What was gained from reduction of ExxonMobil’s environmental permits to five years?

Troy Thomas is former president and a current member of Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. and he remains active in civil society

On October 30, 2020, the local press featured the positive result of a legal action that I had brought to ensure that the environmental permits granted to ExxonMobil conform to the maximum duration of five years allowed by the relevant law. Whereas the Liza I environmental permit was issued with a 24-year duration ending in 2040, it will now expire in June 1, 2022 and whereas the Liza II environmental permit was initially set to expire in 2043, it will now expire in 2024. Furthermore, except for flagrant violation of the law, the Environmental Protection Agency will not be able to issue new environmental permits that will remain valid for more than five years. I am pleased to see that the Payara environmental permit conforms to the law and is limited to five years.

Expiration of the permits means that the oil company must apply for new ones to continue operating in Guyana. Inherent in this is removal of long-term security for oil companies and this is one way of helping to keep bad practices, especially those that are dangerous to the environment, at bay. The five-year maximum duration also enables the country to:

Evaluate compliance with requirements and the practices of the operators within the previous permit period.

Periodically assess developments in the science and best practices relevant to petroleum exploration and production and safeguarding the environment.

Obtain input from citizens regarding what they want and how they would like things to be done going forward.

Bring this information to bear on the requirements included in new permits to realise periodic and incremental improvements in protection for the environment and national patrimony.

The act of providing and obtaining environmental permits with more than five or more than 20 years “validity” as was done in the cases of Liza I and II:

Robs the country of its right to determine what it wants

Cheats citizens out of their rights and opportunities to demand and realise implementation of standards as they believe necessary and hence also erodes democracy and the rule of law

Surrenders to the oil companies our right to plan for and implement improved ways of safeguarding the environment for future generations as we learn and develop better ways of doing this.

The granting and obtaining of environmental permits that exceed the maximum duration specified by the law is an unmistakable injustice to current and future generations of Guyanese and this was too important a matter to ignore.

The blatant illegality of issuing and obtaining environmental permits that exceed the maximum duration provided for by the law suggests that there was no expectation of being held accountable. This then leads one to wonder about other aspects of the petroleum operations that might have been affected by this approach.

When the petroleum contracts between Guyana and the various companies were released, I was president of Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI). The organisation took interest in the contracts as did many other local organisations and individuals and as the contracts were read, many questions about legality were raised. In fact, TIGI published a series of nine articles in the Stabroek News in 2019 that identified various causes for concern from a legal standpoint in relation to the Petroleum Agreement with ExxonMobil.

(This is one of a series of weekly

columns from Guyanese in the diaspora and others with an interest in issues related to Guyana and

the Caribbean)

It was during the period of coming to grips with the provisions and ramifications of the petroleum agreements that were already signed that I began talks with Melinda Janki. Ms Janki is an expert on environmental law and a former oil lawyer who is deeply concerned at the apparent inadequate legal grounding of petroleum production in Guyana.

It was my continued talks with Ms. Janki that led to the decision to mount the challenge to the environmental permits issued to Exxon. Ms. Janki put together the legal team bringing in the expertise of Senior Counsel Seenath Jairam, and attorney at law Pratesh Satram for the challenge. I believe that their own commitment to the public interest and the rights of future generations was critical to the case. The result is as much theirs as it is mine and that of all Guyanese. Indeed, this is a collective victory.

The outcome of the case has, for me, driven home the point that we can in our own ways and even outside of the ideal circumstances begin to impact how things are done in the country and to effect positive change. Mobilisation of large numbers of persons is important and should not be set aside but our efforts need not await such mobilisation to be effective. As the saying goes, one one dutty build dam.

The result that was achieved via the courts, where the duration of the environmental permits was slashed and brought into conformity with the law, is not an end but the beginning of something. It is now up to us to capitalise on the rights and opportunities inherently reclaimed to realise the potential benefits for the environment and for future generations. I wish to urge my colleagues in civil society, my colleagues in academia and Guyanese citizens at large to scrutinise the permits issued and the practices of the oil companies in the country and to make representation for improvements based on what we would like to see in the petroleum sector from our perspectives as citizens, and based on our various areas of expertise and experience. Citizen education and mobilisation are key, for each of us has a stake in and a role to play in preserving our environment.

The expiration of the Liza I permit on June 1, 2022 provides an opportunity for us to insist that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as the regulatory agency, applies the existing law and safeguards the environment for present and future generations. It is clear that we cannot leave it entirely up to the regulatory agencies to put a stop to detrimental practices such as flaring of natural gas which I have been advised is already contrary to our legal regime but which has been going on for some time. In fact, the EPA has a legal duty to take into account what citizens say and we should invoke the rights provided for in the law to address this matter with the EPA. In the meantime, we also need to remain vigilant and to rebuff any attempts to dilute the protection that the law provides. 2022 will soon be upon us. While we celebrate this decision, the work begins again now.