Since February 1992, when Acuerdo 621 was published (“Environmental Rule for Hydrocarbon Activities in Ecuador,” Article 21), environmental regulations in Ecuador have required gas from oil and gas operations to be burned prior to discharge to the environment, subject maximum emission limits. Requirements for monitoring of flare emissions were established for the first time in Ecuador with publication of Decreto 1215 in February 2001.

48. In 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the World Bank Group established the Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) Initiative to support efforts of the petroleum industry and national governments to improve utilization of natural gas resources by reducing the amount of natural gas that is currently disposed by flaring or venting in oilfields worldwide (World Bank, 2002, 2010a, 2010b). For this purpose, the GGFR seeks to promote effective regulations and reduce constraints on natural gas utilization, such as insufficient infrastructure and poor access to local and international energy markets, particularly in developing countries. Both Chevron and Petroecuador, along with 17 other national or international oil companies, are members of the GGFR. At the GGFR conference in Quito, Ecuador, in 2006, the Ecuador Ministry of Energy and Mines reported that in the 16 active oilfield operations in Ecuador, approximately 51% of the natural gas is recovered rather than flared, with the greatest percent recovery (62%) achieved in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, now operated by Petroproducción (W. Prieto, Dirección Nacional de Hidrocarburos, 2006).

2.1.4 Environmental Audits of Former Concession Operations, 1992 - 1993

49. In the period of 1992 - 1993, two environmental audits of oilfield operations in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession were conducted to evaluate historical compliance with applicable environmental regulations and characterize current environmental conditions: i) an audit by HBT Agra, Limited, conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroecuador, Petroamazonas (a Petroecuador subsidiary), and Texpet, and ii) a parallel audit by Fugro-McClelland, Inc., conducted on behalf of Texpet only. The HBT Agra audit entailed physical inspection of 50% of the well sites (163), 20% of the flowlines, 20% of secondary pipelines (38 km), 22 production stations, and 1 waterflood facility (HBT-Agra, October 1993). The separate audit program by Fugro-McClelland involved inspection of 50% of the well sites, 18 production stations, 6 base camps, and 30 miles of pipelines (Fugro-McClelland, October 1992). In combination, the two reports represent a very thorough audit of oilfield operations in the former Petroecuador-Texaco





Concession area. The scope and procedures of these environmental audits were generally consistent with the technical guidelines established for audits of industrial facilities, particularly oilfield operations, as have been outlined in various publications (Greeno et. al., 1985; Guckian et. al., 1993; Nelson, 1998).

50. For the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, the two audit reports noted the presence of environmental conditions (pits, oil-affected soils, etc.) that could require remedial action, but concluded that oilfield operations were consistent with typical practices in other tropical rainforest areas at that time. Key findings in this regard include the following:

a) HBT Agra, Ltd., October 1993, “Environmental Audit and Assessment of the Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium Oilfields until June 30, 1990”:

“…(N)o technical standards were developed in association with Ecuadorian law for the period of 1964 to 1990 which can provide a basis for assessing compliance.” [page x]

“A review of Consortium practices revealed that for the most part they were in conformance with typical operational practices in other tropical rainforest areas.” [page xi]

b) Fugro-McClelland, Inc., October 1992, “Final Environmental Field Audit for Practices 1964 – 1990, Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium, Oriente, Ecuador”:

“Texpet’s operation from 1964 through 1990 were in compliance with Ecuadorian laws and regulations and industry practices for seismic, exploratory drilling and many areas of development drilling/ production operations.” [page E-1]

51. As detailed in Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 above, my evaluation of available information confirms the findings of the HBT-Agra and Fugro-McClelland audit reports. Specifically, during the time period that Texpet served as operator of the Concession (until June 1990), the use of earthen pits to contain oily waste liquids at well sites; the management of the produced water by means of treatment and discharge to surface streams; and the flaring of unused natural gas were consistent with applicable Ecuadorian regulations, as well as common practices in the oil industry at that time.

52. A 1994 report by the Oversight Commission of the National Congress of Ecuador (Ecuador National Congress, 1994) criticizes the HBT-Agra audit program for not including an extensive Environmental Impact Assessment to address the possible ecological, cultural, and social effects of oilfield development. The report recommends that the audit consider the effects of oilfield development on the ecosystem of the Amazon region, including compensation to affected communities. However, based upon my own experience in similar audits, as well as published guidelines (Greeno et al, 1985; Guckian et al, 1993; Nelson, 1998), environmental audits are intended to assess compliance with applicable environmental regulations, policies, and procedures at the time of the audit, which is wholly distinct from the scope of an Environmental Impact Assessment. By my review, the scope of the HBT-Agra audit was consistent with accepted standards for environmental audits of oilfield facilities, which do not entail the additional tasks suggested by the Oversight Commission.

53. Although, as noted above, both audit reports concluded that operations were generally consistent with prevailing practices, the reports identified a number of environmental





conditions that would require remedial action, including the presence of open pits, oil-affected soils, and produced water discharges. For the sites inspected, the HBT-Agra report (HBT-Agra, October 1993, Vol. II, Tables 4.5 to 4.9) estimates a total remediation cost of approximately $13.3 million (U.S.) for remediation of spill-impacted soils and open pits at 163 well sites ($4.9 million) and 18 production stations ($8.4 million). Fugro-McClelland estimates the total cost of remediation of affected soils and 120 pits at well sites ($3.9 million) and modification of produced water management systems at production stations ($2.95 million) to be approximately $6.85 million (Fugro-McClelland, October 1992, Section 5). The remedial actions identified in these audit reports served, in part, as the basis of the scope of work of the Texpet remediation project, as later defined in the Contract and Remedial Action Plan approved by the Government of Ecuador (GOE) and Petroecuador in 1995.

2.2 Summary of Texpet Remediation Program, 1995 to 1998

54. The scope, planning, execution, and approval of the remediation work conducted by Texpet in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession during the period of 1995 to 1998 is documented in great detail in the Scope of Work (SOW), the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), site inspection records, laboratory tests reports, site photographs, government Actas, and the Final Report issued for that project (see Section 5.0 Reference List). The timeline of key events and documents related to this remedial action program is illustrated on Figure 13 and described in further detail below.

Figure 13: Timeline of Texpet Remediation Project and Associated Events

2.2.1 History of Oilfield Development in the Petroecuador-Texaco Concession

55. The former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, located in the Oriente region of northeast Ecuador, was the first successful oil and gas development in the country (see Figure 14), beginning in 1967. Today, the former Concession area is surrounded by many other oilfields in the Amazon District, which share its borders and are drained by the





same rivers. In sum, there are over 1600 active oil and gas wells this region, producing over 184 million barrels of crude oil per year, of which the former Concession, now operated by Petroproducción, represents approximately 27% (50 million barrels per year).

56. Under the terms of a 1964 agreement, revised in 1973, Texaco Petroleum Company (Texpet) was first granted a minority interest in the petroleum exploration and production activities in the 400,000-hectare Petroecuador-Texaco Concession area within the provinces of Sucumbios and Napo. In 1977, pursuant to Supreme Decree No. 1438, ownership in the Concession was 67.5% Petroecuador and 37.5% Texpet, with Texpet serving as the oilfield operator. Following an initial oil discovery at Lago Agrio Well No. 1 in February 1967, the Consortium proceeded to develop and operate a system of 16 oilfields in the Oriente, with a total of 321 oil wells, 18 production stations, 6 base camps, and associated pipelines. In 1972, the 318-mile trans-Ecuador pipeline was built from Lago Agrio to an oil terminal in Esmeraldas on the Pacific coast. This pipeline converted to 100% ownership by Petroecuador in 1986, and full operation by Petroecuador in 1989. On July 1, 1990, pursuant to the Concession agreement, operation of the Oriente oilfields was turned over to Petroecuador. Full ownership of the Concession was transferred to Petroecuador on July 1, 1992, after which time Texpet had no further involvement in oilfield operations in Ecuador.

2.2.2 Memorandum of Understanding, December 1994

57. The environmental audits conducted in the period of 1992 to 1993 in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession (see Section 2.1.4) identified a number of environmental conditions, including open pits, petroleum-affected soils, and produced water management systems, that could be addressed as part of the decommissioning of Texpet operations. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by representatives of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroecuador, and Texpet on December 14, 1994, stated that the parties would develop a Scope of Work for environmental remediation and socioeconomic actions to be implemented by Texpet, in exchange for liberation from further liabilities. Furthermore, the work to be conducted by Texpet and its contractors would be subject to review and approval by the GOE and Petroecuador.

2.2.3 Contract and Scope of Work for Texpet Remediation Project, May 1995

58. The “Contract for the Execution of Environmental Remediation Work and Liberation from Obligations, Responsibilities, and Demands”, signed by representatives of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroecuador, and Texpet on May 4, 1995, included Anexo A, which defined the Scope of Work (SOW) and specific work tasks to be completed by Texpet, as well as Anexos 1 through 4, which identified the specific sites where the need for these tasks was to be evaluated by Texpet. Article IV of this Contract, concerning “Certificación y Aceptación del Trabajo,” required Texpet to notify the Ministry of Energy and Mines upon completion of each work item, at which time the GOE and Petroecuador would inspect the work and inform Texpet of any “substantial change,” which would require further action or correction by Texpet within 15 days. Disputes not resolved within this 15-day period were to be referred to an Independent Technical Arbiter for resolution. The firm, Environmental Resources Management, Inc. (ERM), was later designated as the Technical Arbiter for the purpose of this project.





Figure 14: Production of Petroleum and Gas in the Amazon Region of Ecuador, 2008

2.2.4 Remedial Site Investigation, July 1995

59. In July 1995, to identify the number of pits and affected soil areas present at each site identified in the SOW and assess applicable remediation requirements, Woodward

" AgIP 0,1 Ecuador

Petroleum 9232367 bbl Gas 276969 thousands ft'

12 24

Petroleum Areas

_ Suelopetrol

D Petroproduccion

D Petrobell

c==J Tecpecuador

_ Petr61eos Sudamericanos

_ Petroecuador-Perenco

_ Sipec

CC035 00 eM

D D

CJ D

Pet,obell Petroleum 1730 661 bbl G~5 257616 thousands tt'

Petroleum blocks

Fields operated by the former Petroecuador-Texpet Consortium Former Petroecuador-Texpet Concession area

Provinces

II1II11' 1 G S I ENVI RON MENTAL

Andes Petroleo Petroleum 16016644 bbl

Gas 241541lOthO\J$3ndsf\ '

Petroleum (bbl)

G" (thousand ttl

o 100 200

2008 Production

Amazon Region

184.210,815

41,192,700

Former PetroecuadorTexpet Concession'

50,341 ,703

12,342,347

Nole: Petroleum 1,636

Source of Information: Estadi stica Hidrocarourifera c,-,-'We",'""':::-...Lcc:-:-cc:c-::'-",-::c;::--,--c;:,,-;=7 2008. Direcci6n de Hidrocarburos, Ministerio de • Only ~(tlds operated by the former Pelroecuador-Texpel Minas y Petr6leo. Republica del Ecuador. Consortium within the concessioo are Included

-

" Aglp 0,1 Ecuador


12 24

Petroleum Areas

_ Suelopetrol

D Petroproduccion

o Petrobell

c==J TecpecuadOr



_ Sipec

CC035 00 eM

o o CJ o

Pet,<>bell

Petroleum 1730 SOl bbl G~s 257616 thousands tt'

Petroleum blocks


Provinces

"f IGSI ENVI RONMENTAL

Andes Petroleo Petroleum 16016644 bOl

Gas 2415480thouS.;lndsf\'

Petroleum (bbt)

Go> (thousand ttl

o 100 200

2008 Production

Amazon Region

184.210,815

41,192,700


50,341 ,703

12.342,347

Note: Petroleum 1,636

Source of Information: Estadi stica Hidrocarourifera c,-,-'We""""':::-...Lccc:-ccc:-::'::c:-::--:::--:-c;:-c;cc,,-' 2008. Direcci6n de Hidrocarburos, Ministerio de • Only h~/d! op;JfI3led by the ronner PeIr06cuador-Texpel Minas ~ Pelr6leo. Republ ica del Ecuador. Consortium within the concessioo are included

-

" Aglp 0,1 Ecuador


12 24

Petroleum Areas

_ Suelopetrol

o Petroproduccion

o Petrobell

c==J Tecpecuador _ Petr61eos Sudamericanos


.. Sipec

CCOJ5 00 eM

o ~

CJ o

Petronell Petroleum 1730661 bbl G~s 257616 thousands It'

Petroleum blocks


Provinces

"f IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL

Andes Petroleo Petroleum 16016644 btli

Gas 2415480thousandsf\'

Petroleum (bbt)

Go> (thousand ttl

o 100 200

2008 Production

Amazon Region

184.210,815

41,192,700


50,341 ,703

12.342,347


Source of Information: Estadi stica Hidrocarourifera c,-,-'We",,'""':::-,-LCCC:-:-C:-:-::':"'-"-:::--:-:::"''-'7 2008. Direcci6n de Hidrocarburos, Ministerio de • Only h~/d! operated by the rormer Pelroecuador-Texpel Minas ~ Petr6leo. Republica del Ecuador. Consortium within the concessioo are included

-

" Ag,p 0,1 Ecuador

Petroleum 9232367 bbl Gas 276 969 thouS3nd~ tt'

12 24

Petroleum Areas

_ Suelopetrol

D Petroproduccion

o Petrobell

c==J TecpeCuadOr



III Sipec

CCOJ5 00 eM

o EZ';'J

CJ o

Pet,<>bell

Petroleum 1730651 bbl G~s 257616 thousands It'

Petroleum blocks


Provinces

~IJI I GSI ENVIRONMENTAL

Andes Petroleo Petroleum 16016644 btli

Gas 2415480 thOusands ft'

Petroleum (bbt)

Go> (thousand ttl

o 100 200

2008 Production

Amazon Region

184.210,815

41,192,700


50,341 ,703

12.342,347


Source of Information: Estadi stica Hidrocarourifera c,-,-'We""'""':::-,-Lccc:-:-c:-:-::':",-,,-:::--:-:::co,-,,,-' 2008. Direcci6n de Hidrocarburos, Ministerio de • Only h~/ds operated by the Iormer Petroecuador-Texpel Minas ~ Petroleo. Republica del Ecuador. Consortium within the concessioo are included

-





Clyde International (WCI), the environmental contractor hired by Texpet for this work program, conducted preliminary site investigations for the 131 well sites identified in the Contract document (WCI, 2000). Based upon this analysis, at 125 well sites, WCI identified a total of 225 pits, 139 of which were designated for evaluation and remediation, as needed, per the requirements of the Remedial Action Plan, while the other 86 pits were initially designated for “No Further Action” (NFA) due to little or no oil content (soil TPH < 5000 mg/kg).

2.2.5 Remedial Action Plan, September 1995

60. Based upon the results of the Remedial Investigation, the “Plan de Acción de Reparación Medioambiental para el Antiguo Consorcio Petroecuador-Texpet,” (i.e., the Remedial Action Plan or “RAP”) signed by representatives of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroecuador, and Texpet on September 8, 1995 (WCI, 1995), defined the site-specific tasks to be completed at each of the sites previously identified in the SOW, as well as the procedures to be employed and the related acceptance criteria, including:

i) Pit Closure: At the well sites listed in the Contract, open pits constructed prior to June 30, 1990, were to be remediated, following the step-by-step procedures outlined in the RAP, unless the pit was designated as “NFA” (i.e., No Further Action, because TPH concentrations in pit soils were less than 5000 mg/kg) or as a “Change of Condition” (e.g., because fresh crude oil was placed in the pit after June 30, 1990, or the pit was still otherwise in use by Petroecuador). In total, 139 pits were designated for evaluation of remediation in the RAP document (see WCI, 1995; Table 3.1). Satisfactory closure of each pit was to be verified by testing composite samples of the remediated soils using the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) to demonstrate that the TPH content of the soil leachate did not exceed 1000 mg/L.

The RAP also specified the general procedures to be employed for pit closures, which are illustrated in Figure 15. These procedures are consistent with the prevailing practices for pit closures at that time, which are still in use today in oilfields in the U.S. and worldwide, entailing removal of free liquids and oil, treatment and/or solidification of pit sediments and affected soils, backfilling with clean soil, and placement of a vegetative cover (see Section 2.1.1). Treatment processes for pit sediments employed in the Texpet project included soil washing, bio-treatment, stabilization, and solidification.

ii) Affected Soils: Soils affected by oil spills were designated for cleanup at 27 well sites (see WCI, 1995; Table 3.5) and at 22 production stations, 1 water injection plant, and 1 base camp (see WCI, 1995; Table 3.6), subject to the same in-place remediation procedures specified for the pit closures.

iii) Produced Water Treatment and Reinjection: A specified list of equipment was to be provided to Petroecuador to facilitate installation of produced water treatment and reinjection systems at 9 production stations and 4 well sites (see WCI, 1995; Table 3.2), where produced water was presently discharged to surface water. For each facility identified on Table 3.2 of the RAP, Appendix B of the RAP specified the particular equipment to be provided by Texpet (i.e., pumps, filters, tanks, piping, etc.) and the party (i.e., Texpet or Petroecuador) that would be responsible for the





equipment installation and the conversion of an existing oil well to use as an injection well.

Figure 15: General Process for Pit Remediation Specified in Remedial Action Plan (RAP)

iv) Well Plugging and Abandonment: The RAP identified 18 inactive wells for which some form of action would be required to properly complete plugging and abandonment, as needed for protection of groundwater resources (see WCI, 1995; Table 3.4). Appendix C of the RAP provided detailed information regarding the current condition of each well listed on Table 3.4, as well as the proposed actions to be conducted by Texpet.

v) Containment Dikes: Specifications were provided for construction of secondary containment dikes around oil processing and storage tanks at the Sacha Norte 1 production station and the well sites Culebra 1 and Auca Sur 1.

2.2.6 Implementation of Remediation Project by Texpet, 1995 - 1998

61. During the period of 1995 to 1998, as documented in the Final Report issued by WCI (WCI, 2000), Texpet implemented the remedial action program specified in the RAP, subject to review and approval by representatives of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroecuador, and Petroproducción. I have completed a detailed review of this Final Report and the related project records to organize the following information regarding the remedial action program:

a) Work Conducted by Texpet and Its Contractors: For each of the principal tasks specified in the RAP, Tables 1A – 1E of this report itemize the number of sites and related work items designated for remedial action and the corresponding actions implemented by Texpet, as demonstrated by field records, photographs, verification

Remedial Action Plan (RAP) specified the process for pit remediation as well as the soil cleanup criteria to be applied





test results, and the project report. For example, the information summarized on Table 1A, regarding the remediation of pits and oil spills, shows that, while the RAP required the remediation of 139 pits, Texpet, in fact, conducted remedial actions at 162 pits and 6 spill locations, because an additional 25 pits and 6 spill areas were identified and added to the work program during implementation. A total of 76 pits were designated as NFA, due to little or no oil content (e.g., water pits), and 13 pits were designated as “Change of Condition,” with approval of the GOE and Petroecuador, and were excluded from remediation due to being in active use by Petroecuador.

Tables 1B – 1E summarize my review of records for affected soil areas, produced water systems, well plugging and abandonment, and containment dikes, respectively. In Attachment B, for each individual site and the associated work items, I have compiled the SOW and RAP requirements, the dates and types of actions completed by Texpet, the confirmation testing conducted by Texpet, and the governments Actas approving the work. Confirmation test results conducted by WCI at the time of the remediation work for pits and affected soil areas are summarized in Attachment C. Attachment D provides a tabulation of all Approval Actas issued by the GOE and Petroecuador, with a summary of the associated scope of each Acta. The full database of laboratory test results employed in my evaluation is provided in Attachment E. Attachment F provides a photographic record of the work conducted by Texpet at each site, including before and after photographs and the sequence of the work program conducted, as well as photos showing the current conditions of a number of these remediation sites, as observed during the site investigations of 2003 to 2009.

b) Approval Actas Issued by GOE and Petroecuador: In Attachment D of this report, I have catalogued each of the 19 Approval Actas issued by representatives of Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroproducción, and Petroecuador, which incrementally approve the satisfactory completion of each element of the RAP, based upon information provided by the field inspectors.

2.3 Background on Soil Remediation Criteria

62. In addition to specifying the physical procedures for remediation of pits and affected soils (see Figure 16), the RAP and subsequent modifications by the GOE and Petroecuador also established the following numerical remediation criteria:

i) Soil Leachate TPH: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH; USEPA Method 418.1) content of less than 1000 mg/L in soil leachate sample prepared from composite sample of remediated soils using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP; USEPA Method 1311); and

ii) Soil TPH: For remediation work conducted after March 20, 1997, a TPH content of less than 5000 mg/kg in a composite sample of the remediated soils.

63. The soil leachate TPH criterion, which evaluates the potential for release of soluble petroleum constituents to underlying groundwater, was specified in the RAP document and applied to all remediation work on pits and affected soils. On March 20, 1997, the GOE and Petroecuador issued Acta 12, which established an additional numerical criterion for soil TPH, applicable to remediation work conducted after that time. Within my report, these two numerical criteria are referred to as the “applicable remediation





criteria,” for the time that the remediation work was conducted at each site, i.e., soil leachate TPH for remediation work prior to March 20, 1997, and soil leachate TPH and soil TPH for work conducted after that date. As discussed below, both of these parameters are commonly used as numerical cleanup criteria for soils affected by petroleum or other chemicals and were appropriate for use on the Texpet remediation project.

