Dear Editor,
It is indeed “curiouser and curiouser” that the EPA and others are now claiming financial and/or economic hardship as part of the reasons to appeal against the courageous and independent decision imparted by Justice Kissoon last week. EPA’s senior officers some of whom are heads of sections within the organization stated, clearly and unambiguously, to me on more than one occasion when seeking information on the Gas to Energy (GtE) project, that it was not their mandate to consider financial implications of any project. They stated that their mandate was limited to environmental matters. This was also reiterated in Stabroek News’ Editorial, Saturday 13 May 2023, `Disruption to the economy’ where it stated that, “Those arguments are extraneous to the EPA’s mandate”. As well as stated elsewhere. Prima facie, it seems that the EPA has changed its mandate to now include areas outside of its current written ambit. On this basis it begs the question whether these financial considerations are solely limited to the insurance issue before the Court of Appeal or if it is a sweeping statement which affects every application? Assuming that there is no limit on these recent concerns the question to the EPA is, was a feasibility study for the Gas to Energy (GtE) project emanating out of the requirements stated in the PSA 2016 presented to the EPA before, at time of and/or after the submission of the EIA in April 2022?
In the landmark decision of Jstice Kissoon, he states, “The Agency (EPA) sought refuge in silence, avoidance, concealment and secrecy notwithstanding the grave potential danger and consequences to the State and citizens…” This statement captures my experience with the EPA. Since the Whiptail Development Project’s public scoping meeting held in February 2023, I have been seeking the list of consultants authorized to conduct an EIA in the oil and gas sector. As recently as last week upon enquiry for the requested information it was still not available. It is an adventurous journey of being bounced from section to section just to be asked to call back tomorrow.
Further it should be noted that the EPA did not provide any documents/information to the appellants upon which the decision to waive the requirement of an EIA for the power plant in the Gas to Energy project was based. Neither before nor after the hearing of the EAB in March 2023 despite requests for the same. A determination to uphold the EPA’s decision to waive this requirement has since been made by the EAB.
It would indeed be helpful for us in civic and civil society to clearly comprehend the extraneous material beyond the scope of the Environmental Protection Act and its Regulations which the EPA takes into consideration when reviewing applications. Would the EPA kindly state in a public manner what can and will be taken into consideration when reviewing an application under the various sections within its portfolio?
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Deane Hughes
