THE Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a clarification regarding a recent High Court ruling concerning the inclusion of carbon dioxide impacts in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for ExxonMobil’s Hammerhead Petroleum Development Project.

According to a press statement from the EPA, contrary to some media reports, the court did not order the agency to include Scope Three (indirect) carbon dioxide emissions in EIAs. Instead, the ruling reaffirmed that such emissions were already part of the assessment process.
The case was brought by Wintress Morris and Joy Marcus, who alleged that the EPA had failed to include Scope Three emissions in the Terms and Scope for the EIA of the Hammerhead project. However, in its March 18, 2025 ruling, the High Court dismissed the application.

The court confirmed that the amended Terms and Scope already required the identification, description, and evaluation of all environmental impacts, including indirect (Scope Three) emissions.
Further, the EPA’s Terms and Scope mandate consultants to assess significant environmental issues, providing all relevant data necessary for a comprehensive evaluation of both adverse and beneficial impacts.
The agency has also amended the Terms and Scope to explicitly include a quantitative discussion of Scope Three emissions, reinforcing its commitment to environmental oversight and transparency.
This clarification comes at a time when Guyana is navigating significant oil developments, including ExxonMobil’s Hammerhead project.

Despite these developments, Guyana is expected to remain a net carbon sink due to its extensive forests, which remove substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually.
The EPA said it remains committed to ensuring rigorous environmental assessments in line with the Environmental Protection Act and encourages factual and responsible reporting on environmental matters.
The ruling, the agency said, highlights the importance of comprehensive environmental assessments in petroleum development projects. It underscores the need for EIAs to consider all environmental impacts, including indirect emissions, to ensure that projects are evaluated thoroughly and responsibly.