THE High Court has upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to renew the environmental permit linked to the Liza 1 Petroleum Development Project, the agency announced in a press release on Thursday.

ExxonMobil (Guyana) began production from the first phase of the Liza field, located in the Stabroek Block, in December 2019.

Judge Damone Younge’s ruling on Monday stemmed from an August 8, 2022 application that activists Danuta Radzik and Sinikka Henry had filed with the Demerara High Court.

According to the EPA, the pair had put forward an application alleging that the EPA erred in deciding to renew the permit. The statement said that they also contended that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) needed to be done before any such renewal, and that no renewed environmental permit should contain any new conditions.

“They averred that renewed permits should have the same conditions as the previous version, only with a new expiration date. The two also alleged that the EPA had breached the law by not providing them with information which they had demanded,” it added.

In response, the EPA said it contended that it acted in full compliance with the law when it decided to renew the licence. In particular, the EPA stated that it clarified that the law did not mandate EIAs during the renewal process as this would be absurd given the nature and intent of EIAs.

The EPA said it also contended that it was competent to include such conditions as are reasonably necessary for human health and the environment in renewed permits. It said, too, that it maintained that it had not in any way failed to observe its duty to make required information available to the public in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act.

In making this point, the EPA noted it was keen to point out that the law had deliberately and intentionally set out what information could be accessed, by whom, at what stage, and in what manner.
According to the statement, “The Court, upon considering the arguments and evidence before it found in favour of the EPA. In delivering her judgment, Madame Justice Damon Younge took care to point out that, it is for the EPA, the body tasked with the management and protection of the natural environment, to determine whether during the application process any proposed project would impact the environment and therefore require an EIA. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act which provides that an EIA is required for the issuance of an environmental permit.”

“She also made it clear that when looking at the regime for applications for an environmental permit, consideration cannot only be given to Section 11 of the Act or Regulation 22 alone, but all the provisions of the Act and Regulations must be looked at in a holistic manner so that the intention of Parliament can be discerned,” the EPA stated in the statement.

The activists were represented by attorneys Abiola Wong-Inniss and Melinda Janki.

The EPA was represented by attorneys Frances Carryl, Shareefah Parks and Niomi Alsopp.

The Liza Phase 1 development is situated 1,500–1,900 metres below the surface, about 190 kilometers offshore. With a storage capacity of up to 1.6 million barrels, the project includes a floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) vessel that is currently producing over 120,000 barrels of oil per day. Eight oil producing wells, six water injection wells, and three gas reinjection wells make up the total of 17 wells spread across four drill centres.

The EPA said it welcomes this ruling as a reminder to everyone that it is a legally established entity required to act in accordance with its founding statute and that it is committed to lawfully executing its functions.

Therefore, it is calling on members of the public to participate in the environmental decision-making process by making lawful, meaningful and intelligent requests and contributions, in good faith. In this way, the EPA emphasised it would be able to judiciously meet its mandate of ensuring the effective management of the environment as well as the sustainable use of natural resources.