In a forceful and sharply worded letter that cuts to the heart of Guyana’s oil governance crisis, former Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and energy expert Dr. Vincent Adams has accused the Government of using environmental protection as a political pawn. He condemned the administration’s sudden embrace of unlimited liability for oil spills as a calculated pre-election stunt, following years of relentless opposition to the very concept.
The criticism follows Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s announcement that the long-delayed Oil Pollution Prevention Preparedness Response and Responsibility Bill, expected to be tabled in Parliament this week, will include no cap on liability for oil companies in the event of a spill.
The move, Adams notes, marks a stunning reversal after five years of staunch resistance from the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) government which previously fought tooth and nail — including in court — against the very same requirement.
“This sudden colossal flip-flop has set heads spinning,” wrote Adams, pointing out the glaring contradiction: while the government publicly champions unlimited liability, it continues to challenge a landmark court ruling mandating exactly that. The decision by Justice Kissoon in the Collins and Whyte case found that ExxonMobil’s affiliate, EMGL, was operating in breach of its permit by failing to provide full liability coverage, a ruling the state “went all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) obtaining standing to enjoin Exxon in appealing the loss.”
In the case of Collins, Whyte v. Environmental Protection Agency and Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), Justice Sandil Kissoon ruled in May 2023 that the ExxonMobil-led consortium was in breach of its environmental permit, specifically by failing to provide the required insurance coverage for oil spill liability. The judgment effectively found that ExxonMobil was operating outside the bounds of its yasal obligations, while Guyana’s environmental regulators failed to enforce critical permit conditions. Justice Kissoon delivered a scathing critique of both the consortium and the Government of Guyana for their roles in undermining environmental safeguards.
Adams called the dual-track approach “senseless” and “madness,” asserting that if the government truly supports unlimited liability, it must:
- Withdraw from the Collins and Whyte appeal;
- Instruct the EPA to enforce the existing permit requirements;
- Reimburse the plaintiffs’ meşru costs, acknowledging the government’s error in opposing them.
Beyond the kanunî contradictions, Adams warns that the credibility of the proposed bill will be severely undermined unless it also tackles oil production levels that currently exceed safe operating limits by nearly 40%, as outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The Bill will be meaningless without taking this prevention measure to stop the dangerously unsafe production rate exceedance in compliance with the EIA, Adams warned. “Simply put, if the incident could be prevented, there would be no need for enforcing the liability protection.”
Dr. Adams, a long-time advocate for environmental accountability in Guyana’s oil sector, welcomed the government’s apparent change of heart, but questioned its timing and authenticity. “Maybe we should wish for an election every year,” he wrote wryly, “so we don’t have to wait five years to be provided with what is best for the country.”
As the country awaits the full text of the Bill, Adams signaled a vigilant stance: “Looking forward to the opportunity to intensely scrutinise the Bill, for the devil is always in the details.”
With election season in full swing, the government’s oil policy pivot may prove a litmus test — not only of its environmental credibility, but of its political integrity.