EPA defends 60-day allowance for flaring in Liza, Payara permits

Jul 03, 2021 News

– Insists provisions in keeping with international benchmarks

Kaieteur News – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday came out in defence of the modifications it made to the Liza Phase One and Payara environmental permits over the past few months, as it insisted that the amendments are in keeping with international best practices.
The modifications were severely criticised this week by former EPA Head, Dr. Vincent Adams. He said the changes made to the permits have essentially weakened the standards ExxonMobil should be made to comply with.
In fact, Dr. Adams had chided the EPA for inserting provisions into the Liza and Payara permits, which allow ExxonMobil to flare gas for 60 days. Dr. Adams had pointed to the ridiculous nature of this allowance as he said in the USA, ExxonMobil’s home country, the standard allowance for flaring during start-up of operations is 48 hours. The former EPA Head had said too that the period of 48 hours was agreed to by himself and other government officials during his time at the EPA when the Payara permit was under discussion.
But in its missive to the press, the EPA defended the 60-day provision as it said international benchmarking shows that the typical acceptable start-up period averages 90 days. The EPA therefore concluded that the 60-day requirement is much more stringent as it is well below the average international benchmark.
The EPA further noted that contrary to what Dr. Adams claims, “there was never an agreement to prescribe two days of start-up since this was impossible given the nature of the installations.”
The regulator also took issue with Dr. Adams’ recent criticism that the permits contain no provision to stop flaring after 60 days. The EPA categorically stated that this is erroneous while adding that both permits specifically state: “The Permit Holder shall not exceed sixty (60) days of flaring during start-up.” Moreover, the EPA said there is no “carte blanche” for flaring under ‘Special Circumstances’ either, as the company is required to seek approval from the EPA for any flaring beyond 48 cumulative hours.
It also stressed that routine flaring and venting are also strictly prohibited by both permits.
In addition to the foregoing, the EPA said it maintains and reserves the right to reject any request for flaring made pursuant to these Permits. The agency said too that if an approval is given, it might include such terms and conditions as may be appropriate, including reduced timelines for any proposed flaring events.
Pursuant to Condition 3.17 of the Payara Environmental Permit for example, the EPA said it has established a payment for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions as a result of flaring at the rate of USD$30 per tonne of CO2e, consistent with similar mechanisms included in the modified Liza 1 Permit. It said that the institution and applicability of this payment is determinable by the EPA, in consideration of the Polluter Pays Principle.
The EPA further noted that it reserves the right to increase this rate where any instance of flaring exceeds sixty (60) days.
It also refuted any allegations that it lacks the requisite capacity and capabilities to perform the necessary calculations for the US$30 penalty. The EPA said it has a wide variety of professionals qualified in environmental management, chemistry, engineering and other pertinent fields and recruits additional expertise, local and international as necessary.
With the foregoing in mind, the EPA said it views the Payara Environmental Permit and the Modified Liza 1 Environmental Permit as marked improvements, particularly in consideration of the more specific flare management conditions that are consistent with industry practice in order to regulate and/or deter periods of flaring.
The EPA said specifically, the Payara Permit was a major improvement in that it also included provisions for produced water management, cradle to grave waste management, insurance requirements and reporting mechanisms; which were notably absent from the Liza permits.
In conclusion, the EPA said it wishes to assure the public that it has pursued, and continues to pursue environmental safeguards and deterrent mechanisms to address any prolonged periods of flaring, which may pose risks to the environment, consistent with best practice and international standards.

Latest News

EPA defends 60-day allowance for flaring in Liza, Payara permits

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Diamond Mineral Water Indoor Hockey Festival returns for 19th edition

Louis 97, Athanaze 90 give West Indies slight...

Vladimir Woodroofe backs out of World...

Exciting Double-header bowls off today with...

YMCA and Hard Knocks battle for Futsal supremacy...

Sukhwa delighted to score most runs at GCB...

Features/Columnists

Let us not be silent witnesses!

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

Welcome, Mr. PM

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

EPA defends 60-day allowance for flaring in Liza, Payara permits

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 […]