Impact study for gas-to-shore project still to be done
No studies on environmental risks have yet begun for the Wales gas-to-shore project as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is still to give permission on an environmental authorisation sought, government says.
ExxonMobil will pay for the environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) and other studies. ExxonMobil 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 EPAapproved list of persons.
However, there is no validation process to screen the credibility or expertise of those persons listed since for an approximate US$40 fee, anyone could apply and be put on the list as a consultant to do the ESIA.
“There is currently an application for an Environmental Authorization for the Gas to Power Project which been submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. This is an on-going engagement with Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited. Once this is approved, the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) process will commence,” Senior Petroleum Coordinator Gopnauth ‘Bobby’ Gossai, Jr told the Sunday Stabroek last Thursday when asked for an update.
“In addition, a Geotechnical and Geophysical (G&G) survey, along with a Lidar (a method for determining ranges) survey will be completed for the Gas to Power project. It must be noted that these studies and surveys are a work-in progress, as they are dependent on the completion of the FEED (Front End Engineering Design) of the project. The funding for these activities will be done by Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited,” he added.
Gossai explained that by this weekend a more detailed update will be had and will also be shared.
Noted too was that while environmental authorisations alone are sometimes needed for projects to commence, the gas to shore will encompass both.
Gossai explained, “The application for Environmental Authorization has to be made first and then they will proceed to the ESIA, once the EPA gives the go ahead… this [the environmental authorisation] is to make the EPA fully aware, and once satisfied, they will say what type of studies may be relevant or what additional studies need to be undertaken.”
“This is for them to be aware and then recommend the commencement of the ESIA. Because of the nature of the project, both [studies] will be had,” he added.
Last month, a team working on the project and led by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo held a forum with the media to discuss details of the plan for bringing the associated gases to shore for energy use. The forum was also attended by the head of the gas-to-shore task force, Winston Brassington.
It was then he announced that the pipeline aspect of the project would be funded from cost oil and told of plans for the associated Environmental Impact Assessment (ESIA) and other critical studies to be undertaken this year, promising that all details will be made public.
Stabroek News had asked at the forum about the environmental risks and if an ESIA would be conducted and if started, where was that process currently.
Jagdeo assured that the comparative analysis will be released to the public as would all other studies. Given that the EIA would require public input, he said that this country’s citizenry should not be worried about access to information as his government is committed to a transparent process. “Yes, we will make those available,” he said.
On the ESIA which during Brassington’s presentation he had referred to as needed last Monday, Jagdeo in response to Stabroek News had turned to Brassington to ask “That study has already been contracted Winston? The environmental one?”
Brassington noted that a firm, ERM (Environmental Resources Management), would be doing the ESIA. “They have been doing work for quite a while with the EPA,” Jagdeo said.
“[In] December we gave the green light on the three studies… Fugro is for the geotechnical and geophysical and ERM for the environmental. They were supposed to be contracted and it was supposed to take place after December,” he added.
It is unclear if ERM was selected via competitive tendering.
Jagdeo told the team that the information on the companies and the studies to be had should be given to the media and promised that it would. “We need to get that and get that to the media. We need to find out how far they are gone. The study will not be completed now, it is iterated it is like that way,” he said.
When this newspaper followed up with Gossai on Thursday for an update, he assured that by this weekend he would have more detailed information.
In December, Jagdeo had told this newspaper that the former Wales estate was the proposed site for the project, while adding that critical decisions regarding the geotechnical, geophysical and the environmental studies that would advance the project had been made. Doubts have been expressed about whether Wales is the appropriate site for the plant.
Minister of Natural Resources Vickram Bharrat had added that bidding for the contract to lay the pipelines and the construction of the site were to begin this year.
But Jagdeo recently explained that decisions were made pertaining to location but added that detailed assessments and other studies are needed to advance the project and would be done.
He said a decision on the selection of Wales was undertaken from “internal” analyses of proposals inherited from the former APNU+AFC administration and it determined its suitability against flooding and the high population density of other sites identified, in addition to its expansion potential.
Also advocating for the gas-to-shore project is former Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Dr Vincent Adams who has been firm that a rigid EIA must be undertaken. He has called on the public to “actively participate” when it is initiated.
“For a project of that magnitude, an EIA must be done… has to be done. Absolutely! There is no going around that. It’s not only about the pipeline but also the onshore operations to refine and distribute the gas which pose high risk to the air, water, and soil, and must be mitigated in the plan,” Adams had told this newspaper last month.
Calls have also been made by members of civil society for the environment to be strongly factored in before a decision is made on the location and by extension the overall project, and that the public be privy to studies and reasons for decisions taken.