ExxonMobil sets off a $9 billion Carbon Bomb while EPA chief is put on leave
Welcome to Climate Weekly!
This week, we’d like to introduce David Papannah, a young journalist from Guyana’s Starbroek News, reporting on a country at the brink of a massive national transformation.
“Hey, wa going on budday?” (a popular Guyanese greeting)
I am David Papannah, a Journalist from Georgetown, Guyana, where we now commonly refer to going outside as stepping “into the oven”. We’re still in grips of COVID-19, and just yesterday, our President Irfaan Ali, told the G-77 meeting that COVID-19 diverts from environmental disasters and gains made towards the 2030 SDGs.
The biggest story here is ExxonMobil’s latest “Carbon Bomb” oil project. Since the “world’s biggest oil discovery in years” in 2019, the country’s leaders have been promising the riches would flow across our impoverished nation almost immediately. Leading contender to open the first big projects has been ExxonMobil, who’s $9 billion offshore oil well is a clear sign that the company has no interest in a rapid sustainable transformation.
Whatsmore, there is corruption at the heart of the project’s approval. Just as negotiations were getting heated, the head of the country’s Environmental Protection Agency was sent on leave to “ensure that the licensing agreement would go ahead as planned”.
Dr. Vincent Adams who runs the EPA, had been openly calling for tighter regulations on Exxon’s plans of excessive gas flaring, and to make sure Exxon would be responsible for re-injecting polluted water back underground.
In the end, Exxon was given a green light to spend the next 6 months to “study” if it really needs to reinject the water, and is now allowed to flare gas for its first 60 days. By comparison, in a standard oil project in the US, you’re only allowed to flare gas for the first 48 hours. Hence, why the head of the EPA was sent on leave while the government rushed in the final approvals.
The oil behemoth began drilling in Guyanese waters last December, in a separate well known as Liza-1. But this week, the supreme court slashed the environmental permit for this well from 20 to 5 years due to overwhelming environmental concerns that previously, were overlooked.
Dr. Troy Thomas, brought the challenge to the Supreme court, and said “the Guyanese people have loudly and repeatedly expressed their concern and anger at the danger that ExxonMobil’s oil production poses to Guyana’s environment and natural resources. I want people to know that we can and should take action to protect our national patrimony. We need to come together and safeguard the future for our children.”
While rivals BP and Shell have both signalled a clear shift in thinking, and pledged carbon neutrality in their future, the Financial Times reports that “Exxon intends to increase its fossil fuel output by almost a third in the next four years”.
Also, just off the Guyanese coast is the sinking Venezuelan oil tanker, “Nabarima”. The vessel is carrying 1.3 billion barrels and has the potential to create massive environmental damages. However, according to Trinidad & Tobago’s Energy minister, there is “minimal to no risk of an oil spill from the vessel”. Only time will tell if his confidence is misplaced.
From Climate Tracker
First from Hong Kong, where Katherine Cheng takes us on a beautiful journey of the Pearl River Delta, and the local residents fighting to save it.
To Italy with last week’s guest author, Marco Ranocchiari, who has an incredible story of a ski resort that is having to cover the Presena glaciersgiant sheets to melting.
From the Philippines, journalist Gaea Katreena Cabico writes about the what its means to battle the combined challenges of sea level rise and COVID-19
Finally Lungelo Ndhlovu, covers the 2nd hand car market flooding Zimbabwe and much of Africa. They might be cheap, but over 80% of these cars do not meet EU or US emission standards. Check out our new Podcast - And go ahead and Subscribe. We’ll be interviewing young journalists and media researchers each week.
What else we’re reading
The world of journalism had a few interesting controversies this week that are juicier than a squashed orange:
The Guardian’s environment editor, Jonathan Watts published this night-mare provoking piece on frozen Arctic methane leaks. When he posted it on his twitter, a few prominent climate scientists jumped in, leading to a really interesting discussion on whether or not journalists should write about scientific findings before they are peer reviewed. For more on Methane hydrates, read this Carbon brief op-ed, by a climate scientist.
Also in the world of journalism, Glen Greenwald has left The Intercept, a media outlet he founded, and one which has done incredible environmental investigations in the US over the last few years. He claims The Intercept’s editors were trying to censor his story in relation to the Biden email story, and have lost their belief in “journalistic independence”. In response, The Intercept’s editors have described Glen as having had an adult temper tantrum.
This is a Weekly newsletter created by Climate Tracker. If you have any questions, comments or want to get involved, email Chris at chris@climatetracker.org - that’s me. I’d love to hear from you...and don’t worry, I’m locked inside too.
And if you’ve been forwarded this email and liked what you saw, why not subscribe?