MTBE

Chevron and many other companies in the petroleum industry have used methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a gasoline additive. The company is a party to 88 lawsuits and claims, the majority of which involve numerous other petroleum marketers and refiners, related to the use of MTBE in certain oxygenated gasolines and the alleged seepages of MTBE into groundwater. Chevron has agreed in principle to a tentative settlement of 60 pending lawsuits and claims. The terms of this agreement, which must be approved by a number of parties, including the court, are confidential and not material to the company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position.

Resolution of remaining lawsuits and claims may ultimately require the company to correct or ameliorate the alleged effects on the environment of prior release of MTBE by the company or other parties. Additional lawsuits and claims related to the use of MTBE, including personal-injury claims, may be filed in the future. The tentative settlement of the referenced 60 lawsuits did not set any precedents related to standards of liability to be used to judge the merits of the claims, corrective measures required or monetary damages to be assessed for the remaining lawsuits and claims or future lawsuits and claims. As a result, the company's ultimate exposure related to pending lawsuits and claims is not currently determinable, but could be material to net income in any one period. The company no longer uses MTBE in the manufacture of gasoline in the United States.

RFG Patent

Fourteen purported class actions were brought by consumers of reformulated gasoline (RFG) alleging that Unocal misled the California Air Resources Board into adopting standards for composition of RFG that overlapped with Unocal's undisclosed and pending patents. Eleven lawsuits were consolidated in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where a class action has been certified, and three were consolidated in a state court action. Unocal is alleged to have monopolized, conspired and engaged in unfair methods of competition, resulting in injury to consumers of RFG. Plaintiffs in both consolidated actions seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest on behalf of an alleged class of consumers who purchased "summertime" RFG in California from January 1995 through August 2005. The parties have reached a tentative agreement to resolve all of the above matters in an amount that is not material to the company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position. The terms of this agreement are confidential, and subject to further negotiation and approval, including by the courts.