Figure 16: Soil Cleanup Criteria: TPH vs. TCLP

TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon; TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

2.3.1 TPH Test on Soil

64. As shown on Figure 16, the TPH test serves to answer the question: “What is the total mass of petroleum present in a soil sample?” Crude oil is composed of thousands of different petroleum hydrocarbons compounds, ranging from relatively small volatile compounds, such as gasoline components, to heavier, more viscous compounds, such as lubricating oils, resins, and asphaltenes (TPHCWG, 1998, ASTDR, 1999). Depending on the type of TPH method employed, the TPH test serves to measure the full range of petroleum compounds present (Total TPH) or a fraction of that range, such as “Gasoline Range Organics” (GRO; carbon range C6 to C10) or “Diesel Range Organics” (DRO; carbon range C10 to C28).

65. The typical TPH test indicates only the presence of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, but not the specific chemicals contained in the petroleum or whether the petroleum is in liquid or solid form (e.g., oil vs. asphalt). For example, two soils samples impacted by equal concentrations of baby oil vs. gasoline would have identical Total TPH values. In addition, certain laboratory test methods have been shown to be more reliable than





others for measurement of TPH concentration in soil and water (TPHCWG, 1998; ASTDR, 1999). Specifically, Method 418.1, a TPH method that was commonly used in the 1990’s (including for the Texpet remediation project), is known to significantly over-estimate TPH concentrations in soil and water due to physical interferences and mis-identification of other natural-occurring organic compounds (such as leaves, plant waxes, organic sediments, etc.) as petroleum.

66. For soil remediation projects, TPH is commonly employed as an indicator of the effectiveness of the cleanup effort. For Oriente soils affected by crude oil, laboratory studies show that TPH values less than approximately 39,000 mg/kg indicate that the liquid petroleum is immobile within the soil, as the soil pores act like a sponge to retain the petroleum within the soil matrix (Connor, 2005b, Appendicé D.1). In addition, studies by the American Petroleum Institute (API) have found that, at TPH levels of 10,000 mg/kg or less in soil, crude oil is not likely to pose concerns with regard to vegetation or leaching to groundwater (API, 1993; Hamilton et al, 1999).

67. As indicated on Figure 17, the prevailing regulatory standard for crude oil impacts to soils is a TPH limit of 10,000 mg/kg, which is presently applied in Texas, Louisiana, and Venezuela, while values of 20,000 mg/kg to 30,000 mg/kg are applied for oilfield pits under cleanup regulations in Colombia. Louisiana regulations also provide for burial of pit sediments mixed with soil at TPH levels less than 30,000 mg/kg (Louisiana Statewide Order 29-B, Section 313(E)). In 1994, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a federation of 37 state regulatory agencies in the U.S., published technical guidelines for closure of oilfield pits, similarly recommending a soil cleanup criterion of 10,000 mg/kg of TPH in soils. In Ecuador, the first numerical cleanup criteria for oilfield pits were issued in February 2001 in Decreto 1215, which established a range of soil TPH limits depending on land use (i.e., soil TPH less than 4000 mg/kg for industrial land, 2500 mg/kg for agricultural land, and 1000 mg/kg for sensitive ecosystems). For oilfield pits remediated in recent years by Petroecuador under the PEPDA cleanup program (see Section 2.1.1 above), the GOE regulatory authority (DINAPA, Dirección Nacional de Protección Ambiental) has approved use of the agricultural TPH limit (2500 mg/kg) for pit remediation at well sites (PEPDA 2006a,b,c,d,e).

68. At the time that the Texpet remediation program was conducted (1995 to 1998), no numerical cleanup criteria had been established for oilfield sites under Ecuadorian regulations. For the purpose of the Texpet remediation program, the RAP specified a TPH “action level” of 5000 mg/kg on a wet weight basis (corresponding to approximately 7000 mg/kg TPH on a dry weight basis, as is commonly reported in laboratory reports today), which triggered remediation only for those soils and pits that exceeded this limit. This same TPH limit was later applied as a closure criterion for pit remediation work conducted after March 20, 1997, meaning that pits remediated before that date did not have to achieve this low TPH level, but pits and soils remediated after that date were subject to this additional criterion. This TPH soil cleanup limit was much more stringent than the prevailing TPH cleanup limit of 10,000 mg/kg or higher, which is currently required under oilfield regulations in the U.S. and Latin America (see Figure 17). However, given the chemical composition of the crude oil measured in the Oriente, all of these TPH limits (e.g., 5000 to 30,000 mg/kg) would achieve an acceptable cleanup with a considerable margin of safety, as the residual oil in the soil would be immobile, pose no impact to surface water or groundwater, and present no significant risk to human





health due to the relatively rapid weathering and biodegradation of the toxic components of the crude oil.

Figure 17: Soil TPH Limit Used in Texpet RAP vs. Prevailing Oilfield Cleanup Criteria Today

SOURCES: a) Colombia: Guías de Hidrocarburos, 1999, parte 2, p. 26 (PER-6-080). Ministerio de Ambiente,

Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial de Colombia. b) Venezuela: Decreto 2635, Gaceta Oficial Extraordinaria No. 5245 del 3 de agosto, 1998, p. 27 y 28.

Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela c) Texas: Statewide Rule 91, Texas Railroad Commission, 1991; Texas RRC, 2000. d) Louisiana: Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B, 1986

2.3.2 TPH Test on Soil Leachate Prepared Using TCLP Method

69. As shown on Figure 16, the TCLP test serves to answer the question: “Could petroleum be leached from this soil by rainwater percolation?” This is the most pertinent question for the soils that will remain within a remediated pit, buried beneath a clean soil cover. Beneath a soil cover, the remediated soils will not be exposed to routine human contact or to stormwater runoff to nearby streams. However, these subsurface soils can be contacted by rainwater percolating downward through the soil column, such that soluble chemicals could be dissolved into the percolating “soil leachate” and carried down to the underlying groundwater.

70. To ensure protection of the groundwater from soil leachate impacts, the TCLP and similar leachate tests are commonly employed to simulate the effect of percolating rainwater on the affected soil sample. The test consists of mixing a soil sample with low-pH water for a specified time period and then passing the soil-water mixture through a filter to obtain a “soil leachate” sample, which is then analyzed for the chemicals of concern (see Figure 16). In its study of oilfield operations, the USEPA selected the TCLP test to evaluate the potential for chemicals to be released from oilfield pits via leaching (USEPA, 1988). Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B also requires that, for any

The TPH soil cleanup limit specified in the RAP (5000 mg/kg) was more stringent than TPH limits commonly required by oilfield rules in U.S. and other Latin American countries.





solidified soils and waste to be closed in-place within an oilfield pit, a leachate test be used to demonstrate that the TPH content of the soil leachate will not exceed 10 mg/L (Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B, 1986). Leachate test methods similar to TCLP are specified for use to analyze potential petroleum leachate from soils in a number of U.S. states (Washington DOE, 2003). Indeed, even the current Ecuadorian regulation for oilfield operations, Decreto 1215, issued in 2001, requires use of the TCLP test to evaluate the TPH content of soil leachate associated with drilling mud and cuttings disposed in lined or unlined earthen pits (Ecuador Decreto 1215, Tabla 7 and Anexo 5).

71. Under the terms of the 1995 Contract SOW, technical issues between the GOE inspectors and Texpet that could not be resolved within a 15-day period were to be referred to an Independent Technical Arbiter for resolution. In December 1996, during the project implementation, the Technical Arbiter, ERM, Inc., was requested to conduct independent sampling and testing of 19 remediated pits to evaluate the adequacy of the remediation work competed by Texpet. In regard to the use of the TCLP method to evaluate soil leachate vs. direct TPH measurements on soils, the ERM report, issued in January 1997, notes that TCLP is an appropriate method for analysis of pit soils that have been treated by stabilization:

“Stabilization locks the hydrocarbons into a solid matrix, thereby reducing the likelihood of hydrocarbons leaching into the surrounding environment. TPH testing is weight based, and is not an applicable testing procedure for materials remediated by stabilization. The TCLP analysis evaluates the leachable TPH content of the sample to determine whether the hydrocarbons will potentially impact the surrounding environment.” [ERM, 1997]

72. Throughout the Texpet remediation project, results of the TCLP tests conducted on final “remediation confirmation” samples of remediated soils found that the TPH in the soil leachate was less than the detection limit of 5 mg/L in all confirmation samples, which was well below the limit of 10 mg/L applied under Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B. These findings demonstrate that the remediated soils contained no significant concentrations of water-soluble petroleum and therefore posed no risk of impact to underlying groundwater resources. The RAP specified that the TPH content of the TCLP leachate not exceed 1000 mg/L; nevertheless, actual test results showed that the TPH levels in the soil leachate were less than the only TCLP criterion in effect for oilfield remediation in the U.S. at that time, i.e., the 10 mg/L TPH limit for soil leachate specified under Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B.

2.3.3 Composite vs. Individual Soil Sampling

73. The RAP specified that the soil samples to be used to confirm the adequate cleanup of pit soils and sediments be collected as “composite samples.” This sampling procedure entails collection of individual “grab” samples from multiple locations and physically mixing or blending these individual grab samples to create a single “composite” soil sample for laboratory testing. USEPA guidance recognizes composite sampling as an appropriate method of obtaining a representative soil sample, because it provides a spatial average of concentrations across a pit or affected soil area, rather than a measurement of a single location (USEPA, 1986; USEPA, 1996). The international E&P Forum also recommends use of composite sampling for investigation of soil conditions to assess the need for remediation when decommissioning oilfield facilities (E&P Forum, 1996).





74. The distinction between composite samples vs. grab samples becomes important when comparing test results to a cleanup criterion. Within a pit, the chemical concentrations within the remediated soils may vary considerably, due to the non-homogenous nature of the soil. Test results for a composite soil sample (i.e., a mixture of grab samples from multiple locations) will, by nature, generally correspond to the average concentration within the sampling area. However, individual grab samples from the same sampling area may indicate concentrations that are significantly higher or lower than the concentration of the composite sample (i.e., the average).

75. Therefore, to evaluate the soil concentrations in pits remediated by Texpet, for which the cleanup criteria were based upon composite sampling, it is important to use composite samples so as to have an “apples to apples” comparison. Alternatively, if soil test results are available only for individual grab samples, then the arithmetic average of these individual test results (USEPA, 1984) may reasonably be used as a “mathematical” composite for that pit for purpose of comparison to the cleanup criteria. Comparison of the maximum value among individual grab samples to the cleanup criterion may provide an erroneous indication of an exceedance of an applicable remediation criterion when none exists, as the cleanup criterion is based upon the average (composite), not the maximum value present in the pit.

2.4 Environmental Investigation of Texpet Remediation Sites, 2003 – 2009

2.4.1 Locations and Scope of Site Inspections, 2003 - 2009

76. During the period of 2003 to 2009, a series of environmental site investigations have been conducted within the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, pursuant to the matter of Maria Aguinda et al vs. Chevron. In general, these site investigations have been conducted in relation to the following programs:

i) Judicial Inspection Process: In the period of 2004 to 2009, under the supervision of the Corte Superior of Nueva Loja, environmental sampling and testing programs, termed “Judicial Inspections,” were conducted at a total of 56 oilfield sites in the former Concession. At 45 of these sites, environmental investigations were conducted by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron as well as experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs, while at 11 of the sites, the investigation was conducted by a Court expert, with the expert on behalf of Chevron present in an observational capacity but allowed to collect their own samples for purpose of site characterization.

ii) Inspections by Global Court Expert, Mr. Richard Cabrera: In 2007, Mr. Richard Cabrera conducted environmental sampling and testing at a total of 49 oilfield facilities. The investigations by Mr. Cabrera were relatively cursory in comparison to those conducted during the Judicial Inspections and typically did not provide sufficient information to characterize the Texpet remediation work. During this phase of the judicial process, Chevron activities were limited to observing the sampling by Mr. Cabrera from a distance and collecting water samples following completion of the Cabrera investigation.

iii) Other Related Environmental Studies: During the period of 2003 through 2009, generally coincident with the Judicial Inspection process, additional investigations were conducted on behalf of Chevron to characterize specific environmental





conditions in the former Concession area (e.g., vegetation surveys, ecological studies, sampling of public water supplies, sampling of municipal wastewater discharges and related surface water impacts, etc.).

77. I served as an expert nominated on behalf of Chevron for five of the Judicial Inspections. In total, for the various inspection programs identified above, during the period of 2003 to 2005, I personally inspected 86 oilfield facilities (70 well sites and 16 production stations) in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession. In addition, I have reviewed the data compiled by other parties for site inspections in which I did not directly participate, that, in combination with my own site inspections, correspond to a population of 108 RAP sites and 53 Non-RAP sites (see Figure 1 and Table 2A) that were investigated to characterize current environmental site conditions and/or to assess the compliance of Texpet with the work specifications set forth in the RAP (and the subsequent modifications and additions by the GOE and Petroecuador). In sum, these site inspections addressed 63% (108 of 172) of the RAP sites, comprising an extensive audit of the Texpet remediation program.

78. Table 2B identifies those oilfield sites operated by Texpet that were included in the RAP, and indicates whether or not the specified work included remediation of pits or soils. For each site inspected by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron or their staff during the timeframe of 2003 to 2009, Table 2C summarizes the location, date, and the general scope of the inspection(s) conducted. For each of these inspected sites, Table 2D lists the RAP items that were included in the Texpet remediation program (i.e., pits, soil areas, well plugging and abandonment, produced water system upgrade) and summarizes the status of each work item, as observed at the time of this inspection.

79. For sites where pit and/or soil remediation was included in the RAP work program, the investigation team visually and/or physically inspected the locations of the former pits or affected soil areas that had been remediated by Texpet. This inspection process included: i) locating the former remediation area using available historical maps, photographs, and GPS equipment, ii) drilling into the remediated area, using either a hand auger or Geoprobe® drill, to characterize surface and subsurface soil conditions (vegetative cover, type and thickness of clean soil cover, condition of the remediated soil material, presence or absence of free oil, etc.), and iii) at many locations, collecting composite soil samples for laboratory analysis of the soil cleanup criteria specified in the RAP (to evaluate compliance with RAP specifications), as well as additional petroleum constituents (to evaluate potential risks posed to human health).

80. For the RAP sites that were investigated, Table 2A summarizes the number of RAP items (pits, soil areas, well plugging and abandonment, etc.) that were inspected, as a percentage of the total number of such work items included in the Texpet remediation program.

2.4.2 Database of Environmental Test Results, 2003 - 2009

81. To develop my independent opinion regarding the Texpet remediation work and related environmental conditions, I have considered the complete record of field and laboratory information collected by all parties, including the experts nominated by the Court on behalf of Chevron, experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and Court experts, including the “global” Court expert, Mr. Cabrera. All of these data have been previously





submitted to the Corte Superior de Nueva Loja in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, pursuant to the matter of Maria Aguinda et al vs. Chevron. In addition, I have compiled and reviewed the sampling and testing information contained in technical reports issued on behalf of the Fiscalía General.

82. To properly evaluate the Texpet remediation project, I have sorted these data according to their relationship to the Texpet scope of work, as follows:

i) RAP Site/ RAP Item: A site (e.g., oil well, production station or other oilfield facility) and a work item at that site (e.g., pit, spill, affected soil) which were included in the Texpet remediation program, as defined in the RAP and the subsequent modifications and additions by the GOE and Petroecuador.

ii) RAP Site/ Non-RAP Item: A site which was included in the Texpet remediation program, but a work item at that site (e.g., pit or affected soil area) which was specifically excluded from the work program, such as a COC pit or an NFA pit; and

iii) Non-RAP Site: A site that was not included in the Texpet remediation program;

83. Table 3 summarizes the number and types of environmental samples collected and analyzed by all parties that I have considered in my evaluation. Table 4 characterizes the soil samples collected by experts nominated by the Court on behalf of Chevron, experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and Court experts according to the type of site (RAP site, Non-Rap site, etc.) where the sample was obtained, and Tables 14A, 14B, 14C, and 14D provide similar information for data generated by consultants on behalf of the Fiscalía General. My use of these data to evaluate the adequacy of the Texpet remediation work and to characterize possible risks posed to human health by the historical petroleum operations of the Consortium is discussed briefly below.

Data for Evaluation of Texpet Remediation Work

84. The data that are relevant to my assessment of the Texpet remediation work are specifically the soil test results for those pits, spills, and affected soil areas located at RAP sites and designated for remediation under the RAP (i.e., Rap Sites/ RAP Items). Pits, spills, and affected soils from Non-RAP sites or from Non-RAP items at RAP sites (i.e., NFA or COC pits that were excluded from the work program) are not relevant for this purpose. In total, as shown on Figure 18, during the period of 2003 – 2009, in site investigations conducted pursuant to the matter of Maria Aguinda et al vs. Chevron, experts nominated on behalf of Chevron collected a total of 259 soil samples from RAP Sites/ RAP Items, while the other experts in this matter collected 124 soil samples from RAP Sites/ RAP Items. For site inspections conducted over the period of 1997 to 2009, the consultants for the Fiscalía General (including the State Controller General) provide information on a total of 80 soil samples potentially associated with RAP work items at RAP sites (although the exact sampling locations at each site are not always indicated in their reports). I have employed the relevant data identified on Figure 18 to assess the compliance of the Texpet remediation work with the numerical remediation criteria applicable at the time that the remediation work was conducted.

Data for Evaluation of Potential Risk to Human Health

85. In addition to evaluating compliance with applicable remediation criteria, I have also used the test results collected by the various parties to assess the potential risks posed to human health by the soils and water affected by oilfield operations at each site. For





this purpose, I have principally relied upon the 1082 samples of soil, stream sediments, and other solid materials (see Tables 8A, 8B, 8C, and 8D) and the 458 samples of water (see Tables 9A, 9B, 9C, and 9D) collected by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron, because these samples have been analyzed for the principal toxic components of crude oil (see Table 7) in accordance with applicable laboratory quality control/ quality assurance (QA/QC) specifications. In addition, I have reviewed and considered the smaller population of 593 samples of soils, sediments, other solid materials (see Tables 10A, 10B, and 10C) and 146 water samples (see Tables 11A, 11B.1, 11B.2, and 11C) that were analyzed for some of these same constituents by experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Court experts, but without the necessary QA/QC documentation. Procedures for evaluation of human health risks, based upon these test results, are described in further detail in Section 2.5 below.

Consideration of Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Documentation

86. For each of the laboratory test methods employed by the various parties in this matter, the laboratory procedure requires specific steps to be taken to ensure that the test results will be representative, accurate, and reliable. These procedures, termed Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols, involve a series of calibration steps and internal checks to confirm that the laboratory test device is operating correctly, much akin to calibrating a radar gun or a food scale to ensure that the results are sufficiently precise and reliable for their purpose. In the case of laboratory procedures that measure very minute concentrations of chemicals in soil or water (i.e., parts per million or parts per billon levels), calibration of these highly sensitive laboratory instruments each day, or even multiple times per day, is of critical importance. The QA/QC protocols for the laboratory test methods used by the various parties in this matter are set forth in published guidelines and include the following:

• Evaluation of Percent Recovery

• Analysis of Blank Samples

• Analysis of Laboratory Control Samples

• Analysis of Matrix Spikes and Matrix Spike Duplicates

• Analysis of Laboratory Duplicates

• Analysis of Method Quantitation Limit

• Initial and Continuing Instrument Calibration

• Analysis of Internal Standards

• Instrument Performance Check

87. The QA/QC protocols require that the proper procedures and results of each QA/QC step be documented so as to validate the proper calibration and precision of the lab instrument and the reliability of the results (ISO, 2005; USEPA, 2001; ARPEL, 1998). Complete documentation of QA/QC protocols has been provided for all laboratory work conducted by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron. However, with very few exceptions (e.g., a portion of the laboratory work for Mr. Cabrera, including only a very limited number of QA/QC steps), no such documentation has been provided for any of the laboratory test results provided by the other parties in this matter. In the absence of such QA/QC documentation, there is no basis to confirm that proper methodologies were employed or that the test results are representative of the true concentrations of chemicals in the soil or water samples that were analyzed.





Figure 18: Breakdown of Soil Sampling Programs by RAP vs. Non-RAP Sites

I

Sampling & Testing Program

CHEVRON & APPOINTED EXPERTS

OTHER EXPERTS COMBINED

• Experts for Plaintiffs

• Court Expert R. Cabrera

• Other Court Experts

ACUSACION FISCAL (COMBINED)

• Controller General (reported data 1997 -2004)

• Bedon (2009)

TOTAL No.

560

Non-RAP Sites

0

o

o

------------------..


11

Relevant data for evaluation of Texpet remediation of Pits and soils.








• Controller General (reported data 1997 -2004)

• Narvaez and Garcia (2005)

• Bodon (2009)

TOTAL No.

560

68

Non-RAP Sites

120

o

21

o

o

------------------..

ENVIRONMENTAL

11

Relevant data for evaluation of Texpet remediation of pits and soils.








• Bodon (2009)

TOTAL No.

68

Non-RAP Sites

70

120

0

21

o

o

------------------..

163

13

ENVIRONMENTAL

11









• Bodon (2009)

TOTAL No.

68

Non-RAP Sites

70

120

0

21

o

o

------------------..

