The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has dismissed an appeal by political commentator, Ramon Gaskin, who wanted the Court to have Hess Guyana Exploration Ltd (Hess) and China National Offshore Oil Cooperation Guyana (CNOOC) obtain separate environmental permits for their involvement in the local oil sector.

An Environmental Permit was granted to Esso Exploration Limited, and it is under that permit that the co-venturers, HESS and CNOOC, are being covered.

The lawyers representing the two companies had argued that by being co-venturers, the two companies were covered by the permit granted to Esso Exploration (ExxonMobil Guyana).

Mr. Gaskin had challenged the Petroleum Production Licence issued to Hess and CNOOC by former Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman, whom he said ought not to have granted that license, since the two companies did not have separate environmental permits.

Back in 2020, acting Chief Justice Roxane George threw out the case, ruling that Hess and CNOOC did not need separate environmental permits from co-venturer, Esso Exploration, to conduct oil production here.

Gaskin approached the Court of Appeal, but that Court determined that the Minister did not breach the Environmental Protection Act by granting a Petroleum Production Licence to Esso Exploration Limited, CNOOC Petroleum Guyana Limited and Hess Exploration Limited for the Liza 1 Project, as the Environmental Permit granted, was tied to the Liza 1 Project itself.

Gaskin then moved on to the CCJ, seeking to have the Court of Appeal’s decision set aside. 

The CCJ was asked to determine two issues—whether the Minister acted unlawfully in granting the Petroleum production license to Exxon, Hess and CNOOC when Exxon was granted an environmental permit and whether the High Court and Court of Appeal breached the statutory time limit in delivering its Judgement

In delivering the Judgement of the Court today, Justice Winston Anderson of the CCJ ruled that the license which was granted to Exxon as the operator of the project was subject to extensive environmental obligations which were also extended to Hess and CNOOC through joint liability.

“The granting of the license to CNOOC and HESS did not render license invalid for four reasons, firstly the essential requirements under Section 14 of the EPA Act to obtain an environmental permit has been satisfied the granting of the Environmental permit to the sole operator of Liza 1 project. Secondly, it was consistent with international oil and gas industry practice that Exxon as operator function as joint venturers that HESS and CNOOC be included in the license as financial partners to secure financing,” the CCJ noted.

The Court also found that the three companies share responsibility for environmental harm caused by their operations and that there was no increased risk of harm to the environment on either the precautionary principle or avoidance principle by the inclusion of the two companies.

“There was no basis for finding that the Minister acted unlawfully and thus considered it unnecessary to address the issues pleaded,” Justice Anderson said in delivering the ruling.

Gaskin had also asked the CCJ to rule that both the High Court and Court of Appeal were in breach of their statutory obligations relating to the length of time in delivering their respective Judgements. 

The Caribbean Court of Justice cited the technical nature of the matter and the need for time although the Court stressed the important of timelines.

Consequently, the Court said it will not impose any costs on Mr. Gaskin, since his Court bid was a genuine cause.

Related posts:

Greater reporting mechanism and environmental safeguards in latest oil development license -Gossai High Court dismisses case opposing gas to energy project Oil company lodges US$2 Billion with EPA as company guarantee as ordered by Appeal Court EPA modifies Environmental permit for Exxon in wake of flaring issues