Even as a spokesman touted plans for several projects that Global Oil Environmental Services (GOES) is hoping to implement at Coverden, on the East Bank of Demerara, its proposed construction of a waste treatment facility in the community is being met with resistance by residents, who are sceptical due to a lack of consultations on the potential effects of the project.
The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) yesterday facilitated a public hearing regarding the construction and operation of the waste treatment facility and it was during the hearing that the GOES representative Perry Colwart revealed that the project is only one of several that the company intends to pursue in Coverden.
His revelation was made after residents questioned how the community would benefit from the waste treatment facility for the transfer, storage, treatment, and disposal of Exploration and Production (E&P) oil & gas waste to be located at Block ‘X’ TE Huste, Block I, ‘T’ Huste, Coverden, East Bank Demerara.
“We invest in any community in which we operate in. We had a community development meeting last Saturday to discuss the project and invest in the community and we made it clear that we want to invest in children, education and training for persons who are interested in the oil and gas sector. This is one of many projects we plan to doing in Coverden,” he said.
GOES had recently applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval for the construction of the waste treatment facility. The EPA had informed the public of the proposed project on April 6 via a public notice and had stated that it was screened and determined by the agency that the project will not significantly affect the environment or human health and so was therefore exempt from the requirement of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Noting that such a facility might have an adverse impact in the area, residents wrote to the EAB requesting that the project be halted until further consultations are done. As a result the EAB yesterday facilitated a public hearing at the Soesdyke/Huist Coverden Neighbourhood Democratic Council offices, located in Soesdyke.
Representatives of the EPA and GOES were among those at the hearing, where it was revealed that only two formal appeals were sent to the EAB within the stipulated 30 days to object to the EPA’s decision that an EIA will not be required. However, six other residents also appealed the decision after 30-day period and were still allowed a chance to make presentations.
Cowart explained to residents that the proposed project is a solution to the exponential growth that Guyana has seen from its oil and gas sector and explained that the facility will allow the country to efficiently handle some of the issues that come hand-in-hand with oil drilling. He said that GOES will be handling effluents that can be very impactful on the environment, such as hydrocarbons. He noted while there are several technologies available in Guyana which deal with such types of waste, none can handle the volume for a long term period, which is why the company finds it critical to establish such a facility in the areas. He said that the reselling of these hydrocarbons will have tremendous benefits to not only Coverden residents but Guyana as well.
‘Concerns’
Jamal Edinburgh, one of the appellants and a concerned resident, said he has been living in Coverden for over ten years and when he heard that a waste facility will be constructed in the area he was concerned about the impact it would have on the Demerara River as he utilises the water for domestic purposes. He revealed that he lives less than a mile away from the proposed site and given his unfamiliarity with the oil and gas sector, he thought that there should have been discussions with the residents.
“Some of my concerns that I have is the grounds that EPA identified that there is no need for assessment and how will waste be transported to the facility?” he said.
The other appellant, Penelope Howell, said that the EPA has not disclosed how they came to the conclusion that an EIA is not required. Like Edinburgh, she said more should have been done to educate residents about the nature of the project, while noting that many are farmers so they would like to know they would be affected by the project.
“Are they going to poison our waters because the facility will be located near the Demerara River? Will there be air emissions? How many people are going to be employed? How did the EPA determine that an assessment is not required? ” were some of the questions she directed at representatives of EPA and GOES.
In response, EPA’s Senior Environmental Officer Odessa Duncan said that when the application was submitted along with the relevant documents, they conducted a verification inspection to determine if there would be a social and environmental impact. She said that they found that potential air emissions from the facility would be very low given that the waste does not require thermal treatment or treatment by incinerator. She further said that the project will not have an environmental impact but persons working at the facility will be required to wear Personal Protective Equipment on site. She also said that there will be no discharge of untreated effluent into the Demerara, which is located some 70 meters away from the project site. Ground water will not be impacted as no underground structure is needed for the project, so its impact on water will be very low. She also noted that a groundwater well is not located within 1,000 meters of the project.
“The adverse impact to the environment can be significant if not managed according to sound environmental standards,” she added before saying that an Environmental Management Plan is required by the EPA to ensure that an adverse impact is avoided at all costs.
In addition, she said, there will be no change in topography, waterways, ecology and biodiversity as the project location is not pristine and had previously accommodated an industrial project.
Regarding the transporting of the chemical waste, Duncan said that this will done via land and it will be transported in secure frack tanks.
Meanwhile, one of the informal appellants, Jillian Michael, bluntly stated that the project should be relocated to where there would be no impact on residents. “What impact will there be if there is a breach in any of their security measures? They have ten projects but I have not heard anything. Coverden is a residential area. A waste treatment plant is bad and I don’t have confidence in having this plant so close because. It’s humanly built and there will be breaches,” she said.
Not all residents were in opposition to the project.
Several of them voiced support for the company’s plans. Having met with the company, they said they have listened to the pros and cons and trust the EPA’s decision.
“From my views it could be a business that brings employment, education… so I would give a yes to it,” a resident said. “Thanks Global Oil and we applaud you for coming here. They will enhance our community and what we are doing for our country,” another added
‘We need information’
On the whole, however, the majority of the residents while acknowledging the positive impact projects by GOES could have on the community, said that not enough information was available to help them understand the scope of the project.
William Thomas said that he lives close to the proposed project site and having had discussions with the developers he is of the opinion that this project represents positive and new beginnings for Coverden. However, there is little information available to the community given that many are unfamiliar with the oil and gas industry.
“There has been no meeting and we want a meeting. We are aware of the development in the country but we need information and an interaction with company and relevant bodies because we need to know what the potential effects are. We are not against it but want more information on what will happen. Will there be a spill sometime? All these things we do not know,” he said.
When asked by residents what the most devastating impact such a project could have on the community, Cowart declined to answer and only said that there are several mechanisms in place to ensure that there is no negative effect.
After the conclusion of the meeting, the EAB asked the formal appellants to send their concerns and questions within the next seven days and informed that these will be addressed in a timely manner.
Now that the hearing has been held, the EAB will deliberate on the findings and prepare a report with its decision confirming or setting aside the agency’s decision on the construction of the project. This should be expected later in the month.
According to its project summary, GOES intends to build and operate a waste transfer, storage, treatment, and disposal facility, which will be modelled after its Alabama, United States facility. And that facility, it stated, has operated continuously for 20 years on behalf of the major oil and gas producers.
“We look forward to providing our knowledge, experience and capabilities to Guyana and its expanding oil and gas industry,” the summary stated, before adding that a total of US$5,000,000 has been allocated for the construction of the facility. Once in operation the facility will have a total of 12 employees, with 5 from the US and 7 from Guyana.
Their intended clients include ExxonMobil, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Halliburton, Hess, Chouest, and Guyana Power and Light Inc.
“GOES Guyana does plan to design, construct and certify an offshore Oil and Gas related waste transfer, storage, and treatment and disposal facility. This will include crane operations, transfer operations, and ancillary services that will be outlined further in completed permit application,” the project summary stated.
