Local ExxonMobil affiliate Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) has said that its planned 12-Well Exploration and Appraisal (E&A) Drilling Program in the Canje Block, offshore Guyana, is slated to begin by the first quarter of 2022 once environmental authorisation is given for the project.
“The Project is planned to begin by 1Q2022 [first quarter of 2022]. If a discovery is made, a well test may be performed. Conclusion of the proposed drilling project is expected by 1Q2025,” EEPGL states in the Project Summary, which was recently published on the website of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The company, which says that operations and activities in the Canje block will continue to be performed under the terms of the petroleum agreements, licences, and relevant permits, also notes that factors that can influence its notional schedule include new discoveries, determination of the need for sidetracks and/or well tests that would extend the drilling period for such exploration wells as well as influence the location and sequence of subsequent wells.
EEPGL’s application for environmental authorisation is to be supported by the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and Management Plan to assess the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the project.
It notes that it conducted a 3D Seismic Survey of the Canje Block in 2016 and then a subsequent Environmental Baseline Survey in 2018. Based on such work through 2019, a number of prospective prospect areas were identified.
The company adds that an Intent to Drill will be prepared and presented to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, and the EPA, approximately one month prior to spud, with a further detailed Well Specific Drilling Program to follow.
The project summary states that the same processes that have been used for the exploration wells authorised and drilled to date by EEPGL, including mobilisation, drilling, ancillary processes (possibly including sidetracks, well tests, and/or vertical seismic profiles) and demobilization, will also be followed for the proposed project.
EEPGL also states that it currently has six drill ships operating offshore: the Stena Carron, the Stena DrillMAX, the Noble Bob Douglas, the Noble Tom Madden, the Noble Don Taylor, and the Noble Sam Croft. It says the wells could be drilled by any one of the six ships.
Waste
Meanwhile, EEPGL also states in the summary that the proposed exploration drilling campaign would generate hazardous and non-hazardous waste. These may amount to some 30.85 to 77.54 metric tonnes of hazardous waste, 46.36 to 100 metric tonnes of non-hazardous waste, and 2,500 to 4500 cubic metres of sanitary and domestic waste, including oily residue of waste that would be generated based on the class of drill ships that would be used, anticipated number of support vessels and typical crew sizes normally used for deep water well drilling of this type, the planned duration of the drilling campaign, and experience gained on previous exploration wells drilled in the Canje Block.
The project summary also assured that potential impacts to the macro fauna from petroleum development offshore are unlikely to be significant if restricted to the immediate area, and a steep species accumulation curve should be realised as conditions return to normal.
However, the summary pointed out the potential for pollutant transport from drilling and operations into sensitive areas of nearshore shallow zones from the dominant longshore current.
“It is important to note that Canje is potentially vulnerable to offshore transport of pollutants and human related substances, such as sewage and suspended material, from the Essequibo and Orinoco rivers, which empty to the west,” the summary added.
The EPA has faced criticism over its decision to not require an impact assessment for the planned campaign.
On August 8, 2021, the EPA announced that it had received an application for environmental authorisation from EEPGL regarding the project, and had determined that an impact assessment would not be required.
In a letter to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB), dated August 28, 2021 and seen by Stabroek News, environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly stated that the EPA had not provided any information on the proposed activities via a project summary as is usually done with other applications. This, she said, completely undermined the 30-day public consideration exercise as required under Section 11(1) (iv) of the Environmental Protection Act (1996). The summary has since been uploaded to the EPA’s website.
Additionally, she said the EPA also failed to communicate its reasons for not requiring an impact assessment for the project as required under Section 11 (2) (a) of the EPA Act. Mangal-Joly pointed out that the Section 11(2) (a) of the EPA act says that the EPA must publish a decision with reasons as to whether: (a) the project will not significantly affect the environment and therefore be exempt from the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment.
“What are the reasons for reaching that conclusion? The EPA cannot possibly imagine that the exercise is simply to say that the reason the activity will not require an EIA is because the Agency has determined that it will not have significant impacts… What is the proposed methodology for this “appraisal and drilling program”? Is the public to understand that this process will involve both seismic surveys and drilling? What are the sound thresholds for seismic survey? How long will each of these activities run for? What depth and nature of drilling will be conducted and what are the associated risks? Is there existing baseline ecological information and direct or indirect fishery industry baseline dependency information on areas in the Canje Block? What are the risks of a well blowout and transboundary liabilities Guyana? Did EEPGL submit a Spill Probability Assessment to inform the EPA’s decision?” she asked.
Mangal-Joly contended that the effects of seismic surveys and the risk of a well blowout during exploratory drilling are not insignificant and are well documented.
She posited that the EAB cannot consider its role as neutral in this particular situation, while noting that public disclosure of the relevant information is needed for a credible decision on whether an impact study should be required.
