Court case by Guyanese against Exxon must have scientific basis

Oct 01, 2021 Letters

Dear Editor,

I am following intently a case filed by Dr. Troy Thomas and Quadad DeFreitas, representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, against ExxonMobil and by extension the Government of Guyana, on the impact of carbon emissions in the development of oilfields offshore Guyana. They are contending that the carbon emissions generated from oil extraction here are so great that it is, if not already, has a negative impact on climate change in Guyana.
While we are all concerned about climate change and the negative effects of greenhouse gases, we must not forget that this is a scientific discussion and, as such, must not deviate from that path, since scientific matters must be dealt with in a scientific context. This is not an emotional or political issue; therefore, it is on this platform that we base our arguments.
Secondly, we cannot put forward as proof that because negative consequences occurred elsewhere, means that it will happen here, that is for a street side gaff, but not evidence in a court of law. It thus behooves us to take a careful look at the arguments and counterarguments that would be put forward in court. This is purely a scientific case, and as such, must go the full length of the examination of empirical evidence to support their claim. Pure hard scientific facts must be generated for any court to come up with a sensible conclusion, if any, otherwise this case should be thrown out for lack of scientific proof.
A case of this nature must examine the following factors:
1. The extraction of crude petroleum here brings with it Natural gas, the two exist together. As an oil-producing nation, Guyana is less than three years into the production of oil and Natural gas. The excess gas extraction has to be utilised which, in the present circumstances, is being flared. The question is, does the flaring of the excess Natural gas so great that it will cause drastic climate changes?
2. As a consequence of the above, The EPA must through empirical evidence show that the gas emissions or flaring, which is in (ppm), is so great as to produce that negative effect. I am talking about evidence collated over that period. In this regard, the EPA would be hard-pressed to produce scientific evidence to the satisfaction of the experts in this debate.
3. The Natural gas is presently being flared or burnt as a consequence of the company not having any other alternatives for its proper use. The government for its part has produced a comprehensive plan to bring that gas to shore for full utilisation of it in power generation. This is commendable and must be taken note of.
4. Most of our gas is found offshore, which means that this gas extraction is in the midst of one of the largest carbon sinks of the world, which is water. Offshore drilling is in the limitless ocean of water.
5. Another source of carbon sink is our forest, found in the wider Amazon basin, which is the second largest forested Region in the world. Guyana itself is heavily forested, being 90 percent forest.
6. Our oil industry has to be utilised in a sustainable manner, which means that oil extraction is defined as development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations. The safety and wellbeing of all can be assured if we endeavour to adopt and adapt to these factors.
Some may find difficulty with the interpretation of the word sustainability as is the case with the EPA and the use of fossil fuels. They may want to question its validity when we see the disappearance of biodiversity, ecosystems and, the most dreaded, climate change. However, not all is lost with the implementation of present technologies to mitigate the negatives. And where there is deficiency of present methods, then the adoption of more appropriate and efficient models for the wellbeing of the industry and society.
The oil and Natural gas are not going to be left in the ground, as our vice president has intimated and I am in agreement, but it will be utilised in a sustainable manner in keeping with modern standards. This is what a court must uphold not to rely on unscientific, non-empirical, at the most political statements.

Respectfully submitted,
Neil Adams

Latest News

Court case by Guyanese against Exxon must have scientific basis

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Body of Chinese national who fell from new Demerara River bridge...

Athanaze posts 98 as Windies start positively in...

Youngsters seize opportunity, rubbing shoulders...

Anderson, Nedd, Lovell hit form as first Harpy...

Alvin ‘Geronimo’ Braithwaite to be...

CFU launches Next Generation Class of 2025...

Features/Columnists

Dem signs need calibrating

Forget Begging Rich Nations: Caribbean Countries Should Act to Save Themselves

Look where Guyana is, govt. is, leaders are

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Court case by Guyanese against Exxon must have scientific basis

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 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 […]