Latest update February 22nd, 2025 2:00 PM
Latest News
- $277.9M Mabaruma Magistrates’ Court commissioned at Mabaruma
- Min. Indar scolds contractors over unsanctioned works days after VP Jagdeo called out ministry’s shoddy management of construction sites
- White House expects Ukraine to sign critical minerals deal soon
- Simplify cash grant distribution processes
- Peacemaker chopped after intervening in argument
EPA yet to address ‘illegalities’ surrounding Yellowtail Permit
Kaieteur News – Almost two weeks ago, concerns were raised in the public, regarding the legality of the Environmental Permit issued to United States (US) oil giant, ExxonMobil’s subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), by the local regulator, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but to date the organisation has not laid these worries to rest.
Environmentalist, Simone Mangal-Joly had written to the EPA Head, Mr. Kemraj Parsram on April 16, last, insisting that the Yellowtail Permit be cancelled, while citing “blatant irregularities” in the conduct of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the project. The specialist outlined four areas in which she believes the process was flawed.
Environmentalist, Simone Mangal-Joly
For one, she argued that there was a failure to assess the significant impacts of the project, before its approval, as the Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the Consultant that prepared the EIA for the oil company, merely referred the public to sections of the EIA to understand the project, rather than clear up any misconceptions or directly provide answers.
On the other hand, the environmentalist also challenged the selection of ERM to conduct the EIA on behalf of the oil company, as the Consultant has been the lone agency to conduct such studies for Exxon to date.
The EPA had issued a statement to the media on April 4, last, where it explained that it is currently in the process of developing a list of consultants which can be used to undertake the studies. In the absence of that list of credible consultants, the EPA said it has been approving Consultants on a case by case basis, making sure to review the company’s experience in developing such documents.
However, Mangal-Joly noted that the agency seems to have allowed itself the right to cheat the process, by ignoring Section 3 (a) of the EP Act.
“There is nothing in the Act that speaks to an alternative means through which the EPA may select qualified persons to conduct EIAs. Whether one does it on a case-by-case basis or from a pool, or whether it is a local or foreign individual or company, Section 3(a) of the Act is clear that the Agency cannot select the consultants by itself; the selection must be done “with the assistance of internationally recognised environmental groups.” This is specifically to avoid bias and underhandedness,” she pointed out.
While making her third point, the environmentalist said that the EPA failed to publish the reasons for justifying the issuing of the Yellowtail Permit.
“Section 12(1) of the EP Act (a)(b) and (c) directs the EPA to consider: (i) Recommendations of the EAB; (ii) Views expressed during consultation under section 11(9), and (iii) The environmental impact assessment and statement in deciding on a permit. Notably, Section 12(2) compels the EPA to account for its decision: “The Agency shall publish its decision and the grounds on which it is made”. The Agency’s published Notice of Decision on April Fool’s Day, April 1, 2022, merely parrots the instructions of the EP Act. It says that the EAB found the environmental impact study acceptable, and: “The EPA has taken all relevant considerations into account, including the views expressed by members of the public during consultations done in accordance with section 11(9) of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap. 20:05,” the environmentalist pointed out.
Fourthly, the environmentalist said that the EPA failed to disclose the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the EIA, a document which specifies the obligations consultants are required to fulfill in the conduct of the study.
The EPA had said it was not required by law to publish the TOR for the project.
In an interview with Kaieteur News on Friday, Mangal-Joly said that her concerns raised in that letter are yet to be addressed by the EPA. According to her, “Serious charges of misconduct and illegalities were raised in my letter and the EPA has still not accounted for it. It’s staying quiet but the EPA was on a big PR (public relations) screen before that letter came out. Why are they quiet for two weeks now?”
She added that the agency’s silence implies that it would sweep the issue under the rug and keep moving along with its business.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The clock and the cloud
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Time, as the ancients knew, is a trickster. It slips through the fingers of kings and commoners... more
CARICOM Nations Should Respond Together To new U.S. Policies
By Sir Ronald Sanders Ambassador to the US and the OAS, Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News-Two Executive Orders issued by U.S.... more
Weekend Cartoon
