GEORGETOWN, Guyana – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) have finally broken their silence on the alleged pipeline rupture, issuing a joint statement that categorically denies opposition leader Azruddin Mohamed’s claims of a three-month-old leak.
But upon closer examination, the government’s response—while firm in its denials—raises as many questions as it answers.
The agencies state “unequivocally that there is no factual basis” for the claims, pointing out that the pipeline is “not currently active, and no gas is flowing through it.” Since no gas is flowing, they argue, “there can be no leak or damage of the nature suggested”.
This is technically true—but it sidesteps the core of Mohamed’s concern. The opposition leader didn’t merely ask whether gas was leaking; he asked whether *any* substance was escaping, noting that some had speculated it might be nitrogen. On this point, the government’s response is conspicuously silent.
The joint statement confirms that a report regarding the pipeline was received and investigated. Following a joint assessment, the matter was determined to be a “slight anomaly,” which was “thoroughly investigated.” But what exactly was this anomaly? The public still doesn’t know.
The agencies confirm that “further inspections are being conducted to confirm the continued integrity of the pipeline, out of an abundance of caution.” This suggests that *something* was detected—enough to warrant continued investigation by both agencies, despite their assertion that the pipeline is intact.
The government’s statement frames the presence of vessels along the West Coast of Demerara as part of a “scheduled inspection” that began in May 2026 and was announced by MARAD in advance. This much is verifiable. ExxonMobil Guyana did commence a three-month subsea pipeline inspection campaign on May 27, 2026, involving five vessels: the Telesto, DN 87, Gilligan Island, Rainbow Dolphin, and Sea Ark-SSC Adelaar. However, the existence of a planned inspection and the detection of an “anomaly” are not mutually exclusive. The government’s statement does not clarify whether this “slight anomaly” was discovered during the planned inspection—or whether the inspection was launched in response to concerns about the pipeline’s integrity.
The EPA and MARAD have committed to “transparency,” but their statement leaves key questions unanswered:
1. What was the “slight anomaly”? If a specific issue was detected and investigated, the public deserves to know what it was.
2. What substance, if any, was observed? Mohamed raised concerns about potential nitrogen leakage—a substance often used to “preserve” inactive pipelines. Was any discharge detected, and if so, what was it?
3. Why did it take three months to respond? If this was all a misunderstanding, why did the government wait so long to address concerns that have been circulating for months?
4. What environmental monitoring has been conducted? Even if the pipeline is intact, any subsea anomaly warrants environmental assessment. What steps have been taken to ensure marine life and fisherfolk are protected?
A Pattern of Delays and Obfuscation
This latest episode comes against a backdrop of mounting frustration over the Gas-to-Energy project. The pipeline, completed by ExxonMobil in December 2024, has remained in “preservation mode” for over a year while the Wales power plant lags behind schedule.
The timeline has shifted repeatedly: first promised for 2024, then 2025, now 2026—with combined-cycle operations now targeted for June 2027. Costs have ballooned from an initial US$478 million estimate to over US$2 billion, with the pipeline alone costing approximately US$1 billion.
The opposition’s core concern remains valid. Even if no leak has occurred, the pipeline is a massive subsea infrastructure project with significant environmental risks. A recent analysis of offshore pipeline regulation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that surface observations are often unreliable for detecting leaks, as “subsea currents can diffuse leaked oil and gas and move them significant distances from the pipelines from which they leaked”.
Historical incidents also serve as cautionary tales. In 2021, a subsea pipeline off California’s coast was struck by a ship’s anchor—an event that went undetected until oil surfaced. The leak, from a pipeline at approximately 30 meters depth, resulted in 588 barrels of oil released, 33 square kilometers of ocean contamination, and cleanup costs exceeding US$160 million.
Guyana’s pipeline, if fully operational, would carry natural gas—a highly flammable substance. The consequences of a rupture at its deepest sections, approximately one mile below the surface, could be catastrophic and technically challenging to repair.
The government’s statement has satisfied some, but for many Guyanese, it raises more questions than it answers. The opposition continues to demand answers, and citizens deserve a full, independent assessment of the pipeline’s condition. With billions of dollars at stake and the nation’s energy future hanging in the balance, this is no time for ambiguity.
