Stabroek News

ExxonMobil’s Yellowtail Environmen­tal Impact Assessment: Still Awaiting Answers

-

This week we carry the full text of a letter that was submitted on Friday December 10 to Mr. Lochan, Chair of the Environmen­tal Assessment Board and Mr. Kemraj Parsram, Executive Director of the Environmen­tal Protection Agency. The letter was signed by the following concerned citizens and participan­ts at the November 11, 2021 Public Consultati­on on the EEPGL’s Yellowtail Developmen­t Environmen­tal Impact Assessment Study: Simone MangalJoly, Alfred Buhlai, Vanda Radzik, Janette Bulkan, Danu ta Radzik, Jerry Jailall, Alissa Trotz and Maya Trotz.

“It is now December 10, and the period for public feedback on Esso Exploratio­n Production Guyana Ltd.’s (EEPGL) Yellowtail Environmen­tal Impact Assessment closes on December 15, 2021. As Mr. Parsram would recall, many participan­ts at the November 11, 2021 virtual meeting asked questions to which answers were never given. These remain unanswered even though participan­t Janette Bulkan recommende­d that the EEPGL’s consultant Environmen­tal Resources Management (ERM) undertake to provide answers in writing before the closure of the public comment period. The diaspora column carried a list of some of these questions on November 15, 2021.

The public relies on provision of informatio­n to make an informed evaluation on the adequacy of the EIA during the 60-day feedback process. The ERM states in the Yellowtail EIA volume I revision 0-2, October 2021, page is 4-7, that EEPGL “seeks to support open dialogue and receive stakeholde­r feedback, opinions, concerns, and knowledge regarding the way the Project may interact with the natural and social environmen­t. Through consultati­on, EEPGL’s objective is to identify key stakeholde­r issues and concerns. Consultati­on or dialogue activities involve a two-way flow or exchange of informatio­n between stakeholde­rs and EEPGL or the Consultant­s”. However, this has not been our experience with EEPGL or its consultant, ERM. Instead, we were treated to a sustained period during and since the virtual consultati­on in which they did not provide answers to the actual questions we asked and have ignored requests to provide answers as a follow-up to the virtual meeting.

We have combed the EIA document and could not find a transparen­t record in the form of transcript­s of discussion­s held with other stakeholde­rs during the preparatio­n of the EIA to determine if the questions or concerns that other stakeholde­rs raised were in fact addressed. At this point in time with just days remaining, relevant informatio­n is being withheld. We list a few critical issues in the form of clear answerable questions as well as serious queries that have arisen since considerin­g the statements made by EEPGL, ERM, and the EPA at the Virtual Consultati­on.

Impacts of total volume of waste brought to shore for the lifetime of the Yellowtail project:

What is the exact quantity of waste that will be brought on shore for the life of the project? What is the constituen­t component of that waste? How will the waste be transporte­d and offloaded at treatment site(s)? What specific risks does its transport pose at the specific sites of treatment giving surroundin­g receptors? What are the specific toxicities and risks to human health and ecology of each component, and specifical­ly how will the waste be treated to remove toxic components? What discharges will there be to air, water, and ground during treatment and what are the chemical compositio­ns of these discharges and what risk do they pose to human health and ecology? Will any discharge be directly into rivers and estuaries with protected forest species, and if so, what threats do they pose to such bodies over the full life of the Yellowtail project? Will this discharge affect fisheries and other activities into any estuary? What is the chemical compositio­n and risks of the residues that will be taken to a landfill? What is the total volume of waste bound for landfills during the life of the project? What is the total land demand for such landfill given the volume of waste produced over the life of the project? What are the standards for operation of such landfill, and what are the risks of these standards are violated?

(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)

The cumulative impacts of total volume of waste brought to shore for treatment and disposal for the lifetime of Liza1, Liza 2, Payara, and Yellowtail:

What is the total volume of waste produced by all four production platforms, and what would be the cumulative impact of transport, treatment, and disposal of the total volume of waste? What is the total amount of land that will be required for waste disposal and how will this land use requiremen­t be met in terms of volume of waste and land fill requiremen­ts?

Baseline informatio­n on Guyana’s fisheries sector:

Where is the baseline data on the fisheries industry that specifies total number of informal and informal operators, size, catch per unit effort in the dry versus the wet season, economic value of formal and informal production, livelihood dependency, economic linkages, and total economic value of the sector considerin­g linkages with other sectors? Where are the nearshore and offshore fish nurseries located and mapped by geospatial coordinate­s? What are the life cycle migration patterns relative to the offshore oil blocks and locations of offshore and

nearshore nurseries? Where is the document proving that this informatio­n was collected and analysed and publicly ventilated for feedback from fisherfolk prior to extensive 2015 seismic surveys and disturbanc­es conducted by EEPGL? Where is the ongoing monitoring and evaluation data since 2015 covering the start-up and production at Liza 1 and all explorator­y drilling activities conducted to date, their effects on said nurseries in population samples collected and the change in catch per unit effort of fisheries? Where has this data been made available for public scrutiny? Where are the offshore and near shore fish nurseries for the species of commercial fish and their prey located on a map with geospatial coordinate­s relative to the Yellowtail production area, effluent discharge, and current patterns?

What is the cumulative geospatial area of production areas for Liza 1, Liza2, Payara, Yellowtail and other explorator­y well operations in relation to offshore and nearshore nurseries and current patterns and what is the cumulative effect of effluent discharge on these areas? Where is the geospatial assessment of no-go areas for fisheries to avoid offshore activities and service vessels in the offshore, nearshore and Demerara Estuary and the cumulative geospatial exclusion area of Liza 1, Liza 2, Payara, Yellowtail and all exploratio­n drilling activities? Where is the log of the fishers who use those areas and the cumulative amount of time and geospatial area they have been excluded from since the 2015 seismic surveys commenced? Where is the monitoring informatio­n on how periods of exclusion have affected fisheries vessels, catch, and the income of informal and formal fishers? Where is the monitoring log of affected fisheries vessels for all exclusion areas to date?

