With almost a month having passed since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that an impact assessment will not be needed for ExxonMobil’s 12-Well Exploration and Appraisal Drilling Programme on the offshore Canje Block and no information on the project publicised, environmental lawyer Melinda Janki has written to the body’s Executive Director seeking to have the issue clarified.
ExxonMobil’s local subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) submitted an application for environmental authorization for its 12-well programme and on August 8, the EPA announced that the project will not significantly affect the environment, thereby exempting it from the requirement of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA).
The notice had also said that a project summary for the programme could be found on the website but checks made by Stabroek News up to August 29, 2021, revealed that this was not the case. However, as of September 2nd, the Project Summary is now on the EPA’s website.
In her letter, dated September 2, 2021, to the Executive Director of the EPA, Kemraj Parsram, Janki said that since the August 8 notice, she was unable to find a project summary on the agency’s website for the programme as is usually done. She went on to request that the EPA send her a copy and make one public on its website.
Janki pointed out that the screening process under Section 11(2) of the Act depends on a project summary that is prepared in accordance with Section 11(1). She contended that Section 11(1) requires EEPGL to submit a summary of its proposed project for drilling wells offshore Guyana. She said that the ordinary meaning of a summary is a short clear description that provides the main facts. Section 11(1) also helpfully sets out the bare minimum as follows: the site, design and size of the project; (ii) possible effects on the environment; (iii) the duration of the project; and (iv) a non-technical explanation of the project.
“I should be grateful if you would please send me a copy of Esso’s summary. Please also make Esso’s summary publicly available on the EPA’s website to that members of the public may have the information necessary to exercise their right of appeal under section 11(3)… Members of the public have the right to lodge an appeal with the Environmental Assessment Board under section 11(3) (a) of the Environmental Protection Act. In order to fully exercise that right and make an informed decision members of the public are entitled to have the information submitted to the EPA,” she wrote.
In addition, Janki noted that EEPGL application is relevant to the EPA’s decision and requested a copy of EEPGL’s application for environmental authorization, asserting that it is her right to do so. She also requested that the application be made available on the Agency’s website.
“Esso’s proposed drilling and the EPA’s decisions in relation to that proposed drilling are matters that affect the public interest and public wellbeing,” she argued.
Meanwhile, Janki posited that the notice on the EPA website “obviously” does not meet the requirements of section 11(2) of the Environmental Protection Act. She said that the notice is published on the website and not in a daily newspaper. The notice was published in the August 8th edition of the Guyana Chronicle.
She also pointed out that the notice does not contain any reasons for the EPA’s decision that EEPGL’s proposal to drill 12 wells does not require an EIA. In this regard, she explained that if the notice does not contain the EPA’s reasons, the EPA is legally required to publish a new notice which sets out the reasons for the EPA’s decisions to exempt Esso’s drilling from an EIA.
“It may be helpful to remind you that the reasons given should be intelligible and they must be adequate, allowing the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the principal important issues.” She advised.
