Opposition mulls court action over full coverage insurance

Mar 24, 2022 News

---

 – as ExxonMobil, PPP/C Govt. pussyfoot around issue

Kaieteur News – The Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir has chosen to strike out critical clauses outlined in a motion tabled by the Opposition, on full liability coverage for Guyana’s petroleum activities, but Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R) Aubrey Norton has made it clear, that the party will not be accepting the ‘degutting’ of its motion this time around.

Norton, during the PNCR’s weekly press conference, hosted on Tuesday again called out the House Speaker for what he described as his ‘partisan’ behaviour. In response to a question by this publication, the Leader said, “The approach of the Speaker and the government is not new. They do everything to ensure that democracy is undermined and the position they took on that Motion is clearly to degut it so that it isn’t effective.” Cognizant of this fact and making sure to highlight the importance of the Opposition Motion, Norton explained that the PNC/R faction of the Coalition will be pushing for legal action to be taken on the matter. “There will be consultations on the way forward. Remember this is an APNU/AFC Motion, but as a party, the PNC/R will be one that will be pushing in the direction of taking legal action in this matter, but like I’ve said, it’s an APNU/AFC matter and I will prefer to engage and we arrive at a unified position on the matter and then give you a clear indication as to where we will go,” the PNCR Leader indicated.
On February 16, Opposition Member of Parliament (MP) David Patterson filed a Motion in the National Assembly seeking full coverage insurance of Guyana’s oil activities. The Speaker in a written response to the Member of Parliament (MP), dated February 28, 2022, informed that 13 of the 20 clauses in Patterson’s Motion have been disallowed, while two of the ‘whereas’ clauses were also amended. The Speaker’s response was sent by the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr. Sherlock Isaacs. In the document seen by Kaieteur News, Isaacs stated that the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th ‘whereas’ clauses were removed.
The second clause, in the insurance Motion states, “And Whereas worldwide offshore oil production operations show a high likelihood of an oil spill occurring offshore Guyana, and that such likelihood of a spill increases exponentially with the rapid increase in offshore production activities” and the fourth clause read, “And Whereas the emergency response and cleanup of the British Petroleum Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have so far cost more than $70 billion USD.”
Even though these details have been widely reported on, and are moreover available for verification through quick research, these clauses were removed as the Speaker concluded they must be based on facts. The removal of these clauses means that they will not be debated in the National Assembly.
On the other hand, another critical clause that was struck out highlighted or reminded the government that the Liza Two Permit allows for unlimited liability coverage. Clause 11 and 12 which were removed states, “And Whereas EEPGL agreed to the unlimited liability coverage commitment in the Liza 2 Permit and urgent purchase of the maximum available private insurance prior to signing the Permit; And Whereas EEPGL requested a concession for EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to sign the Permit in order to maintain the confidence of its investors, conditioned upon giving EEPGL time to negotiate an Agreement amongst its parent companies on how those liabilities would be shared amongst the companies.”
To this end, Mr. Aubrey Norton said he believes civil society ought to be calling for the removal of Mr. Nadir, who removed the clauses from Patterson’s Motion as he believes they were not factual. Norton reasoned, “I think civil society should be calling for the resignation of the Speaker of the National Assembly. How could you, civil society and others, be quiet when a critical issue…has been tabled in a Motion and Speaker of the House in collusion with the government would have virtually removed its efficacy?”
Already, at least three members of civil society, as well as Transparency International Guyana (TIGI), have called for the Speaker to allow a full debate on the Opposition’s Motion. The citizens; Environmental activist, Janette Bulkan, Attorney-at-Law, Christopher Ram and Economist, Ramon Gaskin all agreed that the floor of the National Assembly ought to be where the facts are determined.
The Opposition’s Motion on full coverage insurance is calling for the Government of Guyana, to include full unlimited liability coverage for oil spills and other disasters related to petroleum production, as a condition for granting approval for ExxonMobil’s fourth project, the Yellowtail development, and all other future petroleum development. It is also seeking an independent analysis on the possible ill effects of an oil spill and for this report to be submitted to the Parliamentary Committee of Natural Resources, to be used as a reference for all other future oil development submissions.
This newspaper’s publisher, Glenn Lall, has been championing the call for ExxonMobil to provide full liability coverage in the event of an oil spill. Since 2015, ExxonMobil Corporation, the parent company of Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), has steered clear of being tied to full coverage insurance for its Stabroek Block projects, which are certain to deliver multi-billion dollar profits on an annual basis. Instead, its subsidiary (EEPGL) will be officially on the hook if such an eventuality occurs offshore. This is the state of affairs with its Liza Phase One, Liza Phase Two and Payara Projects.

---

---