ExxonMobil giving wishy-washy answers on critical environmental matters for Payara

Aug 23, 2020 News

– EPA head insists all concerns have to be addressed before approval

By Kiana Wilburg

EPA Head. Dr. Vincent Adams

As the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government continues with the review of the Payara Field Development Plan for ExxonMobil’s third project in the Stabroek Block, there have been growing concerns about the US oil giant’s posture on environmental issues.
One of the most critical concerns remains that of flaring…which releases over 200 toxic chemicals into the nation’s atmosphere.
As a result of mechanical issues being experienced with the Liza Destiny’s gas compressor system, ExxonMobil has flared from December 2019 to now, over 10 billion cubic feet of gas.
Until it fixes the faulty equipment, ExxonMobil will continue to flare over 12 to 15 million cubic feet of gas per day as confirmed by head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dr. Vincent Adams.
Furthermore, Kaieteur News would have confirmed with sources close to the review of the Payara plan that ExxonMobil is pushing to retain the loopholes in its Liza One and Two permits which allow for flaring.
Dr. Adams, who is in the process of correcting this state of affairs, confirmed this too.
The official said: “The problem is that a lot of things slipped through the cracks in the beginning because ExxonMobil was not being questioned enough from the regulatory side, from the side I am on. And this was because we lacked the competence at the agency. The right questions were not being raised because we did not have the competencies in the agency…”
In addition to this, Dr. Adams recalled that he had received some concerns from international lawyer, Melinda Janki regarding the Payara Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Janki had partnered with one of the industry’s most revered scientists, Dr. Mark Chernaik who pointed to troubling flaws in the EIA.
One of the flaws highlighted was that there was no study on the cumulative impact of carbon emissions that would be released when Payara, Liza One and Liza Two, are operating simultaneously offshore Guyana.
Dr. Adams said that those matters are critical while adding that they are still being worked through because “they are always sending answers which so far have been inadequate.”
Dr. Adams added: “They have to address every single environmental question and concern raised during the EIA process. And once again, that has not been completed.”
He was keen to note that ExxonMobil cannot start development without approval for the EIA.
PAYARA EIA
In the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Payara Project, one gets the impression that the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by ExxonMobil’s projects would not be at an alarming rate.
The document notes that GHG emissions only increase in 2022 with the initiation of production operations for the Liza Phase Two Development Project, and then again in 2023 with the initiation of production operations for the Payara Project.
It was noted that cumulative GHG emissions peak in 2025 and then decrease steadily over the next 15 years from approximately 6,500 kilotonnes per year to approximately 5,900 kilotonnes per year, as predicted production levels gradually decrease for the five development projects.
But a deeper analysis by reputable scientist Dr. Mark Chernaik of Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW) found significant anomalies that may have escaped the attention of Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency.
The scientist and attorney-at-law said: “The claim that the project’s emissions would be ‘over the next 15 years from approximately 6,500 kilotonnes per year to approximately 5,900 kilotonnes per year’ is grossly inaccurate as these emissions do not include indirect emissions, that is, the end use of the products derived from the crude oil.”
Based on FPSO key design rates provided in the EIAs for Liza Phase 1 (100,000 barrels per day), Liza Phase 2 (220,000 barrels per day) and Payara (220,000 barrels per day), cumulative oil production by ExxonMobil is expected to be around 540,000 barrels per day, or 197 million barrels of oil per year for the years 2024 to 2030.
Taking this into consideration, the scientist said that the average carbon dioxide emissions from production and eventual combustion of crude oil (including its refined products will not be 6,500 kilotons per year or 6,500,000 metric tons, as Exxon claims, but roughly 85 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year for the years 2024-2030 inclusive.
Dr. Adams said that upon noting the foregoing which Kaieteur News exposed, he has challenged the oil giant for a response.
He said too that the American super major was asked to address other concerns raised by Dr. Chernaik.
According to the scientist’s report, the severe social costs of greenhouse gas emissions of the Payara Development Project combined with the Liza Phase One and Liza Phase Two projects were not presented to decision-makers in the EIA.
Dr. Chernaik explained that the social cost of carbon represents the economic cost associated with climate damage (or benefit) that results from the emission of an additional tonne of carbon dioxide. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change. Based on his computations, the social cost of ExxonMobil’s projects would be US$34.8 billion. It was also noted that the indirect cost of the said emissions would be US$717 billion.
When these and other concerns are taken into consideration, the American scientist concluded that any approval granted would be done with a lopsided understanding of the impact these projects would have on the environment.
Dr. Adams is now making efforts to correct this state of affairs.