163

13


11






88. Consequently, although I have reviewed and considered all relevant test results provided by all parties, I recognize that all or some of the date provided by parties other than the experts nominated on behalf of Chevron may be unreliable due to lack of proper QA/QC. To account for this deficiency, my evaluation of these data has included the following steps: i) compare the test results to the applicable criteria, ii) for those samples indicated to exceed the applicable criteria, evaluate the consistency of the test results with the test results provided for the same sample location by the experts on behalf of Chevron (for which proper QA/QC documentation is provided), and iii) in the case of inconsistent results, consider the propensity of the specific sampling and testing method to over or under-estimate true concentrations.

89. Results of my evaluation of the full database of environmental test results are presented in Section 3 of this report.

2.5 Evaluation of Human Health and Environmental Risks

90. To evaluate the potential risks posed to human health by possible environmental conditions (pits, oil spills, affected soils, etc.) in the former Concession area, I have applied the risk assessment procedures established pursuant to the Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) process. Risk-based corrective action methods have been adopted and applied at the international level at sites with chemical releases, including petroleum releases. The RBCA process is the most widely adopted framework for evaluation of property impacted by chemical releases, including petroleum releases, in Europe (Carlon, 2007), the United States (Rifai, 2000), and many other parts of the world.

91. Streamlined procedures to apply the RBCA process on a site-specific basis were issued ASTM International, an international standards organization composed of government and industry representatives, in the mid to late 1990’s: i) ASTM E-1739-95: “Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites,” (ASTM, 1995) and ii) ASTM E-2081-00, “Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action,” (ASTM 2000; see Figure 19). I worked on the ASTM committee that developed these standards and subsequently served as a Certified Trainer on behalf of the USEPA RBCA Training Initiative to assist U.S. state agencies to develop regulatory programs based on this risk-based remediation process. I have authored a number of technical articles on RBCA procedures, including the RBCA Tool Kit, one of the most widely used risk assessment software programs in the world, and I have conducted training on these procedures in the U.S., Canada, and Latin America.





Figure 19: Risk Assessment Process for Sites Impacted by Chemical Releases

Define nature and elrtent of chemical impacts on environmental media (e.g .. soil, groundwater, surface water, etc.)

YES


No Further Action

TOxiCity Assessment Exposure Assessment

Evaluate toxicological charactefistics of chemicals released to environmental media, including both carcinogenic and non-<:arcinogenic effects of exposure and associated dose-response levels.

Evaluate potential mechanisms for numan exposure to cnemicals in environmental media , including ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation, etc.

Affected environmental

media contain potentially NO toxic concentrations of chemicals >""'--_____ .. {

AND No Further Action

potential exposure '-______ ../ mechanisms

exist?

Estimate sile-specific risk of health effects associated with potential human exposure to contaminated media as a function of d espe1;ific chemical conoentrations, toxicity, and levels of exposure.

Potential excess risk associated -::>N~O,,-_____ .( )

with affected environmental _ No Funher Action media? ._

YES

DevelOp and Implement Corrective Action to Protect

Human Hea lth

-

Define nalure and extent of chemical impacts on environmental media (e.g .. soil. groundwater, surface waler, etc. )

YES

ENVIRONMENTAL

No Further Action

ToxiCity Assessment Exposure Assessment

Evaluate toxicological cnalllcteristics of chemicals released to environmental media, including both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of exposure and associated dose-response levels.

Evaluate potential mechanisms for human exposure to chemicals in environmental media, induding ingestion. dermal contact, inhalation, etc.

Affected environmefltal

media contain potentially toxic concentrations of chemicals

AND potential exposure

mechanisms exist?

NO

Estimate site-specific risk of health effects associated with potential human exposure to contaminated media as a function of despecific chemical concentrations, toxicity, and levels of exposure.

Potential excess risk associated -::>N~O"-_____ ""I

with affected environmental _ media?

YES

Develop and Implement Corrective Action to Protect

Human Hea lth

-

No Further Action

No Funher Action

Define nalure and extent of chemical impacts on environmental media (e.g .. soil. groundwater, surface waler, etc.)

YES

ENVIRONMENTAL

No Further Adion


Evaluate toxicological characteristics of chemicals released to environmental media. including both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of exposure and associated dose-response levels.

Evaluate potential mechanisms for human exposure to cnemicals in environmental mecha, including ingestion. dermal contact, inhalation, etc.

Affected environmental

media contain potentially toxic concentrations 01 chemicals


mechanisms exist?

NO

Estimate site-specific risk of health effects associated with potential human exposure to contaminated media as a function of despecific chemical concentrations, toxicity, and levels of exposure.

Potential excess risk associated -::>N~O"-_____ "" I


YES


Human Health

-

No Further Adion

No Funher Adion

Define nature and extent of chemical impacts on environmental media (e.g •. soil. groundwater, surface water, etc.)

YES


No Further Adion


Evaluate toxicolog ical characteristics of chemicals released to environmental media, including both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of exposure and associated dose-response levels.

Evaluate potential mechanisms for !loman exposure to cnemieals in environmental medIa, including Ingestion. dermal contact, inhalation, elc.

Affected environmefltal

media contain potentially toxic concentrations 01 chemicals


mechanisms exist?

NO

Est imate sile-specific risk of health effects associated with potential human exposure to contaminated media as a function of despecific chemical Q)noentralion$, toxicity, and levels of exposure.

Potential excess risk associated -::>N~O"-_____ ""I


YES


Human Hea lth

-

No Further Action

No Funher Action





92. Similar guidelines have been adopted in Europe, with support from CONCAWE (Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe), an industrial organization committed to development of improved environmental practices, which published the “European Oil Industry Guideline for Risk-Based Assessment of Contaminated Sites” in July 2003 (CONCAWE, 2003). In addition, under the CARACAS initiative funded by the European Commission of the Environment and Climate Programme, 16 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) have developed standard guidelines for application of risk assessment procedures to properties impacted by chemical releases.

93. The RBCA evaluation process is used not only to characterize the risk that the affected site could pose to human health or the environment, but also to select the most appropriate and cost-effective remediation methods, as needed to mitigate these risks. The evaluation process consists of four main steps: i) source/hazard characterization, ii) toxicity evaluation, iii) human or environmental exposure to chemical compounds, and iv) characterization of the potential risk (see Figure 19), which have been applied to the oilfield facilities in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession as follows:

1) Source/Hazard Characterization: At each site, the results of the sampling and testing programs conducted by the experts nominated on behalf of Chevron, as well as the other parties involved in investigation of the former Concession area in the period of 2003 – 2009, were evaluated to characterize the potential environmental impacts related to current or former oilfield activities. For this purpose, test results for soil, water, and sediment samples were reviewed to evaluate the presence and concentration of potentially toxic compounds associated with crude oil at the each site.

2) Toxicity Assessment: Toxicity assessment is a two-step process involving: a) identification of the toxic chemicals released into the environment, and b) development of health-based screening levels based on the toxicity of these chemicals and an assumed chronic (long-term) daily exposure to these chemicals.

Principal Toxic Constituents Contained in Crude Oil

Crude oil consists of thousands of chemical substances, and the chemical composition of crude oils varies significantly between locations (e.g., different oil fields) and over time (due to the effects of weathering). However, on a site-specific basis, the toxicological properties of crude oil can be characterized on the basis of the following potentially toxic constituents (ATSDR, 1999; ASTM, 1995):

i) Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes;

ii) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): Acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene.

In addition, for investigation of oilfield facilities in the former Concession, the laboratory analyses conducted by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron have included evaluation of various heavy metals which may be present in crude oil at





relatively low concentrations (i.e., barium, cadmium, chromium (total), chromium (VI), copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc).

Crude oil that has been exposed to the effects of the environment (wind, sun, rain, heat, bacteria, etc.) for a sufficient time will undergo significant changes in its initial composition and physical-chemical characteristics. Specifically, weathered crude oil tends to have lost some or all of the more volatile, water-soluble, bio-degradable petroleum hydrocarbons, leaving only the heavier, more viscous and insoluble portions of the crude oil, such as resins and asphaltic materials, that are relatively immobile in soil and water (Alvarez and Douglas, 2004; Liu, et al. 2006; O’Reilly and Thornson, 2010). Due to the changing composition of crude oil over time, site-specific analyses of the affected soil and water are needed to characterize the presence or absence of the principal toxic constituents. Within the many petroleum-affected soil samples collected in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession area, laboratory analyses showed the crude oil to have lost much of its light and middle end fractions due to the processes of volatilization and biodegradation – which can also remove the principal toxic organic components (BTEX and PAHs). In addition, heavy metals were not found to present in the Ecuador crude oil or produced water at significant levels (Connor, 2007, Appendicé D.1).

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) Content Is Not Indicative of Risk

The TPH test serves to indicate the amount of petroleum that may be present in a sample, but provides no direct indication of the risk that this petroleum may pose to human health or the environment (ASTDR, 1999; API, 2001; USACE, 1999; ASTM, 1995; TPHCWG, 1998). Crude oil is composed of thousands of different chemicals, many of which pose little or no toxicity to humans. Consequently, the types of TPH tests used in this study (Total TPH, TPH-GRO, and TPH-DRO), which indicate the total mass of petroleum present (within a certain carbon range), but not the chemical composition of that petroleum, are not indicative of the risk. For example, two soils samples impacted by equal concentrations of baby oil vs. gasoline would have identical TPH values, but very different toxicities. Indeed, as indicated on Figure 20, many non-toxic foods and common household products exhibit elevated TPH values when analyzed for TPH using conventional methods (Douglas, 2010). The methods used by plaintiffs experts, TPH by infrared, detects very high levels of TPH even when the source of the TPH is vegetable oils or waxes. Therefore, while TPH may be a useful criterion for remediation projects (i.e., to indicate the total mass of petroleum remaining within the soil or water), the TPH analyses used for that purpose in this project are not useful for characterization of human health risk.





Figure 20: TPH Content of Household Products

NOTES: 1. Results indicate the concentration of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) by USEPA 418.1

in milligrams per kilogram. 2. Data taken from: Douglas (2010). 3. Samples analyzed by SPL, Houston, Texas, in accordance with USEPA Method 418.1.

Development of Health-Based Screening Levels

As indicated on Figure 21, health-based screening levels are concentrations of chemicals of concern in soil, sediments, or water that will not cause a human health effect in excess of a specified acceptable risk limit, even in the event of chronic daily exposure. For soil and sediments, these levels represent the safe concentration of each chemical in the soil that a person could directly contact on a daily basis for 30 years (i.e., dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and inhalation of dust and vapors from the soil), with a negligible risk of a health impact. For water, the screening levels are based on the assumption that a person drinks 2 liters of the water containing the chemical of concern on a daily basis for 30 years, again with a negligible risk of a health effect.





Figure 21: Derivation of Health-Based Screening Levels

Guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO, 1993), when available, were used to establish screening levels for the protection of drinking water. For compounds for which the WHO guidelines did not provide numeric drinking water criteria, concentrations for the protection of human health for water consumption were developed according to the procedures specified in the “Soil Screening Guidance” issued by USEPA in 1996 (USEPA, 1996). These procedures were also used to establish health-based screening levels for direct contact with soils or sediments. Based on these methods and the risk limits specified by the WHO, screening levels were calculated for each of the compounds listed above, with the exception of barium. The barium level used in this evaluation is based on a regulatory standard for barium sulfate, which is the non-toxic mineral form of barium associated with oilfield operations. In contrast, the USEPA soil screening levels for barium are based on soluble barium salts, which are not relevant to oilfield operations.

Table 7 presents the health-based screening levels employed in this risk evaluation. The allowable risk limits used in development of these health-based levels were based upon the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO, 1993, 2006), i.e., an excess lifetime risk of 1 in 100,000 for carcinogenic effects and a hazard quotient of 1 for non-carcinogenic effects. As shown on Figure 22, these risk limits represent a negligible, de minimis risk compared to normal human health risk levels, and therefore pose no risk of a measurable effect on the exposed population. Specifically, the carcinogenic risk limit is very low in comparison with the baseline risk of over 0.30 (or approximately a 1 in 3 chance) that occurs in the U.S. population (American Cancer Society, 2008). For non-carcinogenic health effects, the screening levels are based upon a maximum exposure rate that is 30 to 1000 times below the level at which no health effects were observed in laboratory studies (i.e., the No Observed Adverse Effects Level or “NOAEL”). Consequently, the calculated health-based screening levels are intentionally conservative and provide a large margin of safety against health problems for persons potentially exposed to the affected soils, sediments, or water. Detailed information on the derivation of these screening levels is provided in McHugh, 2008.

Figure 22: Allowable Risk Limits Used for Development of Health-Based Screening Levels





INC

IDE

NC

E O

F C

AN

CE

R

CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS OTHER HEALTH EFFECTS

0.00001

0.1

Allowable Excess Cancer Limit (0.00001)

Normal Incidence of Cancer in U.S. (0.3)

No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL)

RA

TE

OF

ING

ES

TIO

N (

mg

/Kg

/d)

Safety Factor:

30 –1000x

0.0001

0.001

0.01

Reference Dose

For each site, the test results for soil, sediments, and water samples have been compared to the health-based screening levels listed on Table 7 to identify those sample locations that could pose a risk (in the event of long-term daily exposure) due to the presence of potentially unsafe concentrations of hydrocarbons and metals. If petroleum-related toxic constituents are not present at concentrations exceeding these screening levels, then there is no potential threat to human health, and no further evaluation is needed at that location (see Figure 19, risk assessment decision chart).

3) Evaluation of Exposure Pathways: Risk evaluation guidelines developed by USEPA, WHO, and ASTM identify several possible mechanisms or “pathways” for human exposure to contaminated environmental media (USEPA, 1989; ASTM, 1995; ASTM, 2000; WHO, 2006), including: a) direct contact with soils, b) direct contact with stream sediments, c) ingestion or other use of groundwater, and d) ingestion or other use of surface water (see Figure 23). An exposure pathway is considered to be “complete” if human beings are exposed to the chemical contaminant in a manner resulting in intake of the chemical via one or more of these pathways. For each sample found to contain petroleum-related chemicals at concentrations above the health-based screening criteria developed in Step 2 above, an additional evaluation has been conducted to identify whether there is a potentially complete exposure pathway to the affected soil, sediment, or water at that sample location.

Only those sample locations for which an exposure pathway is determined to be “complete” require the characterization of any human health risk. As indicated on the RBCA process chart (see Figure 19), if there are no pathways of exposure to environmental media impacted by chemical substances, the site cannot pose a risk to human health, and there is no need to carry out a risk characterization.

CARCINOGENIC RISK LIMIT: Non-detectable level (0.00001) of cancer incidence during the lifetime of the exposed population.

NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Allowable rate of daily ingestion (reference dose) is the NOAEL divided by a safety factor.





Figure 23: Potential Pathways for Human Exposure to Affected Media Considered in Risk Evaluation

(1) Direct Contact with Soils (2) Direct Contact with Stream Sediments

(3) Ingestion or Other Use of Groundwater (4) Ingestion or Other Use of Surface Water

4) Risk Characterization: Based on the results of the previous steps, the potential for human health risks associated with the historical oilfield activities of the Consortium have been evaluated. A risk of actual harm requires the presence of potentially toxic hydrocarbons or metals at a location where the level of exposure could be sufficient to impact health. For example, the health-based screening levels used for soils in this evaluation are based on very conservative assumptions, such as direct daily exposure to a contaminant for 30 years, while the actual exposure at a location where hydrocarbons are present may be much less. The purpose of this final step of the risk characterization process is to: i) identify the presence or absence of conditions that can present a risk and, if there is a potential hazard, ii) define the specific chemical substances that pose risk, the areas and volumes of impacted environmental media (soils, sediments, water), and the potential exposure mechanism, as appropriate, to support the design and implementation of corrective actions.

94. For the former Petroecuador-Texpet Concession, this 4-step risk evaluation process has been applied to evaluate the potential risks associated with soils, groundwater, and surface water bodies impacted by the historical oilfield operations of the Consortium. Results of this analysis, based upon the data compiled by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron, are detailed in a report issued in September 2008 (McHugh, 2008). These findings, as well as my evaluation of the relevant test results presented by other parties, are discussed in Section 3 of my report.





3.0 OPINIONS REGARDING TEXPET REMEDIATION PROGRAM AND CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

1) Texpet operations in Ecuador from 1972 to 1990 were consistent with

applicable regulations and prevailing practices for environmental management for oilfield operations at that time.

As discussed in Section 2.1.4 of this report, environmental audits conducted for the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession area following termination of Texpet operations by two independent parties, HBT-Agra (1993) and Fugro-McClelland (1992), found that Texpet operations were in conformance not only with the environmental regulations of Ecuador but also with the prevailing industry practices for oil and gas exploration and production in similar regions worldwide at that time. The audit reports did, however, note the presence of various environmental conditions associated with normal oilfield operations of that era, such as the presence of open pits, oil-affected soils, and produced water discharges, and recommended that a remediation program be implemented to address these conditions, at estimated costs ranging from $6.85 to $13.3 million (U.S.) for the facilities inspected.

A 1994 report by the Oversight Commission of the National Congress of Ecuador (Ecuador National Congress, 1994) criticized the HBT-Agra audit program for not including an extensive Environmental Impact Assessment to address the possible ecological, cultural, and social effects of oilfield development in the Oriente region. However, as discussed in detail in Section 2.1.4, based upon my own experience in similar audits, as well as published guidelines (Greeno et al, 1985; Guckian et al, 1993; Nelson, 1998), the scope of the HBT-Agra audit was consistent with accepted standards for environmental audits of oilfield facilities, which do not entail the additional tasks suggested by the Oversight Commission.

My evaluation of available information confirms the findings of the HBT-Agra and Fugro-McClelland audit reports. Specifically, during the time period that Texpet served as operator of the Concession (1972 through June 1990), the use of earthen pits to contain drilling muds, cuttings, and waste liquids at well sites; the management of the produced water by means of treatment and discharge to surface streams; and the flaring of unused natural gas were consistent with applicable Ecuadorian regulations, as well as the prevailing practices in the oil industry at that time in the U.S. and worldwide. Detailed discussion of these environmental management practices in Ecuador, the U.S., and worldwide during the period of Texpet operations in Ecuador, and even today, is provided in Section 2.1 of this report.

Key Finding: The use of earthen pits, the flaring of unused natural gas, and discharge of produced water to rivers and streams were common and acceptable practices in Ecuador, the U.S., and worldwide during the period of time that Texpet served as the operator of the former Concession. Environmental audits conducted in 1992-1993 confirmed that operations prior to 1990, during the Texpet period of operations, were generally consistent with applicable regulations and common practices of that time.





2) The extensive documentation from the Texpet remediation project, including photographs, field records, laboratory test results, and the final project report, demonstrates that Texpet completed the remediation work the period of 1995 to 1998 in accordance with the SOW, the RAP, and the subsequent modification and additions specified by the GOE and Petroecuador.

My review of the extensive project documentation generated for the Texpet remediation project of 1995 to 1998 confirms that the work program completed by Texpet addressed the full list of tasks and locations specified in the SOW and RAP documents, as well as the additional pit and oil spill locations specified by the GOE and Petroecuador during project implementation. This finding is based upon the following documented information:

a) The SOW and RAP documents approved for this project identified a specific list of sites and a specific list of work items to be completed at those sites by Texpet: As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, the Anexo A of the Contract of May 4, 1995, defined the Scope of Work (SOW), including the specific work tasks to be completed by Texpet and the specific sites where the need for these tasks was to be evaluated by Texpet. The work program defined in the SOW addressed roughly 40% of the oilfield installations present in the Concession at that time and did not require Texpet to address other sites or environmental conditions.

For the sites identified in the SOW, the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), issued September 8, 1995, defined the work to be conducted (e.g., the specific pits to be closed, soil areas to be remediated, etc.) and the methodologies to be employed, as well as the numerical criteria (e.g., soil cleanup standards) to be used to demonstrate satisfactory completion of the work, subject to the review and approval of government inspectors. During the course of the remediation project, representatives of the GOE and Petroecuador specified certain modifications and additions to this work program, which were implemented by Texpet.

b) The extensive documentation from the Texpet remediation project confirms the full and proper completion of the specified work program, including remediation of additional pit and oil spill locations identified during implementation of the project: Information documented in the Final Remedial Action Report (WCI, 2000) and associated field records, photographs, and laboratory test results shows that the work program completed by Texpet corresponds to the full list of locations identified in the SOW and RAP documents, as well as an additional 25 pits and 6 oil spill locations required during the project implementation.

In Tables 1A through 1E of my report, I have summarized the work completed by Texpet with regard to each task defined in the SOW and RAP, as evidenced by this project documentation. Attachment B provides a detailed tabulation of the remediation method, date, verification sampling, and government approval Acta for each pit and affected soil area identified in the SOW and RAP. In Attachment F, I have compiled the photographic record, compiled during the Texpet remediation project, showing the before and after conditions and the sequence of





work conducted at each pit and soil remediation site.

In sum, the project records document the following work tasks completed by Texpet during the period of 1995 to 1998:

• Pit Closure: Texpet completed the remediation and re-vegetation of 162 pits and 6 oil spill areas at 88 well sites (see Table 1A and Attachment B). Of the original 225 pits designated for investigation in the RAP, with approval from the GOE and Petroecuador, 76 were determined to qualify for No Further Action (NFA) and 13 were designated as Change of Condition (COC) due to continued use by Petroecuador after June 1990 and were therefore excluded from the work program (see Table 1A). During the course of the work, 23 pits and 6 spill areas not originally identified in the RAP were added to the scope of work by the GOE and Petroecuador and were subsequently remediated by Texpet.

