ExxonMobil EIA silent on cancer risk for employees and potential oil spill cost

Mar 29, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – When ExxonMobil applies to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a new project, the regulator, in most instances, orders the company to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine the likely impacts of the development on socio-economic conditions, health and wellbeing of everything that can be affected. The study plays a vital role in not only identifying risks to the population but highlights measures to mitigate these.

As part of the EIA process, Exxon is required to engage the public to seek input on what exactly should be studied and addressed. Every question or concern raised during the scoping meetings is required to be addressed in the EIA.

Two significant matters were raised by Kaieteur News during the scoping meetings for the eight project, Longtail, held by Exxon and the EPA between March 17 and 28, 2025 but the study recently published by the EPA does not address the issues.

Risk of cancer to employees

During a meeting held at the Diamond/Grove Primary School, East Bank Demerara, Kaieteur News asked the Exxon to say whether it studied the likelihood of offshore workers, or any other Guyanese, developing Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), such as cancer and others as a result of flaring, or any other petroleum-related activities, given that hazardous waste is also generated during the operations.

At the time, EMGL Projects Environmental and Regulatory Manager, Mariya Skocik, explained this was studied previously. She said, “It has been done for prior projects. Earlier, I mentioned the industrial hygienists, roles that we have of staff, to be sure to conduct those assessments of  health of the workers and if there are any kind of mitigations like PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) for example, that would be implemented.”

Meanwhile, Exxon’s In-Country Projects Manager, Rebecca Cvikota added that flaring is conducted at a safe distance away from the workers offshore. She explained, “So the flare is a good example of one of the safety equipment we use that we talked about earlier, but it’s located at a very high distance from the ground, for exactly the reason of protecting the people around it, whether they be on the FPSO, or in a city, or village which we operate.”

This newspaper then pressed the team to say whether it is likely for Guyanese to be exposed to cancer because of the company’s operations. To this end, Cvikota said, “What I’m saying is we design our facilities to ensure that is not the case, so the height of the flare is an example of how we do that, where we position the flare in relation to the communities and in the case of the FPSO, how far it is away from where people are located, are ways that we design and construct our facilities to avoid (that).”

Kaieteur News then asked Exxon if, due to the mechanisms in place, there was no likelihood of any worker, or any Guyanese contracting any type of NCDs because of the company’s operations. Reluctant to give any assurance in this regard, the Projects Manager said, “What I can tell you is how we design and construct our facilities to ensure that that does not happen and I think I’ve explained that so I appreciate the question and I think that’s all I can say at this point.”

The EIA has not addressed the likelihood of workers contracting cancer or other NCDs from the company’s operations although the question was raised.

Oil spill cost

The question of adequacy, when it comes to oil spill insurance and guarantees, have often been a subject of debate here. This is so as the country has never conducted or ordered a financial assessment of what a spill can possibly cost Guyana and the Caribbean Region.

During a meeting held at the Leonora Technical Institute, West Coast Demerara, this newspaper asked Exxon to say whether the company is considering a financial study to determine what a spill from this project, along with others, may cost not just the country but the Caribbean region as well.

To this end, Exxon’s Projects Environmental and Regulatory Manager, Mariya Skocik explained, “As part of the development of the project we will be conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment; that is the reason why we are here today, to inform the scope of the study and assessment of oil release, in an unlikely case scenario that happens will be part of that study.”

Additionally, she noted that Exxon does not know what the Environmental Permit would require, as previous Permits included a condition for the company to demonstrate financial fitness to be able to respond to such an event.

The EIA, completed by Acorn International on behalf of Exxon, failed to address the subject.

No assessment of cost

During a public meeting for its sixth project, ExxonMobil revealed that it never studied the cost of an oil spill. The announcement came some four months after the President of Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM), Darren Woods, urged shareholders of the fortune 500 company to vote against a petition calling for a thorough study on the economic impacts of an oil spill from the Stabroek Block.

