Open Letter to the Government of Norway
Kaieteur News – The Government of Guyana entered into a forest agreement with the Norwegian Government in 2009. Under that arrangement, the Norwegian Government agreed to pay Guyana a sum of US $ 250M over a five-year period as part of a deal that involves preserving low levels of deforestation and improved management of the forest sector.
This open letter to you, the Government of Norway, is to urge you not to consider renewing this agreement unless you want to be seen as an openly supportive government that allows natural gas extraction and involved in the construction of a shore-based gas project to convert natural gas into energy. It also encourages you to limit any future agreement with Guyana to the forest sector but to extend the agreement to cover the oil and gas industry, which has the potential to offset any gains arising low deforestation or lower levels.
Torching has become endemic in Guyana’s oil and gas sector. Since the start of oil production, it is believed that more than 10 billion cubic feet of gas has so far been flared locally. And torching is not banned in Guyana even though the World Bank has called for no torching by 2030, according to reports.
Your country, Norway, has little or no torch. And torching is illegal. Yet the Government of Guyana, which wants to be seen as a champion of the environment, has not ordered the closure of oil operations following a recent mandatory blaze. Nor has it imposed punitive taxes to prevent torches.
In July last year, Norway had indicated that it was ready to renew the forest agreement with Guyana. Norway should consider doing this carefully in light of the fact that Guyana is now becoming a major oil-producing state, and with the torching that is taking place, it is making Guyana a major emitter of polluting gases.
The Government of Guyana is also expected to express a willingness to renew the forest agreement. However, it is important that Norway considers the overall environmental profile of Guyana before entering into any agreement to renew the forest agreement. As reported in yesterday’s newspaper, the problems, which have developed with Exxon’s gas compressor, have implications that can put Guyana’s environment, its oceans and its coasts at risk.
It makes no sense for Norway to be rewarding the Guyana Government for keeping deforestation rates low and for better management of the forestry sector when the country faces graver risks including not having adequate insurance in the event of an oil spill, a blaze huge and the dumping. of waste to the sea.
As also noted in yesterday’s edition of this newspaper, Guyana will be required to bear the costs associated with any oil spill as there is no comprehensive oil spill insurance for any of Exxon’s current projects in the Stabroek Block. Such leaks could become a regional disaster.
It is therefore important that Norway is strongly protected from entering into any negotiations with the Government of Guyana regarding the renewal of the forest agreement. Not only has the management of the current treaty been unsatisfactory to Guyana but it has now become irrelevant given that the country is now an oil producing nation and is likely to earn much more this year in oil revenue than the sum five aggregate years gained under the current forest agreement with Norway.
We also call to your attention, Liza’s environmental permit provisions 1. Analysts have pointed out that the wording of the key provisions of that permit is too vague to allow for strict enforcement and as such, the oil companies can continue to flame and have only receive a slap on the wrist rather than severe environmental penalties.
Given the current problems, it is advisable for Norway to conduct a detailed assessment of the impact of oil production on the environment and pollution, which is occurring. This should be a prerequisite for any discussion with Guyana on the renewal or renegotiation of the forest agreement.
Norway has considerable experience in oil production. It should expand any partnership with Guyana to include compliance with environmental standards in the oil industry. It should also make any contract conditional with adequate insurance cover in place in the event of an oil spill.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper.)