Engineers working on Exxon’s oil platform compressor which malfunctioned again last month are considering technical recommendations for upgrades, as flaring offshore continues and the company again assured all was being done to swiftly remedy the issue.
“Technical experts in Germany continue to assess operating data and inspection findings in order to define the required scope of repairs to the compressor and silencer. This process also includes consideration of technical recommendations for any potential upgrades to the equipment,” ExxonMobil’s Government and Public Affairs representative Janelle Persaud yesterday said as she provided an update.
“Over the last several days, the team on the FPSO [floating production storage and offloading unit] has completed visual inspection of piping and pipe supports. At the workshop in Germany, mechanical rework of the compressor casing has been undertaken. ExxonMobil Guyana remains committed to working with the vessel’s owner SBM Offshore and the equipment manufacturer MAN Energy Solutions to fix the issue as quickly as possible,” she added.
In a terse statement on January 29, Exxon Mobil said “There was a technical issue regarding a seal on the gas compressor on Liza Destiny platform. This unfortunate incident resulted in us having to temporarily increase our flare above pilot levels in order to maintain safe operations.”
It quoted Alistair Routledge, President of ExxonMobil Guyana as saying, “We are disappointed that this unexpected issue has occurred and we’re working diligently with the vessel’s owner and the equipment vendor to understand and fix the issue as quickly as possible.”
On December 20 last year, Exxon said that flaring of gas was now down to “pilot levels.” Problems just a month later raise questions about whether Exxon and its offshore partners have made serious enough steps to grapple with the problem.
The company would later tell government, according to Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, that the Environmental Impact Assessment provides for flaring of up to 14 billion cubic feet (cu ft) of associated gases.
With flaring offshore estimated to reach 14 billion cu ft of gas by the time ExxonMobil expects the problem with its compressor to be resolved – hopefully in April of this year – government had said that it was “hamstrung” in instituting penalties since the company has argued that it is within the limit allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
However, a review of the Permit by this newspaper shows that there is no such provision in the permit.
The posture of the company was also rejected by former EPA Director Dt Vincent Adams who said that the company had tried telling him the same thing last year and he rejected it, pointing out to them their commitments in the Permit.
Adams has called for unity on environmental protection, as he believes it is necessary to protect the nation, as multinationals would revel in the distraction from vital issues and this country would end up losing most, and put its people at risk for the effects of pollution.
“We no doubt should welcome Exxon here to make money for their corporation, but they will be gone in the next 30 years or so, while we will be here forever to deal with whatever is left, so our country’s politicians must do whatever necessary to control what would be left for our future generations. Now is the time to ensure this protection of the environment, for as many parts of the world have experienced, large scale pollution of air and water becomes almost impossible to cleanup,” said Dr. Adams.
“It would be a grave mistake to wait until there are 10 FPSOs running and this unresolved flaring problem is multiplied 10 times. Current high offshore flaring by ExxonMobil should be looked into by both sides with the aim of pressuring the company to swiftly remedy the issue as there seems to be no end to what appears to be the capitalizing on our limited oversight capacity by the company.”
He said that Exxon’s promise to “take this [flaring] incredibly seriously” and to do a root cause analysis, is in itself incredulous. “Apparently, they must be reminded that they had been making the same promises since start of production in December of 2019. In fact, they first promised to have no flaring from day one, then day one became a promise of day 60 which became a promise of day 90, and now the same promise ongoing for over one year without resolution. Besides, they must have forgotten that they had also promised to do a root cause analysis from the inception of the compressor malfunctioning since soon after production started over one year ago. Did they keep their word to do such a root cause analysis? And if so, where is the report? What are the findings? And why is another promised root cause necessary?” he questioned.
Distraction
“Of dire concern, is what could be perceived as Exxon’s new public relations strategy to engage in a campaign of confusion, misinformation and distraction, so that the people won’t notice their illegal flaring which allows them to stay at their maximum oil production rate of 120,000 bpd to make maximum money for the corporation, never minding the damage to Guyana’s environment and its people’s health,” he added.
According to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), “the production rate would be 100,000 bpd but the FPSO was designed to safely operate at sustained peaks of 120,000 bpd.”
Adams says that he will wait to hear the report of the EPA team to government as he does not believe that Jagdeo was given all the details. “It should be of some concern when seeing and hearing high Government officials such as the Honourable VP and Honourable Minister repeating the misinformation being peddled by ExxonMobil. They should be getting advice from their trusted government technical officials and not ExxonMobil,” he said.
He emphasised that “with all due respects to the Honourable VP, contrary to what he may have been told, there is no such an allowance in the EIA to flare 14 bcf [billion cu ft] of gas; so Exxon’s ‘argument’ to this effect, is false. There is no such 14 bcf number in the EIA, but if Exxon knows otherwise, they must show where it exists in the document.”
“But for argument sake”, he reasoned “let’s take a closer look at that 14 bcf number. Their plan in this same EIA, scheduled six months of operation in 2020 and 12 months in 2021 for a total of 18 months, the period for which they claim this allowance covers. This calculates to be a minimum of about 26 million cu feet [mcfd] per day of flaring, which is 13 times what is required for the pilot flaring of 2 mcfd allowed during both routine and non-routine production. At the rate of 2 mcfd, pilot flaring without the small additional amount for flaring in non-routine emergencies, startup and maintenance over that 18 months period, would have only consumed about 1 billion cubic feet, and not 14 bcf. This leaves 13 bcf of this so-called allowance that could only be accounted for with the unpermitted flaring during routine production which is what Exxon has been doing over this 2020-2021 period.”
This led Adams to ask “if Exxon somehow indirectly or inconspicuously has this so-called 14 bcf in their planning and hence in the EIA, was it done because they knew all along that there was a chance that they would have been flaring during normal operations, and had this as a backup secret contingency?”
“With all of the mixed messages, confusion, violation of the EPA’s Permit – all as discussed above, plus the question of environmental performances coming from their own shareholders and their financial challenges, this company demands a much higher level of scrutiny and oversight, if we are to adequately protect the health, safety and the environment of the people of Guyana. And to start, there is enough reason as discussed to warrant an immediate assessment of its operation by the Government of Guyana,” he stressed.
He said that Government must also ensure that Exxon is held accountable for its fault, by making sure that the company stands the costs incurred for all of the disruptions and equipment repairs and replacement related to the flaring,” he said.
Cardinal
Referring to fines unpaid by Exxon up to when he left the EPA and which there has been no word on, Adams said that this nation must be reminded of Exxon’s dealings with its commitments.
“As a reminder, within a one-year period, Exxon had six small oil spills due to neglecting the manufacturer’s own instructions and their own procedures calling for inspection of the hoses before use, contrary to their publicly boasting of a highly robust maintenance programme. Even though this was a violation of the Permit and was given a pass on the first three [occasions] to correct the problem, they never did, and then refused to pay the fine for the continued violation,” he said.
“The issue was not about the size of the spill, but about committing the cardinal (error) of not following safety procedures, for experience shows that this culture could result in a major disaster in more high-risk activities. In any case, the EPA initiated legal action against Exxon, but it appears that this has been withdrawn – another example of how we have to stop being intimidated and looking for political mileage. We need to get into the mature realm where we can say to the other side, ‘this issue is ours’,” he stressed.
ExxonMobil yesterday repeated that, “We operate under a robust regulatory system and comply with all laws, regulations and permits; dedicating thousands of hours monitoring, validating and documenting our compliance to these regulations and our permits.”
