Power Point of Douglas Beltman
Transcript of Power Point of Douglas Beltman
STRATUS CONSULTING
Scientific Evidence in the Aguinda et al. v. Chevron Case
Douglas BeltmanStratus Consulting
Boulder, CO
STRATUS CONSULTING
Outline
Texaco’s operations in Ecuador– History– Data on contamination
Chevron’s false claims that Petroecuador is responsible for the contamination Texaco’s ineffective “cleanup”Environmental damages estimatesChevron defense positions re: the scientific evidence against them
STRATUS CONSULTING
STRATUS CONSULTING
Texaco’s Oilfield Operations in Ecuador
Texaco drilled and operated 356 oil wells and built 22 production stations from 1967 to 1990Petroecuador took over operations in 1990; Texaco out of consortium in 1992
STRATUS CONSULTING
Wells Opened and Operated by Texaco
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Year
Num
ber o
f wel
ls
STRATUS CONSULTING
STRATUS CONSULTING
Texaco Operations
River Station
Crude
Esmeraldas
Well
Well
WellWell
WellWell
Well
Gas
Producedwater
STRATUS CONSULTING
Primary Sources of Contamination from Texaco’s Operations
916 unlined, abandoned pits with wastes from wells (based on aerial photo analysis)
Photo credit:L. Dematteis
STRATUS CONSULTINGCourtesy of M. Pallares
STRATUS CONSULTING
A Texaco oil well after drilling is completed. Oil pits are clearly visible.
STRATUS CONSULTING
Oil roads and wellpads opened the area to development. This photo shows a school located adjacent to a Texaco well and pit
Courtesy of M. Pallares
STRATUS CONSULTING
Pits
Used for disposal of well drilling, development, and production wastes– Unrecovered oil – Drilling muds – Chemicals used to develop the wells
(acids, biocides)
One of Texaco’s oil pits (photo taken in 2008)
STRATUS CONSULTING
Texaco Pits Constructed without linersConstructed with built-in overflow pipesUsed for permanent disposal
One of Texaco’s oil pits (photo taken in 2008)
STRATUS CONSULTING Courtesy of M. Pallares
Schematic showing environmental pathways by which Texaco’s pits cause contamination
STRATUS CONSULTING
Pit Usage in the U.S.
“Reserve” pits common in the past, and still in useRegulations and industry guidance going back to the 1940s:– Must be designed to prevent contamination of
groundwater, surface water (usually lined, but not always depending on usage and site conditions)
– Used for temporary storage only (weeks to a few months)
– Tanks used instead of pits where possibleIn Ecuador, Texaco built pits designed to contaminate (no liners, overflow pipes directly to streams) and left them as permanent waste sites
STRATUS CONSULTING
1962 Guide from American Petroleum Institute Showing Industry Standard
Figure from API document
STRATUS CONSULTING
Produced Water
Texaco audits show that they discharged ~18 billion gallons from 1972-1990 into streams and rivers
Photo credit:M. Pallares
STRATUS CONSULTING
Oilfield Produced Water
Produced water occurs underground with oil and has to be separated from the oil at the surfaceTypically contains salts from the host rock and hydrocarbons from the oil and any chemicals injected into the well to aid in production
Pipes formerly used by Texaco to discharge produced water at one of its 22 processing stations (now used for stormwater discharge)
STRATUS CONSULTING
Produced Water
Petroecuador began reinjecting produced water soon after it took over operations 1990; now all is reinjectedData from Texaco’s time show that the produced water was toxic to aquatic life and contained high levels of petroleum hydrocarbons
STRATUS CONSULTING
Oilfield Produced Water
U.S. regulations for onshore discharge of produced water date back to the 1920sSince the 1920s, produced water is typicallyreinjected or treated to standards
Texaco dumped all of their produced water directly into rainforest rivers and streams used by local residents for drinking, bathing, washing clothes, etc.
STRATUS CONSULTING
Oil (TPH) in Produced Water Discharged by Texaco to Streams and Rivers
TPH in Agua de Formacion
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Agu
aric
o
Ata
cpi
AV
GA
uga
cent
ral
Aug
a S
ur
Con
onac
o
Lago
Nor
te
Sac
haC
entra
lS
acha
Nor
te N
o.1
Sac
haN
orte
No.
