Dear Editor,
My empathy is with the residents of Crane who are currently suffering from the effects of ‘some form of hydroxide’ the source/origin of which is unknown.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released that the chemical is ‘some form of hydroxide’. It is hoped that they along with all others engaged will do a thorough investigation into the source/origins of this ‘form of hydroxide’. If local competencies are not available international assistance ought to be sought. We shall await further details from EPA for the source/origin of this ’form of hydroxide’.
It was announced that ExxonMobil through its Community Grievance Mechanism (CGM) was engaged. Hydrocarbons have been ruled out.
We shall also await the findings of ExxonMobil’s challenged in functionality CGM. It can only be hoped that the CGM has answers that are plausible and logical. I have a complaint in at the CGM since March 2023 that is yet to be resolved despite their claim to be compliant with the operational modalities of World Bank, IFC, and IPIECA. They are not even in operational compliance with their own regulations as stated on ExxonMobil Corporate website under Guyana. And their responses defy both plausibility and logical normality.
We were recently informed via the media that ExxonMobil stated that the pipeline work was ‘mechanically complete, hydrotested and currently dewatering with nitrogen to ensure it is ready for the introduction of gas’. We were not informed if sodium or any other hydroxide was used in this process and/or stored in the Gas to Energy (GtE) project’s compound at Crane. Was caustic soda used and/or stored at the Crane site?
Should this ‘some form of hydroxide’ be somehow connected to the GtE project, it is my sincere prayer that these Guyanese citizens do not become victims of the lack of adherence to the rule of law in the implementation of this mangled project. The residents of Crane were not consulted in the EIA process for the GtE. Like the residents of Java & Bordeaux, Canal #1, they too submitted a request for repudiation/withdrawal of the EIA to the EPA in 2022. Like many other correspondences in the GtE process, this also was met with the usual silent treatment. The letter ought to be on the records at EPA if it has not been misplaced, misfiled and/or any other disappearing act/s inter alia.
Would the contractually mandated updated EIA for the pipeline offer any clues in solving this riddle? This mandated updated EIA study acts as the baseline information for the pipeline.
What is/are EPA’s evacuation plans and/or advice when citizen/s suffer from the hazardous effects of chemicals of unknown origins? Is the origin of this ’form of hydroxide’ even knowable?
It can only be hoped that this is not a story foretold, should other communities in Guyana suffer from any large-scale chemical effects from unknown and/or known origins.
Faithfully yours,
Elizabeth Deane-Hughes
