Latest update April 16th, 2026 12:40 AM
Exxon provided proof it had a legal right or ability to pursue pipeline without consent of landowners – EPA tells Court
Kaieteur News – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has told the High Court that Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), provided the agency with proof it had “the legal right or ability” to pursue the pipeline aspect of the Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project without the consent of the landowners situated along the route of the pipeline.
In an Affidavit to the Court dated May 4, 2023, the Executive Director of the agency, Kemraj Parsram said that EEPGL at all material times complied with Regulation 17 (2)(c)(ii) prior to the grant of the Environmental Permit.
Parsram pointed to the Environmental Protection (Authorizations) Regulation 10 (1) which speaks to instances where an applicant omits to provide information required under Regulation 17, and makes provision for a subsequent request for and submission of outstanding information.
Regulation 10(1) states, “where the Agency considers that the applicant has omitted to provide any of the information required under regulation 17, the Agency shall notify the applicant in writing of the omission within fifteen days of receipt of the application and shall request the applicant to furnish the requisite information within fifteen days.”
The EPA Head said his lawyers have advised that the Regulation permits the grant of extensions of time for the submission of the information.
To this end, Parsram noted that the EPA received an application from EEPGL- ExxonMobil Guyana- dated June 24, 2021 for the project. He said that subsequent to the application, EEPGL submitted proof that it “has the legal right or ability to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner(s) or occupier(s)” along the GTE pipeline via a letter dated October 18, 2021. This letter, according to the agency, indicated “permission to access these lands”.
In addition, EPA said it received “oral assurances” from the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding Exxon’s legal right or ability to pursue the project without consent of the landowners.
The agency therefore told the Court that the citizens should not be granted any of the orders being sought.
Two citizens, Vanda Radzik and Elizabeth Hughes moved to the High Court on March 27, 2023 seeking an order to quash the Permit granted for the pipeline component of the project. They argued that the regulator approved the pipeline without any evidence that the developer, EEPGL, owns the plot of land through which the pipeline passes, contrary to the Environmental Protection Act. They have told the Court that Pursuant to Regulation 17 (2)(c)(ii) of the Environmental Protection (Authorisation) Regulations, an application for an environmental authorization must contain proof that the applicant either owns the facility or has a lease or other agreement with the landowner or occupier to enable the applicant to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner or occupier.
Regulation 17(2)(c)(ii) of the Regulations provides: “An application for an environmental authorization…shall contain the following information…(c) proof that the applicant either owns the facility or has a lease or other agreement with the landowner or occupier to enable the applicant to conduct the activity on the facility or has legal rights or ability to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner or occupier.”
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
