EPA honchos – which one is more persuasive?

Dec 30, 2021 Editorial

Kaieteur News – There are conflicting public positions taken by two Guyanese over what could only be termed a sensitive issue (“Current, former EPA Heads clash over safe production levels for Liza 1” KN November 27).

The first is from the current head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mr. Khemraj Parsram, while the second is that of Dr. Vincent Adams, the former head of the same state agency. Instead of focusing on which one is being straight and telling the whole story, we concentrate on who is coming across as the more persuasive one, in what could be a problem for this country. Or to put it in starker terms, as our article noted, “whether the oil company’s operations are safe or hanging on a dangerous precipice.”

The former EPA head said that the safe production level is 120,000 barrels per day, which the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) memorialises, and going beyond that, risks an oil spill. It sounds reasonable, like regular commonsense. On the other hand, the current EPA Executive Director asserts that page 28 of the same EIA (referred to by the former head) mentions that “emissions associated with the project were calculated based on peak production at a conservative 144,000 barrels of oil per day.” Hence, in the opinion of the EPA, “it is safe for the company to operate beyond 120,000 barrels.” The current head of Guyana’s EPA, however, made a critical observation regarding the EPA’s opinion, in that the “EIA considered the impacts of production beyond design capacity for the Liza Destiny.”

In response, the former head of the local EPA was having none of that. His position is that the 144,000 barrels represents a conservative air emissions rate, whereas the 120,000 barrels speak to the safety limit. In his own words, “A lot of analysis goes into safety limits, and when it is set in an EIA, it becomes sacred and is not touched.” He made a further point saying that: “To stay safe, operators would always set their own internal safety limits to ensure that it is never exceeded.” We interpret that to mean the safety limit enshrined in any EIA.

We provide an illustration from daily life, which may not be the best one, but helps to shed some clarity and substance on what is involved in safety limits. The recommended safe air pressure in our car tyres is not something to be played around with, as it pleases us. We do so, and there is the risk of trouble, since, to use a common expression, the envelope is being pushed. Compound the potential problem by driving above the speed limits set by traffic rules and regulations, and the likelihood of danger multiplies. That 20 percent differential (144,000 barrels less 120,000) is significant, and not something to be toyed with, because we take it lightly.

We pause at this point to state that our position is that the former EPA Head, Dr. Vincent Adams, comes across as really knowing his onions, and making a most persuasive case in favour of staying within (under) the safe 120,000 barrel a day limit, and not fiddling around with other numbers, such as 144,000 barrels of daily production. We advance some more, when Dr. Adams’ technical background and work history in the oil and gas plus environmental fields are all given their proper weight.

This takes on added weight, when we note Mr. Parsram’s response to the assertions of Dr. Adams, which was basically that it is as the EIA says, and that is, since he would not be contributing anymore to the back and forth about what constitutes safety limits. With respect to Mr. Parsram, that sounds like an exit strategy foisted upon him. Meaning, put a zip on lips and move on, for to say more digs a deeper hole for him and the EPA he oversees. In cruder terms, it is the old cop-out. We, though, will say this: something is not adding up here. This is not about an argument, only what is safe for us, and protects citizens and future prospects. Given its recent standards, positions, and vagueness with oil, doubts abound that Guyana’s EPA is not too concerned about what is safe for us.