Court rules no need for EIA to renew Liza I permit

Mar 01, 2024 Court Stories, ExxonMobil, Features / Columnists, News, Oil & Gas

---

Kaieteur News – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not need to undertake a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the renewal of the Liza 1 permit, the High Court ruled on Monday.

EIAs help determine the project’s potential impact on natural resources, ecosystems, and the overall environment. By gathering relevant data, conducting studies, and engaging stakeholders, EIAs provide valuable insights that assist decision-makers in making informed choices.

The case was brought against the EPA by Danuta Radzik, a local activist and Sinikka Henry, a lecturer at the University of Guyana, who were represented by activist and international lawyer Melinda Janki and Abiola Wong-Inniss.

The two women asked the court to overturn the EPA’s decision to grant ExxonMobil’s affiliate, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) – now ExxonMobil Guyana- a five-year extension on its Liza Phase 1 permit.

They also sought orders to suspend EEPGL’s multi-billion-dollar operations in the Liza Phase 1 project, claiming that the permit is unlawful on the basis that a new EIA was not done before the permit was granted.

On August 8, 2022, the two had put forward an application alleging the EPA erred in renewing the Environmental Permit related to the Liza 1 petroleum development project.

The applicants took issue with the EPA’s failure to provide them with information regarding EEPGL’s application for the renewal of its environmental permit pursuant to Section 36 of the Environmental Authorizations Regulations (the Regulations).

The crux of the applicants’ case was that the EPA, the body corporate statutorily tasked with granting environmental permits, is not empowered by Regulations 22 (1) or 22 (2) of the Regulations to grant a renewed environmental permit. They contend that the respondent in granting and issuing the renewed permit to EEPGL breached the Act and the Regulations.

They contended further that Regulation 22 (1) imposes on EEPGL an obligation to apply for a new environmental permit in order to continue its activities in the Liza Phase 1 development block.

Radzik and Henry also posited that EPA is prohibited from issuing a new permit to EEPGL for the Liza 1 project without first carrying out an EIA in accordance with Part V of the Act.

They contended that an EIA needs to be done before any such renewal, and that no renewed environmental permit should contain new conditions. They averred that renewed permits should have the same conditions the previous version, only with a new expiration date. The two also alleged that the EPA had breached the law by not providing them with information which they had demanded.

In response, the EPA contended that it acted in full compliance with the law when it decided to renew Environmental Permit 20160705-EEDPF. In particular, the EPA clarified that the law did not mandate EIA’s during the renewal process as this would be absurd given the nature and intent of EIA’s.

The EPA also contended that it was competent to include such conditions as are reasonably necessary for Human Health and the environment in renewed permits.

It also maintained that it had not in any failed to observe its duty to make required information available to the public in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act CAP 20:05.

In making this point, the EPA was keen to note that the law had deliberately and intentionally set out what information could be accessed, by whom, at what stage and what manner.

The Court upon considering the arguments and evidence before it ruled in favour of the EPA. The EPA was represented by Frances Caryl, Shareefah Parks and Niomi Alsopp.

In delivering her judgment, High Court Justice Damon Younge pointed out that, it is for the EPA, the body tasked with the management and protection of the natural environment, to determine whether during the application process any project would impact the environment and therefore require an EIA- there is nothing in the provision of the Act which provided that an EIA is required for the issuance of an environmental permit.

Justice Younge noted also that when looking at the regime for applications for an environmental permit, consideration cannot only be given to Section 11 of the Act or Regulation 22 alone, but all the provisions of the Act and Regulations must be looked at in a holistic manner so that the intention of Parliament can be discerned.

---

• EIA, EPA, High Court, Liza 1, Permit

---