Dear Editor,
I was not surprised that Exxon’s response to my letter of August 2, 2022, would entail the same old fancy mumbo jumbo talking points through their PR that mean nothing to the Guyanese people and only meant for kerfuffle. Since they don’t have any substance, their game is that as soon as anyone exposes their neglectfulness and failings, their only strategy is to resort to their one buzzword “misinformation” which is really becoming very boring. Nevertheless Editor, I am thrilled that we may have finally figured out how to get their attention and force their hands to give us at least some sort of information, as little as it may be.
That aside, I find it insulting to the intelligence of the Guyanese people that Ms. Persaud and her bosses would, with straight faces, assert that “the company has always been open and transparent about the volume of gas being flared”. Don’t they not know that we can read and keep up with what’s going on? Or are they suffering from some really bad bouts of amnesia? Since, besides the daily bashing from all walks of life for their lack of transparency, how could they have forgotten that it was just over a week ago when Mr. Ryan, their Production Manager, dodged and refused to answer the very simple question as to how much gas is being flared. Unfortunately, I really don’t think they have forgotten; they just take us for fools and believe we are not paying attention.
Anyway Ms. Persaud, here is a soft-ball for you to back up your sudden claim of piousness to transparency: name a single person who has ever said publicly that Exxon has been transparent; and don’t worry Ms. Persaud, I won’t take so much of your time to ask you to name the innumerable many who have called Exxon out for non-transparency. As for the falsehood that Mr. Rod Henson’s did not sign any document committing to unlimited/full liability coverage, haven’t Ms. Persaud or Mr. Routledge not read the Liza 2 Permit signed by Mr. Henson even after others and I have brought it to their attention? So, for your education, Ms. Persaud and Mr. Routledge, here is what it [Liza 2 Permit] says:
Section12.1 states “The Permit Holder shall have insurance…”
Section 12.4: “The EPA shall review insurance policy…review is subject to Provision of the amount of cover; supplementary to cover gaps in the primary cover; notification to EPA of modification, cancellation, expiration, intent to renew, renewal or non-renewal and expiry dates of the policy; reports on whether the insurance policy is maintained or renewed for EPA to determine if it is acceptable or if it requires a replacement policy; the final insurance policy or certificate of insurance; and evidence of payment of premium”.
Section 12.5 states “Permit Holder must provide from the Parent Company or affiliate companies…one or more legally binding agreements to the EPA, undertaking to provide adequate financial resources to pay….their respective obligations if EEPGL fails to do so.”
What the above says and signed off by Mr. Henson, is that insurance has to be obtained by EEPGL, plus parent companies Exxon, CNOOC and Hess have to provide a written Agreement guaranteeing coverage of all costs over and above the insurance value. If insurance plus parent company guarantee to cover all costs over the insurance value is not unlimited/full coverage, I don’t know what is! And by the way Editor, the Agreement guarantee does not cost Exxon a single penny, since it’s only a guarantee. Further Editor, just in case Mr. Routledge hadn’t realized it, he also signed off on the exact language copied into the Payara, Yellowtail and the modified Liza 1 Permits. What more documents is he asking for?
He keeps trying to fool people with his false line that Exxon is in compliance with the nation’s laws and regulations, but disingenuously keep evading the question as to why he is operating Liza 1 and 2 without meeting those legal requirements enshrined in those Permits. So, Editor, can Mr. Routledge please explain how Exxon is in compliance with the nation’s laws when Exxon is operating without meeting those legal requirements; but if he still feel Exxon is, in the name of transparency, which he now profess to heed, please make public, the insurance policies and the parent company guarantee to meet those legally required Permit conditions to prove his case.
Lastly, since Mr. Routledge is now on record that he has “always been open and transparent” but somehow, we have been too daft to notice, we now give him another chance to prove us all wrong by publishing at least monthly: the amount of oil produced; the amounts of water produced, sea water injected, and produced water dumped into the sea; and the amounts of gas produced, reinjected and used for other purposes. We look forward to this goodwill act of transparency which Mr. Routledge now proclaim to behold, and wish to remind Mr. Routledge once again, that all of the requested information and data belong to the people of Guyana, and not Exxon.
Sincerely,
Dr. Vincent Adams