2
Sac
ha S
ur
Shu
shuf
indi
Cen
tral
Shu
shuf
indi
Nor
teS
hush
ufin
diS
urS
hush
ufin
diS
ur O
este
Yuc
a
Yuc
a
TPH
(mg/
L)
Ecuador limites: 0.325 mg/L TPH
Data source: Fugro-McClelland, 1992, which one of Texaco’s own audits of their operations in Ecuador
STRATUS CONSULTING
BTEX in Texaco Produced Water Discharged to Streams and Rivers
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Sacha Central Shushufindi N Shushufindi S
Con
cent
ratio
n (u
g/L)
Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes
Data source: Jocknick et al., 1994
EPA benzenestandard: 5 ug/L
STRATUS CONSULTING
Other Sources of Contamination
Oil spills from pipelinesTexaco’s audits: Texaco never had any spill detection or response programs in their ~25 years of operation
STRATUS CONSULTING
Other Sources of Contamination
Oil poured on roads
Photo credit:L. Dematteis, M. Pallares
STRATUS CONSULTING
Other Sources of Contamination
Air pollution from open burning of pits, flaring
Photo credit:M. Pallares
STRATUS CONSULTING
Data on Contamination
“Historical” studies (prior to trial)Data collected as part of the trial– Judicial inspections (plaintiffs, Chevron)– Cabrera and his team
STRATUS CONSULTING
Investigations conducted in the Napo Concession prior to the trial Study author Conducted on behalf of Study dates What was sampled Reference HBT AGRA Chevron-Texaco and
Petroecuador 1992-1993 Soil, surface water,
produced water HBT AGRA, 1993
Fugro-McClelland Chevron-Texaco and Petroecuador
1964-1990 Crude oil, produced water, surface water, groundwater
Fugro-McClelland West, 1992
Centro para Derechos
Economicós y Sociales 1994 Surface water, produced water
Jochnick et al., 1994
Woodward-Clyde International
Chevron-Texaco 1995-1998 Soil, water in pits Woodward-Clyde International, 2000
Ministry of Energy and Mines, Ecuador
Petroecuador; Controller of the State of Ecuador
1997-2001 Produced water, soils, water in pits
Contralaria General del Estado, 2003
Instituto de Epidemiología y Salud Communitaria “Manuel Amunárriz”
Instituto de Epidemiologia y Salud Communitaria “Manuel Amunarriz”
1999 Surface water San Sebastián et al., 2002
Instituto de Epidemiología y Salud Communitaria “Manuel Amunírriz”
Instituto de Epidemiologia y Salud Communitaria “Manuel Amunarriz”
1999 Surface water San Sebastián et al., 2005
Laboratorio de Suelos, Aguas, Plantas y Balanceados
Colegio Fisco-Misional Técnico Agropecuario Padre Miguel Gamboa
2000 Surface water, groundwater, sediment
Laboratorio de Suelos, Aguas, Plantas y Balanceados, 2000
STRATUS CONSULTING
Sites Sampled During the Trial(out of 356 wells, 22 stations)
934945Total
12111Stations
814834Wells
TotalCourt Expert (2007)
Judicial Inspections
(2003-6)
STRATUS CONSULTING
Judicial Inspections
Soils, sediment, groundwater, surface waterPetroleum (TPH), components of petroleum, metals~64,000 analyses total
STRATUS CONSULTING
Number of Samples
Matrix Plaintiffs Chevron Total Soil 351 838 1,189 Watera 103 328 431 Crude 4 12 16 Otherb 0 28 28 Total 458 1,206 1,664 a. includes surface water, groundwater, and production water. b. includes asphalt, leachate, and quality control samples.
STRATUS CONSULTING
TPH in Soil
Ecuador standard: 1,000 mg/kg TPHUS standard:– Regulated by State, standards vary– Recent shift toward regulation of BTEX
and away from TPH– 100 mg/kg TPH common standard in the
past
STRATUS CONSULTING
TPH in Soil
97%99%Total(93 sampled)
92%92%Stations (12 sampled)
98%100%Wells(81 sampled)
% sites with TPH > 1,000
mg/kg
% sites with TPH > 100
mg/kg
STRATUS CONSULTING
TPH in Soil
TPH
(ppm
)
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
EcuadorianLaw
Maximum TPH sampled at each site
STRATUS CONSULTING
Chevron collected samples only from locations away from the pits to show no contamination. This was typical of their sampling approach during the trial.