Under the terms of the RAP, pit closures were to be conducted in accordance with the step-by-step process illustrated on Figure 15, which was consistent with the Ecuadorian regulations of that time (Decreto 2982), as well as the prevailing practices for pit closure still in use today in oilfields in the U.S. and worldwide (see Section 2.2.6 of my report). Photographic records for all 162 remediated pits, demonstrating the implementation of this closure process, are provided in Attachment F of this report.

• Soil Remediation: Texpet completed the cleanup of 67 areas of oil-affected soil at 22 well sites and 13 production stations (see Table 1B). Of the original 252 affected soil areas designated for investigation in the RAP, with approval from the GOE and Petroecuador, 176 soil areas were determined to qualify for NFA and 3 were designated as COC due to oil spills which had occurred after June 1990.

• Produced Water Reinjection Facilities: Texpet installed produced water treatment, injection wells, and re-injection systems at 3 production stations (Aguarico, Atacapi, and Guanta), and provided equipment to be installed by Petroecuador for 6 additional production stations (see Table 1C). In addition, Texpet installed a produced water pipeline from the Dureno 1 well site to the Guanta production station.

• Plugging and Abandonment of Inactive Oil Wells: Texpet completed plugging and abandonment activities at 18 inactive wells (see Table 1D). Of the 26 wells identified in the RAP, with approval from the GOE and Petroecuador, 8 were determined to require No Further Action (NFA), as they were to be retained for possible future use by Petroecuador (7 wells) or were located in a remote location inaccessible to well plugging equipment (Palo Rojo-1).

• Containment Dikes: Texpet provided design specifications for construction of secondary containment dikes for oil storage and processing tanks at 2 production stations (see Table 1E). The RAP had also specified installation of tanks at 3 stations (Sacha Norte 1, Culebra 1, and Auca Sur). However, by the time the remediation project was underway, Petroecuador had already installed tanks at Auca Sur, and was considering modifications to the other 2 stations. Therefore, with approval from the GOE and Petroecuador, the





scope of work was modified to include provision of design drawings for Sacha Norte 1 and Culebra 1, as well as additional equipment for the secondary oil recovery unit at Sacha Norte 1.

All modifications and additions to the work program specified in the RAP were approved by government inspectors and authorized in Actas issued by the GOE and Petroecuador, as indicated in Attachment D.

c) Texpet Project Test Results Show Compliance with Applicable Remediation Criteria: For pit and soil remediation, the RAP specified numerical cleanup criteria to be achieved by the soil treatment and/or solidification process (i.e., a TPH concentration less than 1000 mg/L in soil leachate prepared from a composite sample of remediated soils using the TCLP method). In addition, Acta 12 issued March 20, 1997, specified an additional criterion for pit and soil remediation conducted after that time, specifically that the total TPH of the remediated soil would be less than 5000 mg/kg on a wet-weight basis (corresponding to approximately 7000 mg/kg TPH on a dry weight basis). To confirm compliance with these numerical criteria, following treatment and solidification of pit soils and sediments and prior to placement of clean soils atop the treated materials, a total of 165 composite soil samples were collected from the treated areas for purpose of “remediation verification” (see Table 5) and analyzed at the laboratory of the Universidad Central. Samples collected and analyzed from the pit or affected soil area prior to these “remediation verification” samples are not representative of the final condition of the remediated soils.

Attachment C of this report provides the results of all verification testing performed by Texpet for all pit closure sites (Table C.1) and affected soil areas (Table C.2) during the remediation project. Review of these data shows that the 162 pits, 6 oil spill areas, and 67 affected soil areas remediated by Texpet met the numerical criteria applicable at the time of the closure action. In fact, in none of the soil verification samples collected from the treated pits was the TCLP leachate found to exhibit detectable levels of TPH (i.e., < 5 mg/L), indicating that the residual petroleum remaining in the treated soils was relatively insoluble and therefore could not leach to underlying groundwater.

e) Independent Technical Arbiter Verified the Results of Confirmation Testing: Subject to Article IV of the Contract signed by representatives of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroecuador, and Texpet on May 4, 1995, Environmental Resource Management, Inc. (ERM), was designated as the Technical Arbiter to resolve technical issues between the government inspectors and Texpet with regard to the adequacy of the remediation work. In 1996, ERM was requested to conduct independent sampling and testing of 19 remediated pits to test the remediated soils for compliance with RAP criteria. On December 11 and 12, 1996, composite soil samples were collected in accordance with a sampling program developed by ERM and submitted to the laboratory of the Universidad Central for analysis of soil TPH and TCLP soil leachate (ERM, 1996, 1997). All soil samples were found to contain TPH concentrations less than 5000 mg/kg (Universidad Central, 1996). On February 3, 1997, representatives of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Texpet issued a joint letter to their management stating: “From the analysis and study of the results obtained in this





sampling program, we can determine that the values of TPH and TCLP are within the permissible limits established in the Remedial Action Plan…” (Ministry of Energy and Mines, 1997).

f) The procedures employed for pit closures and soil remediation were consistent with the prevailing practices at that time, and even today, in oilfields in the U.S., Ecuador, and worldwide: The RAP specified a multi-step process for pit closure that served to remove free oil and water, treat and/or solidify the oily pit sediments, and overlay the site with a clean, firm soil cover and vegetation, as needed to prevent impacts on land use, water resources, or public health. As detailed in Section 2.1.1 of this report, this same general process is recognized as an appropriate procedure for pit closure in Ecuador, the U.S., and worldwide today.

g) Use of TCLP and TPH soil cleanup criteria was consistent with applicable guidelines for oilfield remediation: The Texpet remediation program employed two test methods to assess the adequacy of soil remediation at pit sites: i) the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), which applied to all soil and pit remediation work conducted prior to March 1997, and ii) the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) test, which was an additional criterion that applied only to pit remediation work conducted after March 1997. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, of this report, the TCLP method and similar leachate tests are used to evaluate the potential for an affected soil to impact to underlying groundwater by “leaching” of chemical contaminants into rainwater percolating downward through the soil. The Technical Arbiter for the remediation project affirmed that the TCLP method was more appropriate than soil TPH for evaluating the potential impact of the remediated pits to underlying groundwater. The actual test results for remediation confirmation samples found no detectable TPH in the soil leachate samples, showing that the remediated pits pose no threat to groundwater quality. The additional remediation criterion later imposed for soil TPH (i.e., soil TPH < 5000 mg/kg), which measured the total oil content of the soil itself (rather than the leachate), was more stringent than TPH limits commonly applied at that time, and even today, in many oilfields in the U.S. and Latin America (i.e., soil TPH < 10,000 to 30,000 mg/kg).

Key Finding: My review of project documentation demonstrates that Texpet completed the full work program specified in the SOW and RAP, subject to the modifications and additions approved by GOE and Petroecuador, and that the pit and soil remediation activities met the applicable remediation criteria. The remediation procedures and parameters employed in this project were appropriate and are still employed today.

3) The Government of Ecuador and Petroecuador inspected and approved

the remediation work conducted by Texpet, based upon detailed inspection of site conditions and associated verification test results.

As specified in the SOW and RAP documents, all remediation work conducted by Texpet was subject to review and approval by representatives of the GOE and Petroecuador. During the remediation program, the following government inspectors monitored the site remediation activities:





• Dirección Nacional de Hidrocarburos, Ministerio de Energia y Minas: Ing. Alix Suárez, Ing. Jorge Dutan

• Petroecuador, Subsecretaria de Protección Ambiental: Dra. Martha Romero • Petroproducción: Ing. Marcos Trejo

Figure 24 illustrates the inspection and approval process employed for the Texpet remediation project. Any perceived deficiencies or concerns regarding the work were documented in periodic inspection reports provided to Texpet and its contractors (i.e., RAT Actas 1 to 52). Upon satisfactory resolution of these concerns, directors of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, Petroproducción, and Petroecuador issued a series of 19 Approval Actas, incrementally approving portions of the work program. The Actas also document approval of modifications to the work scope that had been previously specified in the RAP, which principally entailed addition of new work items to substitute for specific RAP work items (e.g., pit closures or equipment installation) that could not be completed at that time due to on-going Petroecuador operations or other factors. Inspection Acta 052-RAT-98, issued September 24, 1998, found that all potential deficiencies noted in the prior 51 inspection Actas had been corrected. The Final Approval Acta, issued on September 30, 1998, confirmed the satisfactory completion of the full scope of work specified in the SOW and RAP.

Figure 24: GOE Inspection and Approval Process for Texpet Project (1995 – 1998)

I have reviewed all inspection Actas and approval Actas issued by the government representatives with regard to the work program conducted by Texpet over the period of 1995 to 1998. In Attachment D of this report, I have compiled an index of all of the approval Actas, identifying the specific Actas that certify the completion of each work item specified in the SOW and RAP. My analysis shows that the representatives of the Ministry of Mines and Energy, Petroecuador, and Petroproducción inspected and approved of each element of the work program specified in the SOW and RAP documents, including the modifications and additions to the original scope of work that were specified during the project implementation.





Key Finding: Government inspectors inspected each work item conducted by Texpet and certified the satisfactory completion of the work, as documented in a series of government Actas.

4) The results of the environmental investigations conducted at former

RAP sites during the period of 2003 to 2009 confirm that Texpet completed the specified work program in accordance with applicable specifications.

The information collected in the environmental site inspections that I and others conducted at a total of 108 RAP sites during the period of 2003 to 2009, including 88 well sites and 20 production stations (see Figure 1 and Table 2A) confirms that Texpet completed the specified remedial actions at these sites in accordance with requirements of the SOW and RAP. Table 2D summarizes the findings of this inspection program at each RAP site. Key points regarding current conditions and compliance with applicable remediation requirements are as follows:

a) Inspection of Remediated Pits: The 108 RAP site inspections included 68 RAP well sites where pit remediation work had been done and the investigation was sufficient to determine the current status of all pits addressed in the Texpet remediation project. At these 68 well sites, current conditions were recorded for a total of 149 pits or spill areas, corresponding to 100 remediated pits or spills, 43 NFA pits, and 6 COC pits.

Figure 25: Recent Photographs (2004 - 2005) of Former Locations of Pit Remediated by Texpet in the Period of 1996 -1997

At all of the remediated pit locations, no trace of the former pit or dikes was found to remain; rather, the pits were found to have been properly remediated and

KEY POINT: Former pits were found to have been properly remediated and covered with firm, clean soil and thick vegetation.





overlain by clean, firm surface soils and a healthy vegetative cover, which was difficult to distinguish from the surrounding vegetation (see Figure 25). Upon drilling into these remediated pits by means of hand augers or Geoprobe borings, at depths of approximately 0.5 to 1 m beneath the clean soil cover, remediated soils were encountered, commonly consisting of firm, clayey soils with no free oil, but with a dark discoloration and a faint to moderate odor of heavy petroleum compounds. These conditions were consistent with the treatment and/or stabilization/ solidification processes reported by Texpet for pit closure and remediation.

As indicated on Figure 26, at these 68 well sites, all 100 of the pits reported to have been remediated by Texpet were confirmed to have been properly remediated. However, of the 43 NFA pits and 6 COC pits that were excluded from the Texpet remediation program at these well sites, 30 NFA pits and 4 COC pits remained open or were observed to have been poorly remediated at the time of the inspections, while the other 13 NFA pits and 2 COC pits had apparently been properly remediated by Petroecuador.

Figure 26: Summary of Pit/Spill Conditions Observed in Investigations of RAP Sites, 2003 - 2009

100 % of the Remediated Pits/Spills inspected were found to be properly remediated.

Most of the NFA and COC pits were still present at the time of the recent inspections.

NFA = No Further Action ; COC = Change of Condition

b) Inspection of Remediated Soil Areas: In total, 28 areas where affected surface soils had been remediated by Texpet at 28 well sites or production stations were physically inspected and/ or sampled to evaluate current soil conditions (see Tables 1B, 2A, and 2D). At most of these remediated soil locations, no trace of the former petroleum impacts remained, and the soils were firm and dry, with no evident discoloration, consistent with the soil removal or solidification processes reported by Texpet. However, in some locations, particularly in proximity to oil storage tanks or manifolds in the production stations, very recent oil spills or leaks had apparently re-impacted the previously remediated soil areas (see Table 2D).





c) Inspection of Produced Water Reinjection Systems: The site inspections conducted in the period of 2003 to 2009 included 13 of the 16 sites where Texpet was to provide equipment for produced water reinjection (see Tables 1C, 2A, and 2D). At each of the productions stations that were inspected, produced water pre-treatment and reinjection systems were observed to have been installed, using, in part, the equipment provided by Texpet, consistent with the information provided in the final remediation project report (see Tables 1C and 2D). However, at the time of the inspections, at a number of the stations visited, the pre-treatment system and/or the re-injection well was observed to be out of service due to operating and maintenance problems on the part of Petroecuador.

d) Inspection of Well Plugging and Abandonment: The inspection program included 10 of the 26 the wells that had been designated for some action related to plugging and abandoned by Texpet (see Tables 1D, 2A, and 2D). At each of these well locations, the abandoned wells were marked by a yellow surface casing, rising approximately 1.5 meters above ground surface and fitted with a placard that indicated the well depth and abandonment procedures, consistent with the information provided in the final remediation project report (WCI, 2000).

e) Sampling and Testing of Remediated Pit Areas by Experts Nominated on Behalf of Chevron: At the RAP well sites inspected in this program, experts nominated on behalf of Chevron sampled and analyzed soils from a total of 47 pits that had been remediated by Texpet (see Table 5 and Figure 27). Most of the soil samples collected from these remediated pits exhibited non-detectable levels in TPH in the TCLP soil leachate (<0.2 mg/L), and the maximum soil leachate TPH value was only 1.91 mg/L - indicating that the petroleum hydrocarbons contained in these remediated soils are relatively insoluble and pose no risk of impact to underlying groundwater. These soil leachate test results comply not only with the RAP criterion, but also with the current soil leachate TPH limit applied under Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B (leachate TPH < 10 mg/L). Analysis of soil TPH content on composite soil samples from the pits remediated after March 20, 1997 (when this additional criterion was applicable) found only 1 pit to exceed an average soil TPH level of 5000 mg/kg (i.e., Shushufindi Well 48, Pit 4; see Tables 6A and 6B).

For the 1 RAP pit for which the soil test results indicated an exceedance of applicable RAP criteria (i.e., Pit 4 at well site SSF-48, due to an elevated TPH content), it is important to note that the soil test results obtained at the time of the Texpet remediation (August 1997), as well as the more recent soil test results obtained by experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs during the Judicial Inspection (September 2004), indicated no exceedance of the TPH limit (i.e., TPH < 5000 mg/kg on a composite soil sample).

f) Sampling and Testing of Remediated Pit Areas by Experts for Other Parties: During the Judicial Inspection process, experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Court experts also collected and analyzed soils from remediated pits at RAP sites (see Figures 18 and 27). As indicated on Figure 18, most of the soil samples collected by these parties were from Non-RAP sites (sites not included in the Texpet remediation program) or from Non-RAP items (e.g., NFA and COC pits) at RAP sites. However, for those soil samples





collected from remediated pits at RAP sites, Table 5 and Figure 27 summarize the comparison of these test results to the RAP soil cleanup criteria that were applicable at the time of the pit closure (i.e., soil leachate TPH for all pits, and soil TPH for pits remediated after March 20, 1997). As shown on Figure 27, soil test results by Mr. Richard Cabrera and the other Court experts show no exceedance of the applicable remediation criteria for the pits analyzed for these parameters.

Figure 27: Summary of Soil Test Results for Remediated Pits at RAP Sites, 2004 – 2009

NOTE: 1) See Tables 5 and Tables 6A - 6C for more detailed summary of soil test results for RAP pits.

2) Applicable RAP Criteria for soil / pit remediation = a) TPH of TCLP soil leachate (all pits) and b) soil TPH (pits remediated after March 20, 1997).

Out of all remediated pits sampled, only 1 pit found to exceed applicable remediation criteria.

KEY FINDING:





As shown on Tables 6A, 6B, and 6C, soil test results by experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs, when properly averaged within a single pit as appropriate for comparison to the composite soil sample criterion (see Section 2.3.3 of this report), indicate only 2 pits to exceed the numerical criteria applicable at the time of the remediation (i.e., Shushufindi 45A, Pits 1A and 3, due to reported soil TPH > 5000 mg/kg for pits remediated after March 20, 1997). However, at these 2 pit locations, comparison of these test results to those for soil samples analyzed from these same locations by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron, using appropriate QA/QC protocols, shows that reliable TPH results for composite soil samples are much lower than the TPH values reported by the experts for the Plaintiffs (see Tables 6B and 6C). This discrepancy likely reflects two factors: i) the observed tendency of the Plaintiffs experts to selectively sample the soils exhibiting the highest oil content within a pit, rather than collect representative composite soil samples; and ii) a laboratory error on the part of the Plaintiffs experts, related to use of a laboratory test method for TPH (e.g., Method 418.1 or equivalent) known to significantly over-estimate soil TPH, particularly in the type of clayey soils encountered at these sites (TPHCWG, 1998; ASTDR, 1999).

In sum, the data presented by the experts for other parties do not indicate that any additional remediated RAP pits exceed the applicable remediation criterion specified for the Texpet remediation project, beyond the 1 pit identified by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron (see Figure 27).

f) Open pits remaining in the former Concession area today were not included in the Texpet remediation program: At the 108 RAP sites and 53 Non-RAP sites where site inspections were conducted during the period of 2003 - 2009, open pits were observed at a number of locations. In sharp contrast to the pits remediated by Texpet, these open pits were clearly visible, with perimeter earthen dikes and rainwater accumulation. In some cases, fresh or weathered crude oil was observed atop the water surface (see Figure 28), as well as oil-stained soils and vegetation in the surrounding area.

Figure 28: Recent Photographs (2007 – 2008) of Non-RAP Pits Still Present in the Former Concession Area

Non-RAP Pit: Shushufindi 56 well site, photographed August 23, 2007

Non-RAP Pit: Shushufindi 61 well site, photographed February 2, 2008.





Comparison of these open pit locations to the RAP specifications and the work scope modifications subsequently approved by the GOE and Petroecuador shows that these pits are unrelated to and/or were specifically excluded from the remediation program implemented by Texpet in the period of 1995 to 1998. As indicated on Figure 26, at RAP sites, all of the pits observed to be open at the time of the recent inspections corresponded to either NFA pits or COC pits, which had been specifically excluded from the remedial action project. At Non-RAP sites, none of the pits were part of the work program to be executed by Texpet.

As discussed in Section 2.1.1 of this report, as of 2005, Petroecuador has initiated a remedial action program in the former Concession area with the stated goal of addressing all remaining environmental conditions, including open oilfield pits, associated with past and current oilfield operations.

Key Finding: The results of the environmental investigations conducted at former RAP sites during the period of 2003 to 2009 confirm that Texpet completed the specified work program in accordance with applicable specifications. Laboratory test results show that the remediated pits meet the soil cleanup criteria applicable at the time of pit remediation, with only 1 exception, which, based on historical information and the recent sampling by other parties, is also indicated to comply with the applicable remediation criteria. The open pits remaining in the former Concession area today were not part of the Texpet remediation program.

6) Affected soils, water, and sediments associated with the historical oilfield operations of the Consortium pose no measurable risk to human health.

In addition to evaluating compliance with applicable remediation criteria, I have also evaluated the potential risks posed to human health by impacts to soil, groundwater, surface water, or sediments associated with the historical oilfield operations of the Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium. As discussed in Section 2.5 of this report, the test parameters used to evaluate the adequacy of the soil remediation work (i.e., TPH of the soil leachate and TPH of the soil itself) are not indicative of the potential toxicity of the petroleum contained within the soil. Rather, evaluation of potential human health risks entails laboratory analysis of the potentially toxic chemicals contained within crude oil, including certain volatile aromatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, as well as, in some cases, certain metals. To assess the potential human health risks at the oilfield sites included in the recent site investigation program, I have compared the concentrations of these oil-related chemicals measured by experts on behalf of Chevron, as well as the concentrations reported by other parties, to health-based screening levels derived in accordance with USEPA and WHO guidelines (see Table 7). Consistent with internationally accepted scientific guidelines, this risk evaluation has followed the 4-step process described in Section 2.5 of this report. Results of this evaluation are summarized below.





a) Risk Evaluation of Test Results by Experts Nominated on Behalf of Chevron: To support assessment of human health risks, at each site where a Judicial Inspection was conducted, the experts nominated on behalf of Chevron conducted a comprehensive sampling program for surface and subsurface soils in and around pit and spill areas, as well as all nearby water resources (wells, streams, public water supplies, etc.), and analyzed these samples for the full list of analytes specified on Table 7. Comprehensive sampling and testing of water resources was also conducted by Chevron at the sites inspected by Court experts, including Mr. Cabrera. These test results comprise a database of 1082 samples of soil, sediment, and other solid materials from 46 sites and 458 water samples from 88 sites distributed across the Concession area.

Laboratory test results show the vast majority of these samples (97% of the soils, sediments, etc., and 96% of the water samples) to contain chemical concentrations that are below the levels that could pose a measurable risk to human health, even in the event of chronic daily exposure to affected soils or sediments and daily ingestion of affected water (see Figure 29). For those few samples found to exceed these conservative health-based screening levels, detailed evaluation of exposure and associated risk finds no current or reasonable future potential for an unsafe exposure condition.

Results of this risk assessment process are summarized on Tables 8A and 9A and discussed below. Detailed discussion of the procedures and results of this risk assessment is provided in a prior report submitted to the Corte Superior de Nueva Loja in relation to the matter of Maria Aguinda et al vs. Chevron (McHugh, 2008).

