Serious questions raised on gas to shore project at scoping meeting

-sales to be made to third parties

The disclosure by ExxonMobil that the natural gas extracted from its oilfields as part of operations for the US$900 million Wales gas-to-shore project will be sold to third parties before the remainder is transported to the planned power plant to be owned by the Government caused quite a stir during one of the company’s public scoping meetings leaving many calling for more project details to be provided.

ExxonMobil’s local affiliate, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), which submitted an application to the Environmental Protection Agency for environmental authorisation for the project, notes in the summary that it entails the construction and operation of a 12-inch pipeline, approximately 220 kilometers long, from the Liza Phase 1 and Liza Phase 2 Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels in the offshore Stabroek Block, to an onshore natural gas liquids (NGL) and natural gas processing plant (NGL Plant) located at Wales.

The pipeline is expected to transport up to approximately 50 million standard cubic feet per day (MMSCFD) of dry gas to the Natural Gas Liquid Plant but has a maximum flow of approximately 120 MMSCFD.

Providing a project overview at a virtual public scoping meeting held yesterday, EEPGL representative Erik Demicco disclosed that the purpose of the project is to transport natural gas from offshore Guyana to its shores and “extract natural gas liquid for sale to third parties, and treat the remaining dry gas for use as a fuel source for a power plant.”

He also disclosed that the onshore route of the 27 kilometers long, 12 inch diameter underground natural gas pipeline was selected by the Government.

While he also provided other technical details about the project, the two disclosures caught the attention of the some 80 to 100 attendees, who throughout the two-hour long session kept repeating that the meeting was “deeply flawed.” The disclosures led to a series of questions as the developer and operator of the pipelines and NGL plant came into question.

Who owns the gas? “Who owns the gas? Is it a joint venture? Who owns the pipeline? Who is the selling the gas? How much dry gas does the country demand?” were a few of the questions asked by Simone Mangal, who pointedly stated that those are some of the questions that need to be clarified so that persons can give the type of feedback needed to contribute to the terms of the study.

She also demanded to know the purpose of transporting gas through a pipeline to Guyana only

for it be sold to third parties. Several persons agreed with Mangal with one stating that the project description is deficient, not only by elementary standards, but also the requirements of the Escazu Agreement, which was recently signed by President Irfaan Ali and demanded that relevant documents be made available so the “primary stakeholders” can have a clear understanding of the project.

In response to the questions posed by Mangal, Demicco stated the project is in it its early stages and commercial aspects of the project are not part of the public scoping. However, Mangal argued that the commercial aspect is just as important as the environmental and social impacts, and the refusal to provide “basic” details about the project shows how flawed the consultation is.

Following up with similar questions, Maya Trotz asked if local demand is enough for such a project to be undertaken and if climate change was taken into consideration before a decision was made to undertake the project. “It would be helpful to have access to all the documents [relating] to the project,” she contended.

Meanwhile, acknowledging the disclosure that the Government had pre-determined the route for the onshore pipeline, Roweena (only name given) asked what criteria was used by the Government to choose that particular corridor and queried whether an assessment of that route will be required as well.

Apart from that, several persons called for the 2020 EIA updated guidelines that were recently withdrawn so that consultations can be held, to be used when conducting the EIA. Mangal questioned the coincidence of the guidelines being withdrawn a day before it was made public that the EPA had determined that an EIA will be required for the gas to energy project.

Another person, Jocelyn Dow, commented that the outdated EIA guidelines hardly cater for the oil industry much less such a project and encouraged that these guidelines be used. It was also asked why it was necessary to suspend the guidelines for the EIA and revert to the outdated guidelines.

Detailed submissions

Director of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Guianas Dr David Singh stated that he recognises that this is the largest project in Guyana’s history and stated that the WWF will be making detailed submissions to the EPA.

He went on to ask whether the agency knows who the developer and operator of the project is and if there is a distinction between the two. Singh was told that that the EPA held numerous meetings with the developer and owner of the pipelines and NGL facility, which is EEPGL.

Other areas of concern included requests for detailed gas spill plans, evacuation plans should a pipeline burst, whether in the ocean or near a community close to the onshore pipeline, and insurance plans if such incidents do occur. It was pointed out that EEPGL is only a ‘shell’ company that doesn’t have any assets so its credibility in this regard must be questioned.

In addition, requests were made for disclosure of the gas-to-shore studies, the application that was submitted to the EPA by EEPGL, and the baseline studies that have been done.

With the impact assessment for the US$900 million Wales gas-to-shore project imminent, the EPA has invited public submissions on the scope of the study for the project, which is intended to begin operations in 2024. In a public notice, the EPA noted that the project, with attendant onshore and offshore components, could have possible effects on the environment, including impacts to marine water quality, air quality, marine and terrestrial flora and fauna, socio-economic resources, among others

As a result, it has determined that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) must be undertaken before the project is approved. The EPA said the EIA will include but not be limited to all possible alternatives studied, effects on the environment, and assessment of risks, and may lead to further optimisation of the proposed project. As a result, members are invited within 28 days of the EPA notice to make written submissions to the agency, setting out those questions and matters which they require to be answered or considered in the EIA.

The planned Government-owned power plant is not included in the scope of the Project’s application, except for its consideration when addressing cumulative impacts for the Project.

Persons have until July 25 to send questions or submissions to the EPA so that their concerns may be considered in the EIA. Another public scoping meeting is scheduled for today at 3pm at the Umana Yana in Kingston, Georgetown.

EEPGL will pay for the environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) and other studies. It will also be selecting the consultant for the project since, according to this country’s current EPA Act, the contractor has to select the consultant from an EPA-approved list of persons.