EPA REAFFIRMS COURT OF APPEAL DECISION, FULL LIABILITY OF PERMIT HOLDERS, AND COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) welcomes the recent unanimous ruling of the Guyana Court of Appeal concerning financial assurance requirements for offshore petroleum operations.
The Court of Appeal overturned an earlier High Court ruling, which had directed the EPA to require an unlimited parent company guarantee and/or unlimited affiliate company guarantee from Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), failing which the environmental permit would stand suspended.
The Court found that neither the Environmental Protection Act nor the environmental permit expressly requires an “unlimited” financial guarantee. The Court further held that the EPA, as the lawful environmental regulator, is the body responsible for determining the appropriate form and level of financial assurance required under the law.

EPA HAS ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT PERMIT HOLDERS HAVE FULL LIABILITY UNDER THE LAW
The EPA wishes to make it absolutely clear to the public that the agency has always maintained, both publicly and through permit conditions, that permit holders remain fully liable under the law for any environmental harm, pollution, damage, or loss caused by their operations.
This principle is already embedded within Guyana’s environmental legal framework and is separate and distinct from the issue of financial assurance.
Under Section 14 of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap. 20:05, the law states:
“Where any person causes or permits any contaminant to be discharged into the environment in violation of this Act or any regulations made thereunder, and the discharge causes damage to the environment, that person shall be liable for the cost of any necessary restoration or remedial measures.”
The EPA notes that, in law, ‘liability’ refers to a legal responsibility or obligation for environmental harm and may include the following:
clean-up and restoration costs
compensation where applicable;
enforcement action
penalties
prosecution and
any other legal remedies available under the laws of Guyana.
In simple terms, this means that if a company causes environmental harm, it can be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS LIABILITY
The EPA further clarifies that financial assurance and liability are separate legal concepts.
Financial assurance is a regulatory safeguard or financial mechanism required by the EPA to help demonstrate that a company has the financial capability and resources to meet environmental obligations if necessary. Liability, however, is the underlying legal responsibility for environmental harm or damages caused. The Court of Appeal’s ruling addressed the issue of financial assurance under the environmental permit. It did not remove, reduce, or weaken the legal liability of permit holders under Guyanese law.

CONTINUED REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
The EPA continues to regulate petroleum operations through environmental permits, monitoring requirements, inspections, reporting obligations, and enforcement mechanisms established under the Environmental Protection Act. The Agency remains committed to ensuring that permit holders comply with all environmental obligations and that the polluter bears responsibility for environmental harm in accordance with the law.

EPA REMAINS COMMITTED TO THE RULE OF LAW
The EPA reiterates that it remains committed to transparent, evidence-based, and legally sound environmental regulation. The Agency will continue to carry out its mandate to protect Guyana’s environment, marine ecosystems, coastline, and communities while ensuring that environmental laws and permit conditions are fully enforced.