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, which the court dismissed. In September 2009, following the disclosure by Chevron of evidence that the judge participated in meetings in which businesspeople and individuals holding themselves out as government officials discussed the case and its likely outcome, the judge presiding over the case petitioned to be recused. In late September 2009, the judge was recused, and in October 2009, the full chamber of the provincial court affirmed the recusal, resulting in the appointment of a new judge. Chevron filed motions to annul all of the rulings made by the prior judge, but the new judge denied these motions. The court has completed most of the procedural aspects of the case and could render a judgment at any time. Chevron will continue a vigorous defense of any attempted imposition of liability.

     In the event of an adverse judgment, Chevron would expect to pursue its appeals and vigorously defend against enforcement of any such judgment; therefore, the ultimate outcome – and any financial effect on Chevron – remains uncertain. 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 has any utility in calculating a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss). Moreover, the highly uncertain legal environment surrounding the case provides no basis for management to estimate a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss).

     Environmental The company is subject to loss contingencies pursuant to laws, regulations, private claims and legal proceedings related to environmental matters that are subject to legal settlements or that in the future may require the company to take action to correct or ameliorate the effects on the environment of prior release of chemicals or petroleum substances, including MTBE, by the company or other parties. Such contingencies may exist for various sites, including, but not limited to, federal Superfund sites and analogous sites under state laws, refineries, crude-oil fields, service stations, terminals, land development areas, and mining operations, whether operating, closed or divested. These future costs are not fully determinable due to such factors as the unknown magnitude of possible contamination, the unknown timing and