Environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) put a pause on all future projects with ExxonMobil until the company begins to fully comply with the various environmental laws.
The call comes as the 28-day public comments period for ExxonMobil’s Uaru project expired on Monday. Exxon recently submitted its application for an environmental permit to undertake the Uaru development project in the Stabroek Block offshore Guyana and was conducting scoping meetings to craft the terms of reference for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Uaru will be Exxon’s fifth venture in the Stabroek Block with its latest and largest – Yellowtail – being recently approved amidst major concerns by environmentalists over the lack of critical information in the EIA.
In her May 27, 2022 letter to Kemraj Parsram, Executive Director of the EPA, Mangal-Joly highlighted a number of breaches of the Environmental Protection Act (EP-Act) by both Exxon and the EPA. She said that Exxon has failed to meet the requirements of environmental permits it already holds and has made no effort to demonstrate that it has fixed its faulty equipment under the Liza-1 environmental permit. She added that it is “unconscionable” that the EPA would consider accepting and processing yet another application for a production floating, production, storage and offloading vessel (FPSO) from ExxonMobil given its failures.
“On what basis is the EPA proposing to engage the public to discuss entrusting more responsibility and privileges to a company that has for two years now not been able to fix defective equipment related to basic gas handling operations on its first FPSO?
Indulging
“Why is the EPA indulging ExxonMobil in practices that evade international best practice standards and violate the legal requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and environmental permits it currently holds? What comfort can Guyanese have that the EPA will act independently and conscientiously in processing the Uaru Application when it has shattered its own credibility with its handling of ExxonMobil’s permits to date?” Mangal-Joly questioned.
Restating arguments she had already made public, Mangal-Joly called for the EPA to ensure that Exxon cease and desist from violating the liability insurance coverage requirements in the Liza-2 Environmental Permit. She contended that the company illegally started up Liza-2 operations without satisfying the requirements in Section 12 of the Permit calling for Liza-2 operations to be suspended until the permit’s requirements are met.
She also reiterated her call for the cancellation of the recently issued Yellowtail environmental permit arguing that it was approved in violation of the Environmental Protection Act, adding that the environmental impact assessment process should be restarted in compliance with the legal requirements of the Act’s provisions for the conduct of EIAs as well as procedures for the issuance of an environmental permit.
The environmentalist also asked the EPA to revise the flaring allowance time, identifying that international best practices do not allow up to 60 days of flaring at startup. She also continues to call for the ending of flaring on the Liza-1 FPSO.
“…allowing for flaring in the Liza 1 permit represents a despicable betrayal of the public expectation and trust and makes a mockery of the Environmental Protection Act and statutory Environmental Impact Assessment process. The Liza-1 EIA, which is the basis for the environmental permit, explicitly says that no flaring would be allowed except in specific conditions related to start up and safety etc.
“…the EPA must cease and desist from giving ExxonMobil an incentive to continue flaring by charging a paltry USD 45 for carbon dioxide for gas flared. To date this has amounted to approx. only $12,000 USD per day in so called penalties for flaring. It is plain wrong to describe this as the polluter pays principle. This is a polluter pays to pollute and profit principle,” the letter stated.
She said that flaring can be reduced if Exxon cuts production by 5,000 barrels per day.
“…the only way the Government of Guyana will ever get the company to comply with the legal requirements prohibiting routine flaring will be to charge a fee equal to or exceeding the approximate $500,000 USD per day revenue that ExxonMobil is earning from sale of the extra 5000 barrels that result in the excess gas it flares,” Mangal-Joly argued.
Produced water
The argument of the discharge of produced water into the ocean was also reiterated to Parsram. She restated that the best practice is to re-inject that water into the well. She pointed out that the average cost for equipment to re-inject produced water reportedly averages around US$300 million – a minimal sum in comparison to the effects of discharging it into the ocean.
Citing the recently submitted EIA for the gas-to-shore project, Mangal-Joly urged the EPA to stop accepting studies that are not signed by the consultants and developer. She also called for all EIAs to be conducted in conformity with the EP-Act.
“The EPA’s credibility is not only in question with respect to how it has been facilitating ExxonMobil but also how it has been discharging its duties with respect to environmental governance in the oil and gas sector in general. The EPA cannot in good conscience or practice entertain any further applications for environmental permits for offshore production or seismic surveys until it ensures an independent study and mapping of all sensitive environmental receptors offshore including coral reefs, sponges, key marine habitats, fish spawning grounds, identifies important marine migratory routes for fish and mammals and undertakes a comprehensive participatory mapping exercise with fisherfolk to demarcate their offshore fishing grounds. A credible impact assessment cannot be produced without this information.
“All the EIAs conducted and approved thus far for ExxonMobil’s FPSOs offshore have been in violation of the EP Act Section (11) (4) (a) (ii) – identifying and characterizing impacts on habitats. At this stage, the Government of Guyana has lost the opportunity to establish proper baselines before the commencement of oil and gas offshore activities. The Government of Guyana must act with urgency to determine the state of the resource now and effects on fisherfolk and institute a proper monitoring programme before approving more oil and gas activities offshore,” she argued.
She said the EPA should also reinstate the 2020 guidelines for the conduct of EIAs or start the public consultations that Parsram promised the agency was working “assiduously” towards convening since the middle of last year.
“The EPA must stop hiding the guidelines from the public (pulled from the Agency’s website since their suspension) and stop hiding from accounting for why it suddenly suspended the guidelines just before engaging the public at start of the Yellowtail EIA process last year.
“You would appreciate that it is rather pointless to trust the EPA with specific submissions on the terms of reference for Uaru project when the Agency’s track record is so wanting. The EPA was given the benefit of the doubt and public trust over the past year and used every opportunity to shatter its own credibility. The Agency has made promises, such as its promised earnest efforts to consult on the 2020 EIA guidelines, that now appear clearly intended to fool citizens rather than genuinely address concerns. Sadly, the EPA has demonstrated that it is unable to reach decisions that can withstand scrutiny for independence, technical quality, fairness, and compliance with the law,” she submitted.
