Environmental activists filed a lawsuit in July seeking to cancel the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Permit (EP) granted for the Hammerhead Project, the Exxon-led consortium’s 7th Petroleum Development Project in Guyana.
In this article, I will explain the basis of the claim, the status of the claim, and preliminary issues the claim may face. I will briefly say how this claim, if successful, could affect the Hammerhead Project.
In the Fixed Date Application [Wintress Morris and Joy Marcus v. The Environmental Protection Agency 2025/710-HC-FDA-DEM-CIV], the litigants argue that the EIA issued for the Hammerhead Project is unlawful because it “fails to identify, describe, and evaluate the indirect effects of the Hammerhead Project (scope 3 emissions)”, which is required by section 11 (4) of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap 20:05, Laws of Guyana. The litigants also argue that the EIA breaches a previous court decision, which confirmed that the Terms of Scope for the Hammerhead EIA must require the identification, description and evaluation of scope 3 emissions.
The litigants further argue that any EP granted based on the alleged unlawful EIA would also be unlawful and should be scrapped. The court action does not mention the Petroleum Production Licence (PPL) granted for the Hammerhead in September, since the action was filed before the PPL was granted. However, since a PPL requires a valid EP, if the court cancels the EP, the PPL would also be void. These developments would be undesirable for the Hammerhead Project, which is said to be as lucrative as, or even more so than, the ExxonMobil Guyana-led consortium’s flagship project, Liza.
There are, however, a few issues with this action.
The main ground for the court action is an EIA published in February. This February EIA is exhibited, in part, in the affidavit filed in court. However, this was not the final EIA for the Hammerhead Project. In fact, the EPA, in a June letter, said that the EIA process was still ongoing. The final EIA for the Hammerhead Project was published in September. The EP and PPL for the Hammerhead Project were then issued on the 21st and 22nd of September, respectively.
Second, even if the February EIA were final, the portions of the document that the litigants claim demonstrate its unlawfulness do not appear to have been put into evidence.
The litigants will have to navigate these factual and legal realities.
I take this opportunity to clarify a few things regarding a similar action that was filed in relation to the Hammerhead Project in 2024. The same litigants had filed an action asking the court to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to include scope 3 emissions in the Terms and Scope of the EIA for the Hammerhead Project.
The first action: Wintress Morris and Joy Marcus v. The Environmental Protection Agency 2025-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA-CAD-19
In the first action, the litigants argued that EPA was in breach of section 11 (4) of the EP Act since the Terms of Scope (TS) for the Hammerhead EIA did not include an obligation to identify, describe and evaluate the effects of scope 3 emissions.
This case was dismissed by the judge for various reasons, including the fact that the requirements of section 11 (4) were already incorporated into the TS by reference. The judge also observed that paragraph 5.1 of the TS required that the report focus on significant environmental issues and provide all relevant information needed by the EPA to consider any adverse or beneficial impacts of the proposal fully, including by referencing relevant international standards and guidelines in discussions about operating and environmental practices where such is not covered by any local laws or regulations.
The judge did, however, note that the EPA had expressly mentioned scope 3 emissions in the TS for the Hammerhead after the action was filed, but this finding did not seem determinative.
The litigants described this decision as groundbreaking for various reasons, including that previous EIAs did not cover scope three emissions.
What’s next?
The current case is still at the case management stage. Updates will be provided as the case progresses.
