Dear Editor,
The news inside Guyana today that Exxon as the operator of the Liza 1 Project will begin paying a flaring charge was completely overtaken by events outside of Guyana. The Government of Guyana might have hoped that the announcement of an estimated US$1.3 million would neutralise the public outcry over the Government’s approval of continuing flaring by Exxon and its sidekicks Hess and CNOOC. But as fate would have it, today witnessed two important developments which will eventually have repercussions for us in Guyana.
The first and more direct development arose when shareholders of Exxon elected, so far, two of four persons to Exxon’s Board, against management’s nominations. The two other positions are yet to be announced. The move, led by a small group with an agenda to drive Exxon towards a greener economy, will likely see strategic and operational changes in the company. Should this happen, one expected casualty is Exxon’s head, Darren Wood, who publicly and resolutely campaigned against the activist group. But this does not mean that Exxon’s activities in Guyana will automatically and immediately slow down as a result of the internal upheavals likely to follow the Board changes. It will take some time, but it is unlikely that it will ever be business as usual.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the Courts in the Netherlands ruled in favour of green campaigners, requiring Shell, another giant, to cut emissions by 45% over the next ten years. And staying in Europe, just a couple years ago, in the landmark Grande Synthe case, the court ruled against the French Government for its failure to comply with, yes, the Paris Accord on Climate Change. And of course, the shareholders of another American oil company, Chevron, voted 61% in favour of a proposal to cut carbon emissions. As Governments have failed to act, citizens, the courts and the market will likely force oil companies to take the environment seriously.
This does not mean that oil exploration and production will come to a halt. But we must remember that Guyana is also committed to the Paris Accord and our Constitution has a strong environmental protection Article which the Government ignores at its peril. Moreover, the Environmental Protection Act makes it an offence for any person to cause material environmental harm by polluting the environment intentionally or recklessly. The problem is that the fine is negligible and worse, any prosecution can only be brought by the EPA or a person named by the Government.
Earlier this month, a case was filed in the Guyana court, seeking the enforcement of the Constitution Article. Sooner or later this case is going to attract international attention and lawyers. Our Constitution forbids pollution of the economy, not allow the Government to sell pollution for a meagre price. At the very least, Exxon will have to meet its undertaking to US shareholders to capture carbon from its operations and to stop flaring in Guyana, even with the approval of the EPA and the Government.
Of course, Exxon operates in Guyana with two sidekicks, Hess and CNOOC, which are, at the moment, less vulnerable than Exxon is. But that can change rapidly. And all the plans about scores of wells within this decade may not, and never materialise. For one thing, oil companies will find that lenders are not willing to risk the sustainability of the world by funding dangerous fossil fuel adventures. Guyana may very well be spared Exxon’s excesses by a combination of our national efforts, the company’s shareholders and the financial market.
Sincerely,
Christopher Ram
