Environmental lawyer wants ExxonMobil’s permit revoked

Nov 17, 2017 News

---

Those who care about the environment and are well aware of what the imminent operations of ExxonMobil can do to the environment, are adamant that the Government of Guyana needs to do much more for the protection of its people.
For reasons not stated, some environmentalists are unwilling to go on record criticizing the stance being taken by the Government of Guyana when it comes to the protection of the environment.
However, Melinda Janki, an attorney-at-law specializing in international environmental law and indigenous and human rights, has no qualms in stating that the environmental permit handed to ExxonMobil should be revoked.
Janki, who has worked for a number of oil companies, said this at a recent presentation she made at Moray House. The lawyer said that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that ExxonMobil submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was poor and unworthy of being used as merit for the environmental permit.
Janki’s position was articulated by attorney at law Christopher Ram in his most recent column.
He said that at the forum that also included lectures from environmentalist Annette Arjoon-Martin and former Auditor General, Anand Goolsarran was quite informative.
“Not surprisingly, there was much discussion on the environmental permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to Esso Exploration & Production Guyana Limited (ExxonMobil) which should see the oil giant and its two joint venture partners begin to pump oil in 2020. Melinda Janki was adamant that given the weaknesses identified in the documents submitted by ExxonMobil for the issue of an Environmental Permit, the permit that has been issued should be revoked,” said Ram.
He continued, “The documentation comprises an Environmental Impact Assessment, Technical Appendices, Environmental and Socio-Economic Management Plan and Oil Spill Response Plan. Citing statistics and information contained in the documents, Ms. Janki is convinced that a case can be made for the Environmental Permit to be set aside by the Court!”
Ram said that the challenge for all Guyanese is that there has not been enough meaningful consultation with the fault lying with the Government, the oil companies and members of the public, including those who are expected to be better informed. Ever since ExxonMobil announced the first oil find in 2015, it was always a race to 2020, which coincidentally is the year when elections are next due.
“The documentation runs to nearly two thousand pages and clearly requires experts to break it down for the lay person. How else can their rights and that of their organisations to participate in the management and decision-making processes of the State that directly affect their well-being have any meaning?”
ExxonMobil has been associated with some of the world’s most horrific oil spills.
In 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez slammed into a reef and spilled more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into the waters of Alaska. The damage spread more than 1,300 miles of some of the most remote, wild shorelines in America.
Although this happened 28 years ago, The Valdez area in Alaska has not recovered to date.
With ExxonMobil’s operations heading into full swing, Guyana is now at risk of having to face the consequences of an oil spill.
But ExxonMobil’s EIA leaves much to be desired.
According to the source document, ExxonMobil has little or no plans in place to deal with any financial eventuality of an oil spill.
Exxon claims that the possibility of an oil spill is not very high. However, it said that there is a 10 percent chance that in the event of a spill, oil will reach the coast of Guyana where 90 percent of its population sits.
ExxonMobil inferred that because of the purported ‘slim’ chance of an oil spill, detailed response measures are not needed. However, with a two percent possibility of occurring, the practice around the world is that oil companies are made to cater in detail for disasters. And indeed, the impact of an oil spill will be major for Guyana and its neighbours.
There is also nothing in the EIA that speaks to how Guyana’s neighbours will be compensated. There is a possibility that neighbouring countries, when environmental damage occurs, can move against Guyana. If the burden is left to bear by Guyana, the country may have to pay damages equivalent to years of oil revenues.
ExxonMobil’s EIA also offers no compensation to fishermen and other Guyanese who are most likely to be affected in the case of an oil spill.
The EIA has little or no information on the role to be played by relevant stakeholders as it pertains to consultations, training and quick response measures. In short, the oil giant did not commit to anything.
In the event of an oil spill, there is no oversight mechanism in place to oversee the remedial action taken by the company.

---

---