The Plaintiffs’ (or Demandantes) data document the extremely high petroleum contamination at the site. The units are mg/kg, or ppm, and 400,000 mg/kg = 40% oil.
STRATUS CONSULTING
TPH in Groundwater
32%104Court Expert (Cabrera)
1%192Chevron
59%39Demandantes
% > 0.325 mg/L TPH
No. samples
STRATUS CONSULTING
Petroecuador or Texaco?
Petroecuador took over operations in 1990The plaintiffs’ case is based only on sites built by Texaco, not any built by Petroecuador– ~25% of the sites operated by Texaco only
Most well site contamination occurred during drilling and initial development, not ongoing production -once production started, all material was sent directly to processing stations in a closed systemPetroecuador improvements over Texaco– Produced water reinjection– Oil spill detection and response– Well waste handling
STRATUS CONSULTING
TPH in Soil
98%100%Texaco, then Petroecuador
96%100%Texaco only
% sites with TPH > 1,000
mg/kg
% sites with TPH > 100
mg/kg
Well built by Texaco, then operated by:
STRATUS CONSULTING
Texaco Pit Cleanup in the 1990s
Chevron claims that they spent $40 million on a “cleanup”in the 1990sThe “cleanup” was ineffective:– They “touched” only 16% of their pits; e.g., they declared
pits with water being used by local communities (drinking water, fish farms) as not requiring cleanup, without confirmatory sampling
– High/meaningless cleanup standard• 1,000 mg/L TCLP (which is orders of magnitude higher
than the solubility limit of oil in the TCLP leaching solution)
– Poor confirmatory sampling• Data from the trial consistently show higher
contamination than in their cleanup “confirmatory”sampling
STRATUS CONSULTING
TPH in Soil
97%100%No
98%100%Yes
% sites with TPH > 1,000
mg/kg
% sites with TPH > 100
mg/kg
Well site built and “remediated”by Texaco?
STRATUS CONSULTING
Table 1. Texpet cleanup pits with TPH concentrations greater than 5,000 ppm.
Field name Well Pit
numberIn
RAPa No further
actionb Remediation
completec Maximum TPH (ppm)
Source for maximum TPH Well operated by
Aguarico Aguarico 8 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 8,183 Examen Pericial Texaco Aguarico Aguarico 9 Pit 1 Yes Yes No 13,947 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Aguarico Aguarico 10 Pit 1 Yes Yes No 17,544 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Aguarico Aguarico 10 Pit 3 Yes Yes No 8,181 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Atacapi Atacapi 5 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 21,976 Examen Pericial Texaco Auca Auca Sur 1 Pit 2 Yes Yes No 40,102 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Auca Auca Sur 1 Pit 3 Yes Yes No 29,979 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Guanta Guanta 4 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 5,510 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Lago Agrio Lago Agrio 1 Pit 1 Yes Yes No 21,521 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Lago Agrio Lago Agrio 5 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 8,830 Examen Pericial Texaco Lago Agrio Lago Agrio 5 Pit 2 Yes Yes No 20,923 Examen Pericial Texaco Lago Agrio Lago Agrio 16 Pit 1 Yes Yes No 175,095 Texaco Texaco-Petroecuador Parahuacu Parahuacu 3 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 2,065 Examen Pericial Texaco Ron Ron 1 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 9,632 Examen Pericial Texaco Sacha Sacha 18 Pit 1 Yes Yes No 41,306 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Sacha Sacha 18 Pit 2 Yes No Yes 35,380 Examen Pericial Texaco-Petroecuador Sacha Sacha 21 Pit 2 Yes No Yes 17,000 Texaco Texaco-Petroecuador Sacha Sacha 51 Pit 4 Yes No Yes 7,200 Texaco Texaco-Petroecuador Sacha Sacha 51 Pit 5 Yes Yes No 63,000 Texaco Texaco-Petroecuador Sacha Sacha 53 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 7,430 Demandantes Texaco-Petroecuador Sacha Sacha 57 Pit 2 Yes No Yes 8,100 Texaco Texaco Sacha Sacha 65 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 32,444 Demandantes Texaco-Petroecuador Sacha Sacha 85 Pit 1 Yes Yes No 20,000 Texaco Texaco-Petroecuador Sacha Sacha 94 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 5,600 Texaco Texaco Sacha Sacha 94 Pit 2 Yes No Yes 8,700 Texaco Texaco Shushufindi Shushufindi 7 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 5,334 Demandantes Texaco-Petroecuador Shushufindi Shushufindi 7 Pit 2 Yes No Yes 12,715 Demandantes Texaco-Petroecuador Shushufindi Shushufindi 8 Pit 1 Yes Yes No 7,350 Demandantes Texaco-Petroecuador Shushufindi Shushufindi 13 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 7,415 Demandantes Texaco-Petroecuador Shushufindi Shushufindi 13 Pit 3 Yes Yes No 27,001 Demandantes Texaco-Petroecuador Shushufindi Shushufindi 21 Pit 1 Yes No Yes 16 033 Demandantes Texaco-Petroecuador
