Int’l Lawyer says: Exxon’s study for 7th oil project excludes 90% of harm to the environment

Jun 02, 2025 News

---

…assessment defective and contrary to law

“We cannot allow foreigners to come into Guyana and disrespect our laws and our judges. We recently marked 59 years of independence. What kind of independence do we have when a foreign company like ERM can behave as if they are above the law?”- Joy Marcus and Wintress Morris

Kaieteur News- Two Guyanese women, through their lawyer, Melinda Janki has urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to approved ExxonMobil’s 7^th project using a “defective” study submitted by the company’s consultant, Environmental Resources Management (ERM).

In a letter addressed to the Executive Director of the Agency, Kemraj Parsram, on May 30, Janki on behalf of Joy Marcus and Wintress Morris highlighted that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) excludes 90% of harm to the environment, since it failed to assess Scope Three emissions from the project, although there was a clear ruling from the Court requiring the consultant to include these impacts.

The Lawyer told Parsram, “The Agency may not use the current Hammerhead EIA, (produced by the consultant ERM), to approve the Hammerhead Project or to grant an environmental permit to the developer ExxonMobil Guyana Ltd because the Hammerhead EIA does not comply with the ruling of Her Honour Madame Justice Morris in Morris and Marcus v EPA or with section 11(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.”

The Lawyer reminded that the Court in its March 18, 2025 decision ruled, “Section 11(4) of the Act has been incorporated by reference into the TS [terms and scope] for the EIA and therefore requires the consultant to identify, describe and evaluate all impacts of the proposed project, including Scope 3 emissions which, it has been established, are indirect impacts.”

Be that as it may, the Lawyer said she has been unable to find a single statement in the 4,232 paged EIA which meets the requirements to identify, describe and evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project.

Janki therefore concluded that the document failed to meet the statutory requirements as she urged the Agency not to accept it. Additionally, the Lawyer has since requested the EPA to confirm its rejection of the study or provide its reasons for refusing to do so. “If you believe that the EIA complies with the law then please also set out the relevant passages and sentences,” Janki appealed.

In accordance with industry standards, the EIA must state the amount of greenhouse gas and other pollutants that will be produced when the amount of oil/gas extracted under the Hammerhead Project is used for energy. The pollution caused by these resources is sometimes referred to as scope 3 emissions.

In the absence of this information, the Agency would not be able to make a valid decision.

Not feasible

Janki was keen to note that the EIA does not state the amount of oil/gas to be produced over the life of the proposed project. In fact, she quoted a section of the study where the consultant said it was not feasible to estimate scope three emissions.

“While there are existing approaches and methodologies for quantifying indirect GHG emissions associated with the Project, estimating Scope 3 emissions based on reliable data is not always feasible for several reasons. First, knowing the ultimate use of the extracted hydrocarbons is necessary to accurately estimate Scope 3 emissions (i.e., knowing whether extracted hydrocarbons are processed as a fuel and will be combusted, or whether they are used for other non-combustion purposes, such as a feedstock in the petrochemical industry or for asphalt).” (Hammerhead EIA 11.1.1.3)

Janki however argued that the consultant is legally required to identify, describe and evaluate the effects of Scope 3 emissions. She therefore informed Parsram, “the EIA is defective and contrary to the requirements of national law. The Agency cannot legally accept or use the Hammerhead EIA to make a decision to authorise the Hammerhead Project.”

Furthermore, the Lawyer stated, “Based on the oil/gas industry’s own standards and estimates, ERM’s inability or refusal to estimate the scope 3 emissions from the Hammerhead Project means that the EIA excludes 90% of the harm that would arise if ExxonMobil was allowed to move ahead with this project.”

She therefore urged the Agency to comply with its statutory duties by rejecting the EIA and removing same from the website, select a new consultant to carry out a new EIA and begin the Hammerhead EIA process anew and in line with the statutory and regulatory requirements.

‘Defiance and disrespect’

Meanwhile, in a separate statement to the media on Sunday, Joy Marcus and Wintress Morris, who took the EPA to Court to ensure the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Hammerhead project meets the required standards, said they were shocked by the Consultant’s disobedience for the Court ruling.

They argued, “We are shocked that ERM has disobeyed a judge of the High Court and ignored our Environmental Protection Act. Whether you want oil or you don’t want oil, this is eye-pass. We cannot allow foreigners to come into Guyana and disrespect our laws and our judges. We recently marked 59 years of independence. What kind of independence do we have when a foreign company like ERM can behave as if they are above the law?”

Moreover, Marcus and Morris said they were appalled that the EPA and its Executive Director have allowed such a farce to continue.

Meanwhile, the litigants pointed out that while ERM claims it is not feasible to identify, describe and evaluate the impacts of scope 3 from ExxonMobil’s Hammerhead Project, outside of Guyana, the consultant is looking to make money by advising companies on how they can make money from scope 3 emissions reporting.

They explained, “ERM’s website has a blog by Andrew Patrick Marsh the Technical Consulting Director and Riara Woodley on “Unlocking business value from Scope 3 emissions reporting”. ERM also sets out seven core steps to develop a robust Scope 3 value creation strategy, underpinned by digital solutions.”

The citizens therefore pointed out that ERM can measure scope 3 emissions when it suits them, as they called on Guyanese to stand up against “this eye-pass”. Marcus and Morris argued that ERM is not independent, since the company admits “ERM partners with the top oil and gas companies in the world to address their challenges across the entire value chain.” To this end, they urged that the Consultant be “sent home”.

---

• 7th project, approve, EPA, Hammerhead, Janki, scope 3 emissions

---