No gas leak management plan submitted by ExxonMobil for Gas-to-Energy pipeline

May 11, 2022 News

By Davina Bagot

Kaieteur News – Though gas leaks, and worse yet, explosions or fires are all listed as likely ‘unplanned events’ that can take place, as a result of the pipeline ExxonMobil will be laying to transport gas from the Liza One and Two development to the Wales project site, the oil company has completely glossed over how it would respond to such a disaster as no management plan in this regard has been submitted to accompany its already submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The document, which comprises three volumes, was submitted to the local Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on April 20, last rounding up just about 5,906 combined pages of technical information.

An offshore pipeline used to transport gas.

Specifically, volume three of the EIA speaks to the developer’s management plans, which include an Environmental and Socioeconomic Management and Monitoring Plan; Stakeholder Engagement Plan for Guyana Operations; Preliminary Decommissioning Plan for the Guyana Gas-to-Energy Project; Oil Spill Response Plan for Guyana Operations and a Comprehensive Waste Management Plan. There was no mention of a gas leak management plan.
The company instead stressed on oil spill management, even though it said such an incident is less likely to occur, except in the event of a vessel collision or during other support activities.
In the absence of such a plan and the non-existence of details regarding Exxon’s expected response to such an occurrence, one attorney has questioned whether the oil company is willing to take responsibility should such a disaster take place.
The attorney, Elizabeth Hughes in a recent exclusive interview with Kaieteur News argued that while the pipeline is expected to be buried a good distance underground, it does not mean that toxins will not be released, which is not included in the company’s impact assessment.
She said, “Yes the pipeline is going underground but there are toxins all of the time that we are unaware of, chemical reactions and stuff like that, but they have no gas safety plan, there is one for oil spill resource management but there is no one specifically for the gas sector. Oil and gas are two completely different chemical substances so they need to be treated differently and they need to have a specific safety regulation for any gas related initiative or anything like that.”
Hughes explained that Guyana has recently started experiencing heavier impacts of climate change, with specific activities such as tremors, becoming more frequent. Given that these natural activities are also likely to impact the pipeline, she argued that there must be regulations in place for the oil company to be held liable and more so compensate for losses as a result of such activities.
The attorney reasoned, “We in Guyana feel earthquake tremors so there must be earthquake tremors happening out there at sea also because this don’t just happen, it takes place in the Caribbean or wherever and it doesn’t get here without passing through those waters so what are the safety precautions for that? We have no baseline information on that and so how are they making a gas spill management plan and we have no baseline figures? Guyana has no regulations presently, there are the oil spill regulations but we have no gas regulations.”
“Because they have no gas management plan, who will be compensating for losses and all these things are not really clear. They have an oil spill plan which lists a whole lot of people like MARAD and so on, but it speaks nothing to their insurance policies either so we are unable to say that about who will bear that liability,” she continued.
Explosions
In an earlier article, this newspaper reported that gas releases from the planned Gas-to-Energy project at Wales, West Bank Demerara can result in explosions which can pose grave risk to human and environmental health.
In the EIA document, prepared for Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), ExxonMobil’s subsidiary which will be developing the project, it was explained that a loss of integrity of the offshore pipeline, resulting in a natural gas release can be caused due to corrosion, objects striking the pipeline, and a buildup of stress in the pipe wall, causing buckling.
The EIA goes on to say that if an unplanned release of gas from damaged subsea pipelines occurs, the released gas will generate a gas plume that rises from the seafloor to the sea surface.
Therefore, “Fire or explosion accidents can occur when the released gas disperses into the atmosphere and encounters ignition sources, which could have an adverse impact on human life and environment in the immediate vicinity of the fire.” ERM added that the consequences of a release would likely be less severe offshore as it “is extremely unlikely that there will be an ignition source to cause a fire, and the gas will passively disperse without affecting any resources” rather than an onshore occurrence.
However, a release close to the Floating, Production, Sharing and Offloading (FPSO) vessel could result in a fire onboard the FPSO. EEPGL said that to reduce the likelihood of a gas release, the offshore pipeline design and installation will vary depending on the pipeline depth.
“At a minimum, the pipeline will be laid in a trench, with sections closer to the near shore area buried, which will reduce the likelihood of an external impact causing a release. The offshore pipeline will be constructed using international good practices, which will reduce the likelihood of stresses building up in the pipeline walls and thereby reduce the likelihood of buckling,” the EIA notes.
Added to that, the oil company said that a gas leak would be quickly detected and isolated using emergency shutdown valves.
While onshore pipeline integrity failures are rare, if a loss were to occur, the most likely causes would be due to a third party striking the line, or corrosion of the pipe.
A strike to the buried line can occur as a result of a third party excavating in close proximity to the pipeline without knowing the exact location of the pipeline and would present a source of ignition for the released gas, which could result in the immediate ignition of the gas, the EIA notes. But if, “the release is not ignited immediately, a flammable gas cloud would be formed and this could ignite, causing either a flash fire or explosion. An explosion would only be likely to occur if the gas is released into a congested space. A congested space can be defined as any space within which there is an obstruction to the free movement of gas through the space. The most likely places where obstructions would be present near the onshore pipeline would be densely forested areas or thick undergrowth.
The project
The project will involve capturing associated gas produced from crude oil production operations on the Liza Phase 1 (Destiny) and Liza Phase 2 (Unity) FPSO vessels, transporting approximately 50 million standard cubic feet per day.
Construction will begin after the company receives all necessary authorisations, with a target date of August 2022 for start of NGL Plant site preparation, and will take approximately three years. The combined offshore and onshore pipeline system is targeted to be ready to deliver rich gas by the end of 2024, and the NGL Plant is targeted to be operational by mid-2025. The project has a planned life cycle of at least 25 years.
The aspect of the project for which the oil company is responsible, that is to say, the installation of the offshore and onshore pipelines, is set to cost a whopping US$1.3B.