ACTING Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire on Wednesday at the High Court dismissed the application filed by local activist Ramon Gaskin against the Minister of Natural Resources, ExxonMobil’s subsidiaries and two of its partners
The companies listed as respondents in the case are Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited, CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana Ltd. (Nexen) and Hess Guyana Exploration Ltd (Hess).

The state was represented by Solicitor General Nigel Hawke and Deputy Solicitor General, Deborah Diane Kumar. Attorney-at-law Edward Luckhoo SC, Andrew Pollard SC and Nigel Hughes represented the respondents.

Gaskin, who was represented by international lawyer Melinda Janki and Trinidad-based Guyanese Senior Counsel Seenath Jairam, had challenged the state, more specifically the Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman, for giving authorisation to both Nexen and Hess, to conduct oil exploration in Guyana.

Gaskin had questioned the legality of the permit granted, explaining that the two companies were not issued separate licences; in fact, they are said to be covered by the environmental permits issued to ExxonMobil through its local subsidiary Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited on June 15,2017.
But the activist highly disagrees, and as such is seeking to block the companies from proceeding with their exploration.

He was seeking an order of certiorari directed to the Minister of Natural Resources to quash the granting of petroleum production licences (PPL) to the oil companies.

Gaskin was also seeking a further order prohibiting the said Minister from granting a PPL to Hess Guyana Exploration LTD and CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana Ltd, until an environmental authorisation was granted to the two companies in accordance with provisions of the Environmental Protection (EP) Act.

“In my view the PPL was properly issued. I agreed with the submission on behalf of the respondents that the EP was issued in relation to a project and it was not necessary for it to be issued to each company which is a party to the PA for the execution of the project,” the chief justice said during her ruling.

She further agreed with submissions on behalf of the respondents that where liability is joint and several parties have jointly and individually promised to carry out the same promise or obligation, that there is only one obligation by which they are all bound.
Thus, the various instruments therefore clearly set out the obligations of the licensee which ensue that the EP is binding on all of them.

The chief justice noted that she does not agree that the effect of the joint and several obligations of Esso, Hess and Nexen mean that each had a separate obligation to comply with the EP Act by each obtaining same, since they are all bounded to comply with the EP that was issued to Esso by virtue of the PPL and the PA.

“I also do not agree with the submission on behalf of the applicant [Gaskin] that the additions of Hess and Nexen violated the provisions regarding transferring or assisting the EP to another person or entity. There is no evidence of this,” the chief justice declared.
As such, Gaskin’s orders were refused and the application was dismissed. The judge awarded the Minister of Natural Resources $100,000 in costs, which is to be paid by Gaskin.

In 2018, the application for the orders sought was initially refused by Justice Franklyn Holder, who ruled in favour of the oil companies. Justice Holder’s decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed it. The case was then placed before the chief justice.