Is the EPA’s court case based on scientific analysis?

Dear Editor,
I am following intently a case filed by Dr Troy Thomas and Quadad De Freitas, representatives of The Environmental Protection Agency, against ExxonMobil, and by extension the Government of Guyana, on the impact of carbon emissions in the development of oilfields offshore Guyana.
The plaintiffs are contending that the carbon emissions generated from oil extraction here are so great that they would have – if they are not already having – a negative impact on climate change in Guyana.
While we are all concerned about climate change and the negative effects of greenhouse gases, we must not forget that this is a scientific discussion, and, as such, we must not deviate from that path; scientific matters must be dealt with in a scientific context. This, therefore, is not an emotional or political issue on this platform that we base our arguments.
Secondly, we cannot put forward as proof that because negative consequences occurred further afield, such will happen here. That is for a streetside gaff, but is not evidence in a court of law. It thus behooves us to take a careful look at the arguments and counter arguments that would be put forward in court.
This is purely a scientific case, and, as such, the plaintiffs must go the full length of the examination of empirical evidence to support their claim. Pure, hard scientific facts have to be generated for any court to come up with a sensible conclusion, if any; otherwise, this case should be thrown out for lack of scientific proof.
A case of this nature must examine the following factors:
The extraction of crude petroleum here brings with it natural gas, the two exist together. As an oil-producing nation, Guyana is less than 3 years into the production of oil and natural gas. The excess gas extracted has to be utilised; in the present circumstances, it is being flared.
The question is: Is flaring of the excess natural gas so great that it would cause drastic changes in the climate?
As a consequence of the above, The EPA must, through empirical evidence, show that gas emissions, or flaring, that is in (ppm), is great enough to produce that negative effect. I am talking about evidence collated over that period.
In this regard, the EPA would be hard-pressed to produce scientific evidence to the satisfaction of the experts in this debate.
The natural gas is presently being flared or burnt as a consequence of the company not having any alternative for its proper use. The Government, for its part, has produced a comprehensive plan to bring that gas to shore for full utilisation in power generation. This is commendable, and must be taken note of.
Most of our gas is found offshore, which means that this gas extraction is in the midst of one of the largest carbon sinks of the world, which is water. Offshore drilling is in the limitless ocean of water.
Another source of carbon sink is our forest, found in the wider Amazon basin, the second largest forested region in the world. Guyana itself is heavily forested, being 90% forest.
Our oil industry has to be utilised in a sustainable manner, which means that oil extraction is defined as development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of the future generations. The safety and wellbeing of all can be assured if we endeavour to adopt and adapt to these factors.
Some may find difficulty with the interpretation of the word sustainability, as is the case with the EPA and the use of the fossil fuel. They may want to question its validity when we see the disappearance of biodiversity, ecosystems and the most dreaded climate change. However, all is not lost with the implementation of present technologies to mitigate the negatives. And where there is deficiency of present methods, there is adoption of more appropriate and efficient models for the wellbeing of the industry and society.
The oil and natural gas are not going to be left in the ground, as our Vice-President has intimated and I am in agreement, but it will be utilised in a sustainable manner in keeping with modern standards. This is what a court must uphold; not rely on unscientific, non-empirical, and at best political statements.

Respectfully,
Neil Adams