Home News ExxonMobil’s Liza Phase 1: UG lecturer, women’s rights activist move to High...
US oil giant ExxonMobil’s operation offshore Guyana is now the subject of another court battle. This time, Danuta Radzik and Sinikka Henry have moved to the High Court for an order to immediately and safely stop the company from carrying out the Liza Phase 1 Project —Operations of Project Facilities, Stabroek Block, Offshore Guyana.
In the case of Danuta Radzik and Sinikka Henry (the applicants) vs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the applicants argue that the decision of the EPA to grant an environmental permit to Esso Exploration and Production, dated May 31, 2022 and effective from June 1, 2022 to May 31, 2027, is, among other things, a breach of the Environmental Protection Act (the Act).
The duo’s main argument is that, in the absence of an environmental impact assessment — which is required by law for projects of such nature — the EPA’s issuing of a renewed permit to Esso Exploration and Production (Guyana) is not only an unlawful abdication of its statutory duties to enforce the Act and regulations, but is a breach of its duty to protect the environment and people of Guyana, and is an abuse/unlawful use of its power and/or discretion in favour of the company.
Melinda Janki, an environmental lawyer, and Attorney-at-Law Abiola Wong-Inniss have filed the case on behalf of Radzik and Henry on August 8 at the Demerara High Court.
The applicants are also contending that the EPA’s decision is arbitrary, irrational, capricious, whimsical, unfair, contrary to the rules of natural justice, an unreasonable and/or irregular and/or improper exercise of discretion, or otherwise an abuse of the discretionary power conferred on the agency; and unauthorised by or contrary to law.
Henry, a University of Guyana (UG) lecturer, and Radzik, a women’s rights activist, further contend that the decision is in excess of jurisdiction; is a failure to satisfy or observe conditions or procedures required by law; is a breach of the provisions of the Act and/or the regulations and/or an abuse of the processes and procedures established by the said Act and/or Regulations; a conflict with the policy of the Act.
According to them, Section 36 of the Act requires the EPA to maintain registers containing particulars of each application for an environmental authorization, and to make such registers open to the public. They complain that the EPA has not entered in the register any particulars of an application made by Esso within the six-month time prescribed by Regulation 22(2).
The duo submitted that the EPA has failed to respond to requests for information regarding whether an application for a new environmental permit has been made by Esso, and to provide particulars of any such application. As such, they argue that the EPA’s failure to provide a copy of this application and to provide any particulars about it is a breach of Section 36 of the Act.
“The [EPA’s] actions are contrary to its functions under the Act, including protection of the environment, transparency, and public access to information,” the applicants have advanced.
Case over greenhouse gases’ emissions
Meanwhile, in a separate case filed last year, University of Guyana (UG) lecturer Dr. Troy Thomas and conservationist Quadad De Freitas have moved to the court to halt ExxonMobil’s emission of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases in its offshore operations.
They are alleging that their constitutional right to a safe and healthy environment has been contravened by the Government entering into several petroleum agreements with Esso and its parent company. Together, they have accused the State of violating their constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful to their well-being, as guaranteed by Article 149(J) of the Constitution.
They have taken issue with ExxonMobil’s emission of 22,030,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases in the Liza Phase 1 Development Project, and 34,545,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases in the Liza Phase 2 Development Project offshore Guyana.
According to them, Exxon Mobil is producing oil in the Liza Phase 1 Development Project approximately 120 miles offshore in Guyana’s Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ). The projects, they add, are emitting greenhouse gases that would not otherwise have been emitted, and the country’s petroleum reserves would emit billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases in the future if those petroleum resources are extracted and burned for energy.
Considering this, they have submitted, among other things, that “By authorising, allowing, permitting, and enabling the production of petroleum from projects in the EEZ, the State is facilitating the emission of substantial quantities of greenhouse gases, thereby significantly exacerbating and/or contributing to climate change, ocean acidification, and rising sea levels, and making the environment more harmful to health and wellbeing.”
In the circumstances, Dr. Thomas and De Freitas have moved to the High Court seeking several declarations against ExxonMobil, costs, and any such or further orders the court deems just.
Among them is a declaration that the direct emission of 22,030,000 tonnes and 34,545,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases from petroleum operations offshore would make the environment more harmful to the health and wellbeing of citizens and future generations by significantly exacerbating and/or contributing to climate change, ocean acidification, and rising sea-levels, and, as such, would amount to a violation of Article 149J (1) of the Constitution.
They are also asking the court to declare that the State’s duty under Article 149J (2) to take reasonable measures to protect the environment for present and future generations requires the State to take into account the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions to be emitted by a proposed project before approving, licensing, or permitting any proposed project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
This matter is still ongoing at the High Court. (G1)
