Two environmental activists have filed a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quash the permit it issued for the ExxonMobil Guyana-led Liza Phase 1 oil project in the Stabroek Block, offshore Guyana.
The main contention of the applicants, University of Guyana lecturer Sinikka Henry and human rights activist Danuta Radzik, is that in the absence of an environmental impact assessment (EIA), the EPA was prohibited from issuing the permit.
They contend that in breach of the Environmental Protection Act, the required assessment was not done, nor was any public consultation carried out. The women argue, also, that “the EPA acted unlawfully by refusing to provide information about whether Esso had complied with the regulatory requirements for applying for a new permit.”
Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd (Esso)/ (EEPGL) is an offshore subsidiary of US-based oil extracting giant ExxonMobil Corporation, which is currently operating in the Stabroek Block.
On May 31 of this year, the EPA renewed the Environmental Permit for ExxonMobil’s Liza 1 development for another five years, even as the operator continues to encounter flaring issues owing to the failed gas compressor on-board the Liza Destiny Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel.
EPA had said in a statement that the renewal was in keeping with the Act and came following careful consideration of EEPGL’s compliance with the first iteration of the Environmental Permit for the Liza 1 Project.
The Liza 1 project was the first petroleum development to be permitted offshore Guyana and has not been without challenges. The Liza Destiny platform has encountered major problems with its gas compression equipment, resulting in environmentally-damaging gas flaring.
Environmentalists have been calling for the EPA to revoke the permit until the company can become compliant but those calls have fallen on deaf ears.
In their fixed date application (FDA), Henry and Radzik are seeking several orders, chief among them being that the Court would quash the permit granted by the EPA, which they say was done in breach of the Environmental Protection Act.
The women, who are being represented by attorneys Melinda Janki and Abiola Wong-Inniss, have described the EPA’s actions as being, among other things, “irrational, unfair” and contrary to the rules of natural justice.
Also among the orders being sought is that the Court would direct the Agency to order Esso to cease Liza 1 operations.
Radzik’s affidavit states that deep water offshore oil drilling is an extremely dangerous exercise and that the danger to the environment and people of Guyana from Esso’s deep water drilling has been increased as a result of Esso using faulty equipment, flaring gas and operating above the design capacity of the Liza Phase 1 Project.
Meanwhile, among the declarations the two women are seeking is for the court to declare that the permit could not have been granted without an environmental impact assessment first being conducted.
This, the applicants argue, as well as the EPA’s “failure to provide particulars of the application for the new permit were inconsistent with the Environmental Protection Act and that the permit granted is therefore ultra vires, void and of no legal effect.
The women also want the court to declare that the Agency’s failure to respond to their request for information required by law, frustrates transparency envisioned by the Act for treating with environmental matters.
They also want costs and any further order the Court deems just to grant.
Their application comes up for hearing on October 11 before Justice Damon Younge.
Fulfil its mandate
In a statement issued on the case, Radzik emphasised that the resources of Guyana, including its marine resources, belong to each and every Guyanese, including the generations to come.
“We are the paramount owners and custodians and as such we have the responsibility to be consulted, to be informed, to make decisions about our resources and to ensure the protection of all our resources. “The most important part of our responsibilities as custodians is to ensure we do not pollute, contaminate, harm, or destroy our precious resources through dangerous and irresponsible oil and gas/fossil fuel extraction and exploitation. I am a mother and a Guyanese woman. Which mother does not first and foremost look out for and protect and care for their children and family? The Environmental Protection Agency is mandated to enforce the Environmental Protection Act to ensure that Guyana’s resources, our air, soil, rivers, creeks and seas are protected. I call on the EPA to fulfil its mandate and to help us to protect our environment for not only this generation but all those generations to come.”
Henry added, “Oil production results in greenhouse gas pollution that is killing the planet. We have a legal right to know about that pollution. We have a legal right to insist that the EPA protects the environment and puts our health and wellbeing above the profits of ExxonMobil. The EIA is the place to determine whether Esso can drill for oil and subject to what conditions.”
In a statement issued after granting the permit, the EPA had said that said that “progressing from the knowledge and experience gained during the course of this project, the renewed permit specifies further conditions and standards which will ensure that all environmental and social safeguards are taken for the protection of human health and the environment.”
The EPA said that the permit strictly prohibits routine flaring and venting while specifying that flaring is only permissible during commissioning, start-up and special circumstances. It added that the permit also goes further to require the Permit Holder to pay US$50 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) emitted as a result of flaring in excess of permitted periods.
“This marks the highest sum to be levied in the event flaring is above stipulated limits and payable in these circumstances, progressing from US$30 under the first Environmental Permit (modified) for the Liza Phase 1 Project,” EPA said.
The permit also ensures that EEPGL is held liable for all costs associated with clean-up, restoration and compensation for any pollution damage which may occur as a consequence of the project.
“EEPGL is also required to have Financial Assurance which includes a combination of Insurance which must ‘cover well control, and/or clean up and third-party liability on terms that are market standard for the type of coverage’, and a Parent Company/Affiliate Guarantee Agreement which indemnifies and keeps indemnified the EPA and the Government of Guyana in the event EEPGL and its Co-Venturers fail to meet their environmental obligations under the Permit. Further, the financial assurance provided must be guided by an estimate of the sum of the reasonably credible costs, expenses, and liabilities that may arise from any breaches of this permit. Liabilities are considered to include costs associated with responding to an incident, clean-up and remediation and monitoring,” EPA explained.
The Permit makes provision for the targeted monitoring of the effects of effluent discharges from the project within the area of influence. EPA says that effluent streams to be monitored include, but are not limited to, produced water, bilge water, cooling water and grey water. Additionally, the permit requires the submission of the effects of these discharges every six months along with the submission of safety case information, including a risk assessment prior to the drilling and development of wells.
The permit now mandates Exxon to establish and maintain a grievance mechanism in keeping with the World Bank’s Approach to Grievance Redress in projects. This is to ensure that complaints from individuals and communities who may be affected by the project are received and addressed.
There is a requirement for reporting the same and what actions were taken to address the grievances to the EPA.
