Kaieteur News

GEORGETOWN
EnergiesNews 04 04 2022

 A thief comes when one least expects. In like manner was the environmental permit issued for ExxonMobil’s fourth project – the Yellowtail development.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an environmental permit for the Yellowtail development on March 30, along with a public notice, with a copy of the revised Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) document two days later, April 1.

ExxonMobil plans to extract up to 250,000 barrels of oil per day in the Stabroek Block of Guyana’s rich Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) through its subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), which plans to kickstart production in late 2025 or early 2026.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for Yellowtail was severely criticised for its deficiencies. Neither the EPA nor ExxonMobil ever disclosed the Terms of Reference for the study the entire statutory 60-day period that the EIA study was available for public scrutiny and comment. The EIA study was conducted by Exxon’s consultant, the Environmental Resources Management (ERM). Many organisations and environmentalists in Guyana and the Caribbean submitted written objections to the Environmental Assessment Board on gross deficiencies that were in the study which was hurriedly cobbled together a mere two months after the EPA had issued the Terms of Reference for the study.

Chief among the issues highlighted were the failure of ERM to deal with the socio-economic risks to Guyana and the Caribbean’s marine life and fisheries sector, as well as failure to adequately assess impacts of hazardous waste offshore and those transported for treatment and disposal onshore. Submissions outlined deficiencies, including the lack of basic baseline scientific data on where offshore reefs and fish nurseries were located relative to Exxon’s production areas and current flows, and noted that the study was extremely poor and prejudiced in downplaying impacts on Guyana and Caribbean nations that could be affected by an oil spill.

Submissions to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) also questioned whether ERM met the criteria as an “independent” firm under the Environmental Protection Act, as it has been the only firm selected to do all of ExxonMobil’s studies since Liza 1 approval back in 2015, reflecting a long-term relationship between the two companies.

The legality of ERM’s selection was also questioned by specialists, who are of the view that EPA did not follow the procedures under the Environmental Protection Act for shortlisting eligible consultants to conduct EIAs. Section 3 (a) of the Environmental Protection Act requires the EPA to “compile and amend from time to time with the assistance of internationally recognised environmental groups a list of approved persons who have the qualifications and experience to carry out environmental impact assessments.” The EPA did not engage internationally recognised environmental groups in screening ERM.

In a letter to the EPA, that was seen by Kaieteur News, experts and citizens: Simone Mangal-Joly, Alfred Buhlai, Vanda Radzik, Janette Bulkan, Denuta Radzik, Jerry Jailall, Alissa Trotz and Maya Trotz, who all participated in the virtual consultation meeting held on November 11, 2021, to discuss the EIA, said that not only were their questions not answered by ExxonMobil’s Consultant , but also their recommendation for the firm to provide answers in writing, before the closure of the public comment period, had fallen on deaf ears. Considering all the deficiencies and the flawed process, the group submitted that the EIA comment process had been miscarried and called upon the EPA to: “declare it null and void and reset EEPGL’s application for Environmental Authorisation”.

The EAB never responded publicly, or as this newspaper understands, directly to any of the entities that made submissions on the substance of their submissions. Its only response was to direct the EPA to publicly disclose the Terms of Reference for the study, which happened at the end of the 60-day comment period, leaving the public without any opportunity to scrutinise the EIA document against the terms of reference and participate in the statutory comment period as intended by the Environmental Protection Act.

This publication was told by the Executive Director of the EPA, Mr. Kemraj Parsram, on February 28, that the Environmental Assessment Board which is tasked with reviewing EIAs, and considering submissions made by independent observers, had made the decision for the EIA to be revised.

Parsram did not give specific details concerning what aspects of the EIA had to be modified, or a timeline for the adjustments and public disclosure. The EAB never disclosed what they asked the ERM to fix in the study, and neither the EAB nor the EPA ever disclosed the revised document for the public to see before the EPA issued the permit. The revised EIA document was published on Friday with the public notice that the permit had been granted.

In a brief comment to Kaieteur News, environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly, who had called out the technical deficiencies in the EIA that ERM had submitted said, “We were hopeful when we saw efforts to get an independent review and revision of the EIA. We were expecting the EPA to disclose the EIA revisions to the public and honour the intent of the Environmental Protection Act for public scrutiny of the study before making its decision on the permit. When I was told a permit was granted, I thought it was an April fool’s joke, because I have to say that I expected better of the various actors involved in this process. Instead, the EPA acted like a thief in the night, swiftly and silently, with not even a pretense of good governance or respect for the rule of law.”

kaieteurnewsonline.com 04 03 2022