Dear Editor,
On Monday May 29th, Esso and the EPA get another chance to argue for a stay of Justice Kissoon’s ruling that Esso was in breach of the permit requirements for insurance. Exxon’s own modelling shows that an oil spill will not be confined to Guyana, but will affect other Caribbean countries. The potential environmental and economic damage should make us all pause. A parent company guarantee is what the permit requires.
Let us spell that out: It consists of a signed commitment that Exxon will cover the remaining costs that are not covered by the insurance payout in the event of an accident. For those who are saying this is asking too much (of a company that US President Joe Biden has said earns more than God), ask yourself this: without this signed commitment, who will pick up the remaining costs? Guyanese taxpayers? Caribbean people?
Melinda Janki, one of the lawyers who represented Frederick Collins and Godfrey Whyte in the case against the EPA and EEPGL, wrote in the Diaspora Column that all Guyanese should read the judgment, as well as the court documents which are public. One of the documents submitted by the EPA to the court was Esso’s insurance policy, number ENOFC2200219. Having read it, these three questions are directed to the EPA:
1. The Period of Insurance in the document lodged with the court clearly says “From 1st February 2022 to 31st January, 2023, both days inclusive Local Standard Time at the address of the Named Insured.” This means that even as this case is going to appeal, NO valid insurance exists. Is the EPA aware that it holds an expired and therefore invalid insurance policy?
2. Instead of a signature, there is what appears to be a company stamp, AON UK Limited. Is the EPA aware that the document they have and that was lodged with the courts is missing signatures and can they tell the Guyanese public who AON UK Limited is?
3. On Page 26 of the document, the territorial limits specified for an insurance document covering Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) and/or Hess Guyana Exploration Limited and/or CNOOC Petroleum Guyana Limited, is “onshore and offshore Egypt however worldwide in respect of Transit and Cargo.” What does the reference to Egypt mean?? Is Exxon aware that the document they have and that was lodged with the courts refers to Egypt and not Guyana?
What does it mean that an insurance document, already lacking a parent company guarantee, is unsigned, expired, and identifies Egypt for operations taking place offshore in Guyana’s waters? It is hard not to conclude that this looks like eye-pass to Guyanese and Caribbean people. What are we to make of the fact that instead of ensuring that adequate and valid documents are on file, the EPA has taken to the courts to argue against the parent company guarantee?
Whether one is for or against oil drilling, and even those at home and abroad who remain unconvinced of the need for a parent company guarantee, we should all welcome a response to these three simple queries. One thing seems clear and that is that ExxonMobil is ripping off Guyana through this deal. Why doesn’t the government demand that Esso complies with the court order instead of looking to shift US$ billions of potential liability on to the Guyanese taxpayers and business sector?
Sincerely,
Alissa Trotz
