Guyana’s AG is taking things way too far

May 08, 2023 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Kaieteur News – I am not in the least surprised that the Guyana Government will appeal the High Court’s decision, ordering Exxon to provide unlimited insurance to Guyana. Attorney General, Anil Nandlall explained that “the Government of Guyana, as a major stakeholder, notes the ruling by Justice Sandil Kissoon and the several declarations granted therein that the Environmental Protection Agency of Guyana (EPA) breached its statutory duty by failing to enforce compliance by Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), of its Financial Assurance obligations to provide an unlimited Parent Company Guarantee Agreement and/or Affiliate Company Guarantee Agreement to indemnify and keep indemnified the EPA and the Government of Guyana against all environmental obligations of the Permit Holder and Co-Venturers within the Stabroek Block, Offshore Guyana.” In simple language, it is that “Exxon Mobil must ensure a provision of unlimited insurance coverage to safeguard Guyana against the devastating effects of an oil spill, and this must be done within the next thirty days.”

Readers, as expected, the AG has risen to the occasion, and on behalf of the Government, will appeal this High Court’s ruling. This is vintage and typical Nandlall, whose legal acumen, has reached epic proportions. His lucidity is spontaneous and as typified in the many victorious court battles over the March 2020 Guyana Elections, he may likely upend the ruling and breathe vigour yet again into the Government, which in all likelihood he may be leading one day. However, I do have a few vital things to point out.

First, criticisms of ExxonMobil globally have reached gargantuan proportions. I vividly recall that in the 1970s, it could have effectively prevented climate change, as its own internal memos showed that the company proved the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, but what?

It buried the research and instead funded climate change sceptics to spread doubts about man-made climate change, and cynically invested in areas such as the arctic which it thought global warming would open up for further oil extraction. According to a Guardian article, William Ernest McKibben, the American environmentalist, posited that”…  if only Exxon had been honest, we could have taken much early steps to avert global warming.”

If readers want more information on the evil ways of Exxon, then just browse http://www.cracked.com/article_24303_5-leaked-memos-that-prove-famous-companies-are-evil-as-hell.html.

I further elaborate by invoking the tragedy of the Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, who had to fight for survival, after the Exxon Valdez Oil spill dumped 11 million gallons of oil into the ocean and nearly wiped out its fishing industry. The record is there to peruse.

The spill’s initial impacts devastated wildlife, killing hundreds of thousands of marine animals and billions of fish eggs. Please note that in the three decades since the spill, Herring fishermen have had to turn to other breeds, locations to fish, and entirely different lines and forms of work.

For a third-generation fisherman, John Platt, the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill remains a financial and psychological nightmare that won’t end, as years after the 11 million-gallon spill, some 1,500 miles of Alaska coastline, where the herring on which he and other Cordova fishermen heavily relied, disappeared from the area. Platt and some others stuck around, fishing for salmon and hoping things would improve. They never did, as the herring never returned to Cordova. Platt’s income plummeted, severely straining his marriage and psyche. He had to dip into his sons’ college funds to support his family, and he despairingly iterated that “People’s lives were ruined,”

Editor, I need not go on and fill your newspaper with the mayhem happenings that are lurking because of the diabolical advent to ExxonMobil.  So, my question is even if the ruling is overturned, and Anil Nandlall buttresses his ‘larger than life’ legal image, is it a case of the legal trumping the moral and the ethical?

I note that according to the AG, “The EPA and the Government of Guyana are of the considered view that the Environmental Permit imposes no obligation on the Permit Holder to provide an unlimited Parent Company Guarantee Agreement and/or Affiliate Company Guarantee Agreement.

I mean what is the AG using his perspicacity for?  What takes precedence and priority?

He detailed that “We hold the respectful opinion that the Learned Judge fell into error in his findings. This ruling can have profound ramifications and grave economic and other impacts on the public interest and national development.” I agree, but what and how and whose side and for whose benefit? Can short-term gains ever compensate for environmental degradation?

I therefore ask, what is more vital? What should be Guyana’s stand on environmental issues? And since Exxon is so confident that things will never go awry, then why this obstinacy and refusal to ensure a provision of unlimited insurance coverage to safeguard Guyana against the devastating effects of an oil spill.

I remind all that there was a time when slavery was legal in some countries. That did not make it ‘right.’ There comes a time when the conscience must be quickened and ‘legal’ wrongs must be stopped.

Yours truly,
Gaylord Riley. 

---

• Alaska, Exxon, Exxon Valdez Oil spill dumped, Prince William Sound, Stabroek Block, William Ernest McKibben

---