WITH Dr Vincent Adams holding out that ExxonMobil had agreed to ‘unlimited liability coverage comprising of insurance plus parent company guarantee’ when he was Executive Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the oil giant has called on him to produce the evidence.

In contending that no such agreement exists, the company said it maintains full insurance coverage that meets international industry standards for all of its petroleum activities in Guyana and reiterated that its first priority is to prevent adverse events by utilising the best technologies, processes and people.

“In the unlikely situation that an event occurs, we have established response personnel, procedures, and equipment aligned with the principles of the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), the Caribbean Island Oil Pollution Preparedness Response and Co-operation, and the National Oil Spill Response Plan of Guyana.  We routinely conduct drills with the government to ensure readiness,” ExxonMobil (Guyana) Media and Communications Manager, Janelle Persaud said in a letter to the media.

She noted that neither ExxonMobil, the co-venturers, nor their affiliates are involved in the operations in Peru where there was an oil spill earlier this year but noted that the event illustrated the importance of planning, preparing, and practicing for response as it has been doing with relevant government agencies in Guyana.

Contrary to what was contended in Dr. Adams’ letter, Persaud pointed out that the EPA permits issued for Exxon projects have not been changed to remove restrictions on flaring.

ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
In fact, she said additional restrictions and fees on flaring were introduced such that flaring above background levels are only permitted under very narrow and clearly defined circumstances.
“The modified Liza Phase One permit includes specific timelines for detailed instances of flaring, and notification and approval processes, during which the company must justify its reasons for flaring. The EPA reserves the right to reject a request if it finds those reasons to be unjustified.

“The permit strictly prohibits ‘routine flaring’, a term which excludes flaring resulting from the full or partial failure of any compressors, which is considered ‘non-routine flaring’.  The permit specifies that flaring is only permissible during commissioning, start-up, and special circumstances. It also requires the Permit Holder to pay US$50 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) emitted as a result of flaring in excess of permitted periods,” she explained.

FALLACY
She also called out Dr. Adams for continuing to peddle the fallacy that a cut in production during the compressor issues would have eliminated flaring, pointing out that the only way to have reached zero flaring was a complete shutdown of production.

Meanwhile, the EPA in a recent release said that it is in receipt of insurance policies from Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) for all permits issued, namely Liza One, Liza Two, Payara and is currently awaiting Yellowtail insurance policy.

“Each of these insurance policies has been executed and has coverage of a total of US$600 million per occurrence of a spill event. This per occurrence value covers third party liabilities, clean up and well control.
“None of the insurance policies provided has US$2.5 billion coverage for oil spill as is purported by the former EPA Head,” the release said

The EPA also noted that it was presented with a draft parent company/affiliate guarantee and is engaging EEPGL on its proposed total guarantee of US$2billion from an affiliate company in the event EEPGL and its co-venturers default.

“As a Guyanese I find it incredibly disappointing that an individual who held a position such as Dr. Adams’ would be sharing such blatant mistruths. It begs the question whether he genuinely does not understand the issues or is bent on deliberately misleading.  I also say this because I understand, and appreciate, the culture at ExxonMobil Guyana and that of its leaders.  A key reason our Guyanese employees, including myself, value working at the company, is the ethical, thoughtful, consistent, and socially responsible actions ExxonMobil Guyana takes.  We can already see that these actions are enabling Guyana’s transformation and bringing sustainable prosperity for our people,” Persaud said in her letter.