The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Oil exploration opponents yesterday alleged previous statements by Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) show it is "unarguable" that new environmental permits were needed for the change in drill ship.

Jacqueline Banona-Adderley, an attorney with Callenders & Co, which is representing environmental activists in their Judicial Review bid to halt BPC's exploratory drilling, argued that an update issued by the company in November 2019 had highlighted the need to incorporate details of the vessel undertaking the work into the Environmental Authorisation (EA) application.

This, she alleged, contradicted both the Government and BPC's assertion that the later switch to the Stena IceMAX vessel did not require a new EA to be approved and associated public consultation to be held.

These arguments are a central element to the action initiated by Waterkeepers Bahamas and the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay. Ms Banona-Adderley, in her affidavit, focused on the section that disclosed Black & Veatch, the Government's environmental consultants, had been conducting an analysis "to identify any gaps in the EA documentation provided by BPC".

The oil explorer then said it had appointed its own environmental adviser, Acorn International, to liaise with Black & Veatch and the Government "so as to address any gaps as identified".

Ms Banona-Adderley, though, alleged that "the crucial part" was where BPC revealed: "A major part of the work being undertaken by Acorn pertains to incorporating into the EA documentation detailing data unique and specific to the actual rig that will undertake the planned drilling activity."

She argued: "The applicants wish to rely on this report because it makes clear, contrary to the submissions filed on behalf of the respondents on December 20, 2020, that BPC, Black & Veatch, Acorn and the BEST Commission all considered that lack of information and data 'unique and specific to the actual rig that will undertake the planned drilling activity' was an unacceptable 'gap' that needed to be filled before the Environmental Impact Assessment could be finalised and the EA obtained.

"The applicants will rely upon it to argue that it is therefore unarguable that the change in drill ship to the IceMAX in mid to late 2020 did require the EIA to be modified to contain this" information.

Ms Banona-Adderley's affidavit thus represents the activists' latest attempt to find holes in BPC's arguments after they also asserted that its hurricane response plan, suggesting that drilling could be suspended within one to three days if a storm threatened, contradicted its assertions to the Supreme Court that halting its activities now in mid-drilling will create unnecessary safety and health risks.

Rochelle Newbold, director of the newly-formed Department of Environment, Protection and Planning (DEPP), has already rejected the argument by environmental activists that a new EA and public consultation was required because BPC had changed its drill ship to the Stena IceMAX.

"The DEPP upon receiving notice of the change in the rig indicated a 'no objection' to the change after the review and consultation with its independent environmental consultants," she alleged in an affidavit, referring to Black & Veatch. "The indicated changes by BPC had no relation to the impacts associated with the EIA, and therefore no 'new approval' was warranted.

"Upon notice of the change in the drilling contractor, the Department was provided with the documentation regarding information and specification of the rig, its experience, background and capabilities.

"This information was reviewed by the DEPP and the independent international environmental consultant, Black & Veatch, and no issues were identified which would have compromised the identified and required undertakings in the Environmental Management Plan."

Arguing that the environmentalists' arguments were "misconceived", Mrs Newbold argued that public consultation on BPC's project had taken place as required under the Petroleum Act 2016. This, though, was rejected by Fred Smith, the activists' attorney, who said: "They're scraping the bottom of the historical barrel for consultation."