Exxon tells High Court it should not interfere with EPA’s job

Jul 26, 2023 Court Stories, ExxonMobil, Features / Columnists, News, Oil & Gas

---

Gas-to-Energy project…

Kaieteur News – Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), the operator of the Stabroek Block, which was awarded an Environmental Permit for the 12-inch natural gas pipeline, has told the High Court it should not make a determination on whether its application met the legal requirements, as this is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) job.

The oil company made this statement in its defence application lodged at the Court on July 13, 2023 in the matter filed by two citizens, Vanda Radzik and Elizabeth Hughes, challenging the legality of the Permit it received for the pipeline aspect of the Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project.

The project, which will utilise natural gas from the Liza One and Liza Two fields in the Stabroek Block, is geared towards reducing the cost of electricity by 50 percent while also decreasing harmful emissions. In addition to the pipeline, which will be used to transport the resources, the GTE project features two other components, a Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) facility to treat the gas and a 300-megawatt power plant to generate the electricity.

EEPGL, the subsidiary of American oil giant, ExxonMobil was granted a Permit for the pipeline and NGL components on November 25, 2022. Radzik and Hughes on March 27, 2023 challenged the decision by the EPA in Court, alleging a breach of the Environmental Regulations which require the operator to prove ownership of the lands through which the pipeline passes.

Exxon was approved by the High Court on June 12, 2023 to join the matter as an interested party and has since urged the legal institution to allow the EPA to conduct its functions rather than interfere with its decisions.  The oil company said, “I am further advised by the Second Respondent’s Attorney-at-Law and verily believe that the EPA is the sole authority vested by Parliament with a discretion to grant an environmental permit and to determine compliance with the Regulations in so doing.”

Therefore, it continued, “The question of any proof required by Regulation 17(2)(C)(ii) is a matter within the remit of the Agency, a specialized body created by Parliament to make determinations of this nature. In this regard, in the absence of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety on the part of the EPA, the Court should defer to the decisions of the administrative body and not substitute its own determination of whether the application for the environmental permit meets the requirements of Regulation 17(2)(C)(ii).”

The litigants outlined that ExxonMobil in its application to the regulator, dated June 24, 2021 includes details of the project site, the proposed route of the pipeline and the areas to be used and affected by the project, which includes residential properties, commercial properties and state-owned properties. Be that as it may, the application did not include or provide any proof of ownership, a lease or other agreement with the land owners of the said area.

Notwithstanding, the EPA granted EEPGL a Permit to undertake the project on November 25, 2022. Subsequently, the Minister of Public Works, Juan Edghill in January 2023 passed various orders to acquire lands for the purpose of the project, pursuant to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act, Chapter 62:05.

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.”

Exxon has told the Court it has a legal right to pursue the project, as the Government of Guyana (GoG) has exercised its legal authority to acquire private lands to facilitate the initiative. For its part, the state, as represented by the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall S.C has said the applicants are “busy bodies” and have no right challenging the project.

In the application of defence, filed on July 14, 2023, Head of the GTE project, Winston Brassington gave a sworn statement indicating that the oil company was granted permission by the government to undertake works associated with the project.

Brassington told the High Court that to date, there has been no complaint by any of the land owners that their lands were entered upon without proof of ownership, lease or other agreement between them and EEPGL- ExxonMobil Guyana- or any other person and/ or entity associated with the project. To this end, he said, “I am advised by my Attorneys-at-Law and verily believe that the Applicants are not land owners or occupiers or possessors of any legal or equitable interest whatsoever in respect of any of the lands acquired. By instituting these proceedings, they are not only busybodies, but are obstructionists to a project of national importance and fundamentally essential to the public good and interest.”

Kaieteur News understands that the matter is presently before Justice Priya Sewnarine- Beharry.  The applicants, through their Lawyers, Melinda Janki, Abiola Wong-Inniss and Joel Ross, is expected to file their reply on or before July 28, 2023.

---

• court, EPA, GTE, interfere, Permit

---