Exxon has legal right to pursue Wales Gas project

Jul 19, 2023 Court Stories, ExxonMobil, Features / Columnists, News, Oil & Gas

---

 …no need for residents’ approval – High Court told

Kaieteur News – Esso Exploration and Production Guyana limited (EEPGL), commonly referred to as ExxonMobil Guyana, has told the High Court it has a legal right to pursue the Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project without the consent of land owners, as the Government of Guyana (GoG) has exercised its legal authority to acquire private lands to facilitate the initiative.

EEPGL, in its Affidavit in Defence filed in the High Court on July 13, 2023, argued that the case brought by the applicants Elizabeth Hughes and Vanda Radzik is misconceived and bad in law.

In their March 27, 2023 suit brought against the Environmental Permit issued for the pipeline that will be used to transport natural gas from the Liza Fields in the Stabroek Block to the Wales Development site, West Bank Demerara, the citizens contend that the developer failed to provide proof that it owned the lands through which the pipeline will pass.

They have told the Court that Pursuant to Regulation 17 (2) (c)(iii) of the Environmental Protection (Authorisation) Regulations, an application for an environmental authorization must contain proof that the applicant either owns the facility or has a lease or other agreement with the landowner or occupier to enable the applicant to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner or occupier.

Exxon has however pointed out that the Applicants have omitted that the Regulations also allow for the applicant to provide proof that it has the legal right or ability to conduct the activity without the consent of the land owner or occupier.

Attorney-at-Law, Andrew Pollard, S.C and Edward Luckhoo S.C are representing ExxonMobil in the case challenging its Permit for the project.

The Attorneys said in their defence, “I am advised by the Attorneys-at-Law for the Second Respondent and verily believe that the applicants’ contention that Regulation 17(2) requires Esso to submit proof that it either owns or has a lease or other agreement with the land owners or occupiers of the lands which will be affected by the project ignores the clear language of regulation 17(2)(c)(ii) and is misconceived and bad in law.”

He continued, “I am further advised by the Attorneys-at-Law for the Second Respondent and verily believe that by restricting the scope of applicable requirements of regulation 17(2)(c)(ii) to proof of ownership or other agreement with the land owner or occupier the Applicants have misconceived the Regulations and are disentitled to reliefs sought.”

Regulation 17(2)(c)(ii) of the Regulations provides: “An application for an environmental authorization…shall contain the following information…(c) proof that the applicant either owns the facility or has a lease or other agreement with the landowner or occupier to enable the applicant to conduct the activity on the facility or has legal rights or ability to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner or occupier.”

In this regard, Exxon argued that the company had provided to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its application process for the project, proof that it has the legal right or ability to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner or occupier.

The company told the Court that in a letter dated July 29, 2021 the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC) granted Esso permission to enter upon the public lands identified in the attachment to carry out activities relating to the project.

Meanwhile, in another letter dated September 3, 2021 the GLSC appointed Esso as an agent for the purpose of surveying or otherwise examining the lands identified.

On October 18, 2021 Exxon submitted copies of the documents to the EPA. According to the company, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) it conducted also cited government’s responsibility to acquire the lands required for the project.

For instance, it quoted Volume One of the EIA, Page EIS-35 that “The Government of Guyana is responsible for the Project-related land acquisition.”

Exxon said in its defence that it has complied with Regulation 17(2) (c)(ii) by providing to the EPA proof that it had the legal right or ability to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner or occupier by virtue of the GoG exercising its legal authority to acquire private land as needed for the Project.

It has therefore asked the High Court to dismiss the matter and award costs to the Respondents.

It was reported that the Attorney General (AG), Anil Nandlall in his defence filed in the Court argued that the citizens who brought the case are obstructionists and their efforts to quash the Permit is “frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and an uneconomic use of judicial time and resources.”

---

• Approval, court, gas-to-energy, legal, right

---