The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) took approximately five working days to complete its review of the over 6000-page revised environmental impact assessment report for ExxonMobil’s recently licensed Yellowtail development project.
The disclosure comes in wake of the swift granting of the production licence for the project by government on April 1, 2022, two days after the environmental permit was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The speed of the process will likely reinforce fears here that the government and ExxonMobil are moving to extract oil at a breakneck pace, without paying any heed to environmental concerns that persist.
Pradeepa Bholanath, the Senior Director for Climate and REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) in the Ministry of Natural Resources, who chairs the board, told Sunday Stabroek when contacted that that the EAB received the revised study report from Exxon’s consultant on March 17, 2022, and met several times to discuss it.
The revised report, which consists of three volumes, was released by the EPA on Friday after it announced the granting of the environmental permit to Exxon. The first volume, which is the meat of the study, is 1,426 pages, while the second volume contains the appendices and is 2,784 pages, and the final volume consisting of the management plans is 1,880 pages.
The EAB received the report the day before Phagwah – which is a national holiday and that was followed by the weekend. Bholanath told this publication that the Board completed its review on March 25.
“As indicated to you (Stabroek News) at the EAB Hearing on Tuesday 29th March 2022, the process regarding the EAB’s engagement on the revised ESIA for Yellowtail was ongoing.
“The EAB’s Report was sent to the EPA on 25th March 2022 and on 29th March, the EAB received feedback from EPA of no further question or clarification, thus finalising the EAB process on this Project,” Bholanath said in a written response to Sunday Stabroek’s questions.
The Board also comprises Joslyn McKenzie, who is the Permanent Secretary of the same ministry, and Dr Garvin Cummings, who is the Agriculture Ministry’s Chief Hydrometeorological Officer.
On March 31, Stabroek News reported that consultancy firm Environmental Resource Management (ERM) had submitted its revised EIA to the Board and it was in process of reviewing.
“We did receive a revised document from ERM about two weeks ago. I cannot say when it will be approved or not because it is a process,” Bholanath had related to this publication on March 29.
Also, when she was asked whether the new study addressed all of the concerns raised by the EPA, Bholanath could not say. Instead, she along with fellow board member McKenzie directed the questions to the EPA.
In a statement on Friday, the EPA said that the approval of the environmental permit occurred after the EAB considered public inputs during all statutory periods for public consultations and review. The EPA also took into consideration the technical review and recommendations from a team of Independent International Experts, and the Board.
“The EAB reviewed and declared the revised EIS (Environmental Impact Study) acceptable and provided
recommendations for EPA’s approval as part of the environmental permit,” the statement said.
Exxon, through ERM, applied to the EPA for an environmental permit for the project, in the Stabroek Block offshore Guyana. It submitted the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other ancillary documents as part of the process and held public consultations. The statutory period for the public to submit objections expired in December last year and saw a number of environmentalists and other stakeholders objecting to the project as well as questioning the ERM’s independence. At the end of February, Executive Director of the EPA Kemraj Parsram had told Stabroek News that the agency advised ERM to present a revised EIA following an independent review.
Out of order
The withholding of the revised EIA for the project until after the granting of the contentious environmental permit is a “deep and entrenching breach of the consultative process”, according to environmental activist Vanda Radzik.
This has led to questions about whether the revised study addressed the concerns of the stakeholders during the public comment/consultation phase of the study.
A scan of the revised EIA revealed that very little has been noticeably changed and efforts to contact the EPA head to determine some of the changes that ERM has made were unsuccessful. Volume I of the initial EIA was 1382 pages while the revised one has increased to 1426 pages. There are no keys to which sections have been modified or where new information has been added.
Yesterday, Radzik told Sunday Stabroek that the EIA process is set out in the law and it affords public participation.
“We are continuing at a disadvantage when we can’t get our processes right. This is not a standalone process, we have laws that guide us in how we act and during the consultations on the first EIA a number of questions from various stakeholders were asked and we are not sure if they have been adequately addressed in this new EIA.
“While I would not comment on the actual permit and the EIA because I have not benefitted from a thorough review of what it contains, I can speak to the process and this process was completely out of order. This thing of coming up with a revised EIA and approving it in a rush is completely out of order and flies in the face of the consultation process,” Radzik said.
During the final public consultation in November last year, a number of environmentalists and activists criticised ERM for its failure to treat certain aspects of the environmental impact of offshore activities. For instance, Jamaican environmentalist Diana McCaulay had called for the EPA to hold off on approving the project until it shares the EIA findings with other territories. Her Trinidadian counterpart Gary Aboud, of the Fishermen and Friends of the Sea (FFOS), threatened legal action against Guyana if it fails to address the potential impacts on the Caribbean fisheries and tourism sectors.
