As ExxonMobil is still experiencing compressor problems offshore and the flaring of natural gas continues, attorney and civil society activist Melinda Janki has called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to shut down the company’s operations and investigate if it using the most appropriate technology as is required in its contract.
“The EPA should shut down Esso (Exxon’s subsidiary) until (i) Esso has the technology in place to re-inject the gas and stop all flaring; and (ii) The EPA has the people and technology to monitor the operations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The EPA should not take anything on trust,” Janki told Sunday Stabroek.
“The Environmental Protection (Agency) Act requires Esso to use the most appropriate technology. Instead of (promoting) the use of ‘associated gas’, the press should demand proof from Esso that Esso did in fact install the most appropriate technology. The press should also demand that the EPA investigates Esso to verify whether Esso installed the most appropriate technology before it started production in December 2019,” she added.
And since it was revealed that the company has flared over 9 billion cubic feet of gas since oil production began in December, the activist believes that the company should not be allowed to flare any more as it has had more than enough time for testing its equipment and should be made to halt operations until the problem is fixed.
But the EPA’s Director Dr Vincent Adams said that shutting ExxonMobil’s operations at this time was not needed nor is it the best decision for the country or company, since they are working within their contract agreement. As a result, Adams says that he stands by his agency’s decision to monitor as the company continues to operate at minimum flaring and the corresponding production.
“Any environmental agency, in Guyana or in any other part of the world, looks at the environmental risks and benefits. It is never with an aim for zero contamination or emissions for projects, period… If you put everything at zero emissions it would be impossible. If we went to zero, no one would be driving or flying, There is always that limit, and that limit is based on risk versus benefit. That is consistent with what the EPA here is doing. So to say we should go to zero by shutting down the operations, it is unrealistic and foolhardy,” he explained.
“Shutting down abruptly would damage the reservoir for the long-term economic benefits of the country. At the same time, we must remember that flaring and production is still reduced by about 75% and that is hurting both this country and the company economically. The benefit is to maintain the economic viability of the project, while emitting the minimum amount of gas, to preserve the viability of the reservoir, in the interest of the environment and Government of Guyana,” he added.
Addressing concerns about its volume of natural gas flared to date, ExxonMobil last week again assured that it was working fervently to fix problems with its compressor equipment offshore and said that the lessons learned will be applied to its next Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel, as well as future projects.
“The current situation is a temporary, unplanned event related to project startup. Across our operations, ExxonMobil has programmes in place to improve operations integrity, thus reducing downtime and upsets that can result in flaring. Additionally, we are capturing lessons so we can apply to the Liza Unity and other projects moving forward,” the company’s Public and Government Affairs Officer Deedra Moe said in response to questions from Sunday Stabroek.
“We are doing all we can to repair the equipment safely in order to complete final commission of the system. As we have said, we have also reduced crude oil production to lessen the amount of gas being flared. ExxonMobil’s commitment to minimizing the environmental impact of its projects is reflected by our design of the Liza Destiny and Liza Phase 1 project. Our operations in Guyana will not utilize routine flaring,” Moe also assured.
Adams said that his agency is not one that investigates and monitors to shut down operations but to ensure that the environment here is protected, while working with businesses and the community to ensure its management, conservation and overall improvement. He said that the EPA, albeit its limited resources, has been consistently monitoring.
The EPA Director said that the company was indeed working with the agency and the Government of Guyana to address the issues.
Infractions
He added that were the agency to shut down all operations with infractions, the country would have very few operating businesses, if any.
“The EPA has been working with numerous operations to bring them all into compliance that [has] lapsed for decades, and if we are to shut down every operation, then we might be shutting down every single operation in the country,” Adams said.
“Our philosophy has been to work with those who are cooperating in meeting the new expectations and standards, while they continue to operate, as long as they show willingness and intentions to get to that point of compliance. In the specific case of ExxonMobil, I would like to repeat again and again that they are in compliance with the permit that was issued to them. We are not treating them different to any other company. They have shown good faith in eliminating the flaring and evidence of this is with them having to significantly reduce their production,” he added.
Adams said that one has to look at a company’s willingness to work with the EPA in correcting areas that were pointed out to them. He noted when ExxonMobil realized that compressor problems continued at the Liza-1 Well, the company slashed its production, not through force of the EPA, but to assuage environmental concerns.
“They have had an almost 75% cut and that has to be hurting the company. They are paying a major price,” Adams said.
“If we are to shut down every company not in compliance, the EPA would be shutting down every single operation in Guyana. So I want to say that Exxon is treated no differently to any other company, and I can say that unequivocally. The EPA has been assessing and investigating this issue and the operations of [Exxon’s subsidiary] EEPGL and we stand by our decision. Similarly, we have investigated other companies and we treat them no differently. If any private person wants an independent investigation, I am sure they are free to do that. I would suggest that anyone that believes that ExxonMobil is being treated differently by the EPA to go ask them. I know they will say the opposite,” he added.