This table shows examples of the contamination remaining at pits “cleaned” by Texaco, regardless of data source. “No further action” means Texaco decided during cleanup that no cleanup was required (e.g., pits were being used by local communities)
STRATUS CONSULTING
Court Expert Report on Environmental Damages
The Ecuadorian Court appointed an expert to prepare an estimate of environmental damages caused by TexacoPer court authorization, he considered and relied in part on materials prepared by Stratus Consulting (and many others)He issued two reports, the second updating the damages estimates of the first
STRATUS CONSULTING
Environmental Damages in the Court Expert Reports
$0.9 to $1.7B
$0.9 to $1.7B
Rainforest habitat impacts$375M$375MOil field infrastructure$430M$430MIndigenous impacts$428M$428MDrinking water system$480M$480MHealthcare system$3.2B-Groundwater remediation$2.7B$1.7BSoil remediation
Nov 2008
March 2008
Category
STRATUS CONSULTING
Environmental Damages in the Court Expert Reports
$18.1-$18.9B$7.2-$8.0BTotal w/o unjust enrichment
$26.5-$27.3B$15.5-$16.3BTotal
$8.4B$8.3BUnjust enrichment$9.5B$2.9BCancer deathsNov 2008March 2008Category
STRATUS CONSULTING
Environmental Damages Quantified by Plaintiff Experts
Plaintiffs submitted a separate environmental damages report prepared by:Douglas Allen, who has 25 years of experience as an environmental consultant working in soil and groundwater remediationDr. Lawrence Barnthouse, one of the nation's leaders in ecological risk assessment and a Fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of ScienceCarlos Emilio Picone, a medical doctor certified in critical care medicine and Chiefof the Pulmonary Section at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C.Jonathan S. Shefftz, a financial economist from Harvard who has performed economic modeling on theories of unjust enrichment for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of EnergyDr. Daniel L. Rourke, who has extensive experience applying advanced statistical techniques to solve complex litigation problems; andDr. Robert Paolo Scardina, a civil and environmental engineer and member of the faculty at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
STRATUS CONSULTING
Environmental Damages Quantified by Plaintiff Experts
Identified the damage categories as used in the court expert’s report as being appropriateTotal damages estimate: up to $113 billion
[Chevron was requested by the court to submit their own damages estimates, but they refused to, and now criticize the process as unfair]
STRATUS CONSULTING
Number of Cancer Cases per Family
Source: Examen Pericial, Annex L, 2008
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
<250 m 250 m – 500 m 500 m – 2 km Over 2 km
Distance family lives from oil well
% o
f Fam
iliesOne cancer case Two or more cases
STRATUS CONSULTING
Cancer Rates in Women
Source: Hurtig and San Sebastian, 1992
STRATUS CONSULTING
Chevron Positions re: Scientific Evidence
They deny that there is contamination by claiming:– Plaintiff data and court expert data are unreliable– Chevron data show no/little contamination (but see
earlier slide about their sampling approach)They say that any contamination is going away on its own and doesn’t require cleanup (but sites left untouched for 20 years remain highly contaminated)They say there is no proof of cause-effect for any individual in the area with cancer (ignoring the epidemiological studies)They make personal attacks on the scientists working for the Plaintiffs
STRATUS CONSULTING
Conclusions
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Texaco operated the oilfield with few or no environmental controls, and that their operations caused massive environmental contamination that persists todayBoth a court-appointed expert and a group of highly respected experts hired by the plaintiffs estimate the environmental damages at up to many tens of billions of dollarsChevron’s defense strategy is to ignore most of the scientific evidence, publicize false or misleading information, and make personal attacks