Dear Editor,
In a letter to Stabroek News published on August 6, 2022, Ms. Janelle Persaud, writing in her capacity as Media and Communications Manager for ExxonMobil Guyana, insisted that “Rod Henson, as the former President of ExxonMobil Guyana, never signed any document with Dr. Adams, in his capacity as a prior Executive Director of the EPA, committing to ‘unlimited liability coverage comprising of insurance plus parent company guarantee’, as Dr. Adams claimed.” Ms. Persaud challenged Dr. Adams to “produce the “documents” he claims were signed.”
In a letter to the Stabroek News on August 7, 2022, Dr. Adams responded to Ms. Persaud, pointing to very clear language in the Liza 2, Payara, Yellowtail and the modified Liza 1 Permits.
A few days ago, Newsroom Guyana reported ExxonMobil President Alistair Routledge’s insistence that more than adequate insurance exists “for all drilling activities at wells offshore Guyana… and that is to the highest international standard for every single well that we are drilling.”
Great. Let us call on Mr. Routledge to show us the paperwork to this effect, the signature on the dotted line. Without evidence of this guarantee in writing, this sounds like pie in the sky to Guyanese, or what we might call a lick and a promise.
There has been no response to the challenge thrown out to Dr. Adams, which he has responded to. The ball is now very clearly in ExxonMobil’s court. And there are some very simple questions that the Guyanese public deserve answers to. Nothing complicated at all. A yes or no would suffice:
(1) Do the permits for Liza 2, Payara and Yellowtail (and the modified permit for Liza 1) stipulate that the permit holder shall have insurance (Section 12.1); that the permit holder must provide from the Parent Company or affiliate companies…one or more legally binding agreements to the EPA, undertaking to provide adequate financial resources to pay….their respective obligations if EEPGL fails to do so. (Section 12.5); and that EEPGL…shall be liable for any discharge of pollution in any amounts” (Section 12.6)?
(2) Has EEPGL submitted the “legally binding agreements” from “the Parent Company or affiliate companies”, as stipulated by the permits, to the EPA?
To repeat, there is really nothing complicated about this. A yes or no would suffice.
We welcome a response from ExxonMobil President Alistair Routledge, but the Environmental Protection Agency, which is supposed to be representing the interests of Guyanese, should also respond; that would reassure Guyanese that it understands its mandate and that it answers to the people of Guyana.
Absence of a response can only mean one thing – that Liza 1 & 2 are operating without meeting requirements.
Guyanese people should not be fooled by smooth talk. Promises are cheap. If ExxonMobil Guyana won’t respond, the EPA must step up and show us the guarantee in writing as stipulated by the permits.
Sincerely
Alissa Trotz