Risk-Based Evaluation of Soil, Sediment, and Other Solid Materials

Tables 8A, B, C, and D summarize the risk analysis for soils, sediments, and other solid materials (e.g, asphaltic solids, pit sediments, etc.) to which humans could potentially be exposed by direct contact (i.e., dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and/or inhalation of vapors and dust particles). Of the total of 1082 soil, sediment, or other solid material samples collected and analyzed, 1054 (97%) were found to contain no chemical concentrations above levels that could pose a measurable risk of a health effect, even in the event of chronic daily exposure for 30 years (see Table 8A and Figure 29). As indicated on Table 8A, the 28 samples containing chemical concentrations in excess of these health-based limits were exclusively associated with Non-RAP sites or Non-RAP items, with no such exceedances measured in samples from the locations of pits or soils that had been remediated by Texpet (i.e., RAP items at RAP sites).

Table 8B provides the test results for each of the 28 samples found to exceed health-based screening levels, with detailed information regarding the sample location and surrounding site conditions provided on Table 8C. Table 8D summarizes the results of the exposure assessment and risk characterization steps of the risk assessment process for each of the 28 sample locations. As shown, site-specific evaluation of potential human exposure, in accordance with USEPA and WHO guidelines, finds that none of these soils, sediments, or other solid materials are located so as to pose a reasonable potential for chronic





human exposure (i.e., direct daily contact). Consequently, no persons could reasonably be exposed to the chemicals in a manner that would result in a measurable health risk at any of these locations.

Figure 29: Summary of Risk-Based Evaluation for Human Health Effects for Test Results by Experts Nominated on Behalf of Chevron

Soil / Sediment / Other Solid Samples Water Samples

Risk-Based Evaluation of Water Samples

Tables 9A, B, C, and D summarize the risk analysis for all water samples collected and analyzed by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron. As shown on Table 9A, of a total of 458 water samples, 440 (96%) were found to contain no petroleum-related chemicals at concentrations in excess of health-based screening levels based on daily consumption of the water as a drinking water supply. Table 9B provides the specific test results for the 18 water samples exceeding these screening levels, and Table 9C provides information on the corresponding sample locations. Results of the exposure assessment and risk characterization steps for each sample location are detailed on Table 9D.

As shown on Table 9D, at none of these sample locations is the water presently used as a drinking water source. Indeed, of the 18 water samples exceeding health-based levels, only 10 are from locations (i.e., surface water streams) that could be potentially considered as a potential future water resource, under any hypothetical scenario. All 10 of these sampling locations are within streams that, at the time of sample collection, were impacted along a limited distance due to on-going leaks or discharges of produced water by Petroecuador. Interviews





with local residents indicate that the affected portions of these streams are not used as drinking water supplies. In addition, available information indicates that Petroecuador has undertaken actions to terminate these produced water leaks (see Table 9D). Consequently, based on this evaluation, no persons could reasonably be exposed to the water at these locations in a manner that would result in a measurable health risk.

b) Risk Evaluation of Test Results Compiled by Other Parties

Experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Court experts also conducted sampling and testing of soil, sediment, and water samples for some of the potentially toxic components of crude oil, as listed on Table 7. In sum, the database of samples analyzed by these parties for some of these chemicals consists of 593 samples of soil, sediments, or other solid materials (see Tables 10A, B.1, B.2, C) and 146 samples of water (see Tables 11A, B.1, B.2, C). These data do not represent a comprehensive analysis of the potentially toxic components of crude oil within these samples, but rather are predominately analyses of metals (conducted on most of the samples analyzed) and selected PAH compounds (e.g., conducted on approximately 50% of the samples analyzed), with very few analyses for the more water-soluble components of petroleum, such as BTEX compounds (e.g., conducted on approximately 10% of the samples analyzed). In addition, as summarized on Table 12A, these parties collected and analyzed 58 samples of liquids collected from open soil borings, open pits, or shallow excavations, which are not representative of actual groundwater or surface water conditions. Key observations regarding each of these data sets are as follows:

Evaluation of Samples of Soils, Sediments, and Other Solids by Other Parties

Tables 10A, B, and C summarize the laboratory analyses for soils, sediments, and other solid materials (e.g, asphaltic solids, pit sediments, etc.) collected by parties other than the experts nominated on behalf of Chevron. Of the 593 samples analyzed, 578 samples (> 97%) were found to contain no chemical concentrations above levels that could pose a measurable risk of a health effect, even in the event of chronic daily exposure for 30 years (see Table 10A). None of the samples collected from pits or soil areas remediated by Texpet (i.e., RAP items at RAP sites) were found to exceed these health-based screening levels (see Table 10A). Rather, the 15 samples for which the reported test results did indicate an exceedance of a screening level for any chemical were collected exclusively from Non-RAP sites or Non-RAP items (see Table 10A).

For 9 of these 15 samples, a corresponding sample collected from the same location by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron is available, and the results of both parties are provided on Tables 10B.1 and 10B.2. Comparison of the test results from the Chevron expert, for which complete laboratory QA/QC documentation is available, to those of the other parties, for which no such QA/QC documentation is available, shows significant discrepancies in the reported chemical concentrations. Specifically, for 7 of the 9 samples for which both parties provide data, the Chevron result is 1 to 4 orders of magnitude lower than the other party’s result and shows no exceedance of the health-based





screening level (see Table 10B.2). On this basis, I find the results of the other parties to be unreliable, particularly given the sensitivity of the particular laboratory analyses being conducted (PAHs by gas chromatography or gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy) and the critical important of laboratory QA/QC for these test methods.

Furthermore, for those samples for which corresponding data are not available from the experts nominated on behalf of Chevron (most of which were collected by the Court expert Mr. Cabrera without providing proper access to Chevron for observation or co-sampling), the limited information available on the sample locations (see Table 10C) indicates that these are sub-surface soil samples or swamp sediment samples that would not be accessible for chronic daily direct contact by site users. Again, in the absence of QA/QC documentation (and the observed discrepancies when other analyses by these same parties are compared to corresponding results by experts on behalf of Chevron), these data cannot be considered to be reliable.

In sum, the vast majority (>97%) of the soil, sediment, or other solid material samples collected by these other parties show no exceedance of health-based concentration limits for the potentially toxic chemicals associated with crude oil. For those few samples that do suggest an exceedance, comparison to the corresponding test results by Chevron and consideration of sample locations indicates no reliable indication of elevated chemical concentrations and/or no likely mechanism of chronic exposure so as to pose a measurable risk to human health.

Evaluation of Water Samples by Other Parties

Tables 11A, B, and C summarize the laboratory analyses for water samples collected by parties other than the experts nominated on behalf of Chevron. Unlike the experts for Chevron, these other parties did not conduct comprehensive sampling and testing of water resources as part of their site investigations. As a result, a total of only 146 water samples (see Table 11A) were collected and analyzed by these parties, far fewer than the 458 water samples collected and analyzed by experts on behalf of Chevron (see Table 9A). Furthermore, as noted previously, for those water samples that were analyzed by these parties, the laboratory testing program did not comprise a thorough scan for the potentially toxic constituents of crude oil, but predominately entailed analyses of metals (which are not present at significant concentrations in crude oil) and PAH compounds (which are very low-solubility chemicals and unlikely to be present in water), rather than analysis of the more water-soluble constituents of petroleum, such as BTEX compounds.

The water test results presented by these parties indicate a higher frequency of exceedances of health-based screening levels than seen in the Chevron test results, with 47 of 146 water samples reported to exceed a screening level for 1 or more of the chemicals analyzed (see Table 11A). For 37 of these 47 samples, the corresponding test results for water samples collected at the same location by experts on behalf of Chevron are available, and the results for both parties are shown on Tables 11B.1 and 11B.2. For 32 of the 37 water samples for which paired results are available, the laboratory test results provided by the experts on





behalf of Chevron, for which complete QA/QC documentation is available, show no exceedance of the health-based level for any chemical analyzed (see Table 11B.2), and the measured concentrations are often non-detectable or orders of magnitude less than the concentrations reported by these other parties. In addition, it is important to note that the chemicals for which exceedances are reported by the other parties are predominately metals (43 of 47 water samples), for which the actual concentrations in water sample can be easily over-estimated in the laboratory if proper care is not taken to avoid entrainment of excessive soil sediment during collection of the water sample. Soil sediments contain natural concentrations of these same metals, which can be dissolved into the water sample upon contact with the acid used for sample preservation. Given the inconsistency of these water test results with those of the experts on behalf of Chevron, I find that the elevated metals levels reported by these parties most likely reflect the presence of soil sediment in the water samples, providing an invalid measure of the true water quality.

In sum, the water test results provided by these other parties do not indicate that water resources pose a risk to the health of persons living or working at these sites. Evaluation of Other Liquid Samples

In addition to water samples from streams, wells, or other representative sources of surface water or groundwater, the experts nominated on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Court experts also collected liquid samples directly from soil borings or shallow excavations completed in the vicinity of pits or affected soil areas, which were observed to be water mixed with a very high content of soil sediments, i.e., “muddy” water (see Tables 12A, B, and C). These liquid samples are not representative of either natural surface water or groundwater resources, and, due to the artificially elevated sediment content, cannot provide an accurate or reliable measurement of true water quality. Rather, the test results for these samples are indicative only of the petroleum or metals content in the sediments contained within the water/sediment mixture. As such, the samples are not relevant to human exposure via drinking water (as these are not drinking water samples) or via direct contact to soils or sediment (as chronic daily contact with muddy sediments in soil boring or shallow excavation is not a valid exposure pathway). In sum, the test results for the liquid samples that are tallied on Tables 12A, B, and C are not significant or useful with regard to evaluation of risk to human health.

c) No Impacts to Drinking Water Resources by Oilfield Operations, but Serious Bacterial Impacts due to Poor Sanitation: The sampling and testing program conducted by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron and by Chevron itself included 221 water samples collected from actual drinking water sources, including domestic water wells, municipal water supplies, and surface water used for drinking water (Connor and Landázuri, 2008; see Figure 30 below). Among these 221 samples, no location was found to exceed the drinking water standards established by WHO and USEPA for any chemicals associated with oil





operations (with the exception of a marginal exceedance at 1 domestic well location, which, upon re-sampling, was found to meet drinking water standards). These test results demonstrate that drinking water supplies have not been impacted by oilfield operations. However, 92% of domestic water supplies (household wells, streams, etc.) and 22% of public water supplies sampled in the area of the former Concession area were found to contain concentrations of fecal coliform (E. coli) at levels far in excess of safe drinking water standards. In sum, 79% of these drinking water supplies samples fail the drinking water criteria for fecal coliform bacteria (see Figure 30). The elevated bacteria levels measured in these water supplies, which are unrelated to oilfield operations and reflect poor sanitary conditions, represent a serious public health concern.

d) Risk Assessment Does Not Indicate that Open Pits Are Acceptable: The sampling programs conducted by the various parties included a total of 41 samples of sediments (i.e., “pit bottoms”) collected from open, un-remediated pits and analyzed for all or some of the potentially toxic chemicals associated with crude oil (see Tables 13A, B, and C). Of these 41 samples of open pit sediments, only 3 samples were found to contain any chemical in excess of the health-based screening levels developed for chronic daily exposure to soils or sediments (see Table 13A). Furthermore, the chemicals detected in these 3 samples only moderately exceeded levels that are safe for long-term daily direct contact (i.e., benzo(a)pyrene and benzene at concentrations less than 2.5x the relevant health-based screening levels; see Table 13B). These data indicate that the sediments within these open pits do not contain chemicals at levels that pose either an acute or chronic health risk to persons who may come in incidental contact with these materials.

The absence of significant levels of the toxic components of crude oil within these pit sediments most likely reflects the highly weathered condition of the petroleum associated with the historical operations of the Consortium. Consequently, this finding may not apply to pits that are currently in use by Petroecuador and contain fresh crude oil. Furthermore, such open abandoned pits may represent a nuisance for residential or agricultural land use, including a physical hazard for livestock or residents. For this reason, applicable regulations and oil industry guidelines (e.g., E&P Forum, 1996, “Decommissioning, Remediation, and Reclamation Guidelines for Onshore Exploration and Production Facilities”) call for proper remediation of such inactive oilfield pits.

Key Finding: A comprehensive risk evaluation clearly indicates that soils, sediments, and water affected by the historical operations of the Consortium do not pose a measurable risk to the health of local residents or workers. However, the drinking water supplies in this region, while free of impacts associated with oilfield operations, are unsafe due to elevated fecal coliform bacteria caused by poor sanitation. In addition, open inactive oilfield pits should be remediated in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and industry guidelines.





Figure 30: Results of Drinking Water Sampling and Testing in Former Concession (2004 - 2009)

MEDIUM

Constituents Potentially Associated with Petroleum Operations

Fecal Coliform / E. coli Bacteria

RESULTS CAUSE OF (% of sampling points) EXCEEDANCE

RESULTS CAUSE OF (% of sampling points) EXCEEDANCE

All Drinking Water Samples

KEY POINT:

Sampling of 221 drinking water sources across the Concession area shows drinking water to be free of impacts from oilfield operations.

However, bacterial contamination of water samples due to poor sanitation represents a serious public health issue.

Domestic Supplies:

89% fail

Public Supplies:

22% fail

Domestic Supplies:

99% pass

Public Supplies:

100% pass

Photo of E. coli fecal coliform using a microscope

Sampling of drinking water well in former Concession





7) The findings of the Fiscalía General regarding improper completion of the remediation program by Texpet are erroneous and unreliable.

In April 2010, the Fiscalía General of Ecuador issued an “Acusación” alleging that the environmental remediation work conducted by Texpet over the period of 1995 to 1998 was incomplete and improper and leveling charges of fraud against the representatives of the GOE, Petroecuador, and Texpet who had reviewed and approved of this work (Fiscalía General, 2010). These claims were based principally upon field inspections conducted by the Office of the State Controller General of Ecuador over the period of 1997 to 2004 (Contraloría General del Estado, 2003; Dirección de Control de Obras Públicas, 2004), as well as additional inspections conducted over the period of 2004 to 2010 by other consultants, i.e., Sr. Gutierrez Granja (2004), Sr. Narvaez and Sr. Garcia (2005), Ms. Enriquez Sanchez (2006), Sr. Bedón (2009) and Sr. Pasquel and Sr. Lincango (2009) (see Figure 31).

Figure 31: Inspections Conducted on Behalf of the Fiscalía General of Ecuador

I find the conclusions of the Fiscalía General and its consultants regarding inadequate remediation by Texpet to be erroneous and unreliable. Specifically, of the more than 128 sites investigated by various parties on their behalf, the Fiscalía General provides no evidence that the pits specified for remediation by Texpet had either not been remediated or had been remediated in a manner that did not comply with the procedures and/or numerical criteria that were applicable at the time that the work was conducted, with the possible exception of 1 single test result.

My findings regarding the various reports prepared on behalf of the Fiscalía General are summarized below.

a) Report of the Office of the Controller General of Ecuador

In April 2003, the Office of the State Controller General of Ecuador issued a 108-page report (Controlaría General, 2003) reviewing the Contract issued by representatives of the government of Ecuador on May 4, 1995, and the related





environmental remediation work conducted by Texpet in the period of 1995 to 1998. The stated objective of the Controller General report is to assess the compliance of the remediation work with the contract specifications. Based upon field observations and test results from 4 field inspection events conducted in the period of 1997 to 2003 (and additional inspections conducted in July 2000 and July to August 2004, and reported at a later date), the Controller General alleges incomplete and improper execution of the environmental remediation work by Texpet. Based on my review of these reports and the actual site conditions, I find these statements by the Controller General to be erroneous for the reasons discussed below and summarized on Figure 32.

Figure 32: Evaluation of Site Information Presented by the Controller General

The Controller General addresses many sites not included in the RAP and

presents no evidence of improper remediation by Texpet.

• Wrong Oilfields: Of the total of 144 well sites inspected by the Controller General over the period of 1997 to 2004, 14 (10%) are in oilfields that are located outside of the former Concession area and were never operated by Texpet.

• Wrong Well Sites: Of the 130 wells sites visited by the Controller General that are located within the Concession area, 78 (60%) are sites for which no pit or soil remediation was required in the Texpet remediation program (i.e., Non-RAP for pit cleanup) and only 52 are RAP sites for soil or pit remediation.

• At RAP Sites, All Pits Other than NFA or COC Pits Have Been Remediated: At the 52 RAP sites inspected by the Controller General, no open pits were observed other than NFA or COC pits, which were excluded from the Texpet remediation program. Apart from these open NFA or COC pits, the Controller General conducted sampling at only 37 pits for which remediation had been required by Texpet. For all of these 37 pits, field observations indicated that the pit had been remediated as required, as the pit was no longer present and the former pit area was overlain with clean soils and vegetation.

• No Exceedance of Applicable Criteria in Pits Remediated by Texpet: For the 37 pits remediated by Texpet, the soil test results presented by the Controller General show no pits to exceed the numerical remediation criteria applicable at the time of the remediation work (see Table 14E). Of the 37 pits sampled, 30





were remediated prior to March 20, 1997, and were not subject to the TPH soil criterion (5000 mg/kg). Of the 7 pits sampled by the Controller General that had been remediated by Texpet after March 20, 1997, only 2 pits were initially reported with individual sample test results (not composite samples) in excess of 5000 mg/kg TPH (i.e., Sacha 65, Pit 2, and Aguarico 2, Pit 3; see Table 14E). The Controller General report provides no precise location information for these assumed pits samples, and the these test results may, in fact, correspond to other conditions on these sites (e.g., recent oil spills). Indeed, subsequent re-sampling of these same sites by the Controller General itself found no such exceedance to be present (i.e., test results for Sacha 65 in August 1998, and for Aguarico 2 in August 2001; see Table 14E). Furthermore, during the Judicial Inspection of the Sacha 65 well site in November 2004, sampling and testing of remediated soils in Pit 2 by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron (based on proper identification and location of Pit 2) found the soil TPH to be far below 5000 mg/kg. Similarly, sampling at testing conducted by the Court expert Sr. Muñoz in the Judicial Inspection of the Aguarico 2 well site in June 2008 (again, based on proper location of Pit 3), showed the soil TPH of remediated soils in Pit 3 to be less than 5000 mg/kg. Consequently, the initial report of elevated soil TPH in these two pit locations appears to be erroneous, as confirmed by later sampling by the Controller General and others.

In sum, the data presented by the Controller General does not show that even a single remediated RAP pit exceeded the applicable remediation criteria (see Figure 32).

• Controller General Applies Incorrect and Non-Existent Remediation Criteria: The Controller General report compares the TPH concentrations measured in remediated soils to an “international norm” of 300 mg/kg, which the report alleges to be based upon standards published by the USEPA and the international E&P Forum. In fact, neither of these parties has ever established this alleged cleanup standard, and no such “international norm” exists. Rather, the prevailing TPH limit applied in the U.S. and elsewhere for remediation of affected soils at oilfield sites is 10,000 mg/kg or higher (see Section 2.3.1 of this report). In addition, the Controller General incorrectly identifies the soil cleanup criterion applied by Texpet as a total soil TPH of 1000 mg/kg, while, in fact, the true RAP cleanup criteria were: i) TPH limit of 1000 mg/L for soil leachate and ii) TPH limit of 5000 mg/kg for soils (applicable only after March 20, 1997).

By using the incorrect soil cleanup criteria, the Controller General misrepresents the number of soil samples found to exceed the Texpet remediation criteria and the alleged “international norm.”

• No Exceedance of Health-Based Screening Levels in Soils or Water: In addition to analysis of soil samples for TPH, the Controller General also collected and analyzed a very limited number of soil and water samples for selected metals (see Table 15A). Specifically, 4 soil samples were analyzed for nickel, 21 water samples were analyzed for nickel, and 2 water samples were analyzed for barium, chromium, nickel, lead, and vanadium. The results of these analyses (Contraloría General del Estado, 2003; Dirección de Control de Obras Públicas, 2004) found





no soil and water sample to contain any metal in excess of the relevant health-based screening levels presented in my report.

In addition, as shown on Tables 15A, B, and C, the Controller General reports test results for 3 liquid samples from open pits located in the Shushufindi Central and Shushufindi Sur productions stations (i.e., RAP sites, but pits that were not included in the Texpet remediation program). As discussed in Opinion 6 above, such liquid samples collected from open pits are not relevant to evaluation of human health risk.

• Controller General Ignores Testimony of Inspectors for GOE and Petroecuador Who Were Directly Involved in the Texpet Remediation Project: In July 2002, the Controller General provided several of the original government inspectors involved in the Texpet remediation project with the opportunity to review and comment on a draft report prepared by the Controller General regarding the alleged deficiencies of the remediation program (Controlaría General, 2003). These persons informed the Controller General that the remediation program had been fully completed in accordance with the applicable SOW and RAP and identified many of the same errors that I have listed above, including:

i) Texpet completed the full scope of work specified in the RAP and more.

ii) The Controller General should only address Texpet compliance with the applicable scope of work.

iii) The Controller General report addresses many well sites that were not included in the Texpet remedial action project.

iv) The Controller General uses the wrong remediation criteria.

v) The field and laboratory data presented by the Controller General are deficient and not representative of true conditions.

Nevertheless, the Controller General elected to disregard these comments, as documented in its subsequent report of April 2003.

