The local ExxonMobil subsidiary and its partners Hess Guyana Exploration Ltd (Hess) and CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana Ltd (Nexen) have been added as parties in the challenge filed by Ramon Gaskin to the grant of a petroleum production licence to the latter two companies.
It is Gaskin’s contention that since Hess and Nexen have no environmental permits allowing them to engage in oil exploration here, they ought not to have been granted any petroleum production licences.
Gaskin is contending that since such licences have been issued only to Exxon subsidiary Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (Esso), then it is only that company that can rightfully undertake such exploration through the petroleum production licence it has been granted.
Gaskin’s complaint before the court is against the decision of Minister of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman to grant a petroleum production licence to Esso as well as Hess and Nexen though the latter two were never granted environmental permits by the Environmental Protect-ion Agency (EPA).
Esso, Hess and Nexen had not previously been parties to the action
During an in-chamber hearing before acting Chief Justice Roxane George SC yesterday, their application to be added as parties were granted.
Following the hearing, Senior Counsel Andrew Pollard, who together with attorney Nigel Hughes represents the newly-added parties, explained that since the companies were holders of a petroleum production licence, the issuance of which was threatened by Gaskin’s challenge, they would be directly adversely affected if he were to secure the relief he is seeking from the court. Gaskin is seeking the quashing of the licence.
Additionally, he said the companies advanced to the court that they would be liable “to suffer very real material damage totaling hundreds of millions of US dollars.”
According to Pollard, “In those circumstances, the court ruled that the applicants would be materially and directly affected by the loss of their property if Gaskin were to succeed and in those circumstances, the rules of natural justice demanded that they be allowed or added as parties for the purpose of defending their property and their rights.”
The matter has been adjourned until January 28th, 2019 at 10 am for continuation of the hearing.
In his application, Gaskin is arguing that not only do Hess and Nexen not have environmental permits to facilitate their exploration of oil here, but they have also not carried out any environmental impact assessments.
It is against this background that he contends that in the absence of being assessed by the EPA, there can be no payment by Hess and Nexen of compensation for any potential loss or damage.
In the affidavit supporting his motion, Gaskin says that since Esso has been granted an environmental permit, Trotman, in accordance with Section 14 of the Environmental Protection Act, was proper in granting a petroleum production licence to Esso alone.
He said, however, that given the peculiar circumstances, Esso would have authorisation to continue with its petroleum operations, subject to the law, pending environmental permits also being lawfully granted to Hess and Nexen.
He argued that the benefit of the environmental permit issued to Esso cannot be extended to Hess and Nexen, since they have not been approved by the EPA under Section 13 of the Act, while adding that Esso does not have the power to share the benefit of the environmental permit with them.
Gaskin is being represented by attorneys Seenath Jairam SC and attorney Melinda Janki, while Minister Trotman is being represented by Attorney General Basil Williams and other members of his chambers, Senior Counsel Edward Luckhoo and attorney Eleanor Luckhoo.
