Davina Bagot, Kaieteur News

GEORGETOWN
EnergiesNet.com 07 11 2022

 An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) not only highlights dangers associated with a specific project, but also outlines measures that will be taken by a developer to avoid or respond to any emergency as a result of the venture. A multibillion US-dollar Gas-to-Energy project is being pursued and while an EIA has been completed for the pipeline aspect, to transport natural gas from the Liza Fields in the Stabroek Block to the Wales development site on the West Bank of Demerara, the Government of Guyana is yet to complete such a study for the Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) Plant and the power plant to generate electricity.

On July 2, last, the government moved to invite proposals from consultancy firms to supervise the construction of the facilities, without any evidence of an EIA. The former Executive Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dr. Vincent Adams took note of the report and shared his view that an EIA must be conducted for the facilities to be developed by the government.

On Wednesday, Kaieteur News reached out to Minister of Natural Resources, Vickram Bharrat, to ascertain whether the government has submitted an application to the EPA on the venture. Submitting an application to the EPA is usually the first stage in the development process. This application is then vetted by the regulator body to determine whether an EIA is required. Minister Bharrat was specifically asked to say whether an application was made to the EPA, given that steps are being made to prepare for construction works. The Minister, however, told this publication to contact the EPA. Checks on the EPA’s website did not indicate that an application was made, however, efforts to verify this was unsuccessful as the EPA Head, Kemraj Parsram ignored calls to his cellular phone.

To this end, an environmentalist, Simone Mangal-Joly has said that the government’s recent move to invite proposals for consultancy services shows its disrespect for the public and more so its disinterest in the rule of law.

In an invited comment on Saturday, she pointed out that she has been opposed to the approach taken to “chop” the project up and conduct separate EIAs. She explained, “I did not engage the gas-to-shore EIA process beyond the 28-day period comment period in July 2021 on the terms of reference for the study because the process is a farce. This was obvious to me when the EPA ignored submissions in that comment period and proceeded with allowing ExxonMobil to do an EIA without including the power plant.”

The environmentalist pointed out that raw gas would be continuously pumped up from underground offshore, piped to the shore via a pipeline where it would be processed into natural gas to fire a power plant and natural gas liquids, which would be cooled and packaged at high pressure for shipping to markets.

On this note, she said, “We must all understand that those are extremely dangerous activities prone to explosions and that all those activities must take place under a ‘steady state system’. For the project to work, all the parts must all operate simultaneously otherwise. If one part goes down, then the tap on the offshore pipeline must be turned off or the gas must be flared right here onshore or else you will end up with an explosion.  Basically, one part cannot operate without the other. The complete project involves all these parts.”

Mangal-Joly highlighted that the Environmental Protection Act clearly states that an EIA must be done for a whole project and does not permit splitting into parts based on who is financing or running a specific part.

“An EIA is about all the social and environmental risks associated with a project and whether they are manageable and acceptable. If the EIA cannot prove that they are manageable then the grounds for approval and grant of an environmental permit disappear. The failure to address the risks associated with the power plant, etc., only leaves the public with one logical conclusion – the EIA cannot be approved because there is no consideration of the all the risks or proof that they are manageable. Frankly, all this EIA really says is have faith, the risks will be dealt with later,” she reasoned.

Furthermore, the environmentalist added that the EPA has been fragmenting the process for not only this project but others as well by allowing EIAs to be done for parts of a project, labelling the decision illogical and illegal.

In fact, she argued, “It is unethical and amounts to willful duping of the public by shading and distancing the true scope of risks and potential impacts of the project.  It’s saddening to see the Ministry of Natural Resources advertising for personnel for parts of this project not yet applied for or approved amid a contested pipeline EIA process.  It shows contempt for the people of Guyana, rule of law, and democratic norms. Folks seem to want to talk about these things when it comes to national elections but not when it comes to environmental governance.”

Following the government’s advertisement for consultancy services for the supervision of the integrated NGL Plant and the 300 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant last Saturday, former EPA Head, Dr. Vincent Adams explained that an EIA is critical for the facilities, as this study would not only help to identify potential risks involved but would also highlight mitigated steps and response measures to be instituted in the event of an unfortunate event, such as an explosion at the site.

He said, “I would expect, especially for such a big operation, there will be some natural hazards. For example, you are going to have air emissions, you will have potential for explosions because you are going to be dealing with pressurised vessels. It’s going to be a chemical facility in a highly populated area so I would say it does demand an EIA…the capital city is right across and Region Three and Four is the highest populated. The EPA or the entire country, like the first responders such as the fire department, we have never had something like this in Guyana before in terms of the types of chemicals.”

When he was asked whether the government should be inviting consultants to supervise the construction of the facilities without conducting an EIA, Dr. Adams said, “No they shouldn’t. What an EIA does, before you even start construction, it drives the design of the facility because the EIA has got to identify hazards for example so when it does that then the developer would design it to mitigate against these hazards. So what they are doing is putting the cart before the horse. You cannot design and construct a facility if you don’t know what the hazards are.”

Last week, President Irfaan Ali announced that the Gas-to-Energy project will commence by year end.

While not giving a final price tag, since that will be determined through the final bidding process, President Ali concluded that the project will cost the nation over the course of its life between four and five US cents per kilowatt hour. The President is adamant that this figure, down from the previous seven US cents per kilowatt hour, includes the full repayment of the 12” pipeline that would be providing some 50 million standard cubic feet of natural gas daily to the onshore project.

kaieteurnewsonline.com 07 10 2022