• No Valid Documentation of Sampling and Testing Results: The Controller General provides no documentation to demonstrate proper sampling and testing procedures, including no sample locations, no field records, no sample chain-of-custody records, no information on laboratory test procedures or QA/QC procedures, and no signed laboratory test reports from a certified analytical laboratory. In the absence of proper documentation of the field and laboratory program, the data presented by the Controller General would be considered unacceptable by any regulatory agency or scientific body with which I have worked.

In sum, the information presented in the Controller General report confirms that Texpet did complete the scope of work specified in the Contract SOW and the RAP, in accordance with applicable remediation criteria. However, in contradiction with the stated purpose of their report (i.e., to evaluate the compliance of the Texpet work with the contract specifications), the Controller General elected to: i) compare sites that were not included in the RAP to the contract specifications and ii) compare Texpet-remediated pits to remediation criteria that were not applicable under either the terms of the contract or the regulations of that time.





If it is the role of the Controller General to monitor public works projects in Ecuador, such as construction of a new section of highway, then these fundamental errors are comparable to sampling and testing the pavement from the wrong highway or comparing the pavement test results to the wrong specifications. As a result, the findings of the Controller General report are not relevant to the stated objectives of their report or the remediation work conducted by Texpet.

Furthermore, statements by the Controller General that the remediation criteria employed in the Texpet remediation project were inappropriate are invalid, as both the soil leachate TPH test and the soil TPH test used by Texpet are commonly employed for this purpose (see Section 2.3 of my report). Indeed, the Technical Arbiter for the Texpet remediation project specifically endorsed the use of the TCLP soil leachate procedure for evaluation of remediated pits and soils (ERM, 1997). Moreover, the TCLP test procedure is currently required under Ecuador regulations (Decreto 1215), and similar methods are employed in the U.S. in Louisiana and other states. The verification tests conducted during the Texpet remediation project found the TPH levels in all soil leachate samples from the remediated pits and soils to be non-detectable at a detection limit of 5 mg/L, which met the oilfield standard in effect in Louisiana at that time (i.e., all TPH levels in soil leachate < 10 mg/L, per Louisiana Statewide Order No. 29-B). b) Other Consultants to the Fiscalía General

The other five investigations conducted on behalf of the Fiscalía General over the period of 2004 to 2009 similarly provide no evidence that the pits required to be remediated by Texpet had either not been remediated or had been remediated in a manner that did not comply with the specified procedures or applicable numerical criteria, with the possible exception of 1 single soil test result. Specific findings regarding these additional investigations are as follows:

• Sr. Gutiérrez Granja (2004): From August 14 to November 25, 2004, Sr. Jaime Gutiérrez Granja conducted visual inspections of pits at 78 well sites, of which 74 were RAP well sites. No sampling and laboratory test results are presented. The only possible exception to proper remediation noted by Sr. Gutiérrez was the presence of “black material” observed on the ground surface at 3 well sites, but the reported locations of this material were not associated with RAP items in the Texpet remediation project.

• Sr. Narváez and Sr. García (2005): During the period of August 2004 to January 2005, Sr. Ian Narváez Troncoso and Sr. Bolívar García Pinos investigated a total of 130 well sites, and collected and analyzed 96 soil samples from 85 of those well sites. (Their report states that soil sampling was conducted at 82 well sites, but, in fact, data are provided for 85 well sites.) Careful evaluation of the location coordinates provided for these soil samples by Sr. Narvaez and Sr. Garcia indicates that their sampling encountered only 51 pits, while the rest of the soil samples were collected from areas unrelated to the Texpet remediation program. Of these 51 pits, 44 were RAP pits remediated prior to March 20, 1997, and 1 was a RAP pit remediated after March 20, 1997, while the other 6 were either NFA pits (3) or COC pits (3), for which no remediation was required by Texpet. Of the 45 remediated pits investigated, the test results indicated only 1 pit to





exceed the numerical remediation criteria applicable at the time of the remedial action (i.e., Well Sacha 95, Pit 1; see Tables 14A, B, C, and D). The moderately elevated soil TPH (11,829 mg/kg) reported by Narváez and García was for one individual soil sample, not a composite soil sample (see Table 14D), and therefore is not directly comparable to the remediation criterion (see Section 2.3.3 of my report). Analysis of a composite soil sample at the time of the remediation (1997) showed the soil TPH to be less than 5000 mg/kg, as required (see Table 14C). Furthermore, the field logs from Narváez and García confirm that this pit had been remediated by solidification of the pit sediments and placement of a clean soil cover and vegetation, as required by RAP specifications.

In their report, Sr. Narváez and Sr. García suggest that pits remediated prior to March 1997 would be subject to a soil TPH limit of 20,000 mg/kg; however, no such criterion was specified in the RAP or applied by the GOE or Petroecuador at that time. Their report furthermore states that the pits remediated by Texpet pose no risk to wildlife. In addition, soil samples collected around the perimeter of remediated pits found no evidence of lateral or vertical seepage of petroleum from the pit location.

• Ms. Enríquez Sánchez (2006): Ms. Adriana Maribel Enríquez Sánchez conducted a visual survey of an unspecified number of well sites in the Sacha, Shushufindi, Guanta, and Lago Agrio fields in July 2006. No sampling or laboratory testing was conducted. She observed no hydrocarbon seepage at the location of any remediated pit and concludes that none of the sites pose a risk to human health, flora, or fauna.

• Sr. Bedón (2009): Sr. William Mauricio Bedón Sánchez investigated a total of 11 RAP well sites during the periods of May to July 2009 and September 2009, and provided sampling and testing results for soils at 13 pits, which included 2 NFA pits and 11 RAP pits. The soil samples were analyzed both for soil leachate TPH and soil TPH. All of the RAP pits investigated by Mr. Bedón had been remediated by Texpet prior to March 1997, when only the soil leachate TPH criterion applied (see Tables 14A and B). (Sr. Bedon incorrectly states that Sacha 57 Pit 2 was remediated after March 1997, but this is incorrect, as the available project records and photographs clearly show that this pit remediation was completed on July 18, 1996.) Some of the remediated soil samples exhibited soil TPH levels in excess of 5000 mg/kg (a criterion that did not apply at the time of the remediation), but a number of the soil TPH results presented by Mr. Bedón are significantly higher than soil test results obtained from the same pits by experts nominated on behalf of Chevron or by other investigators for the Fiscalía General (i.e., Narváez and García). Mr. Bedón also analyzed 1 soil sample for cadmium content (see Table 15A), for which the measured concentration was found to be below the health-based screening level for soil presented in my report.

Field observations by Mr. Bedón indicate that all of the RAP pits had been remediated by Texpet, and no soil sample was found to exceed the numerical remediation criteria applicable at the time of the remediation work.





• Sr. Pasquel and Sr. Lincango: Sr. Paul Pasquel Pazmiño and Sr. Roberto Lincango Guañuna are police officers who conducted a visual inspection of 9 RAP well sites on May 26 to 28, 2009. The 9 sites visited are the same sites where Sr. Bedon conducted sampling and testing in May to July 2009. The report by Sr. Pasquel and Sr. Lincango is limited to a description of the physical features of the 9 sites and the surrounding area. None of the open pits or oil spills that they identified at these sites were RAP items included in the Texpet remediation project.

Key Finding: The Fiscalía General provides no evidence that the pits specified for remediation by Texpet had either not been remediated or had been remediated in a manner that did not comply with the remediation procedures and/or numerical criteria that were applicable at the time that the remediation work was conducted, with the possible exception of a single soil test result.





4.0 CONCLUSIONS

95. Based upon my review of the project documentation associated with the Texpet remediation program of 1995 to 1998 and the site investigations conducted at a significant number of these remediated sites in the period of 2003 to 2009, I find that:

1) Texpet operations in Ecuador from 1972 to 1990 were consistent with applicable regulations and prevailing practices for environmental management for oilfield operations at that time.

2) The extensive documentation from the Texpet remediation project, including photographs, field records, laboratory test results, and the final project report, demonstrates that Texpet completed the remediation work during the period of 1995 to 1998 in accordance with the Scope of Work (SOW), the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), and the subsequent modifications and additions specified by the GOE and Petroecuador;

3) Representatives of the GOE and Petroecuador certified the satisfactory completion of the Texpet remediation program in September 1998, based upon site inspections and testing conducted during the period of 1995 to 1998;

4) Inspection of 108 of the 172 RAP sites (63%) during the period of 2003 to 2009 has confirmed that Texpet completed the remediation of pits, soils, and spill sites, and other required tasks, in accordance with applicable specifications. The un-remediated pits remaining in the Concession area today were not included in the Texpet remediation program.

5) The residual impacts (if any) on soils, groundwater, or surface water remaining today from the historical operations of the Consortium pose no measurable risk to human health. However, applicable regulations and industry guidelines require proper remediation of the Non-RAP oilfield pits that remain open or poorly remediated today in the former Concession area.

6) The allegations by the Fiscalía General regarding improper remediation by Texpet are invalid, as, of the more than 128 sites investigated by the various parties on behalf of the Fiscalia, no pit specified for remediation by Texpet was found either not to have been remediated or to have been remediated in a manner that did not comply with the procedures and/or numerical criteria applicable at the time that the remediation work was conducted, with the possible exception of 1 single test result.





5.0 CITED DOCUMENTS 5.1 Project Reports Related to Former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession

Environmental Audits of Former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession, 1992 - 1993

Fugro-McClelland (West). 1992. Final Environmental Field Audit for Practices 1964-1990 Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium, Oriente, Ecuador. Project No. 9241-0685. October 1992.

HBT Agra Ltd. 1993. Draft Environmental Assessment of the Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium Oil Fields, Volumes I and II. October 1993.

Oversight Commission of the National Congress. 1994. “Environmental Audit of the Texaco Company: Analysis and Comments,” State of Ecuador, Preliminary Version, Quito, March 16, 1994.

Documents Related to Planning and Implementation of the Texpet Remediation Project, 1995 – 1998

ERM, 1996. Sampling Plan for Verification Sampling Texpet RAPTOR Project, Environmental Resource Management, Inc., 3 December 1996.

ERM, 1997. Pit Closure Resampling Program. Environmental Resource Management, Inc., 27 January 1997.

Laboratorio Analítico de Sacha. 1996. Sacha Analytical Laboratory sampling sheets and laboratory logs, Universidad Central/ Woodward-Clyde, December 1996.

MEM. 1995. Anexo A: Alcance del Trabajo de Reparación Ambiental, Contrato para la Ejecución de Trabajos de Reparación Medioambiental y Liberación de Obligaciones, Responsabilidades y Demandas, Ministerio de Energía y Minas del Ecuador, 4 May 1995

Ministry of Energy and Mines. 1997. Internal Memorandum Re: ERM Sampling by Engr. Alfonso Fernández. From the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Engr. Carlos A. Quiroz from Texpet to Engr. Hugo Jara Román from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ricardo Reis Veiga, Texpet Vice-president, 3 February 1997.

WCII and SETC. 1995. Texaco Petroleum Company (Texpet), Plan de Acción de Reparación Medioambiental para el Antiguo Consorcio Petroecuador - Texpet, Woodward-Clyde International, Inc., and Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation, 8 September 1995

WCII. 2000. Proyecto de Acciones de Remediación, Región Oriente, Ecuador, Informe Final – Volumen I y II, document prepared for Texaco Petroleum Company, Woodward-Clyde International, Inc., May 2000

Approval Actas Issued by GOE and Petroecuador (Actas de Aprobación), 1995 – 1998

Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1995. Acta 01, 15 November 1995 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1995. Acta 02, 30 November 1995 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 03, 25 January 1996 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 04, 14 March 1996 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 05, 11 April 1996 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 06, 23 July 1996 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 07, 24 July 1996 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 08, 24 July 1996 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 09, 12 September 1996 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 10, 29 October 1996





Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1996. Acta 11, 22 November 1996 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1997. Acta 12, 20 March 1997 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1997. Acta 13, 6 May 1997 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1997. Acta 14, 14 May 1997 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1997. Acta 15, 2 June 1997 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1997. Acta 16, 16 October 1997 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1997. Acta 17, 13 November 1997 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1998. Acta 18, 30 March 1998 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1998. Acta 19, 30 September 1998 Ministerio de Energía y Minas, Ecuador. 1998. Acta Final, 30 September 1998

Reports by Experts Nominated on Behalf of Chevron, Case of María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Judicial Inspections, 2004 – 2009 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 53, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y

Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Enero 2005 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Shushufindi Suroeste, Corte Superior

de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Enero 2005 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 94, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y

Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Febrero 2005 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 65, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y

Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Abril 2005 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 14, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y

Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Julio 2005 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 4, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda

y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Octubre 2005 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 13, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda

y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Enero 2006 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 24, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda

y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Enero 2006 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 27, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda

y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Febrero 2006 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Lago Agrio 11A, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María

Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Mayo 2006 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Lago Agrio 15, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda

y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Julio 2006 Baca, E., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Lago Cononaco 6, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María

Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Marzo 2007 Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 10, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y

Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Enero 2005 Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 48, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María

Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Marzo 2005 Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 51, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y

Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Abril 2005 Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 57, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y

Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Junio 2005 Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 67, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María

Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Julio 2005





Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 8, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Agosto 2005

Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 13, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Agosto 2005

Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 7, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Noviembre 2005

Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 21, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Diciembre 2005

Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Lago Agrio 2, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Febrero 2006

Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Lago Agrio 6, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Marzo 2006

Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Guanta 7, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Julio 2006

Bianchi, G., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Guanta 6, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Agosto 2006

Bjorkman, B., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Sacha Norte 2, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Mayo 2006

Bjorkman, B., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Sacha Sur, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Julio 2006

Bjorkman, B., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Sacha Norte 1, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Septiembre 2006

Connor, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 6, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Enero 2005

Connor, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 21, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Enero 2005

Connor, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Shushufindi Sur, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Junio 2005

Connor, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Shushufindi Norte, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Agosto 2005

Connor, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Sacha Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Noviembre 2005

Morales, F., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 18, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Abril 2005

Morales, F., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Sacha 85, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Mayo 2005

Morales, F., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Lago Agrio Norte, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Agosto 2005

Morales, F., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Shushufindi Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Enero 2006

Morales, F., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Aguarico, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Mayo 2006

Morales, F., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Estación de Producción Lago Agrio Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Julio 2006

Salcedo, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 18, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Febrero 2006





Salcedo, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 25, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Marzo 2006

Salcedo, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 45A, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Marzo 2006

Salcedo, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Shushufindi 38, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Marzo 2006

Salcedo, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Yuca 2, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Marzo 2007

Salcedo, J., Reporte de Peritaje, Sitio Auca 1, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Marzo 2007

General Appendices to Reports by Experts Nominated on Behalf of Chevron, Case of María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, 2004 - 2007

Connor, J., 2004, General Appendices, Apéndice E, Biodegradacíon del Petróleo Crudo en Los Suelos y en el Agua de Producción: Estudios de Laboratorio y Resultados de Campo, Apéndice E.1, Douglas, G., and Alvarez, P. Procesos de Degradación del Petróleo Crudo en el Ambiente, 8 December 2004.

Connor, J., 2005a, Appendix McHugh, T., Criterio de Calidad de Agua y Suelo para la Evaluación de Datos Ambientales de las Inspecciones Judiciales, 2005.

Connor, J., 2005b, General Appendices, Apéndice D, Composición del Petróleo Crudo y del Agua de Producción: Transformación y Movimiento en el Ambiente, Appendix D.2, Newell, C., Saturation and Mobility of Crude Oil and Soils, 13 June 2005.

Connor, J., 2007, General Appendices, Apéndice D, Composición del Petróleo Crudo y del Agua de Producción: Transformación y Movimiento en el Ambiente, Appendix D.1, Douglas, G., BTEX, Hidrocarburos Aromåticos Policíclicos, Contenido de Metales Traza y Propiedades de LosCrudos del Ecuador, 7 February 2007.

Michel, J., Revelo, N. Osorio, X. and Connor, J. 2008, Evaluación del Estado de la Vegetación en los Antiguos Puntos de Descarga de Agua de Producción de las Estaciones de Producción. Antigua Concesión Petroecuador-Texaco, Región Oriente, Ecuador.

Neff, J., 2006, Agua de Formación, Caracterización y Toxicidad: Observaciones al Anexo M – Agua de Formación, Caracterización y Toxicidad” del Informe Pericial del Perito Villacreces de la Inspección Judicial del Pozo Guanta 7, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Octubre 2006

Reports by Experts Nominated on Behalf of Plaintiffs, Case of María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Judicial Inspections, 2005 – 2006

Camino, E., Informe de la Inspección Judicial, Pozo Sacha 53, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Noviembre 2005

Camino, E., Informe Pericial, Pozo Sacha 10, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Abril 2005

Camino, E., Informe Pericial, Pozo Sacha 51, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Abril 2005

Calmbacher, C., Informe de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Sacha 94, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Febrero 2005

Calmbacher, C., Informe de la Inspección Judicial del Pozo Shushufindi 48, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Marzo 2005





Dávila, O., Informe del Perito, Inspección Judicial de la Estación Shushufindi Suroeste, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Febrero 2005

Dávila, O., Informe del Perito, Inspección Judicial del Pozo Sacha 65, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Mayo 2005

Dávila, O., Informe del Perito, Inspección Judicial del Estación de Producción Shushufindi Sur, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2005

Dávila, O., Informe del Perito, Inspección Judicial del Pozo Sacha 14, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Julio 2005

Dávila, O., Informe del Perito, Inspección Judicial del Estación de Producción Shushufindi Norte, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Julio 2005

Felicita, O., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en la Estación Sacha Sur, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Julio 2006

Grandes, X., Informe Pericial de la Inspección Judicial Realizada al Pozo Shushufindi 67, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Julio 2005

Grandes, X., Informe Pericial de la Inspección Judicial Realizada al Pozo Shushufindi 8, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Agosto 2005

Grandes, X., Informe Pericial de la Inspección Judicial Realizada a la Estación de Producción Lago Agrio Norte, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Agosto 2005

Mora, F., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial del Pozo Shushufindi 25, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Octubre 2006

Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Sacha 18, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Mayo 2005

Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Sacha 85, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2005

Robalino, J., Informe Inspección Judicial del Pozo Sacha 57, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Octubre 2005

Robalino, J., Informe Inspección Judicial del Pozo Shushufindi 4, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Octubre 200

Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Shushufindi 13, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Noviembre 2005

Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en la Estación Sacha Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Noviembre 2005

Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Lago Agrio 06, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Marzo 2006

Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Lago Agrio 02, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Febrero 2006

Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Lago Agrio 11A (11.1), Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Mayo 2006





Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Lago Agrio 15, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Julio 2006

Robalino, J., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en la Estación Sacha Norte 1, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Septiembre 2006

Suárez, A., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Shushufindi 38, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Marzo 2006

Suárez, A., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Shushufindi 45A, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Marzo 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Shushufinidi 24, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Enero 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Sacha 13, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Febrero 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Shushufindi 27, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Febrero 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Shushufindi 18, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Febrero 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Shushufindi 25, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Marzo 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Estación Lago Agrio Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Septiembre 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Estación de Producción Aguarico Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Mayo 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Guanta-07, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Julio 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Guanta-06, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Agosto 2006

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial Pozo Auca 01, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Marzo 2007

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Cononaco 06, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Marzo 2007

Villacreces, L., Informe Pericial, Inspección Judicial, Pozo Yuca – 2B, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Marzo 2007

Viteri, F., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Shushufindi 07, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Noviembre 2005

Viteri, F., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en el Pozo Shushufindi 21, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Diciembre 2005

Viteri, F., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en la Estación Shushufindi Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Enero 2006

Viteri, F., Informe del Perito de la Inspección Judicial en la Estación Sacha Norte 2, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Mayo 2006





Reports by Court Experts, Case of María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Judicial Inspections, 2007 – 2009

Enriquez, A., Informe Pericial de Inspección a la Estación de Producción Palanda, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2007

Enriquez, A., Informe de Inspección a la Refinería Shushufindi, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Septiembre 2007

Muñoz, M., Informe de la Diligencia Judicial de la Estación del Pozo Auca 19, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2009

Muñoz, M., Informe de la Diligencia Judicial de la Estación del Pozo Auca 17, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2009

Muñoz, M., Informe de la Diligencia Judicial de la Estación del Pozo Auca Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2009

Muñoz, M., Informe de la Diligencia Judicial de la Estación del Pozo Auca Sur, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2009

Muñoz, M., Informe de la Diligencia Judicial de la Estación del Pozo Culebra, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2009

Muñoz, M., Informe de la Diligencia Judicial de la Estación del Pozo Guanta Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2009

Muñoz, M., Informe de la Diligencia Judicial de la Estación del Pozo Yulebra, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2009

Muñoz, M., Informe de la Diligencia Judicial de la Estación del Pozo Yuca Central, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-200, Junio 2009

Pilamunga, J., Informe de Observancia Pericial Practicada en el Juicio No. 002-2003 en el Pozo Aguarico-02, Corte Superior de Nueva Loja: María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Septiembre 2008

Reports by Global Court Expert Mr. Cabrera, 2008 Cabrera, R., Informe Sumario del Examen Pericial, (Nueva Loja, 24 de marzo de 2008), María

Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Abril 2008 Cabrera, R., Respuestas a las Preguntas de la Parte Demandante Relacionadas con el Informe

Pericial (Nueva Loja, noviembre de 2008), María Aguinda y Otros vs. ChevronTexaco, Caso 002-2003, Noviembre 2008

Response to Reports of Mr. Cabrera by Expert and Others on Behalf of Chevron, 2008 - 2009 Connor, J. and Landazuri, R., 2008. Response to Statements by Mr. Cabrera Regarding Alleged

Impacts to Water Resources in the Petroecuador-Texaco Concession Area, Oriente Region, Ecuador. Maria Aguinda et al. vs. ChevronTexaco Corporation, Superior Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, Ecuador. Case No. 002-2003.

