EPA vetting Govt.’s application for Natural Gas Liquids Plant, Wales Power Station- Jagdeo 

Jul 25, 2022 News

---

Gas-to-Energy Project …

Kaieteur News – An application by the Government of Guyana (GoG) to develop a Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) Plant and a Power Plant at Wales, West Bank Demerara (WBD), to complement the US$1.3 billion pipeline component- being pursued by US oil major, ExxonMobil- is currently being vetted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This is according to Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo who during an interview with Kaieteur News, on the sidelines of the recently concluded National Toshaos Council (NTC) Conference, explained that the regulator will decide whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required for the government’s aspect of the Gas-to- Energy (GTE) project.

He said, “That is for the power plant and the NGL facility, it has been submitted so they are in the process of reviewing it. I don’t know precisely where they are at this point in time, but I know it has been submitted and I can get you the details later as to where it is now.”

The Environmental Protection (EP) Act is clear at Section 21(1) that “No person shall- (a) construct, alter, extend or replace any plant, structure, equipment, apparatus, mechanism, or thing that may discharge or from which may be discharged a contaminant into any part of the natural environment except under and in accordance with a construction permit issued by the Agency…”

This therefore means that even the GoG is required to seek a construction permit from the EPA before it rolls out any developmental project that can affect the environment. After vetting the government’s application and project summary, the regulator will then determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be necessary to flesh out the various impacts that can be caused from the facilities. It must be noted that in addition to highlighting the likely associated impacts, an EIA also outlines measures that will be taken by a developer to avoid or respond to any emergency as a result of the venture.

The Gas-to-Energy project entails two components- that is the pipeline to transport the gas from the Liza One and Two Fields in the Stabroek Block to the Wales site- and a second aspect which will entail the gas being separated and treated via the NGL facility, then utilized by the power plant to generate some 300 megawatts of electricity.

Already, an EIA has been submitted to the EPA by ExxonMobil for the pipeline component of the US-billion dollar venture. Upon the submission of that document, environmentalists have argued against the “chopping” of the project into several aspects. In fact it was a Geologist, Simone Mangal-Joly that explained the Environmental Protection Act clearly states that an EIA must be done for a whole project and does not permit splitting into parts based on who is financing or running a specific part.

She reasoned, “I did not engage the gas-to-shore EIA process beyond the 28-day period comment period in July 2021 on the terms of reference for the study because the process is a farce. This was obvious to me when the EPA ignored submissions in that comment period and proceeded with allowing ExxonMobil to do an EIA without including the power plant.”

The environmentalist pointed out that raw gas would be continuously pumped up from underground offshore, piped to the shore via a pipeline where it would be processed into natural gas to fire a power plant and natural gas liquids, which would be cooled and packaged at high pressure for shipping to markets.

On this note, she said, “We must all understand that those are extremely dangerous activities prone to explosions and that all those activities must take place under a ‘steady state system’. For the project to work, all the parts must all operate simultaneously otherwise. If one part goes down, then the tap on the offshore pipeline must be turned off or the gas must be flared right here onshore or else you will end up with an explosion.  Basically, one part cannot operate without the other. The complete project involves all these parts.”

On July 2, the Ministry of Natural Resources moved to invite proposals for consultancy services for the supervision of the integrated NGL Plant and the 300 megawatt (MW) combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant.

It explained that the main objective of this Consultancy is for the Consultant to assist the Government of Guyana through the Gas to Energy Task Force in the design review, construction, supervision and general project management of the development of the integrated plants, and contract administration throughout the project implementation process and thereafter during the defects liability period.
The estimated duration of the project is 42 months from the date of Contract signing and at least 12 months thereafter for defects liability from a date to be determined.

However, former Head of the EPA, Dr. Vincent Adams said this move was another case of the government putting the cart before the horse. He said that the government should not be inviting consultants to supervise the construction of the facilities without conducting an EIA. He said, “…What an EIA does, before you even start construction, it drives the design of the facility because the EIA has got to identify hazards for example so when it does that then the developer would design it to mitigate against these hazards. So what they are doing is putting the cart before the horse. You cannot design and construct a facility if you don’t know what the hazards are.”

Similarly, Mangal-Joly also told this publication that the government’s approach is “unethical and amounts to willful duping of the public by shading and distancing the true scope of risks and potential impacts of the project.  It’s saddening to see the Ministry of Natural Resources advertising for personnel for parts of this project not yet applied for or approved amid a contested pipeline EIA process.”

She added, “It shows contempt for the people of Guyana, rule of law, and democratic norms. Folks seem to want to talk about these things when it comes to national elections but not when it comes to environmental governance.”

 

---

---