Exxon’s Yellowtail EIA…Conclusions on marine mammals incorrect and unsupported by evidence – Int’l Environmental organisation

Dec 20, 2021 News

---

Kaieteur News – As criticisms continue to pour down on Exxon’s Yellowtail development Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), an international organization- Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW) has said that the Consultancy firm, Environmental Resources Management’s (ERM) conclusions on marine mammals is not only incorrect, but unsupported by evidence.
One of the team members is, Heidi Weiskel who has a Bachelor of Arts from Harvard University; a Master of Science Degree, from Tufts University; and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) from the University of California, Davis, where she studied the effects of nutrient pollution on marine species. She did her post-doctoral work on oyster reef food webs at the University of Georgia.
In addition to her field research, Heidi was the Director of Pollution Policy at the Pew Oceans Commission, which developed recommendations for the U.S. Congress and Administration to improve marine resource laws and regulations. She also worked at the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission on marine mammal protection policy, as an environmental research fellow at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, and as a science editor at UNESCO in Paris.
ELAW helps communities speak out for clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet. They are a global alliance of attorneys, scientists, and other advocates collaborating across borders to build a sustainable, just future, according to the organization’s website. ELAW’s comment on the EIA document was solicited by International Lawyer, Melinda Janki, and was submitted to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) which is currently reviewing the document.
The public feedback on the Yellowtail Environmental Impact Assessment closed on December 15, 2021, following a November 11, 2021 public consultation.
The Yellowtail EIA, in section 3.1.6 speaks to the impacts on marine mammals. It says “Marine mammals have the potential to be impacted by the planned Project activities, primarily as a result of exposure to underwater sound, and it was determined that the significance of these potential residual impacts ranges from negligible to minor”.
Furthermore “Marine mammals have the potential to be impacted by two types of sound from planned Project activities: continuous sound from vessels and machinery operating in the PDA; and comparatively louder, shorter-duration impulse sound from Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP). Both the continuous sound and impulsive sound sources would be loud enough to cause injury in the immediate vicinity of the source, but would attenuate to non-injurious levels…” the document adds.
In this regard, the ELAW body contended that these conclusions cannot be correct.
The team quoted a distinguished Professor in Marine Science, Mr. Carlos Duarte who has been conducting research on marine ecosystems across the globe, ranging from polar to the tropical ocean and from near-shore to deep-sea ecosystems. His research addresses biodiversity in the oceans, the impacts of human activity on marine ecosystems, and the capacity of marine ecosystems to recover from these impacts.
In a recent study, the professor concluded that, “…construction and operation of oil and gas infrastructure (e.g., platforms, pipelines) increase anthrophony. [Anthrophony is defined as, “sounds generated by human activities.” The dynamic positioning systems (i.e., propellers and thrusters) used to maintain the position of offshore structures, such as drilling platforms, produce low-frequency noise.”
The authors of this research stated, “There was high confidence that anthropogenic noise negatively affected marine animals. The evidence was strongest for marine mammals, for which 85 to 94 percent of quantitative studies found significant effects…”
In this regard, the ecologists said that this very information makes it difficult for the ERM’s conclusions on marine mammals to be credible. They explained, “Many of the activities studied were directly or indirectly connected to oil and gas production. This kind of scientific analysis makes it difficult to find the EIA’s conclusions of negligible impact credible”.
As a consequence, Janki in her submission to the Environmental Assessment Board, (EAB) cautioned that the EPA must seriously question the competence of ERM in reaching a conclusion of ‘negligible’ impact that is contradicted by science.
“This is particularly blatant as ERM admits that there is ‘high confidence that anthropogenic noise negatively affected marine animals.’ The devastating impact of sound on marine mammals is no longer a matter of specialist scientific knowledge but has made its way into general and public knowledge,” Janki pointed out.
She added, “This is a matter of grave public concern given the rich marine life in the area, including rare and endangered cetaceans” while emphasizing that “the EPA must seriously question ERM’s competence to carry out this EIA”.
Janki, an International Lawyer has submitted to the EPA, that Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), ExxonMobil’s subsidiary that will be undertaking the Yellowtail Project in Guyana’s waters, must first get its EIA right, before permits are granted.
In her submissions to the EPA, the international lawyer of over 30 years said, “It is clear that the EIA, produced by ERM contains conclusions that are contrary to science, gives assurances that are unsupported by evidence, and lacks the technical, and other data necessary to provide an adequate professional assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed Yellowtail Project. The EPA must, therefore, reject the EIA and require EEPGL to submit an EIA that meets the required technical and legal standard”.

---

---