Executive Member of the Alliance of Change (AFC) and former Head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr Vincent Adams belives the recent High Court’s decision which refused an application to block the Exxon company from flaring in the Stabroek Block, is highly flawed.

The applicants – Sinkka Henry, Sherlina Nageer and Andriska Thorington – had argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had unlawfully modified the Environmental Permit to allow ExxonMobil to conduct flaring. But the Chief Justice, Roxane George, in her ruling last week, said the application was confusing and difficult to follow.  

At a recent AFC press conference, Dr. Adams said the decision to dismiss the application was a great travesty of justice against the people of Guyana.

“Exxon once again has been given the greenlight to ruthlessly exploit our god given wealth at the unmerciful expense of the health, safety, environment and wellbeing of our people and future generation.”

He said while he respects the judiciary, he cannot support the decision of the High Court on the basis that it is highly flawed.

“I am always very respectful of the judiciary and its decisions but not to the extent when such consequential decisions as this one, clearly defies science, logic and common sense,” he said.

Dr Adams explained that the applicants were simply asking the High Court to stop the indiscriminate and dangerous flaring of unlimited quantities of toxic produced gases into the atmosphere while adjudicating that the Government’s modification of the EPA permit to allow for such egregious flaring is illegal.

He said from the inception, ExxonMobil understood that all produced gas must be reinjected, except for emergency, maintenance and start up.

However, he said once there was a change in Government, the permit was modified to allow for unlimited flaring.

 “Upon initial start-up under the coalition, when equipment failed, they begged for 30 days and then 60 days, and was shut down to make sure there wasn’t flaring until it was fixed. After the coalition left Government, the EPA added a clause to allow unlimited flaring when the equipment is not working and this is what the judge has gone along with, with just a paltry fee that is less than 5% of what Exxon makes by not cutting back production to stop the flaring,” Dr Adams explained.

The Acting Chief Justice in her ruling said the evidence put forward in support of the application consisted of mostly opinions.

She also said she got the impression that the applicants were cherry-picking what they wanted to rely on to support their case, and therefore identified and relied on clauses of the permit in isolations.

Related posts:

High Court dismisses case opposing gas to energy project Jagdeo backs appeal of High Court ruling against EPA and Oil company Ramjattan blasts Government over appeal of High Court ruling against Exxon and EPA Former EPA Head accuses Government of being complicit in ExxonMobil’s continuous flaring of natural gas