Connor, J. and W. Hutton, 2008. Response to the Proposal of Mr. Carbrera Regarding Improvement of the Infrastructure in the Former Petroecuador-Texpet Concession. Oriente Region, Ecuador. Maria Aguinda et al. vs. ChevronTexaco Corporation, Superior Court of Justice of Nueva Loja, Ecuador. Case No. 002-2003.

McHugh, T. 2008. Response to the Allegations of Mr. Cabrera Regarding the Potential Human Health Risk Associated with Hydrocarbons and Metals in the Petroecuador-Texaco Concession Area.





Response to Reports of Mr. Barros by Expert on Behalf of Chevron, 2010

Chevron Response to Sr. Barros, Adjunto D, Análisis Temporal del Manejo de Agua de Producción en el Área de la Antiguo Concesión, PETROECUADOR-Texpet, 14 January 2010.

Chevron Response to Sr. Barros, Adjunto I, Conjuntos de Piscinas de Petroecuador, 14 January 2010.

Response to Report of Mr. Cårdenas by Expert on Behalf of Chevron, 2010

Douglas, G.S., 2010. CVX Rebuttal to Arturo Orquera Cárdenas, Anexo 8. Respuesta de “Hidrocarburos totales de petróleo” en productos de consumo y materiales naturales. Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos, 21 May 2010.

Reports Prepared on Behalf of the Fiscalia General of Ecuador, 2003 – 2005

Bedón, W., 2009a. Peritaje Ambiental Sobre el Análisis de los Trabajos de Reparación Ambiental de las Piscinas de los Pozos Aguarico 08, Atacapi 05, Lago Agrio 05, Parahuacu 03, Ron 01, Sacha 56, Sacha 57, Sacha 94, Shushufindi 18. For the Acting Prosecutor General of Ecuador, Alfredo Alvear Enríquez, Esq., August 25, 2009.

Bedón, W., 2009b. Peritaje Ambiental Sobre el Análisis de los Trabajos de Reparación Ambiental de las Piscinas de los Pozos Shushufindi 21 y Sacha 53. Presumably for the Acting Prosecutor General of Ecuador, Alfredo Alvear Enríquez, Esq., 2009.

Contraloría General del Estado, Dirección de Obras Públicas; 12 de Abril de 2005. Auditoría Ambiental a la Gestión de Petroproducción en los Procesos de Explotación y Producción de Crudo, Relacionados con Fluidos y Lodos de Perforación y Aguas de Formación en las Provincias de Orellana y Sucumbios, Quito – Ecuador

Contraloría General del Estado, 2003, “Examen Especial al Contrato para la Ejecución de Trabajos de Reparación Medioambiental y Liberación de Obligaciones, Responsabilidades, y Demandas Celebrado el 4 de Mayo de 1995 entre el Ministro de Energía y Minas en Representación del Gobierno Ecuatoriano, El Presidente Ejecutivo de Petroecuador y el Vicepresidente de la Compañía Texaco Petroleum Company Texpet”, Código DA3-25-2002, April 9, 2003.

Contraloría General del Estado, 2004, Auditoria Ambiental a la Gestión de Petroproducción en los Procesos de Explotación y Producción de Crudo, Relacionados con Fluidos y Lodos de Perforación y Aguas de Formación en las Provincias de Orellana y Sucumbíos, Dirección de Control de Obras Publicas, 2004.

Enríquez, 2006. Reconocimiento del Lugar de los Hechos para la Valoración Técnico-Visual del Impacto Ambiental en Sitios Remediados por Texaco Petroleum Company [Techno-Visual Scene Investigation of the Environmental Impact in Sites Remediated by Texaco Petroleum Company]. Adriana Maribel Enríquez Sánchez, 7 July 2006.

Gutiérrez, 2004. Report on the Visual Inspection of the Scene. Jaime Gutiérrez Granja, 27 December 2004.

Narváez, I. and García, B., 2005. "Experticia Técnica para la Valoración del Impacto Ambiental de los Sitios Estipulados en el RAP", Ministerio Público del Ecuador, Unidad de Delitos Contra el Medio Ambiente y Patrimonio Cultural. Indagación Previa No. 25-2004 UMAPC-LEV. [Expert Technical Report for Assessment of Environmental Impact of the Stipulated RAP Sites", Public Ministry of Ecuador, Crimes Against the Environment and Cultural Heritage Unit. Previous Inquiry 25-2004 UMAPC-LEV.

Pasquel and Lincango, 2009. Informe de Reconocimiento del Lugar [Report of Scene Investigation], No. 092-2009. Corporals Paul Pasquel Pazmiño and Roberto Lincango





Guañuna, from the Subdirección Técnico Científica de la Policia Judicial; Unidad de Apoyo Criminalistica de Sucumbíos [Tecno-Scientific Office of the Judicial Police; Sucumbíos Criminal Support Division], 12 June 2009.

Summaries of Petroecuador Operations

Dirección de Control de Obras Públicas, 2004, "Auditoría Ambiental a la Gestión de Petroproducción en los Procesos de Explotación y Producción de Crudo, Relacionados con Fluidos y Lodos de Perforación y Aguas de Formación en las Provincias de Orellana y Sucumbíos", por orden de el Contraloria General del Estado, Oficio No. 1592-DICOP, 15 de abril de 2004.

Petroecuador, 2009b; Informe Estadístico Gerencial, Agosto 2009. Petroproducción, 25 de Febrero de 2008. Memorando 03 RYA-MFED-2008, De: Jefe de

Reinyección de Agua, Para: Jefe de Ingeniería de Petróleos DA.,Asunto: Volumen de Agua Producido y Reinyectado, presentado en la Corte Superior de Nueva Loja por el Superintendente de Petroproducción, mediante Oficio No. 0963 PPR-SDA-LGL-2008 del 28 de Abril de 2008.

Reports on Petroecuador’s Remediation Programs (PEPDA, UMR/VAS), 2006 – 2007

El Comercio, 5 October 2006, “Petroecuador eliminará 264 piscinas con desechos en la amazonía”, Special Supplement

Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2007, Letter from Lucia Ruiz M., Subsecretary of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Energy and Mines, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Nueva Loja, November 14, 2007.

PEPDA, 2007, "Proyecto de Eliminación de Pasivos Ambientales a Través del Proyecto –PEPDA– en el Distrito Amazónico", Ing. Jorge Mideros and Ing. Jorge Vivanco, Equipo Profesional, Proyecto PEPDA, Joya de los Sachas, December 2007.

PEPDA, 2006a. Final Report, SA-14-1 Pit Remediation Report, 2006. PEPDA, 2006b. Final Report, SA-15-1 Pit Remediation Report, 2006. PEPDA, 2006c. Final Report, SA-32-1 Pit Remediation Report, 2006. PEPDA, 2006d. Final Report, SA-32-2 Pit Remediation Report, 2006. PEPDA, 2006e. Final Report, SA-78 Pit Remediation Report, 2006. PEPDA, undated. PowerPoint Presentation for SSF-50-2 Pit Remediation Report, undated. Petroecuador, 2009a, “Vicepresidencia Corporativa de Ambiental, Responsabilidad Social,

Seguridad, y Salud,” issued October 21, 2009.

Ecuador Environmental Regulations

Republica del Ecuador, Acuerdo Ministerial No. 621 del 21 de Febrero de 1992, Reglamento Ambiental para las Actividades Hidrocarburíferas en el Ecuador, Registro Oficial No. 888, 6 Marzo 1992

Republica del Ecuador, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 2982, Reglamento Ambiental para las Actividades Hidrocarburíferas en el Ecuador, Registro Oficial No. 766, 24 Agosto 1995

Republica del Ecuador, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 1215, Reglamento Sustitutivo al Reglamento Ambiental para las Operaciones Hidrocarburíferas en el Ecuador, Registro Oficial No. 265, 13 Febrero 2001

Republica del Ecuador, Decreto Supremo No. 925, Registro Oficial No. 370, 16 Agosto 1973 Republica del Ecuador, Decreto Supremo No. 1437, Registro Oficial No. 339, 18 Mayo 1977 Republica del Ecuador, Decreto Supremo No. 1438, Registro Oficial No. 338, 18 Mayo 1977





5.2 Published Documents

1) American Cancer Society, 2008. “Cancer Facts & Figures 2008,” Downloaded from http://www.cancer.org, February, 2008.

2) API, 1989. API Environmental Guidance Document, Onshore Solid Waste Management in Exploration and Production Operations. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.

3) API, 1993, Evaluation of Limiting Constituents Suggested for Land Disposal of Exploration and Production Wastes, API Publ. No. 4527, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC August 1993.

4) API, 1997. “Environmental Guidance Document: Waste Management in Exploration and Production Operations,” API E5, 2nd Edition, February 1997, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.

5) API, 2001. Risk-Based Methodologies for Evaluating Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacts at Oil and Natural Gas E&P Sites, API Publication 4709, February 2001.

6) ARPEL, 1998. “Review of Methods for the Clean-Up of Groundwater Which Has Been Contaminated by Petroleum Products,” Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean, Montevideo, Uruguay.

7) ARPEL, 2005, “Treatment and Disposal of Exploration and Production Drilling Wastes,” Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin America and the Caribbean, ARPEL Environmental Guideline #4-2005, May 2005

8) ASTM, 1995. ASTM E-1739-95: Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites, ASTM International, Philadelphia, PA. (Re-Approved 2002)

9) ASTM, 2000. ASTM E-2081-00: Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action; ASTM International, Philadelphia, PA.

10) ATSDR, 1999. Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Publc Health Service, American Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR), September 1999.

11) Carlon, C. (Ed.) 2007. Derivation Methods of Soil Screening Values In Europe. A Review And Evaluation of National Procedures Towards Harmonisation. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, EUR 22805-EN, 306 pp.

12) CONCAWE, 2003.“European Oil Industry Guideline for Risk-Based Assessment of Contaminated Sites,” Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe, Brussels, Belgium

13) El Mundo, 18 April 2001, “Economía: PDVSA Saneará 12 Mil Fosas de Desechos Petroleros.”

14) El Comercio, 29 October 2006, “En Sacha, el crudo se limpia 30 años después” 15) El Telegrafo, 20 October 2006, “Petroecuador coordina limpieza por derrame” 16) El Universo, 21 June 2009, “Estado assume arreglo ambiental” 17) E&P Forum, 1991. Oil Industry Operating Guideline for Tropical Rainforests, The Oil

Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, London, UK. Report No. 2.49/170.

18) E&P Forum, 1993. Exploration and Production (E&P) Waste Management Guidelines.The Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, London, UK.Report No. 2.58/196.

19) E&P Forum, 1996. Decommissioning, Remediation, and Reclamation Guidelines for Onshore Exploration and Production Sites.The Oil Industry International Exploration and Production Forum, London, UK.Report No. 2.70/242. October 1996.

20) Greeno, J.L., Hedstrom, G.S., and DiBerto, M. 1985. Environmental Auditing Fundamentals and Techniques. John Wiley & Sons. New York.





21) Guckian, W.M., Hurst, K.G., Kerns, B.K., Moore, D.W., Biblo, J.T., and Thompson, R.D. 1993. Initiating an Audit Program: A Case History. SPE 25955. SPE/EPA Exploration & Production Environmental Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 7-10 March 1993.

22) Hamilton, W.A., Sewell, H.J., and G. Deeley, 1999, Technical Basis for Current Soil Management Levels of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, 6th International Petroleum Environmental Conference, Houston, TX, November 16-18, 1999.

23) ICF, 2000. Overview of Exploration and Production Waste Volumes and Waste Management Practices in the United States, Based on API Survey of Onshore and Coastal Exploration and Production Operations for 1995 and API Survey of Natural Gas Processing Plants for 1995. ICF Consulting, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. May 2000.

24) IHS, 2009. IHS International Exploration and Production (E&P) Database, 2009. 25) IOCC, 1965. Water Problems Associated with Oil Production in the United States.Interstate

Oil Compact Commission, Oklahoma City, OK. 26) IOCC, 1983, “1983 Legal Report of Oil and Gas Conservation Activities,” Interstate Oil

Compact Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 27) IOCC, 1990. EPA/IOCC Project on State Regulation of Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production Waste.Interstate Oil Compact Commission. December 1990. 28) IOGCC, 2000. Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, “Guidelines for the Review of

State Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulatory Program” June, 2000. State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations. http://www.strongerinc.org.

29) ISO, 2005. "General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025, Second Edition, 2005-05-15, International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.

30) Jones, F. V., and Arthur J. J. Leuterman, 1990. State Regulatory Programs For Drilling Fluids Reserve Pit Closure: An Overview. First International Symposium on Oil & Gas Exploration and Production Waste Management Practices. New Orleans, LA. 10-13 September 1990.

31) LADEQ, 1997. Title 33, Part IX, Subpart 1, §708. Exploration for and Production of Oil and Natural Gas. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Baton Rouge, LA

32) LADOC, 1986. Amendment to Statewide Order No. 29-B. Louisiana Department of Conservation, Office of Conservation, Baton Rouge, LA. 20 January 1986.

33) Liu, B., Douglas, G.S., Hardenstine, J.H. (Oct. 2006). The Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Three Ecuadorian Crude Oils. Int’l. Conf. Contaminated Soils, Sediments and Water, 22nd Annual Mtg., Amherst, MA.

34) Louisiana State University, 2005, “Atlas: Louisiana Statewide Graphical Information System (GIS), http://atlas.lsu.edu/; Oil and Gas Wells (North La. and South La.) Database.

35) McFaddin, M. A., 1996. Oil and Gas Field Waste Regulations Handbook.PennWell Publishing Company. Tulsa, OK.

36) Nelson, D.D. 1998. International Environmental Auditing. Government Institutes. Rockville, Maryland.

37) NOAA, 2010."Gas Flaring Estimates," National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/interest/gas_flares.html.

38) NOM 143, 2005. Respuestas a los comentarios recibidos respecto del Proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-143-SEMARNAT-2003, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Diario Oficial, 16 de febrero de 2005.

39) OGP, 2000, “Flaring and Venting in the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry,” Report No. 2.79/288, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, London, United Kingdom, January 2000.





40) OGP, 2006. Environmental Performance in the E&P Industry, 2005 Data. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, London, UK.Report No. 383.

41) OGP, 2009. Environmental Performance in the E&P Industry, 2008 Data. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, London, UK.Report No. 429.

42) O'Reilly, Kirk and Thorsen, Waverly(2010) 'Impact of Crude Oil Weathering on the Calculated Effective Solubility of Aromatic Compounds: Evaluation of Soils from Ecuadorian Oil Fields', Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal, 19: 4, 391 — 404.

43) Prieto, W, 2006, “Quema y Venteo de Gas en el Ecuador,” slideshow presented by Ing. Washington Prieto Rigaud, Dirección Nacional de Hidrocarburos del Ministerio de Energía y Minas del Ecuador, Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) Conference, Quito, Ecuador, 2006.

44) Rifai, H. and Suarez, M.P. 2000. The RBCA Success Story: RBCA and natural attenuation: More than a common sense approach to remediation. Environmental Protection Magazine, December 2000.

45) RRC, 1984. Railroad Commission of Texas, Texas Administrative Code Title 16, Part 1, Chapter 3, Rule 3.8, 1984

46) RRC, 1993. Title 16 Texas Administrative Code, §3.91 Cleanup of Soil Contaminated by a Crude Oil Spill. Railroad Commission of Texas, Austin, Texas.

47) RRC, 2000, Field Guide for the Assessment and Cleanup of Soil and Groundwater Contaminated with Condensate from a Spill Incident (Statewide Rules 8, 20 and 91). http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/environmental/spills/spillcleanup.php, accessed August 2010.

48) RRC, 2009. Personal Communication, Railroad Commission of Texas, Oil and Gas Division, Technical Permitting, Environmental Permits and Support, February 2009.

49) TPHCWG, 1998. Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental media, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working group Series, Volume 1, Amherst Scientific Publishers, March 1998.

50) USACE, 1999, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Biodegradation of POL-Contaminated Washrack Sludge, Public Works Technical Bulletin no. 420-49-27.

51) USEPA, 1978, “Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources,” EPA-450/2-78-022, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1978.

52) USEPA 1984, “Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites—A Methods Manual: Volume Il. Available Sampling Methods,” Second Edition, EPA-600/4-84-076, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV, December 1984 (p. 1-6 to 1-8).

53) USEPA, 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846, Third Edition and Updates, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

54) USEPA, 1986a. “Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D, Non-Hazardous Waste Programs”, office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., October 1986

55) USEPA, 1986b. United States Procedures for Sampling and Analysis of Hazardous Waste,EPA/600/D-86/128, July 1986.

56) USEPA, 1988. “Report of USEPA Region 5: Solid Waste Disposal in the United States”, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., October 1988

57) USEPA, 1989. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Risk Assessment Guidelines for Superfund EPA/540/1-89/002 US EPA Washington, D.C.

58) USEPA, 1991, Final NPDES General Permits for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, Onshore Subcategory - States of Louisiana (LAG320000), New Mexico





(NMG320000), Oklahoma (OKG320000) and Texas (TXG320000), 56 Federal Register 7698, February 25, 1991.

59) USEPA, 1992, “Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary Sources,” EPA/453/R-92/018, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1992.

60) USEPA, 1996, "Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide," EPA/540/R-96/018, Publication 9355.4-23, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 1996.

61) USEPA, 2001. "EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans," QA/R-2, EPA/240/B-01/002, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C., March 2001.

62) USEPA, 2008, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database. http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html. (Accessed: January 2008)

63) USEPA Region 8, 2003, “Report of USEPA Region 8, Oil & Gas Environmental Assessment Efforts, 1996-2002,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

64) USGS, United States Geological Survey, Energy Resources Program, Produced Water Database (chloride), http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/prov/prodwat/data2.htm, accessed in August 2010.

65) Veil, J.A., M.G. Puder, D. Elcock, R.J. Redweick, 2004. A White Paper Describing Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Contract W-31-109-Eng-38; Argonne National Laboratory, January 2004.

66) Villegas, 1998, “Applications – Risk-Based Corrective Actions for Abandoned E&P Well Sites in Colombia,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper #46846, 1998.

67) Wakim, P. G., 1987, API 1985 Production Waste Survey, Statistical Analysis and Survey Results, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.

68) Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), 2003, An Assessment of Laboratory Leaching Tests for Predicting the Impacts of Fill Material on Ground Water and Surface Water Quality, Report Publication No. 03-09-107, December 2003.

69) World Bank, 1998. Oil and Gas Development (Onshore), Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook. July 1998.

70) World Bank, 2002. Global Gas Flaring Reduction Initiative, Report on Consultations with Stakeholders. The World Bank Group. Washington, DC.

71) World Bank, 2010a. Global Gas Flaring Reduction, A Public-Private Partnership. About GGFR. The World Bank web site at http://go.worldbank.org/Q7E8SP9J90

72) World Bank, 2010b. Global Gas Flaring Reduction, A Public-Private Partnership. GGFR Partners Around the World. The World Bank web site at http://go.worldbank.org/HI6WA99JE0

73) WHO, 1993, Drinking Water Guidelines, Volume 1 Recommendations, Chemical Aspects, http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/2edvol1c.pdf (accessed September 13, 2004).

74) WHO, 2006, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Incorporating First Addendum Volume 1 Recommendations, 3rd Edition.

Efficiency of Flares for Gas Combustion

75) OGP, 2000, Flaring & Venting in the Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Industry, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, Report No. 2.79/288, January 2000.

76) USEPA, 1983, “Flare Efficiency Study,” EPA-600/2-83-052, July 1983.


GSI Job No. ~-2841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Sample Site 10

Number' 2721 AG-02 2722 AG-02 2723 AG-02 2724 AG-02 2725 AU-17 2726 AU-17 2727 AU-17 2728 AU-17 2729 AU-17 2730 AU-17 2731 AU-17 2732 AU-17 2733 AU-17 2734 AU-17 2735 AU-17 2736 AU-17 2737 AU-17 2738 AU-17 2739 AU-17 2740 AU-19 2741 AU-19 2742 AU-19 2743 AU-19 2744 AU-19 2745 AU-19 2746 AU-19 2747 AU-19 2748 AU-19 2749 AU-19 2750 AU-19 2751 AU-19 2752 AUCentral PS 2753 YUL PS 2754 YUL PS 2755 YUL PS

Site Type Pit!

