Article 13 joins call for Yellowtail EIA to be quashed

Dec 17, 2021 News

---

Kaieteur News – A Civil society group that calls itself Article 13 has joined forces with a group of environmentalists, who recently wrote to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) to request that ExxonMobil’s fourth project, the Yellowtail Development Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), be quashed on the ground that it lacks pertinent information.

In a letter to the EAB that was seen by Kaieteur News, Article 13 said it, “endorses the concerns of a group of citizens in a letter to the Environmental Assessment Board dated 10 December 2021. They have raised concerns over the conduct of the Environmental Impact Assessment for Exxon Mobil’s Yellowtail development”.

The group which consists of prominent, outspoken Guyanese such as Chartered Accountant and Attorney at Law Christopher Ram and telecommunications expert Yog Mahadeo, Ramon Gaskin, and Jonathan Yearwood among others said therefore, “We join their call for the Environmental Protection Agency to restart the EIA process from the very start by providing full transparency in the selection of consultants and to fully address the questions raised by stakeholders during the process,” the group outlined.

Moreover, Article 13 said that due to the nature of the impacts the Yellowtail development is likely to have, the Consultation process should be extended to regional stakeholders, as required by international law. “We request that the 2020 Environmental Protection Guidelines be re-enacted, and the EIA adhere to these and industry best practice standards,” the Civil society body posited.

On December 10, 2021, a group of international environmentalists teamed up to demand that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scraps the Yellowtail development Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), given that the document fails to address critical subjects such as the impacts of the total waste brought to shore, and baseline data for Guyana’s fisheries sector.

In a letter to the EPA, the experts Simone Mangal-Joly, Alfred Buhlai, Vanda Radzik, Janette Bulkan, Denuta Radzik, Jerry Jailall, Alissa Trotz and Maya Trotz, who all participated in a virtual meeting on November 11, to discuss the impacts of the project on the environment, said that not only were their questions not answered by ExxonMobil’s Consultant, the Environmental Resources Management (ERM), but the recommendation for the firm to provide answers in writing, before the closure of the public comment period, has fallen on deaf ears.

On the ‘Impacts of total volume of waste brought to shore for the lifetime of the Yellowtail project’ the experts said they need to know “What is the exact quantity of waste that will be brought on shore for the life of the project? What is the constituent component of that waste? How will the waste be transported and offloaded at treatment site(s)? What specific risks does its transport pose at the specific sites of treatment giving surrounding receptors? What are the specific toxicities and risks to human health and ecology of each component, and specifically how will the waste be treated to remove toxic components?”
Additionally, the environmentalists said they are requesting information on “What Public Communication discharges will there be to air, water, and ground during treatment and what are the chemical compositions of these discharges and what risk do they pose to human health and ecology? Will any discharge be directly into rivers and estuaries with protected forest species, and if so, what threats do they pose to such bodies over the full life of the Yellowtail project? Will this discharge affect fisheries and other activities in any estuary? What is the chemical composition and risks of the residues that will be taken to a landfill? What is the total volume of waste bound for landfills during the life of the project? What is the total land demand for such landfill given the volume of waste produced over the life of the project? What are the standards for operation of such landfill, and what are the risks if these standards are violated?”

When it comes to Baseline information on Guyana’s fisheries sector, the group requested the consultant to provide them with specific data such as the total number of formal and informal operators, size, catch per unit effort in the dry versus the wet season, economic value of formal and informal production, livelihood dependency, economic linkages, and total economic value of the sector considering linkages with other sectors. It was also requested that information pertaining to the near-shore and offshore fish nurseries located and mapped by geospatial coordinates be provided.

 

---

---