the operations have been conducted solely by Petroecuador. At the conclusion of the consortium and following an independent third-party environmental audit of the concession area, Texpet entered into a formal agreement with the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador for Texpet to remediate specific sites assigned by the government in proportion to Texpet’s ownership share of the consortium. Pursuant to that agreement, Texpet conducted a three-year remediation program at a cost of $40 million. After certifying that the sites were properly remediated, the government granted Texpet and all related corporate entities a full release from any and all environmental liability arising from the consortium operations.

     Based on the history described above, Chevron believes that this lawsuit lacks legal or factual merit. As to matters of law, the company believes first, that the court lacks jurisdiction over Chevron; second, that the law under which plaintiffs bring the action, enacted in 1999, cannot be applied retroactively to Chevron; third, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations in Ecuador; and, fourth, that the lawsuit is also barred by the releases from liability previously given to Texpet by the Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador. With regard to the facts, the company believes that the evidence confirms that Texpet’s remediation was properly conducted and that the remaining environmental damage reflects Petroecuador’s failure to timely fulfill its legal obligations and Petroecuador’s further conduct since assuming full control over the operations.

     In April 2008, a mining engineer appointed by the court to identify and determine the cause of environmental damage, and to specify steps needed to remediate it, issued a report recommending that the court assess $8 billion, which would, according to the engineer, provide financial compensation for purported damages, including wrongful death claims, and pay for, among other items, environmental remediation, health care systems, and additional infrastructure for Petroecuador. The engineer’s report also asserted that an additional $8.3 billion could be assessed against Chevron for unjust enrichment. The engineer’s report is not binding on the court. Chevron also believes that the engineer’s work was performed and his report prepared in a manner contrary to law and in violation of the court’s orders. Chevron submitted a rebuttal to the report in which it asked the court to strike the report in its entirety. In November 2008, the engineer revised the report and, without additional evidence, recommended an increase in the financial compensation for purported damages to a total of $18.9 billion and an increase in the assessment for purported unjust enrichment to a total of $8.4 billion. Chevron submitted a rebuttal to the revised report, and Chevron will continue a vigorous defense of any attempted imposition of liability.

     Management does not believe an estimate of a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss) can be made in this case. Due to the defects associated with the engineer’s report, management does not believe the report itself has any utility in calculating a