A number of environmentalists and groups submitted objections to the EPA noting that the company failed to address a number of impacts on the environment. Also, questions were raised about ERM’s ties to Exxon since it is the same company that did all of Exxon’s EIAs. They had also issued calls for the scrapping of the EIA.
According to the EIA, if a large oil spill is to occur offshore Guyana, a number of Caribbean territories stand to be affected.
Yesterday, Radzik said that she hopes that the revised study provides some of the answers to the questions that were asked.
“We had Gary Aboud raising some serious questions and sharing his experience of what has happened in Trinidad for the longest while. He played a video of an oil spill off the coast of Trinidad and raised his concerns. The first study we had was very cursory and we did not have much time to go through it.
“I have consulted with a number of indigenous villages, including the protected Shell Beach area, that stands to be affected if there should be an oil spill offshore and they did not even have time to properly go through the first study and now we have this revised one that we have never seen. It is a breach of process and totally out of order,” she lamented.
Inclusion
Meanwhile, when questioned on whether the revised study addressed some of the concerns raised in the public process as well as objections to the Board, Bholanath said that they noted several improvements in the revised version of the documentation.
“The EAB made recommendations for permit conditions including but not limited to the following areas: Impacts of third-party facilities outside of Yellowtail Project Development – Monitoring of Living Marine, Biological, Physical and Socioeconomic Resources and designate resources be conducted, towards the monitoring of living coastal and marine resources. (2)Analysis of alternatives, including detailed reasoning for the selection of the proposed project compared to other options: Produced Water, Effects of Drilling and Production Activity on the Marine Environment.
“(3) Condition for ongoing sharing of information and engagement of stakeholders. (4) Oil Spill conditions regarding- Capping Stack, Dispersants, Insurance. (5) Flaring conditions regarding – Routine flaring [and] Commissioning – (a) Emergency; (b) Maintenance; and (c) Restart,” she said.
Bholanath also told this publication that the EAB assessed the revised documents alongside the review completed by the independent experts.
The permit strictly prohibits routine flaring and venting and specifies that flaring is only permissible during commissioning, start-up and special circumstances. It stipulates that flaring should not exceed a cumulative 60 days during the startup phase. ExxonMobil’s subsidiary Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) is mandated to notify the EPA of the expected duration and flaring volumes expected during the start-up and commission phases at least six months before commencement.
The Permit also goes further to maintain payments in instances where flaring is conducted beyond permitted durations.
“The Permit Holder shall pay US$45 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) emitted as a result of flaring in excess of the periods of flaring expressly stipulated…,” the permit states.
“Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to mean that the Agency rescinds its authority to revise the rate of US$45 per tonne established by Condition 3.13 for the emission of CO2e for any period of continuous flaring beyond sixty (60) days, to order the cessation of all flaring, or take any other course of action provided by the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05,” it adds.
The Permit requires EEPGL to procure a Capping Stack to be maintained, tested, and stored in Guyana. A capping stack is a large well closure device that connects to the top of the blowout preventer (BOP) and is capable of sealing off a well. It is a form of modern technology (available post the Gulf of Mexico, Macondo incident) to cap a well in event of a loss of well control, and failure of the blowout preventer (BOP).
Additionally, EEPGL must maintain access to at least one (1) overseas subscription service, to allow mobilization of a Capping Stack to the project location. This serves to fortify safety and emergency response efforts since wells would be swiftly capped in the event of a well blow-out.
The permit also addresses financial liability in the event of an oil spill – something that has been contentious between government and critics. It stipulates that EEPGL must comply with the polluter pays principle. It adds that EEPGL shall bear all costs of the restoration, rehabilitation and compensation required as a result of damage owing to an oil spill.
“The Permit Holder shall provide and/or declare within reasonable time upon signing of this permit a combination of the following forms of financial assurance to cover all its legitimate liabilities under this permit. These shall include: (a) insurance in accordance with Condition 14.5 and shall cover well control, and/or clean up and third-party liability on terms that are market standard for this type of coverage; (b) a Parent Company/Affiliate (of operator and Co-Venturers (CoVs)) undertaking that provides indemnification for liabilities under this Permit.”
The financial assurance provided must be guided by an estimate of the sum of the reasonably credible costs, expenses, and liabilities that may arise from any breaches of this permit. Liabilities are considered to include costs associated with responding to an incident, clean-up and remediation and monitoring.
EEPGL is required to submit, to the EPA, copies of its environmental liability insurance policies; a summary of the environmental liability insurance policies detailing the insurer, type of insurance, amount of coverage, key terms, types of environmental damage the policies fail to cover and duration of each policy; and evidence that the insurer is authorized to operate in Guyana among other evidence relating to the insurer’s capabilities to execute the policies.
