Latest update March 29th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jun 18, 2022 News
Kaieteur News – International Lawyer, Melinda Janki has warned that an approval for ExxonMobil’s pipeline to supply gas to two facilities at the Wales development site that is yet to be decided on by government, can saddle Guyana with another white elephant project, or one in which its people may never realize true benefits.
She listed her concerns and conclusions in a public document that was shared with this newspaper. In the lawyer’s 13 page submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), she pointed out several matters regarding the Project Summary submitted by Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), Exxon’s subsidiary, which will be undertaking the project.
On her opening point, the lawyer argued that the Project Summary states that EEPGL will be pursuing a ‘Gas to Energy’ project. She pointed out however that this is misleading and must be corrected as Exxon’s proposed project will not deliver energy to the people of Guyana.
According to Janki, “Page 2 of the summary says that the gas is to be received by a ‘planned power plant.’ In other words the power plant does not exist. Without a power plant EEPGL’s proposed project cannot deliver energy to the people of Guyana. EEPGL’s proposed project is a ‘gas to shore’ project that is misrepresented as a ‘gas to energy’ project. This is a major misrepresentation that affects the ability of the public to exercise their rights under section 11(7) of the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05.”
She added that since the power plant and the distribution infrastructure are not included in the application, the EPA cannot take them into account. “This appears to be an attempt to split up the gas-to-energy project into smaller components to avoid the level of scrutiny the project requires under the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05,” the lawyer reasoned.
It is against this backdrop that Janki explained that the power plant is unlikely to exist, leaving Guyana with another white elephant. The International lawyer who is versed in matters pertaining to the safety of the environment, pointed out that any planned power plant would clearly have a significant adverse effect on the environment and would be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
As such, Janki explained, “There is no guarantee that the planned power plant would meet the requirements for an environmental authorisation. The EPA is not a rubber stamp for government or industry proposals. Therefore, planned power plant might never come into being. The ‘planned power plant’ might not obtain the necessary financing, might be prohibited as illegal, might never be built, might not be ready in time even if it is able to overcome the various obstacles.”
As a consequence, the lawyer posited that the regulator must consider these facts rather than proceed on the basis of speculation about a ‘planned’ power plant.
To further substantiate her position, she listed eight points describing each as a significant obstacle to the planned power plant. For instance, Janki contended that the government has not produced an updated economic study on the feasibility of the project, taking into account the changes in the global energy market, while citing too, that the domestic demand for the natural gas supply simply does not exist. The lawyer said, “The evidence is set out in the World Bank’s report ‘Energy Markets in Latin America Emerging disruptions and the Next Frontier’. The report was published in 2017 and states that, “In countries such as Suriname, Guyana, Ecuador, Paraguay, and most of Central America and the Caribbean, natural gas demand is small or non-existent.” The World Bank has not shown that demand has grown since 2017.”
She shared that the use of associated gas to supply energy is not economical, basing her argument again on decisions by the World Bank. “In August 2020 concerned citizens sent David Malpass, the president of the World Bank, a Request for Evidence that the use of associated gas for energy meets the requirements for ‘economy’ and ‘efficiency’ under the World Bank’s Articles of Agreement. The World Bank has so far been unable to provide the evidence requested. Therefore it must be concluded that either there is no evidence that gas to energy project is economic, or the evidence that exists does not support gas to energy,” Janki said as she argued renewable energy as having greater economical benefits, compared to gas.
Importantly, the Lawyer also pointed out that the planned power plant will be owned and operated by the government of Guyana. Therefore, she suggested that this can land the project into further uncertainty. She explained, “The Project Summary says that the power plant will be owned and operated by the Government of Guyana. If EEPGL is correct then the ‘massive climate risks’ that are being shunned by global investors would end up being imposed on the people of Guyana. That may not be politically acceptable. In light of the overwhelming economic and financial case against gas and in favour of renewable energy, no government can guarantee that the planned power plant is viable.”
As a consequence, Janki asked that ExxonMobil say what its plan is should the power plant and associated infrastructure fail to meet requirements and gain approvals.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 29, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – After a series of outstanding performances in 2023, Tianna Springer, dubbed the ‘wonder girl’, is eagerly gearing up to compete in this year’s...Kaieteur News – Good Friday in Guyana is not what it used to be. The day has lost much of its solemnity. The one day... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]