Most weirdly, EPA’s purported December 14, 2024 response to my Kaieteur News interview of December 11, 2024, “Guyana cannot seize and sell its own assets to pay for an oil spill” did not match my interview subject, obviously admitting the idiocy that Guyana can seize Guyana’s own assets to pay for an oil spill. Nevertheless, I gleefully welcome the EPA’s veering off into raising up the ants nest of unlimited parent company guarantee (the Guarantee), returning it to the front burner refreshing our memories as to the circumstance of this most consequential issue manifesting the EPA’s betrayal of Guyana.
Notwithstanding the patented incompetence and improprieties of EPA’s leadership, it is unimaginable that Government officials would so barefacedly lie to the public, in spouting sheer madness that “Nowhere in the permit (Liza 2) signed by Dr. Adams is there any reference for unlimited parent company guarantee”, though: (i) this very clause which I proudly crafted on behalf of the EPA and people of Guyana and first enshrined in the Liza 2 permit since April 2019, was copied word for word into all of the other permits by this same EPA; and (ii) almost daily for the past four years, this very same EPA leadership was being schooled by the news media and local and international experts including yours truly. Further, their own boss-man VP Jagdeo regularly chides the deficient original Liza 1 permit (devoid of the Guarantee) signed by Mr. Khemraj Parsram as the worst permit ever, while he embraces the Guarantee clause I crafted in the Liza 2 permit to fix the deficient Liza 1 permit, when he declared publicly in various media forums that “yes, full liability coverage (insurance plus unlimited parent company guarantee)is in all of the permits…it is by law they have to do this…that is an obligation…they are liable for any oil spill by law and the EPA for full coverage”. Even further, the EPA itself was sued and lost overwhelmingly in the court for unbelievably going against its own permit, with the Honorable Judge Sandil Kissoon adjudicating the clause to mean that “The Permit Holder…is mandated to provide insurance …and provide a further financial assurance of an unlimited parent company guarantee to indemnify the Government against all liabilities.”
Therefore, since it is uncertain whether the EPA leadership may plea insanity, blindness, incomprehension, or obliviousness to critical information stored in their own files and which bombards them every day; and since no level of ineptitude could unravel such a misreading; and unless “the Agency has descended into a state of inertia and slumber at the critical juncture of an emerging oil and gas sector” as characterized by the Judge; this grave malpractice of the Agency could only be explained by its arrogance, malfeasance, and disrespect for the public which pays its salaries. It is unthinkable that the untrustworthiness of the EPA could have sunk any lower, and in any other country that honors good governance and the rule of law, the EPA Head would be removed for this dastardly misconduct, notwithstanding the myriad of widely publicized transgressions and incompetence which will be further dealt with at a later time.
As for the big lie at hand,in unethically omitting key words to pedal their lie, the EPA cited the permit’s clause 12.5 in question, as “The permit Holder must, as soon as reasonably practicable, provide from the Parent Company or Affiliate Companies of Permit Holder and its Co-Venturers (‘Affiliates”) one or more legally binding agreements to the EPA, undertaking to provide adequate financial resources for the permit holder and its Co-Venturers to pay or satisfy their respective environmental obligations regarding the Stabroek Block…”
However, the full clause without omissions is “The permit Holder must, as soon as reasonably practicable, provide from the Parent Company or Affiliate Companies of Permit Holder and its Co-Venturers (‘Affiliates”) one or more legally binding agreements to the EPA, undertaking to provide adequate financial resources for the permit holder and its Co-Venturers to pay or satisfy their respective environmental obligations regarding the Stabroek Block if EEPGL or its Co-Venturers fail to do so”.
As all can see with your own eyes, the last nine words, “if EEPGL or its Co-Venturers fail to do so” representing the essence of the Guarantee, were dishonorably omitted in EPA’s citation to bolster its shameful lie and deceive the public. However, the Judge described this full clause they falsely claim to not have the Guarantee, to be “clear and unambiguous terms, in simple language that boded no uncertainty or lent itself to ambiguity”, simply meaning that if child company EMGL’s insurance is inadequate (fail to do so) to cover an oil spill, then Parent Company Exxon and Affiliates have to provide further financial resources(the Guarantee) to cover the remainder; or, as simply put by the Judge, “there is no hurdle to the unlimited guarantee…the Permit Holder is mandated to provide insurance and financial assurance of an unlimited parent company guarantee to indemnify the Government against all liabilities…and if the Guarantee is in place, and there is the release of hydrocarbons then EMGL, to the extent that it is unable to do so (EPA’s omission) as it is largely an assetless subsidiary, then EXXON, the Parent Company comes into play. If, however, that event occurs and there is no unlimited parent company guarantee, then the State is liable for all that occurs.”
The Honorable Judge continued that the Agency has “at every juncture, engaged in a course of action to undermine and erode the terms and conditions of its own Permit…an egregious state of affairs that has engulfed the EPA in a quagmire of its own making…abdicated the exclusive statutory responsibilities entrusted to it…. sought refuge in silence, avoidance, concealment and secrecy…acted in unison with EMGL…EMGL engaged in a course of action made permissible only by the omissions of a derelict, pliant and submissive EPA… notwithstanding the grave potential danger and consequences to the State and citizens if an event occurred in absence of such financial assurances mandated by the Permit. Such conduct is nothing short of reprehensible and inconsistent with its mandate and functions…. relegated itself to state of laxity of enforcement and condonation compounded by a lack of vigilance thereby putting this nation and its people in grave potential danger of calamitous disaster… by its failure and/or omission, it placed the nation, its citizens and the environment in grave peril…notwithstanding this grave allegation of dereliction of its functions and potential calamitous consequences.”
In defiance of the Court’s Decision so as to be submissive to Exxon, and despite the fact that the Macondo spill in the Gulf of Mexico costed $145 Billion USD, the EPA wants to callously axe the unlimited guarantee down to $2 Billion, to which the Judge ruled that EMGL cannot “engage in a frolic of its own, aided and abetted by the EPA, to unlawfully cap its unlimited liability, and any attempt to substitute a diluted guarantee constitutes a breach of the Permit so that argument is erroneous and self-serving.”
Most frighteningly and a lessons-learned that an unfit EPA has ignored, the Judge, in his thoroughness, cited the 2021 case Okpabi and others v. Royal Dutch Shell before the UK Supreme Court which highlights the catastrophic pitfalls of not having an unlimited parent company guarantee, where Shell used the argument that it was not responsible for the oil spills occurring in Nigeria under their subsidiary operator.
The very sad truth is that while the EPA leadership is betraying its own people, denying them this necessary unlimited parent company guarantee, it is in contrast, disloyally granting Exxon the unlimited guarantee to stand with Exxon against Guyana at all cost. If you don’t believe me, read Judge Kissoon’s characterization of EPA’s “submissiveness” to, and “unison” with Exxon, manifested by the innumerable examples of privileged treatment not afforded local businesses, including hiding Exxon’s files locked up in the Director’s office; allowing Exxon to break the law; and in defiance of the Judge, not showing proof of Exxon’s $2 Billion provisional guarantee pending appeal of the full parent company guarantee case.
Regards, Dr. Vincent Adams
