Int'l Lawyer writes World Bank over ExxonMobil’s flaring

Int’l Lawyer writes World Bank over ExxonMobil’s flaring

Jun 20, 2020 News

By Kiana Wilburg

International lawyer, Melinda Janki, along with transparency advocate Ramon Gaskin and chartered Accountants Anand Goolsarran and Nigel Hinds, have written the World Bank over ExxonMobil’s flaring of more than nine billion cubic feet of gas from last year December to now.

International Lawyer, Melinda Janki

In the letter seen by Kaieteur News, Janki et al told the World Bank that ExxonMobil’s permit requires that it re-injects the gas from the Liza Phase-One field and only flare in the case of an emergency or during start-up. She also noted that Section 13 of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Act requires ExxonMobil to use the most appropriate technology for re-injection.
Despite the clear circumstances prescribed for flaring in the environmental permit, Janki told the financial institution that ExxonMobil has flared a significant amount of gas. ExxonMobil has said that mechanical issues with the Liza Destiny’s gas compressor system are to blame for the flaring it engaged in. Janki told the World Bank that the EPA anticipated that the oil giant would have addressed the mechanical issues in a timely manner but it is still flaring well beyond the expectation of the regulatory body. She was keen to note that the company continues to flare about 15 million cubic feet of associated gas every day.
Janki and her associates also challenged the World Bank to explain how it is helping Guyana formulate its future stance on flaring. In this regard, she noted that the financial institution had provided Guyana with a US$20M loan, part of which would be used for the drafting of legislation on flaring. In addition to this, it is the expectation that Guyana would join the Zero-Gas Flaring Initiative which was introduced by the World Bank to bring together governments, oil companies, and development institutions which recognize that flaring is unsustainable from a resource management and environmental perspective, and who agree to cooperate to eliminate routine flaring no later than 2030.
Janki stated that there is no need for Guyana to have new legislation to forbid routine flaring. The lawyer stressed that ExxonMobil is already legally prohibited from flaring by way of its permit. In addition to this, she noted that the Environmental Protection Act (1996) prohibits pollution and requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply the precautionary principle, the avoidance principle and the polluter pays principle.
With this in mind, she said it is not necessary to change the law to prohibit routine flaring. Janki said it is only necessary to change the law if Guyana adopts the ‘Zero-Gas Flaring Initiative’ and has to allow Exxon to flare until 2030.
She said it is obviously in ExxonMobil’s interests to have Guyana adopt the Zero-Gas Flaring Initiative which would allow it to flare for another 10 years. Taking this into account, the lawyer and her associates asked the World Bank to explain via written responses, the purpose of having Guyana produce legislation exclusively to forbid flaring when there is already legal coverage for same.
Janki also asked for an explanation on why the World Bank seems to give the impression that its US$20M loan is intended to prohibit flaring when it expects Guyana to join an initiative that would allow for flaring to continue until 2030.
She also asked the financial institution to explain how the proposed increase in gas flaring by ExxonMobil is consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News