In my last piece, I gave an overview of Guyana’s new Oil Pollution Prevention, Preparedness Response and Responsibility Act 2025 (OPPPRR)
To be clear, by new, I do not mean that this is the most recent version of this legislation. Instead, this is the first modern piece of legislation in Guyana that establishes a regime of liability specifically for oil spills in the oil and gas sector.
Given the role of various vessels in the oil and gas sector, the act also addresses oil spills in the shipping sector, either directly or indirectly. The term vessel under the OPPRRR defines vessels as “every description of a sea-going and seaborne watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water other than a public vessel”.
Uncapped Liability?
The OPPPRR saddles responsible parties (operators, owners or controllers of vessels) with unlimited liability for all damages flowing from an oil spill caused by the party (see section 17 of the OPPPRR). This includes removal costs, restoration of the environment damaged by the spill, and, as far as practicable, any costs arising from the damage caused to the environment.
Importantly, reference in section 17 to ‘all damages’ expressly includes costs associated with removal and clean-up costs as well as costs associated with loss of real or immovable property and resulting economic losses, loss of taxes, profits shares, loss of natural resources, loss of profits or earning capacity due to injury, and damage due to impairment of the environment (See section 19 (a-b)). In this way, the OPPPRR goes beyond global standards such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which caps liability for damages but imposes liability for economic and natural resources damages.
As stated above, previously, there was no legislation specifically targeting such spills in the oil and gas sector, although such conduct was/is technically covered by the Environmental Protection Act, Cap 20:05, Laws of Guyana (EP Act), which already seems to create uncapped liability for oil spills.
For example, section 19 (a) (b) of the EP Act prohibits the unlawful discharge of contaminants into the environment. An oil spill may be classified as an unlawful discharge of a contaminant.
Where this occurs, the entity responsible for the discharge is required to rescue and restore affected plants, animals and other organisms, clean up, remove and or neutralise the contaminant, and restore the water to the state it was in before the contamination (see section 19 (3) (b) of the EP Act). The EP Act also requires a company responsible for a spill to pay the cost of an independent investigation into the spill, pay over to the EPA a sum of money equal to the estimated cost of investigating the spill and restoring the environment, and compensate persons who suffered any loss or damage resulting from an oil spill.
Now, the words under section 19 (3) do not expressly impose any limitations on the obligation to restore the environment and compensate persons who suffer loss or damage.
Thus, section 17 of the OPPPRR is not an innovation, but a reinforcement of the uncapped liability created by section 19 of the EP Act.
The Acts differ significantly, however, on the subject of penalties.
Breach section 19 (1) of the EP Act is punishable by a fine of GY$75,000 to GY$500,000 (See section 19 (2) and paragraph (e) of the Fifth Schedule of the EP Act). The fine is doubled (GY$150,000 to GY$1,000,000) if the offence is committed by a body corporate (see the Proviso to the Fifth Schedule).
It is also an offence to intentionally or recklessly cause serious or material harm to the environment through pollution, knowing that the serious or material harm will or may occur (see section 39 (1) and (3) of the EP Act. The penalty for causing material harm is the same as the penalty for unauthorised discharge of contaminants, while the penalty for causing serious harm is a fine of GY$300,000 to GY$750,000, and the fines are again doubled if the offence is committed by a body corporate (GY$600,000 to GY1,500,000).
The maximum fines under the Act are not significantly higher (GY$800,000 to GY$2,000,000 for individuals and GY$1,600,000 to GY$4,000,000 for companies).
Meanwhile, the penalties for breaching various liability obligations under the OPPPRR start at GY1,000,000 and can reach as much as GY$2,000,000,000 (see sections 34, 35, and 36 and the Third Schedule of the OPPPRR). Additionally, where a body corporate commits one of these offences with the consent, connivance, or due to the neglect of a director, manager, secretary or an agent, both the entity and the person will be liable for the offence.
The fines in the OPPPRR better reflect the modern approach to fines for oil spills. This fact is reinforced by the OPPPRR itself, which states that its fines supersede those in the EP Act and attending Regulations regarding oil spills.
Conclusion
The OPPPRR, therefore, does not radically depart from the liability regime already implicit in the EP Act but instead fortifies and modernises it. By expressly imposing uncapped liability for oil spill damages and dramatically increasing penalties, it sends a clear message that Guyana is adopting a robust, deterrent approach to oil spill accountability.
In doing so, it aligns local law with international best practices while ensuring that responsible parties bear the full economic, environmental, and social costs of pollution.
