The EPA needs to stand its ground against Exxon

Aug 30, 2020 Letters

Dear Editor,

A KN article, “APNU+AFC approved Liza Phase One permit the same day it received Exxon 1500 page EIA”, makes me wonder if it was really the government that signed or the head of the EPA that signed on behalf of the government. The EPA should have its independence. Another damning revelation! Instead of granting permission within its confines for five years, the EPA granted 23 and 24 years for Liza One and Two respectively. This asininity is now before the courts, compliments of TGI’s Dr. Troy Thomas and quite rightly so, in the interest of preserving our environment for future generations.
One can understand the kind of leverage Exxon must have felt it has over the EPA, for country manager of Exxon, Alistair Routledge, to say, “We believe it is not the best use of the government’s money or our money to take such a relatively small issue to court”, in dismissing Exxon’s reluctance to pay $500,000 dollars penalty for 5 spills of hydraulic fluids to the EPA. Routledge’s statement reminds me of – “small debts, I don’t remember and large debts, I don’t pay”- a popular phrase juxtaposed by con artists around the globe. It mirrors the cynicism emanating from Exxon towards our EPA.
Routledge response to Exxon’s reluctance to pay the five hundred thousand dollars fines imposed by the EPA – “The fines, we believe, are not applicable to us,” should be construed as a show of disdain for the laws of Guyana and the EPA. He is essentially saying that Exxon has the right to decide what constitutes a breach of Guyana’s EPA.
My definition of a spill is an accidental or intentional release of an unfriendly substance into the environment. For Routledge to assert that hydraulic fluids constitute “no significant impact to the natural environment” is an attack on the resolve of the EPA, if it has any, to effectively safeguard the environment.
Granting Exxon’s EIA a run of 20 odd years when 5 years was its prescribed maximum is definitely not a sign of resolve. No wonder the head of the EPA had to be sent home.
My father would often say that if you “let the little atrocities (spills) to go unchecked, you are essentially inviting the big ones to haunt you.” The EPA needs to stand its ground. In fact, the only thing I see that has “no significant impact” in this scenario, is the $100,000 dollars fine per spill; this should be multiplied by 100 to get Exxon to take note. This will give Exxon the impetus to be mindful of the environment and adhere to safe extraction practices.

Yours truly,
Rudolph Singh.

Latest News

The EPA needs to stand its ground against Exxon

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Rutherford gets big payday from Gujarat Titans at IPL 2025 Mega...

Roach and Seales star as West Indies close in on...

Delroy Tyrrell continues to excel at Oneonta...

Ramdass Royals Crowned Champions of the Inaugural...

KFC Guyana distance self from delayed payment of...

Ravens and Royals ready for epic Elite 16 final...

Features/Columnists

A call for more cultural centres

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

Political constants: opportunism, ambition or betrayal

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The EPA needs to stand its ground against Exxon

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]