Opposition still wants full debate on oil spill insurance Motion

Apr 18, 2022 News

---

Kaieteur News – The Parliamentary Opposition is still arguing its case for a full debate to be allowed on an oil spill insurance Motion it submitted to the National Assembly on February 16, which was weakened by the Speaker, Manzoor Nadir.
The Speaker removed 13 of the 20 clauses in the Motion which 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.

The Yellowtail Permit was issued on March 30, 2022, but the oil giant, ExxonMobil is already seeking approval for its fifth project, Uaru+.
The Shadow Oil and Gas Minister, David Patterson in a brief comment yesterday explained that the Opposition was still trying to get the full Motion onto the order paper. However, he explained that if the efforts go in vain, a decision will be made in the new week as it relates to filing a court action to get the oil company to respect Guyana’s environment.
The former Minister of Public Infrastructure noted that the Motion is likely to come up at the 48th Sitting of the National Assembly. On Wednesday last, Parliament had its 46th Sitting.
This newspaper understands that the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th ‘whereas’ clauses were removed from Patterson’s Motion.
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.
Reports from this newspaper on the issue triggered local citizens to add their voices to the issue.
Environmental and Human Rights Activist, Ms. Janette Bulkan, Attorney-at-Law, Christopher Ram, Economist, Ramon Gaskin and Transparency International Guyana (TIGI), called for a full debate of the Motion, since they believe that the floor of the National Assembly is where the facts ought to be determined.
Bulkan pointed out that real and present danger of oil spills to the marine life and ecosystems that line not only Guyana’s coast, but those of a huge swathe of Caribbean nations, makes the issue of full insurance coverage urgent and timely.
As a consequence, she called for a full debate on the Motion. Bulkan was keen to note that former Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran, who served between 2001 and 2011, on 27 March 2008, clearly outlined that a Member can challenge the Speaker by way of a motion – ‘Where a Member is dissatisfied with a decision of the Speaker approving a motion.’
“Then Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran, ended his Statement by saying, ‘Let me hasten to add that decisions of all public officials, including the Speaker, are subject to critical review by the press and public’… I call on: MP David Patterson to present a procedural motion to allow a full debate on the issues raised in his motion gutted with little explanation by the Speaker, the Speaker to allow all the clauses of MP Patterson’s Motion ‘full unlimited liability coverage for oil spills and other disasters related to petroleum production’ to be debated in our National Assembly,” the activist said.
Meanwhile, Gaskin argued, “He is totally out of order by calling on the people who are moving the Motion to provide evidence about all of that. All of that about whether Guyana would be left bankrupt or not will come out during the debate and the government and the ordinary people would have an opportunity to debate and understand that particular issue about the possible economic effects of an oil spill,” the Economist reasoned.
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.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it is presently in the process of securing a parent company guarantee for the Stabroek Block projects.

---

---