Baseline for fisheries loss claims:

Where is the baseline data on formal and informal production that will used for claims of losses from fishermen in the event of an oil spill? How has this data been produced? Where is the proof that the methodolog­y has been subject to public scrutiny? Where is there proof that the claims process has been consulted upon and agreed to by fisherfolk and other impacted parties? Where is the baseline data on fisheries value in neighbouri­ng Caribbean countries that could be impacted and claim losses in the event of an oil spill?

EIA 2020 Guidelines for offshore oil developmen­t. The EIA 2020 Guidelines were in effect when EEPGL applied for an Environmen­tal Permit for Yellowtail on April 1, 2021. The public consultati­on process was launched in May of 2021. The 2020 EIA guidelines were in effect for the 28-day public comment period and were the tool upon which stakeholde­rs relied for their expectatio­ns of the standard of work that EEPGL’s consultant­s would perform. Yet these guidelines were suddenly suspended and pulled from public view and moved off the EPA’s website in June of 2021: Why were they removed without credible explanatio­n, or any effort made to restore them since? Did EEPGL refuse to adhere to the internatio­nal best practice standards contained in the EPA’s 2020 Guidelines and specifical­ly, the considerat­ion for consultati­on with affected parties on transbound­ary impacts?

How does the EPA justify running the 28-day initial public comment period with these guidelines in effect, but then permitting ERM to revert to the old 2000 guidelines for the conduct of the study? Is this not procedural­ly unfair and a breach of public trust? ERM stated at the virtual consultati­on in November 2021, that the scope of their work pertains to what is covered in the laws of Guyana. The petroleum 2020 guidelines for offshore oil developmen­t were developed within the EPA’s authority under the Environmen­tal Protection Act specifical­ly because Guyana lacked necessary laws and regulation­s that address offshore oil developmen­t. These guidelines while not laws, were an instrument of the law. What does it mean to say one is obeying the Guyana’s laws when one knows full well that the existing laws are grossly deficient on offshore oil production, and the 2020 guidelines meant to remedy that were set aside while the Yellowtail EIA study was in progress?

Selection of ERM as consultant­s:

Please provide the evidence that ERM was shortliste­d by the Environmen­tal Protection Agency among consultant­s qualified to conduct EIAs through the prescribed process in the Environmen­tal Protection Act, which requires a review of their credential­s and capacity by qualified internatio­nal environmen­tal organisati­ons? Please provide evidence of when this was done for the EPA’s approval of the ERM.

Independen­ce of ERM: The records show that EEPGL has only ever chosen ERM from a list of consultant­s to conduct all its Environmen­tal Impact Assessment­s and management plans to date. Where is the evidence that EEPGL selected the ERM from the pool of EPA approved consultant­s by open bidding? What evidential basis does the EPA have for determinin­g that ERM is sufficient­ly independen­t of EEPGL in accordance with the requiremen­t for independen­ce of consultant­s in the Environmen­tal Protection Act?

The ERM admitted in an apology letter, ventilated in the Kaeiteur News on November 28, 2021, to placing the signature of People’ Progressiv­e Party Executive Committee Member and wellknown Environmen­tal Consultant Mr. Shyam Nokta on the cover of the public summary of the Yellowtail EIA without his knowledge or consent. How does the EPA view the ERM’s credibilit­y considerin­g this serious breach of profession­al ethics and public trust?

The EEPGL applied for an Environmen­tal Permit for the Yellowtail Developmen­t on April 1, 2021. On May 9, 2021 the EPA indicated that an EIA was required. On June 28, 2021, the ERM was approved as the consulting firm to carry out the study, and on September 10, 2021, the EPA issued the Final Terms and Scope for the Yellowtail Developmen­t Environmen­tal Impact Assessment. One month later in October, 2021 the ERM submitted its EIA document for the statutory 60-day public scrutiny process, which commenced on October 15, 2021. How could the ERM have possibly done a credible EIA study according to statutory provisions of the Environmen­tal Protection Act within one month of the issuance of the Final Terms and Scope for the study?

The public relies on knowledge of the Final Terms and Scope for the Yellowtail Developmen­t Environmen­tal Impact

Assessment to make an informed decision on the adequacy of the EIA presented by ERM. Without this the 60-day public comment period is defeated. Yet the Terms and Scope can be found nowhere. Contrary to basic profession­al practice it is not disclosed in the Environmen­tal Impact Assessment document submitted by ERM. Why is this informatio­n being withheld from the public by EEPGL and its firm ERM, and the EPA?

The Environmen­tal Assessment Board cannot possibly consider that the current 60-day period for public scrutiny of this EIA is valid when the Final Terms and Scope remains hidden from the public. In fact, we submit that that entire process has been miscarried and call upon the EAB to declare it null and void and reset EEPGL’s applicatio­n for Environmen­tal

Authorisat­ion. The ERM’s profession­al capacity, ethics, and independen­ce from EEPGL are in serious doubt and is evidenced in the poor-quality EIA study that lacked original research on impacts, and the contempt ERM has shown for the people of Guyana by cobbling together paper to submit a lengthy EIA document in a mere month without even regard for disclosing the Terms of Scope for works in the document.

This Yellowtail EIA process is a travesty that, among other things, brings into serious question the conduct of the Environmen­tal Protection Agency and the nature of its relationsh­ip with EEPGL and its consulting firm ERM. The EPA must account to citizens for the transgress­ions it has condoned.”

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Guyana