LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor,

We write with reference to a Letter to the Editor, published in the Kaieteur News on January 1, 2025.

First of all, it was the Kaieteur News which quoted the writer, Vincent Adams, as saying that Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) had agreed to an unlimited parent company guarantee. In an article in the Kaieteur News on December 11, 2024, Adams said EEPGL had agreed to an unlimited parent company guarantee and that this provision was reversed by the present administration. Consequently, the oil company is now reluctant to provide this coverage, the article stated.

Incidentally, Adams made that comment while speaking at a news conference hosted by the Alliance For Change (AFC) party, but still, in his letter, attempts to distance himself from having been a political appointee of the A Partnership For National Unity (APNU) + AFC coalition government. If Adams is disputing that he ever made such a claim, or if he has too short a memory to recall this comment, then he ought to take that up with the Kaieteur News and request a retraction.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) therefore finds it incumbent to again point out that Adams continues to avoid providing an answer to the question being posed to him on the issue of the where in the Permit did he write “Unlimited Parent Guarantee”?

In this latest letter, Adams again regurgitated his accusation that the EPA deliberately omitted a section of the clause in the Permit for the “Liza Phase 2 Development Project – Stabroek Block, Offshore Guyana”, when in fact the screenshots were provided in the Agency’s response.

For clarity, here is the particular clause in its entirety: “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.”

In an attempt to defend himself, Adams yet again circumvented the precise question being raised by attacking who he perceives to be the messenger, rather than dealing with the substantive issue. He further indulges in a range of self-commendatory remarks, which also clearly have no bearing on the issue to which he was being asked to provide a response.

Relatedly, it is rather alarming that Adams appears not to understand the role of the Public Relations Department of the very Agency for which he was Head for almost two years. However, for the necessary edification of Adams, the Technical Officers at the EPA possess the required expertise, and are capable of providing relevant information, which is then released by the Public Relations Team. This is a routine corporate communications function in almost every government agency.

Again, the question to be answered is, and it would certainly help if Adams can explain, how the clause referenced above can be interpreted as requiring an “unlimited parent guarantee”?

As it relates to Financial Assurance, as provided for in the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05, requires the Agency to set an amount in any form of financial assurance required of any Permit Holder. International guidelines require conducting an exercise to arrive at an estimate of the reasonable credible cost of an oil spill. This would then be used as a guide on what the parent company guarantee would be.

On this matter, Adams appears to have a desire to induce the EPA into making comments on the matter of the Financial Assurance by EEPGL, which is currently the subject of a pending appeal of the High Court ruling. In its appeal of the judgement by the High Court, the EPA has outlined its arguments and will duly await the outcome, while respecting the legal system throughout the process.

The Agency would venture only as far as to offer Adams information on the current status of the case, which is, that the Appeal Court found prospects of success in the appeal filed by the EPA to the High Court ruling. The Appeal Court granted a stay of the orders, including the suspension of the Permit.

The presiding Judge noted that the interest of justice warranted the grant of a stay, while he also ordered EEPGL to lodge US$2 billion in guarantee. The Judge also said that the US$2 billion guarantee is aimed at allaying any anxiety as to impending doom as conceived by some, but was keen in pointing out that the justice of the case “clearly mandates a stay of execution.”

The Agency rests its case until the Appeal Court rules.

Sincerely,

Communications Department

Environmental Protection Agency