Speaker bars debate on economic analysis of Gas-to-Shore Project

Dec 15, 2021 News

---

…tells Patterson he is not obligated to give reasons

Kaieteur News – Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir has thrown out a request by opposition Member of Parliament (PM), David Patterson, to debate certain environmental impacts from the proposed Gas-to-Shore Project, as well as the cost analysis of the initiative, when compared to alternative power generating options.

Patterson, who is also the Shadow Oil and Gas Minister in the Opposition benches, told this publication in an invited comment, that the motion was submitted by him since October last and was seconded by his colleague opposition member, Khemraj Ramjattan of the Alliance for Change (AFC).
In documents seen by this publication, Patterson was informed by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs on November 29, 2021, that in accordance with Standing Order No. 27 (2)(b), the Speaker has altered his motion.
The correspondence outlined that one of Patterson’s clause in his motion was rephrased to read, “And Whereas it is unclear whether any investigation or study has been conducted to understand the environmental and safety risks from pipeline leaks and ruptures that may be caused by defective construction, aging, corrosion, seabed landforms, mudslides, hurricanes, faults, fractures, and seismic activities such as earthquakes and volcanoes.”
Additionally, Patterson said, he was informed that three other clauses from his proposed motion had been removed, along with the request for an economic analysis, including the total estimated project cost and alternatives covering energy mix, and phased approaches.
One such omitted clause, was seeking discussions on gas leakages and exposures in the marine environment, which have shown to be highly toxic to fish, and living organisms and the ecology, which could devastate the fishing industry.
Another of the omitted clause from the motion had indicated that “whereas determined in a March 2021 United States Bureau of Environmental Enforcement (US Offshore oil & gas regulator) comprehensive report, that the technology is not matured and reliable enough to ensure the integrity of deep-water pipelines and detection of subsurface leaks.”
Yet another omitted clause, sought discussions on the proposed Wales facility—located at the mouth of the Demerara River, which has a very shallow draft and where 90 percent of the commercial marine traffic operates, as was pointed out by the former Minister of Infrastructure.
During a telephone interview with this publication, the MP said that when he wrote to the Speaker to clarify why the amendments or exclusions were necessary, he was reminded by the Speaker, that he is not obligated to answer him.

According to the correspondence addressed to Patterson from the Clerk of the National Assembly, “if the Speaker is of the opinion that any notice of motion which has been received by the Clerk of the Assembly, infringes the provisions of the Standing Order, or is in any other way out of order, he or she may direct: – that the Member concerned be informed that the notice of motion is out of order.”
As such, the Clerk indicated “…therefore, the Hon. Speaker is not obligated under the Standing Orders, to give reasons for altering questions and motions.”
As a consequence, Patterson explained that if the motion, which has essentially been dissolved of its purpose, is passed in the House then the Natural Resource Committee will only examine what was contained.
He said, “…it will be so watered down, that really would be a sham. If the Motion is successful, the committee cannot explain the issue affecting the fishermen, gas leakage, and damage at the mouth of the river, plus the project cost.”
Some 30 companies have already expressed interest in the project pegged at US$900 million, which has been dubbed as one of the largest infrastructural venture to date.
Even though this is the case, it was only recently announced that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required.
Following its review of ExxonMobil’s application to proceed with the US$900M gas-to-shore project, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it has determined that an EIA is required.
The regulator said it has also approved Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to conduct the EIA, while noting that it has also given authorisation for the terms of reference it once used.
One of the terms notes, that the company must examine the introduction of increased dangers such as fire, explosion, spills, chemical and other hazardous substances to the surrounding environment, including coastal communities. ExxonMobil is also required to investigate possible effects of the project on the demographic and socio-economic and cultural profiles of the communities.
When it comes to the feasibility of the project, Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo has, however, already concluded it’s a “no-brainer.”
Financial Feasibility studies are considered crucial elements when one is considering entering into a large-scale business venture. A feasibility study examines how much start-up capital is needed, sources of capital, returns on investment, and other financial considerations, while also examining how much cash is required, where it will come from, how it will be spent and potential obstacles that may impede its operations.
Yet for Guyana’s intended gas-to-shore project, no such study is being conducted.
“The financial aspect is a no-brainer; any sensible person with a modicum of sense, a tiny brain, even a residual brain, would understand that,” according to Vice President Jagdeo.

 

 

 

---

---