Ruling on unlimited flaring defies science - Former EPA Head

Ruling on unlimited flaring defies science – Former EPA Head

Oct 08, 2023 Court Stories, ExxonMobil, Features / Columnists, News, Oil & Gas

…says Exxon given green light to ruthlessly exploit oil at the expense of our environment

Kaieteur News – Former Head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dr. Vincent Adams views the recent High Court ruling on the flaring of gas during oil production offshore Guyana as a travesty of justice against the people of Guyana.

Former EPA Head, Dr. Vincent Adams

Flaring refers to the burning of associated gas during oil production. Studies conducted by specialists have concluded that this process is extremely harmful to the environment since it releases methane which has about 25 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide.

Other pollutants such as sulfur oxides and volatile organic components (VOC) are also released from flaring. These are considered major causes of acid rain and fog, which harm the natural environment and human life.

During an Alliance For Change (AFC) press conference on Friday, Dr. Adams a Petroleum and Environmental Engineer shared his thoughts on the decision made by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George Wiltshire to dismiss a case brought by three Guyanese women against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In their application, the women asked the Court to quash the decision to replace the original permit with a modified document that allows unlimited flaring by Exxon in exchange for a fine of US$30 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent.

In her ruling on Tuesday, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George Wiltshire noted that while references made by the counsel for the applicants were acknowledged, the case ultimately turns on the evidence presented.

According to the Chief Justice (CJ), the evidence proffered in support of the application was “confusingly expressed” and ultimately “difficult to follow.” Justice George Wiltshire noted too that the application consisted of a lot of opinions by the applicant and their lawyer.

“I got the distinct impression that the applicants were cherry-picking what they wanted to rely on to support their case, identifying and relying on clauses or parts in isolation,” the Chief Justice said.

Weighing in on the ruling, Dr. Adams said, “Exxon once again, has been given the green light to ruthlessly exploit our god given wealth, while filling its pockets at the unmerciful expense of the health, safety, environment and wellbeing of our people and future generations.”

The Environmental Engineer noted that the acting CJ’s ruling is “no doubt gravely puzzling and a travesty of justice against the people of Guyana”.

He was keen to note that he is very respectful of the judiciary and its decisions, but not to the extent when such consequential decisions as this one clearly defies science.

Dr. Adams reasoned that the case brought by the litigants was intended to stop the indiscriminate dangerous flaring of unlimited quantities of toxic produced gas into the atmosphere.

He shared that the Liza One Permit, granted by the Coalition government was guided by international standards and required gas must be re-injected. It allowed flaring only on the conditions of emergency, maintenance and start up.

The Permit was later modified by the new government to allow unlimited flaring; however, the contractor would be charged US$30 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent released into the atmosphere during the activity.

Dr. Adams equated this to having sand truck owners pay a small fine to drive without brakes, lights and proper tyres.

He said, “In her own words, the Judge seems to have believed everything proffered by Exxon as facts and everything proffered by the litigants as “opinions”. The former EPA head continued, “The Judge acclaims that the evidence proffered by the litigants was “confusingly expressed” and ultimately “difficult to follow”. I don’t think anyone with an unbiased mind, upon reading the evidence provided by the litigants, would ever arrive at such a conclusion.”

He contended that the evidence proffered by International Lawyer, Melinda Janki on behalf of the litigants is crystal clear, adding that no one could have better presented those facts since the Lawyer played an integral role in crafting the Environmental Protection (EP) Act, thereby possessing a great understanding of the language.

Further, he noted, “Ms. Janki is an internationally accomplished Attorney, so to suggest that she is incapable of explaining herself clearly on a subject which she knows as good as anyone, is too hard to swallow.”

Flaring fee

The Engineer said the Judge stated that while EPA did not respond to allegations about pollution fee, ExxonMobil’s country Manager produced evidence of comparative flaring fee for other countries including the European Union and Central and South America.

To this end, Dr. Adams noted that though the laws and practices of other countries are worthwhile information, it is inexplicable that the judge would use this information from Exxon while at the same time not even inquiring about the laws and practices of the USA – the home country of Exxon- where the standard is a mere 48 hours of flaring startup which was adopted by the EPA under the coalition.

Furthermore, he argued, “The Judge unbelievably says that there is no evidence that the 20+ billion cubic feet of gas already flared would have any additional adverse effects and the fee based upon the PPP is in recognition of some adverse effects.”

Dr. Adams said this defies established science and the well-known logics of climate change, with energy policies being drafted globally to cut back on gas emissions that are affecting the planet.

He explained that there seems to have been a misinterpretation of the Court as it regards the polluter pays principle to mean “pay to pollute”. Contrarily, the former EPA Head clarified that this principle is for cleanup after the fact and not to pay for pollution while you operate. He argued, “It would be flying in the face of the fundamental principle of environmental protection to pay to pollute.”