Opposition divided on how Exxon should handle produced water from 7th project – PNCR says reinject, AFC says treat

Jul 25, 2024 News

---

Kaieteur News – While ExxonMobil is yet to decide how it will be handling the produced water from its seventh project- Hammerhead, the two major opposition political parties- People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R) and the Alliance for Change are on different wave lengths on the issue.

Produced water is a liquid that is extracted during oil production activities. It contains dissolved mineral salts, or may be mixed with organic compounds such as acids, waxes, and mineral oils. It may also be mixed with inorganic metals and byproducts or with trace amounts of heavy metals and naturally-occurring radioactive materials, the US Department of Energy said in a research paper. It is also usually very high in temperature, and can be deadly to marine organisms.

Due to its toxicity, this substance is best re-injected into the wells, though this may be a costly exercise. Exxon has sounded the warning before, in six EIAs for its previously sanctioned projects, of the dangers associated with the dumping of produced water into the ocean. Produced water discharges from each of the projects vary. For instance, the sixth project – Whiptail – which will produce 250,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) will also produce 200,000 barrels of produced water daily which will be dumped into the ocean. On the other hand, the fifth project Uaru which is being designed to produce 250,000 bpd will see the discharge or 300,000 bpd of produced water.  Prior to the dumping of produced water offshore, it is treated on the FPSOs to ensure it aligns with the industry standards, as required by the EPA.  The Permits granted to Exxon by the regulator requires the operator to treat the substance to ensure “oil content specification of produced water to be discharged does not exceed 42 mg/l on a daily basis or 29 mg/l on a monthly average”.

Opposition divided

On Tuesday this publication reached out to the Chairman of the AFC and the party’s spokesperson on the oil and gas industry David Patterson and economist and advisor to the PNCR on the sector Elson Lowe to get their party’s position on the way the oil giant not committing to specific ways in which they will be handling the produced water.

While the PNC is all for reinjection of the produced water back into the reservoir the AFC is calling for the oil company to adheres to international best practices and treat the produced water until there is 0.01 parts of 100 of any contaminants in it. Low told this publication that, “we believe that all water should be reinjected into wells. It is important to minimise the environmental effect of offshore operations for each project but we must also be aware of the cumulative effect of a policy of allowing contaminated water to be dumped offshore as not only are several FPSO’s in operation, there might be as many as a dozen in time.”

He further explained that, “This means that any policy which allows for dumping could in the long term result in several times as much water being dumped. This cumulative effect needs to be studied but the best thing is for water to simply be reinjected into wells.”

Patterson said that, “The international standard is t0 treat it and retreat it until there is 0.01 parts of 100 of any contaminants in it. So obviously that is something that we would want to do. We want Exxon and they do this everywhere else and it’s nothing unique to Guyana. Anywhere else that they have to abide by the international standards this is what they do.”

He explained that he had brought a motion bef0re the Parliament to address the issue of the disposal of waste water. He highlighted that it is very hot and had around 200 contaminants in it which over a period of time can bring detrimental effects to the environment and the marine ecosystem. “The motion that I brought to Parliament of course it was defeated by the PPP requires them to do what the international standards say. So obviously we will want them to do it here in Guyana because it has a long term detrimental effect on your ecosystem. So obviously we would want that to be done which we’ve brought a motion and unfortunately the PPP with their majority defeated the motion but we still stick at that,” he added.

Global Projects Cost Engineering Manager for Exxon Guyana Rebecca Cvikota during the opening of the public consultations for Exxon’s seventh project Hammerhead said that they would not be committing to any specific ways in which they will be handling the produced water. The official was asked by this publication if the company had plans to reinject the produced water from the project and if not can she say the effect it can have on rising sea levels if not reinjected.  She said that, “Produced water has been a topic we have been heavily involved in working very closely with the EPA and MNR to do studies on and assess and look at. So for Hammerhead we are still in the early phases I wouldn’t commit to any specific ways in which we are going to handle the produced water. What I will say now is the studies we are doing are informing those types of decisions and it is international practice to discharge produced water offshore.” Cvikota explained that the water is treated and they will not be discharging any water unless it meets the requirement of the environmental permit and is treated sufficiently. “That is part of our practices that’s one of the things that we are monitoring very closely to ensure that we have safe operations,” she added.

Scientist Dr. Ulric Trotz during an interview with Kaieteur News earlier this year stressed the need for stringent monitoring of these discharges by the EPA.  He said, “Any sort of contamination in a pristine marine environment that provides so much to our livelihoods, our fisher folk, so much to our own nutritional diet with our dependence on marine sources for protein, for an environment that supports marine life, you think about turtle nesting facilities on Shell Beach- anything that disturbs that environment is not in our interest.”

Exxon’s admission

ExxonMobil has acknowledged that discharges from the seventh project can potentially affect the quality of water and harm marine species and wildlife. This information is contained in the Project Summary submitted by Exxon to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the Project Summary seen by this newspaper, “The Project could have localised impacts to marine water quality in the project development area from discharge of drill cuttings and from routine operational and hydro-testing discharges. The Project could potentially impact marine water quality in the Project area of interest (AOI) as a result of non-routine, unplanned events (e.g., spill or release).” Drill cuttings and drill fluid discharges during the drilling of development wells; effluent discharges from cooling water and produced water; hydro-testing discharges and non-routine, unplanned events such as a spill can result in the release of dangerous substances that can affect marine life. Exxon said, “Increased total suspended solids concentrations, chemical concentrations, or temperature in water column has a potential to affect marine water quality and marine habitat quality and affect wildlife.”

---

• 7th project, divided, Exxon, opposition, produced water

---