THE Court of Appeal will be assessing the merits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) appeal to overturn Justice Sandil Kissoon’s decision that the agency and oil giant ExxonMobil breached obligations relating to its oil spill insurance policy.
To proceed with this crucial hearing, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud, on Monday, scheduled May 29 at 10:00 a.m. as the date to hear arguments regarding the potential success of the appeal.
During a hearing, Justice Persaud established strict timelines for submitting written arguments by the parties involved.
During the proceedings, Sanjeev Datadin, the lawyer representing the EPA, requested a stay on the May 3 order that directed the EPA to issue an Enforcement Notice to ExxonMobil’s local affiliate, Esso Exploration and Production (Guyana) Limited (EEPGL), by May 9.
The order required EEPGL to provide an unlimited parent company guarantee agreement and/or unlimited liability Affiliate Company Guarantee, along with environmental liability insurance, within 30 days, as is customary in the international petroleum industry.
However, the judge refused Datadin’s application to suspend the judgment until the appeal hearing, indicating his intention to evaluate the reasonable prospects of success and deliver his ruling before June 10, the deadline for complying with Justice Kissoon’s initial ruling.
On May 3, Justice Kissoon found that the oil giant “engaged in a disingenuous attempt” to dilute its obligations under its environmental permit for its Liza One project, by not fully meeting insurance requirements relating to environmental protections.
The EPA’s attorney, Sanjeev Datadin, has moved to the appellate court, seeking a stay of the ruling, among other things.
In the application, the EPA argued that Justice Singh made an error in interpreting and applying two legal provisions related to an environmental permit issued to a company called Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd.
The first provision is Clause 14 of the Environmental Permit, which is a condition the company must comply with to operate in Guyana.
The second provision is Section 31(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, which sets out requirements for financial assurances that companies must provide in relation to environmental permits.
The appellant is contending that the trial court misinterpreted these provisions and wrongly concluded that the financial assurance required of Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd. was unlimited.
“The Trial court erred in law in directing and determining the exact manner of the exercise of the discretion of the appellant in a manner contrary to established law and practice. In effect the Trial court substituted its own discretion as the decision of the appellant when the appellant, at all material times, had exercised its discretion and acted well within its statutory and regulatory powers,” the court document read.
