As it assured that water temperature changes from its sixth planned offshore oil extraction project, Whiptail will be minimal and should have negligible impact on marine life, ExxonMobil yesterday brought its public discussions on the project to Georgetown.
It also disclosed that it will once again use the company, Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to undertake the impact study.
With few local participants at yesterday’s scoping session, Project Manager (Guyana) Anthony Jackson urged that the public send questions about concerns that they have about the Whip-tail project to the EPA, so as to help guide the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and ensure that proper analyses and mitigation measures are included.
Announcing that ERM will again be the environmental study consultant, attorney-at-law Elizabeth Hughes asked why ExxonMobil was again choosing a company which has done all of its EIAs, except for the last one, and which citizens have raised concerns about. “I would like to know why we are back again with ERM given the history of the other EIAs,” she questioned pointedly.
ERM has conducted the environmental studies for Exxon’s Liza 1, Liza 2, Payara and Yellowtail developments offshore Guyana. It also did one for the gas to shore project and observers have been consistently raising concerns as to the independence of both ERM and the studies.
Jackson said that ExxonMobil had a “detail-ed assessment process about who had the capability and experience to do the work” and that led to ERM being selected.
Amid controversy over the use of one consultant for all of its environmental impact studies, Exxon-Mobil had in May of last year disclosed that its next study would not have gone to the company. Shortly after, it announced that Acorn International, a US-based environmental and social risk management consultancy was chosen for its Uaru project.
A number of environmental and other concerns were raised yesterday, mostly by journalists, on the project.
Youth advocate Gomin Comacho asked about standards when testing ballast water for invasive species before the water is dumped into the ocean, as she wanted to know how it is determined that it was safe for disposal and what happens if it is determined that it isn’t.
How potential oil spills will be treated was also raised along with the mechanisms in place to safeguard against this.
Jackson informed that water it is treated through a process where reagents are added to it before dumped to ensure that its ecological and chemical makeup is such that it does not pollute or cause harm to the waters here. “You can recycle until you reach the specifics,” he said.
However, he did not state what sampling procedure and method are used and what has been the result of those undertaken on other projects, although the company made clear that yesterday’s scoping was to guide Whiptail’s works.
Other participants questioned ExxonMobil’s role in verification of reports on environmental tests and how much is Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) involved.
Global best practices
ExxonMobil’s Environ-mental and Regulatory Manager was quick to point out that the EPA sets the standards for tests and where there is no legislation to guide, given that the sector is new to this country, global best practices are used. “The EPA sets the standards that needs to be complied with…,” he said.
EPA representative Joel Gravesande told attendees that the agency is able to conduct real-time assessments and that on his phone he can at any time see the testing operations offshore.
And on water temperature changes in the ocean from work at Whiptail and how it was expected to affect marine life, Jackson said that will be included in the EIA, although the company believes temperature change is “negligible”. He said given that pipes laid are insulated and work underwater they are unlikely to produce a lot of heat. The temperatures at those levels are very low.
The company said that it hopes the EIA gives specific insight into operations and effectively promotes sustainable development for a project set to rake in millions in profits.
When the EPA gave a synopsis of the project earlier this month, it said that that it will be implemented in multiple stages which will include drilling and completions, mobilization and installation of subsea equipment, umbilicals, risers and flowlines, installation of a FPSO facility, production operations and decommissioning.
According to the notice, the proposed project will be undertaken in the marine offshore environment and would require land-based activities for support at marine shorebases and thus there could be possible environmental effects. “As a result of the intended developmental activities, possible effects to the environment may include impacts on marine water quality, air quality, marine fauna, socio-economic resources, among others,” the notice stated.
Of the project, its summary states that it will be located in the southeastern portion of the Stabroek Block, approximately 183 km from Georgetown.
Oil production from the Project is expected to last approximately 20 to 30 years.
Exxon’s subsidiary, EEPGL will drill approximately 40 – 65 wells offshore to support extraction of the oil from below the sea floor. Each well will be drilled using a drillship.
“EEPGL will install some of the oil production facilities on the sea floor at approximately 1,600 – 2,000 m water depth. These subsea facilities include various types of pipes and hardware. The subsea facilities allow the oil from the wells to be gathered and moved to the surface of the ocean for further processing EEPGL will install other oil production facilities on a vessel which floats on the surface of the ocean. The vessel is a Floating Production, Storage and Offloading vessel (FPSO). The FPSO will be moored on location in approximately 1,700 m of water depth and will remain on location throughout the production stage,” its summary states.
“Oil production facilities on the FPSO will further process the oil extracted from below the sea floor. The FPSO will have the peak capacity to produce up to approximately 220,000 barrels to 275,000 barrels of oil per day. These estimates are preliminary and are subject to change. Processed oil will be stored in cargo tanks inside the FPSO hull which has the capacity to hold approximately 2 million barrels of oil. During peak production, approximately every 3 – 6 days, the oil will be pumped from the FPSO to a conventional oil tanker, which is owned/ operated by third parties. The tanker will then export the oil to buyers,” it adds.
The company said that EEPGL will utilize onshore support facilities to support drilling the wells, installing the offshore production facilities, and operating the offshore production facilities.
This will include “but is not limited to shorebases, warehouses, storage and pipe yards, fabrication facilities, fuel supply facilities, and waste management facilities in Guyana. Helicopters and supply boats will also be needed to support the Project.”
At peak, EEPGL will be supported by approximately 1,200 offshore personnel during the well drilling and oil production installation stages. This number will decrease to less than 200 personnel.