Woods had called on the shareholders of the company to vote against the proposal since he believes there were adequate studies already done to determine impacts to the Region.

However, the company’s consultant revealed that no such financial study was ever done in Guyana.

Kaieteur News had asked the consultant team what the likely devastation of an oil spill at the sixth project could cost. As such, Socioeconomic Resources / Stakeholder Engagement Specialist, Anna Sundby of Environmental Resources Management (ERM) said, “I can’t say because it’s not part of the EIA. We haven’t done an economic model of what the maximum economic impact would be. What we focus on with the unplanned events chapter is identifying what the risk of those scenarios are so we can put the right measures in place to manage that risk and so that really comes down to the oil spill response plan.”

In the absence of such a study, the country is completely in the dark regarding the likely economic devastation to Guyana and its Caribbean neighbours should an oil spill occur in the Stabroek Block.

Notably, this document could be used as a tool to aid in the preparation for such an event. It would also inform other necessary steps such as adequate insurance and other protective measures.

Exxon previously said a US$600M oil spill insurance was in place per event in the Stabroek Block. In addition, the company has submitted a US$2B guarantee to the EPA which stakeholders argue is grossly insufficient. There is also controversy over the company’s assurance that its assets would be sold to help respond to such an event.

The Environmental Protection Act and EIAs

The Environmental Protection Act of 1996 states at Section 11 (7): “Members of the public shall have twenty-eight days…to make written submission to the Agency setting out those questions and matters which they require to be answered or considered in the environmental impact assessment.”

It also sets clear instructions for the developer in carrying out these studies. Section 11 (9) says: “During the course of the environmental impact assessment the developer and the person carrying out the environmental impact assessment shall: – (a) consult members of the public, interested bodies and organisations.”

Meanwhile, regarding the contents of the EIA, the law requires the EIA to be conducted by an independent and suitably qualified person. It is expected to (a) identify, describe and evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project on the environmental including:- human beings; flora and fauna and species habitats; water; soil; air and climatic factors; material assets, the cultural heritage and the landscape; natural resources, including how much of a particular resource is degraded or eliminated, and how quickly the natural system may deteriorate; the ecological balance and ecosystems; the interaction between the factors listed above; any other environmental factor which needs to be taken into account or which the agency may reasonably require to be included.

Refusing to answer

On multiple occasions, journalists and even the Publisher of Kaieteur News, Glenn Lall was denied the opportunity to pose questions at the meetings hosted by Exxon.

Back in 2023,, during consultations on Exxon’s sixth project, the moderator abruptly ended the session when Kaieteur News attempted to question an official. “No, no. We’re done for today,” the reporter was told.

At the time, Shadow Natural Resources Minister, David Patterson said Exxon was merely hosting the meetings to tick boxes. He argued, “If they had any respect for the Guyanese, they would have walked with the full team because these are the questions they know would come up.”

Also in 2023 at the Mahaicony Training Institute KN Publisher, Glenn Lall was denied a response to his question on cumulative project impacts.

“Has ExxonMobil or its consultant, ERM Guyana, conducted a cumulative impact assessment on the damage and destruction that would befall Guyana, and its citizens? That is my question. I have some more,” is what Lall said.

Graham, who was the moderator, initially indicated that Lall’s question would be answered. However, he was keen to note that there is no time to entertain further questions. The time allotted to question and answer segment he said was nearly exhausted.

Though Lall insisted that he has a few more pertinent questions, Graham maintained, “No, you are done speaking.”

In protest of the clear demonstration of censorship, Lall smacked his left hand against his thigh twice and insisted that his questions are answered since that was the purpose of the public scoping meeting.

Graham, at this point, shut down the entire meeting as he instructed Exxon’s Projects Manager, Anthony Jackson not to answer the question or any other posed by Lall.

---

• cancer risk, EIA, EPA, ExxonMobil, Longtail, oil spill

---