The need for trained, local protected-species observers to monitor oil and gas activity on marine life was among the calls made when ExxonMobil’s local subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd (EEPGL), held the last of required stakeholder meetings for its Payara project yesterday.
“There are no protected species observers in Guyana. So I had reasoned that had you started your capacity building by attaching Guyanese to your foreign observers, give them the formal training but, more importantly, put them as local counterparts to go and get working knowledge and continue that process…—I had made this recommendation since Liza 1 and am making it again—if we had done so, we would have gotten at least two dozen certified species observers by now … if they were serious about local capacity building, we would have been a bit ready and now all those vessels are out there doing work,” head of the Guyana Marine Con-servation Society, Annette Arjoon-Martins told attendees at the fifth and final Payara Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) disclosure meeting, which was held at the Marian Academy in Georgetown.
The meeting was poorly attended, with the majority of the approximately 40 persons present either being employees of ExxonMobil or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Arjoon-Martins dominated the questioning segment as she lobbied for protection of marine wildlife.
The Payara-1 well discovery was announced in January 2017, while the Payara-2 well discovery was announced in July 2017.
According to the company’s EIA, the project poses minor risk. “With the adoption of embedded controls, mitigation measures, and management plans, and requirements for emergency response preparedness, the Payara Development Project is expected to pose only minor risks to the environmental and socioeconomic resources of Guyana, and to offer the potential for significant economic benefits to the residents of Guyana,” the six-volume document states.
In its presentation on the project, EEPGL’s representatives yesterday said that there would be an impact, though negligible, on marine life, which includes special status species, such as whales and dolphins. It was noted that over a five-year period, it was revealed that there have been a total of 1322 marine mammal detections recorded and 15 species of marine mammals confirmed in the Stabroek Block, where the Payara project is situated.
Among the planned measures to mitigate the impact on the marine fish and mammals are a slow start up of operations to allow marine mammals to depart the area and the reduction of speed within 300 meters to allow for the passage of fish, turtles and mammals when vessels are working in marine life areas.
Arjoon-Martins did not think the measures to be enough, even as she questioned the data presented on the marine life, while charging that it represented mere observations over a period and not data collection and research.
“All the information we are getting from the foreigners. They are using the information from their Protected Species Observer as baseline and we want research. Observation is not research. Research is an investigative study—say you go out at different points, different seasons… and you have accurate information. It is then you can say which whales will be passing through and when and what else and whatever,” she stressed.
“There are just reports on observation data… you can only hold them accountable if you have scientific data… Have they established and compared their baseline from say Liza-1 and Liza-2? Can you say how it has impacted since then and what else ever? My friend in Suriname went out on Tullow’s vessel and did all her surveys on the whales. We know the sperm whales pass through our migratory waters in Suriname with calves in April. If a calf is going through and can’t swim away… More so they are ramping up their vessels then, are we to believe that the vessels will slow down for a whale or turtle? What about from the Georgetown harbour to the vessel, because there is increased activity there, who will stop for a whale or a turtle? They have to make sure they put watchdog people like us there but they don’t want us on board,” she added.
Toxic dispersant
Meanwhile, biologist Joe Ryan pleaded with the EPA to have ExxonMobil use alternative dispersants for oil waste disposal as he said that the current Corexit was itself toxic. “In the unlikely event of a spill, which I agree is very small, what they will do is they will put a chemical dispersant which will be toxic. This is what they used in the Deepwater Horizon. So these things are extremely toxic. What I am recommending is that the EPA ask them to examine other alternatives,” he said.
“There is some very cutting edge stuff being done with the institutes in the US and MIT. I want the EPA to ask them to also not contain to this but seek other alternatives. This is because they have not done an EIA on the Corexit they are going to put down,” he added.
Country Manager of ExxonMobil Rod Henson assured that the company will do all in its power to protect the environment and prevent an oil spill. “I absolutely commit that we are doing everything we can to protect this country…we are doing all we can to ensure that a spill never happens,” he said.
EEPGL is currently seeking environmental authorisation through the EPA for the initial production phase which is expected to start in 2023 and continue for 20 years. The development plan for Payara includes a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel and will see oil production capacity of 220,000 barrels per day. The FPSO for that project will have a storage capacity of 2 million barrels of oil and will be offloaded every four to six days as it takes crude from up to 45 wells.
The purpose of the EIA is to describe the project, describe the existing conditions with the project’s area of influence, assess potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts (adverse and positive) that could potentially result from the project, propose a strategy to manage the potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the recommended management measures.
It is also done to provide the factual and technical basis for the EPA to make an informed decision on EEPGL’s application to permit the project.
The project includes activities during drilling and installation, production and decommissioning and will have potential impact on resources offshore and onshore Guyana. The resources include, but are not limited to, air quality and climate, marine water quality, marine benthos and marine geology and sediments marine fish, mammals, riverine mammals, marine turtles, ecological balance and ecosystems, marine use and transportation, the company says.
Other stakeholder meetings for this project have been held across the country and those in the other regions had more attendees.
Late September, an open house on the EIA was held at the Pegasus Hotel in Georgetown and had a massive turnout but did not include a public question and answer segment. However, Henson said that it was that engagement that saw most feedback as persons were more comfortable talking one on one with officials there as some had expressed that public speaking makes them embarrassed to seek clarity on the overall oil and gas operations.
A copy of the EIA can be found on the EPA’s website (www.epaguyana.org).
