Environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly has taken ExxonMobil, its partners and the consulting firm, ERM to task over the lack of a comprehensive fishery baseline study as part of the impact assessment for the oil giant’s Yellowtail development.
Yellowtail will be Exxon’s fourth oil extraction project in the Stabroek Block offshore Guyana and is said to be its largest investment thus far. As part of the Yellowtail Project, ExxonMobil plans to drill between 40 and 67 wells for the 20-year duration of the investment. It is intended to be the largest of the four developments with over 250,000 barrels of oil per day targeted once production commences.
Based on the schedule, once approval is granted, engineering commences in 2022 and production in the latter part of 2025.
During a consultation session on the EIA for the project on November 11, Mangal-Joly spared no effort to let Exxon and the consultant, Environmental Resource Management (ERM) know of the areas that were deficient. She acknowledged that while there is a fishing study in the 1300+ pages Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) document, there is no comprehensive mapping of fish nurseries in Guyana.
“It (the participatory fishing study) has no comprehensive mapping of the fish nurseries in Guyana or in neighbouring countries that might be feeding our fisheries sector. There are no indications whatsoever in any baseline study done including the marine baseline study done of what the migratory patterns are of commercial or non-commercial fish compared to that whole zone, the mud that extends all the way to northern Brazil,” she said.
She added that there is no description – material or financial – of the fisheries value chain, no quantification of the economic value, direct economic-financial value, both in terms of its contribution to the economy and the subsistence economy. In addition, the environmentalist said there was no quantification of the socio-economic value of the fishing industry in terms of livelihood, family dependency, or the importance of fish consumption to the people of Guyana.
“There is no information on any chemical testing of fish there. No baseline data had ever been collected before you began to use extensive seismic surveys offshore of Guyana, extensive and continue to do so and you continue to drill. So, there is absolutely no baseline data whatsoever for the most elementary thing that one could be possibly socially responsible about, which is fishing.
ExxonMobil found oil here in 2015 and had been carrying out seismic surveys prior to this.
“Esso has been conducting, and in this EIA you’re talking about, 4D surveys which means this stuff is going on over time. So we are in a situation where our regulatory authority under the previous administration permitted this to occur and our regulatory authority under the present administration is continuing with this,” Mangal-Joly posited.
She told the consultation that ERM and ExxonMobil cannot submit an EIA where they have failed to treat with fisheries, nurseries, migratory patterns, catch per unit effort and how their activities have caused changes. Referencing the participatory study, done by ExxonMobil and partners, Mangal-Joly said that the relevant information could not be collected by seeking information from “one guy in Region Six, one guy in Region Two and one guy in Region Four.”
Participatory fish study
According to the EIA document, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) implemented the Participatory Fish Study in 2017. It is being done with the involvement of local consultants and the first phase was concluded in March 2020. The study is in its second stage “with the intent of building on the existing knowledge base.”
The EIA document states that “the study has researched artisanal fishing including information and patterns in gear type, target species, fishing grounds, and other factors.”
The study, has so far, found that persistent heavy rainfalls during the 2021 floods also affected shrimping activities by increasing freshwater loads. It noted that fisher folk in Regions 3 and 4 had to find new grounds to be productive. It focused on the Regions along Guyana’s coast and is still ongoing.
However, Mangal-Joly said Exxon has the financial resources to contract a company to do a comprehensive study of the effects of its operations on the fishery resources.
“You could have hired a firm to do it for Guyana and I think that you have not done well. You have not done well by the fishery sector of our country and they have an incredible, incredibly important role to play in the life of Guyana. Both in terms of all of the downstream value that comes from them but also the subsistence value of fisheries in an incredibly impoverished environment.
“So I would like to know where you’re going to go now in terms of addressing this huge deficiency in this EIA and in all of the work that’s been done in the oil industry because you have no baseline. So today our fishers are not getting fish, and you’re in a position where you don’t have to be held accountable or responsible and that doesn’t help your credibility,” she said.
The environmentalist, while making reference to the continuous flaring offshore Guyana, said that one of Exxon’s biggest issues is its credibility since it has continuously breached its word.
Internationally accepted standard
In response to Mangal-Joly’s queries, ERM related that the way it conducted its data collection is in keeping with internationally accepted standards.
ERM’s Jason Willey explained that they have collected over two years of “baseline” data for fish and this was done in two different ways.
“That was collected with what we call a biological fish study which was conducted in 2017-2019. So it was two study years – two dry seasons, two wet seasons – and it incorporates the full length of the EEZ from the deep waters in the block all the way to the estuaries and that was done from late 2017 to early 2019.
“We also collected the more fisheries-related data, not the biological fishery work, but the fisheries-related data also in two study years and that report is included…we do have baseline data for multiple years, for that particular receptor. Generally speaking, if you look at international best practices it is generally accepted when you have an environment that has a strong seasonal component … you at least collect one year of dry season data and one year of wet season data. If you can get two that’s better but the minimum acceptable practice is at least one year of baseline data and that’s accepted by a wide range of governments and also lending institutions. So we did meet that expectation,” Willey defended.
He added that the perceived lack of baseline data is being addressed and more baseline data is being collected directly from participants in the fishing industry, through the participatory fish study.
