We are now an oil nation, shortly to become a gas one too. While our new industry has a seductive appeal because of the revenue it generates, it is fraught with dangers of all kinds as the experience of other nations should tell us. Not the least of these are the innumerable threats to the environment which the government seems recklessly cavalier about. It is true we have regulatory institutions in place to monitor the industry, and theoretically these are autonomous, but their independence has on several occasions been called into question, most recently the week before last in relation to the proposed gas pipeline.
Were it not for the current turmoil in the oil and gas markets caused by the war in Ukraine the wisdom of constructing a gas pipeline at all would be highly questionable. In circumstances where income from oil alone is so substantial, what we should be looking at in the longer term are renewable sources of energy. But we are where we are, and the administration is determined to press ahead with its latest megaproject.
It will involve capturing associated gas from crude oil production operations at the Liza 1 and Liza 2 floating, production, storage and offloading vessels. It will then be transferred through 220 kilometres of subsea pipeline to Crane/Nouvelle Flanders on the West Coast of Demerara, from where it will flow for about 25 kilometres through an onshore line to a Natural Gas Liquids processing plant located at Wales.
These proposals mean that about 150 acres of land will be required for the project at Wales, and the Friday before last the government met those whose properties will be in the path of the pipeline. It is offering them between one and four million dollars per acre of land. Significantly it was said that the administration had a deadline of the end of this month to begin construction of the line. At that point still no approval had been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, and so inevitably Attorney General Anil Nandlall was asked from the floor whether the government and ExxonMobil were going ahead with the project despite the absence of such approval.
It is the response to this question which caused such consternation. Based on information relayed by Minister of Natural Resources Vickram Bharrat, Mr Nandlall told residents that the EPA would issue its approval in about “two weeks’ time.” The implication of this was clear: if the EPA was independent, how could Minister Bharrat and by extension the government, know in advance that firstly, it would approve the project, and secondly, that it would issue that approval in approximately two weeks? Furthermore, if there were an appeal against the EPA’s decision, how could the government be so sure that it would meet the deadline for the end of October to begin construction?
Could it be, therefore, that not only did it know in advance what the EPA would decide, but also what the appeal body, the Environmental Assessment Board, would decide also? It is not just the EPA which has come under criticism in the past about its autonomy after it waived the need for Environmental Impact Assessments in relation to critical projects, the EAB too has been a target for its ratification of those decisions.
When it held a hearing on the appeal of EPA decisions not to have impact surveys for ExxonMobil’s planned exploration in the offshore Canje and Kaieteur blocks, for example, that hearing was boycotted by environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly who had herself brought the complaint, on the grounds that the EAB was not independent and its decisions were intended to be partial to the EPA. In a letter she said among other things, that the body consistently “failed to meet best practice standards for addressing appeals on EIA waivers in a timely and impartial manner,” and went on to describe how it allowed the EPA inordinate amounts of time to develop reasons for decisions that “by law must be present in full at the time the EPA makes and announces a decision to waive an EIA …” In addition, the EPA was being indulged to facilitate applicants to withdraw and resubmit applications to suit its intention of waiving EIAs, making a mockery of the EP-Act and the rule of law.
The EAB comprises three senior government employees, which is hardly conducive to a perception of independence. Its chair is Ms Pradeepa Bholanath, who is the Senior Director for Climate and REDD in the Ministry of Natural Resources, while the other two are Permanent Secretary Joslyn McKenzie also from the Natural Resources Ministry, and the government’s Chief Hydrometeorological Officer Garvin Cummings. So here we have an appeal body consisting solely of government personnel hearing appeals in relation to government decisions. Just what conclusion is the public supposed to come to?
The EPA itself has been seen as crippled following the dismissal of its former head, Dr Vincent Adams, who was both competent and independent. He was fired on purely political grounds, evidence of the qualifications to President Irfaan Ali’s One Guyana mantra. Where natural resource projects are concerned the government will clearly brook no challenge from any quarter, and it has ensured that the statutory institutions set up to monitor its actions cannot function in the way they were intended. It is still operating in a mode where it believes it has all the answers, and no one else has anything to contribute.
During a discussion a few months ago, Dr Adams described the Environmental Protection Act as a strong one, which just required “minor tweaks”. It is a lesson, perhaps, that good legislation on its own is insufficient to protect the public; it also requires the implementation of that legislation. This is not happening in this instance because the government is not disposed to the presence of independent institutions which can cause it to amend its decisions. Dr Adams also referred to some of the changes in a particular EPA permit, which seemed to indicate that no one on the agency at that time had done any training in petroleum engineering. One would have thought that if the government was serious that would have been an essential requirement for some of the agency’s employees.
With the statements to the residents of Wales and environs, the government seems to have let the cat out of the bag in a public way. If, as expected, the EPA issues its approval for the project, the assumption will be that the government instructed it to do so. The impression is that we are just indulging in theatrics again; a pretence world in which the interests of the people are subsumed under what the government thinks is in their interest. The problem is that in the case of the oil and gas industry there is a huge amount at stake, both in terms of the environment as well as in terms of all our futures. The arrogance of the government in trying to forge ahead without listening to those who have a view which may prevent lasting damage to our world, and adjusting their viewpoint as necessary, beggars belief.