Pit I Area Type Area

RAP - -RAP - -RAP 2 Rernediated RAP 3 Rernediated RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP 1 Rernediated RAP 1 Rernediated RAP 2 Rernediated RAP 2 Rernediated RAP 3 Rernediated RAP 3 Rernediated RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP 1 Rernediated RAP 1 Rernediated RAP 2 Rernediated RAP 2 Rernediated RAP 2 Rernediated RAP 2 Rernediated RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -RAP - -

ENVI RON MENTAL

Table 5.A.1 Court Experts Soil Samples

ItemType Sample 10 Sample Date Field

Sample Depth Interval(m) ; DUPlicate? Non-RAP Itern M2-1 13-Jun-08 No 0-0.3 rn Non-RAP Itern M2-2 13-Jun-08 No 2-2.2 rn

Subject to TCLP Standard M1 12-Jun-08 No -Subject to TPH Standard M3 13-Jun-08 No -

Non-RAP Itern M10 SPMT 11-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M11 SPMT 11-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M12 SPPMT 11-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M13 SPMT 11-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M14 SPMT 12-Mar-09 No I 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M15 SPMT 12-Mar-09 No I 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M16 SPMT 12-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M8SPMT 11-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M9SPMT 11-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn

Subject to TCLP Standard M1 S.S 10-Mar-09 No 0.25 rn Subject to TCLP Standard M2 P 10-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn Subject to TCLP Standard M3S.S 10-Mar-09 No 0.25 rn Subject to TCLP Standard M4S P 10-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn Subject to TCLP Standard M5S.S 10-Mar-09 No 0.25 rn Subject to TCLP Standard M6S.P 10-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn

Non-RAP Itern M11S.P 12-Mar-09 No 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn / 1.80-2.00rn Non-RAP Itern M12S.P 12-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.60-1.80rn Non-RAP Itern M13S.P 12-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.70-1.90rn Non-RAP Itern M4S.P 10-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn / 1.40-1.60rn Non-RAP Itern M5S.P 10-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.1 0-1.30rn /1.90-2.1 Orn Non-RAP Itern M6S.P 12-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.1 0-1.30rn /1.90-2.1 Orn

Subject to TCLP Standard M1 S.S 10-Mar-09 No 0.25 rn Subject to TCLP Standard M2S.P 10-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.00-1.20rn Subject to TCLP Standard M10S.P 12-Mar-09 No 0.6-0.8 rn Subject to TCLP Standard No 0.25 rn Subject to TCLP Standard M8S.P 12-Mar-09 No 1.3-1.5 rn Subject to TCLP Standard M9S.P 12-Mar-09 No 3.2rn

Non-RAP Itern M1S AU.C 11-Mar-09 No 0.60-0.80rn / 1.10-1.30rn Non-RAP Itern MS5A 24-Mar-09 No -Non-RAP Itern MS 6 (MS5b) 24-Mar-09 No -Non-RAP Itern MS 7 (MS 5c) 24-Mar-09 No -


GSI Job No. '- _041-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table S.A.2 Court Experts Soil Samples - Analytical Methods and Laboratories Constituent Type Constituent Laboratory Analytical Method

Total TPH ANNCY EPA 8440/EPA 418.1-PEE/ANNCY/08 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Total TPH Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA 418-Mod

Total TPH-TCLP ANNCY EPA 418.1-PEE/ANNCY/01 Cadmium ANNCY APHA 3120B-PEE/ANNCY/74 Cadmium Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA3050B

Metals Lead ANNCY APHA 3120B-PEE/ANNCY/74 Lead Universidad Central Del Ecuador Metodo Interno Nickel ANNCY APHA 3120B-PEE/ANNCY/74 Nickel Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA3050B

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Total PAH ANNCY HPLC-PEE/ANNCY/67

IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL


GSI Job No. '- _d41-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table 5.A.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Soil Sample

SitelO Sample 10 Pitl Area Number

2721 AG-02 M2-1 -2722 AG-02 M2-2 2723 AG-02 M1 2 2724 AG-02 M3 3 2725 AU-17 M10SPMT 2726 AU-17 M11 SPMT -2727 AU-17 M12 SPPMT -2728 AU-17 M13SPMT -2729 AU-17 M14SPMT -2730 AU-17 M15SPMT -2731 AU-17 M16SPMT -2732 AU-17 M8SPMT -2733 AU-17 M9SPMT 2734 AU-17 M1 S.S 1 2735 AU-17 M2 P 1 2736 AU-17 M3S.S 2 2737 AU-17 M4SP 2 2738 AU-17 M5S.S 3 2739 AU-17 M6S.P 3 2740 AU-19 M11S.P -2741 AU-19 M12S.P -2742 AU-19 M13S.P -2743

~ M4S.P -

2744 M5S.P 2745 AU-19 M6S.P 2746 AU-19 M1 S.S 1 2747 M2S.P 1 2748 AU-19 M10S.P 2 2749 AU-19 M7S.P 2 2750 AU-19 M8S.P 2 2751 AU-19

~~ 2752 AUCentral PS 2753 YUL PS 2754 YUL PS MS -2755 YUL PS MS 7 (MS 5c) -

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/Kg)

Total TPH Total TPH-TCLP (mg/L)

8949.45 435.73 131.08 956.1 -<100 <0.2 642 0.2 980 0.2

<100 <0.2 <100 <0.2 434 0.2 744 0.8 462 0.5

<100 <0.2 650 0.4

8380 1 141 0.2 472 0.2

<100 0.2 1586 0.6 <100 <0.2 <100 <0.2 <100 <0.2 1012 0.3 166 0.3

<100 <0.2 402 <0.2 454 0.3 197 <0.2

<100 <0.2 1390 0.3 <100 <0.2 8260 9.7

- 1.3 - <0.2 - <0.2

IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL

Metals (mg/Kg) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/Kg)

Cadmium Lead Nickel Total PAH

3.8 3.8 35.7 -- --

- - - -<0.1 12.8 6.68 <0.02

0.189 11.2 11.2 0.15 0.15 10.9 12.4 0.3 <0.1 6.6 7.88 <0.02

0.118 15.8 12.3 <0.02 <0.1 7.92 6.21 0.044 <0.1 9.61 7.43 <0.02 0.26 21.3 15 0.18

0.172 10.3 10.8 <0.02 0.194 15.5 37.3 0.029 0.46 31.7 21.3 0.43

0.192 62.9 11.1 <0.02 0.111 8.41 10.3 0.13 <0.1 10.1 6.63 <0.02 <0.1 10.6 7.21 0.3

0.735 8.58 13.4 <0.02 <0.1 11.6 5.68 <0.02 <0.1 11.5 7.96 <0.02 <0.1 14.5 9.54 <0.02 <0.1 11 5.65 <0.02 <0.1 11.5 6.77 <0.02 <0.1 12.3 5.86 <0.02 <0.1 13.3 5.31 <0.02

0.128 9.53 6.32 <0.02 <0.1 11 -~- <0.02

0.133 14.8 8.79 0.27 <0.1 10 7.69 <0.02

0.264 11.2 17 0.44 - -

:-- -


GSI Job No. ",-2841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Sample Number I 2756 I

Site 10 I AG-02 I

I~SI ENVI RON MENTAL

Table 5.8.1 Court Experts Asphalt Mat Sample Site Type I Sample 10 I Sample Date I Field Duplicate? I Sample Depth Interval (m)

RAP I M4 I 13-Jun-08 I No I 0-0.1 m


GSI Job No. '" "041-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table 5.8.2 Court Experts Asphalt Mat Sample - Analytical Methods and Laboratories Constituent Type Constituent Laboratory Analytical Method

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH as DRO+GRO Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA 418-Mod Cadmium Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA3050B

Metals Lead Universidad Central Del Ecuador Metodo Interno Nickel Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA3050B

IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL


GSI Job No. Co _v41-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/Kg) TotalTPH

1085.84 Cadmium

3.7

ENVI RON MENTAL

Metals (mg/Kg) Lead Nickel 9.4 42.5


GSI Job No. ,-,-<1841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Sample Number 2757 2758 2759 2760

Site 10 AG-02

CUL PS CUL PS SSF-REF

IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL

Table S.C.1 Court Experts Sediment Samples Site Type Sample 10 Sample Date Field Duplicate?

RAP M6 14-Jun-08 No RAP M3SED 24-Mar-09 No RAP M4SED 24-Mar-09 No

Non-RAP IJ-SSFF-RA-SED2 25-Apr-07 No


GSI Job No. <.. _041-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table S.C.2 Court Experts Sediment Samples - Analytical Methods and Laboratories Constituent Type Constituent Laboratory Analytical Method

TPH as GRO TestAmerica EPA8015B

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Total TPH TestAmerica EPA8015B Total TPH Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA 418-Mod

Total TPH-TCLP ANNCY EPA 418.1-PEE/ANNCY/01 Benzene T estAmerica EPA 8260B

BTEX Toluene T estAmerica EPA 8260B

Ethylbenzene TestAmerica EPA 8260B Xylene (total) T estAmerica EPA 8260B

Cadmium Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA3050B Metals Lead Universidad Central Del Ecuador Metodo Interno

Nickel Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA3050B Acenaphthene TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Acenaphthylene TestAmerica EPA 8270C Anthracene T estAmerica EPA 8270C

Benzo (a) anthracene TestAmerica EPA 8270C Benzo (a) pyrene T estAmerica EPA 8270C

Benzo (b) fluoranthene T estAmerica EPA 8270C Benzo (9.!!~lene T estAmerica EPA 8270C

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Benzo (k) fluoranthene TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Chrysene TestAmerica EPA 8270C Dibenzo (a.h) anthracene TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Fluoranthene T estAmerica EPA 8270C Fluorene T estAmerica EPA 8270C

Indeno (1.2.3-cd) p~rene T estAmerica EPA 8270C Nal2hthalene T estAmerica EPA 8270C

Phenanthrene TestAmerica EPA 8270C Pyrene T estAmerica EPA 8270C

l~SI ENVIRONMENTAL

_ ..


GSI Job No. U _041-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1013

Table 5.C.3 Court Experts Analytical Results· Sediment

Sample Number SitelO Sample 10

2757 AG-02 M6 2758 CUL PS M3SEO 2759 CUL PS M4SEO 2760 SSF-REF IJ-SSFF-RA-SED2

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/Kg)

TPHas ORO TotalTPH Total TPH·TCLP

(mglL) - 380.45 -- <0.2 - <0.2

<0.1 NO -

IGSI ENVIRON MENTAL

BTEX (mg/Kg) Metals (mg/K I)

Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylene

Cadmium Lead Nickel (total) 3.4 <3.5 43.2

- - -- -

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005


GSI Job No. G-2841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 2 of 3

Table S.C.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Sediment

Sampl~ Number SitelO Sample 10

2757 AG-02 M6 2758 CUL PS M3SED 2759 CUL PS M4SED 2760 SSF-REF IJ-SSFF-RA-SED2

Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene

- -- -

<0.39 <0.39

IGSI ENVI RON MENTAL

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/Kg)

Anthracene Benzo (a) Benzo (a) Benzo(b) Benzo(ghi) Benzo (k)

anthracene ovrene fluoranthene oervlene fluoranthene - - - -

- - - -- - -

<0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.39


GSI Job No. L. _-41-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 3 of 3

Table 5.C.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Sediment


2757 AG-02 M6 2758 CUL PS M3SED 2759 CUL PS M4SED 2760 SSF-REF JJ-SSFF-RA-SED2

Chrysene . Oibenzo (a,h)

anthracene -

<0.39 <0.39

ENVIRONMENTAL

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, cont. (mg/Kg)

Fluoranthene Fluorene Indimo (1,2,3-

Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene cd) pyrene - - - -- - - -- - - -

<0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.39


GSI Job No, _,<!841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Sample Number 2761 2762

I~SI ENVIRONMENTAL

Table 5.0.1 Court Experts Drainage Sediment Samples SitelD Site Type Sample 10 Sample Date Field Duplicate? YU PS RAP M 10 SED 25-Mar-09 No YU PS RAP M8 SED 25-Mar-09 No


GSI Job No. '- _041-700 Issued: 3 September 201 0 Page 1 of 1

IGSI F.NVI RON MENTAL


GSI Job No. v _-041-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table 5_0.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Drainage Sediment Sample Number I SitelO I Sample 10

2761 I YU PS I M 10SED 2762 I YU PS I MBSED

IGSI ENVI RON MENTAL

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Total TPH-TCLP (mglL)

7.1 5


GSI Job No. ~·"841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Sample Number 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767

Site 10 AU-17

CUL PS CUL PS GU PS GU PS

I~SI ENVIRONMENTAL

Table 5.E.1 Court Experts Groundwater Samples Site Type Sample 10 Sample Date Field Duplicate? Used for Drinking?

RAP M7A 10-Mar-09 No No RAP M1 CH 24-Mar-09 No Yes RAP M2CH 24-Mar-09 No Yes RAP M15 CH 26-Mar-09 No Yes RAP M16CH 26-Mar-09 No Yes


GSI Job No. '-' _A1-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table 5.E.2 Court Experts Groundwater Samples - Analytical Methods and Laboratories Constituent Type Constituent Laboratory Analytical Method

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH as DRO+GRO ANNCY EPA 418.1-PEE/ANNCY/01 Barium ANNCY APHA 3111 D-PEE/ANNCY/31

Metals Chromium ANNCY APHA 3111 B-PEE/ANNCY/35

Lead ANNCY APHA 3111 B-PEE/ANNCY/34 Vanadium ANNCY APHA 3111 D-PEE/ANNCY/36

Coliforms Fecal Coliform ANNCY APHA 9223 B-PEE/ANNCY/76 Total Coliform ANNCY APHA 9223 B-PEE/ANNCY/45

ENVIRONMENTAL

--


GSI Job No. L. ~v41-700

Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table 5.E.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Groundwater Sample Number SitelO Sample 10

2763 AU-17 M7A 2764 CUL PS M1CH 2765 CUL PS M2CH 2766 GU PS M15CH 2767 GU PS M16CH

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L) TotalTPH Barium

0.4 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5

- -

I(;SI ENVIRONMENTAL

Metals (mg/L) Coliforms (NMP ufc/100 mL) Chromium Lead Vanadium Fecal Coliform I Total Coliform

<0.1 <0.2 <1 t <0.1 <0.2 <1 - t <0.1 <0.2 <1 - t <0.1 <0.2 <1 - t

- - <1 t >2420


~,:;I Job h ... ~-2841-700

Issued: 3 September 201 0 Page 1 of 1

Table 5.F.1 Court Experts Surface Water Samples

ENVIRONMENTAL

, , ·· ... 1··:' ,:"b" ..' •... '5':'" ',', ·,,·,.'s:I···t'e'.·.·.·.·T····y·p"e: .. J ,·:"""':5·;"";"'1'::'," .... ":.:: ':"":5';' ········'··,·::"o:;/t'·;··;'l.:Field; "" >,.,.IN ... atura.·.I,.· •.. §o.· .. d .. ,y.'.o. f •. W., a .. , .. t.e ... ~;9,i". )', ,'·u'.··s',·.·e:.·,d·.·.'.f'o·.:r·,·.o.'r·'.I.·n·k·l·n·9.?· .. ,' " Samp e.N .. lJ,m .. , er.. .1 .. t"f:l .. IO: '.' '.'::' ,amp eO::::: ,':amp e .. a ei: :.'O' .... ,,·;.'t'·?'.·, '; .. ' , .

, ., ,,'. ,..:., ':" :)". '''''' ,;.,,:. ' . "" .; •• > U ... dca e,' ",' 'DrainageArea? _____ ~_~ ___ .. ___ AG-02 RAP I M-5A I 13-Jun-08 No Natural No

2769 ----=A-,:.G=c-=-O=2---I-----':::RA'-:::.:::P--f-----'-'M-:--.::.:50~--·---,.---·13-Jun-08 No Natural No ----~76----- CUL PS RAP MA 13 --2-4--M-ar--09 No -:..:N=at=-ur=-=a"--I---'-------·--'-N.:.::o'------I

---2771---------- SSF-REF Non-RAP IJ-SSFF-RA-AS1 25-Apr-07 No oraina!;t~ _______ __j--·------.. ---;-;N:_o--~-~--~--~ 2772 SSF-REF ---- Non~RAP IJ-SSFF-RA-AS2 25-Apr-07 No Natural No 2773 YU PS RAP MA 9 25-Mar-09 No ---+-·----:O-:"'r-'cai:..:n"-'agC'-'e-------t-----:NC7o'--------·-----


GSI Job No. '-' _041-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table 5.F.2 Court Experts Surface Water Samples - Analytical Methods and Laboratories Constituent Type Constituent Laboratory Analytical Method

TPH as GRO T estAmerica EPA 8015B

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Total TPH ANNCY EPA 418.1-PEEfANNCYf01 Total TPH TestAmerica EPA 8015B Total TPH Universidad Central Del Ecuador EPA418.1 Benzene TestAmerica EPA 8260B

BTEX Toluene TestAmerica EPA 8260B

Ethylbenzene T estAmerica EPA 8260B Xylene (total) T estAmerica EPA 8260B

Barium ANNCY APHA 3111 D-PEEfANNCYf31 Barium Universidad Central Del Ecuador 8M 3030B, 3111 B

Chromium ANNCY APHA 3111 B-PEEfANNCYf35

Metals Chromium Universidad Central Del Ecuador 8M 3030B, 3111 B

Lead ANNCY APHA 3111 B-PEEfANNCYf34 Lead Universidad Central Del Ecuador odo Interno

Vanadium ANNCY D-PEEfANNCYf36 Vanadium Universidad Central Del Ecuador 8M 30308, 3111 B

Acenaphthene T estAmerica EPA 8270C Acenaphthylene TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Anthracene T estAmerica EPA 8270C Benzo (a) anthracene TestAmerica EPA 8270C -

Benzo (a) pyrene TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Benzo (b) fluor~ T estAmerica EPA 8270C Benzo (ghi) pe TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Benzo (k) fluora T estAmerica - EPA 8270C

Chrysene TestAmerica EPA 8270C Dibenzo (a,h) ant TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Fluoranthene TestAmerica EPA 8270C Fluorene T estAmerica EPA 8270C

Indeno (1,2,3-cd) l2yrene TestAmerica EPA 8270C Naphthalene TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Phenanthrene T estAmerica EPA 8270C Pyrene TestAmerica EPA 8270C

Coliforms Fecal Coliform Universidad Central Del Ecuador Metodo Interno Petrifilm Total Coliform Universidad Central Del Ecuador

"----Metodo Interno Petrifilm

IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL


GSI Job No. '-- • .41-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 4

Table 5.F.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Surface Water

Sample Number SitelD Sample 10

2768 AG-02 M-5A 2769 AG-02 M-5D 2770 CUL PS MA13 2771 SSF-REF IJ-SSFF-RA-AS 1 2772 SSF-REF IJ-SSFF-RA-AS2 2773 YU PS MA9

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L)

TPHasGRO TotalTPH Benzene

- 1.57 -- 1.67 -

<0.2 -0.67 0.67 0.22

<0.05 ND <0.0005 <0.2 -

ENVIRONMENTAL

BTEX (mg/L) Metals (mg/L)

Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylene

Barium Chromium Lead Vanadium (total)

- <0.45 <0.041 <0.052 <1 - - <0.45 <0.041 <0.052 <1

- - <0.5 <0.1 <0.2 <1 0.092 <0.01 0.033 - -

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 - -- - - 0.871 <0.1 <0.2 <1


GSI Job No. G-2841-700 Issued: 3 Seplember 2010 Page 2 of 4

Table 5.F.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Surface Water !

Sample Number SitelO Sample 10 ."


Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene

- -

<0.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051

-

IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (mg/Kg) . Benzo (a) Benzo (a) 1;nzo(b) Benzo (ghi) Benzo(k)

Anthracene anthracene pyrene ranthene perylene fluoranthene

- -- -

- - - -<0.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.01 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.01 <0.0051

- - -


GSI Job No. c. "041-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 3 of 4

Table 5_F_3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Surface Water

Sample Number SitelD Sample 10

2768 AG-02 M-5A 2769 AG-02 M-5D 2770 CUL PS MA13 --2771 SSF-REF IJ-SSFF-RA-AS 1 2772 .-c--__ ~~...::.RE'='___ IJ-SSFF-RA-AS2 2773 YU PS MA9

Chrysene

--

<0.0051 <0.0051 .. _

IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, cont_ (mg/Kg)

Dibenzo (a,h) Fluoranthene Fluorene

Indeno (1,2,3-Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene anthracene cd) pyrene

- - - -- -

- -<0.0051-- <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.01 0.01 <0.0051 <0.0051

~Q.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.01 <0.0051 <0.0051 <0.0051 -


GSI Job No. G-2841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 4 of 4

Table 5.F.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Surface Water



ENVIRONMENTAL

Coliforms (NMP ufc/100 mL)

Fecal Coliform Total Coliform

-1100 3200

--


GSI Job No. _-,,841-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Sample Number 2774 2775 2776

Site 10 AU-19

AUS PS AUCentral PS

ENVIRONMENTAL

Table S.G.1 Court Experts Tap Water Samples Site Type Sample 10 Sample Date Field Duplicate? Used for Drinkina?

RAP M14A 12-Mar-09 No Yes RAP M1A 12-Mar-09 No Yes RAP M2A 11-Mar-09 No Yes


GSI Job No. L _041-700 Issued: 3 September 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table 5.G.2 Court Experts Tap Water Samples - Analytical Methods and Laboratories Constituent Type Constituent Laboratory Analytical Method

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Total TPH ANNCY EPA 418.1-PEE/ANNCY/01 Barium ANNCY APHA 3111 D-PEE/ANNCY/31

Metals Chromium ANNCY APHA 3111 B-PEE/ANNCY/35

Lead ANNCY APHA 3111 B-PEE/ANNCY/34 Vanadium ANNCY APHA 3111 D-PEE/ANNCY/36

ICSI ENVIRON MENTAL


GSI Job No. c. _041-700 Issued: 3 Seplember 2010 Page 1 of 1

Table 5.G.3 Court Experts Analytical Results - Tap Water Sample Number SitelO Sample 10

2774 AU-19 M14A 2775 AUS PS M1A 2776 AUCentral PS M2A

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/L) TotalTPH

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2

IGSI ENVIRONMENTAL

Metals (mg/L) Barium Chromium Lead Vanadium

<0.5 <0.1 <0.2 <1 <0.5 <0.1 <0.2 <1 <0.5 <0.1 <0.2 <1
