A ruling is expected next week on whether there is merit in the appeal filed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the High Court order that it enforce the liability clause in permits for ExxonMobil’s offshore oil operations here.

Also likely is a ruling on whether the appellate court will grant a stay of execution on the order.

Following the presentation of arguments yesterday morning on the preliminary issues, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud said that the court goes into a short recess from today until next Wednesday.

He said he intends to deliver his ruling after, and that the parties will be informed of the date.

From what Justice Persaud has indicated, the ruling will likely be on Thursday or Friday of next week.

Yesterday the court heard submissions from counsel for the EPA and Exxon’s local affiliate—Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL)— who argued that the trial judge had committed a number of errors in his ruling.

Senior Counsel Edward Luckhoo for Esso, made the point that the trial judge misapplied the law in arriving at the conclusions he did; and so, it is now for the appellate court to remedy those wrongs.

Because of those misrepresentations, Luckhoo held that his client’s appeal does not merely have a prospect of succeeding but an “excellent” prospect.

High court Judge Sandil Kissoon in delivering his judgment last month, said that in the course of the proceedings, the Court found on the evidence that EEPGL was engaged in a “disingenuous attempt which was calculated to deceive, when it sought to dilute its liabilities,” while simultaneously optimising production.

In his ruling, Justice Kissoon said of the EPA, “It has abdicated the exclusive statutory responsibilities entrusted to it by Parliament under the Environmental Protection Act 1996 and the Environmental Protection Regulations 2000 to ensure due compliance by Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited.”

Much of the court’s attention yesterday morning was directed to the issue of the “unlimited” financial guarantee which the lower court ruled that Esso is to provide for its oil extraction operations here.

Sanjeev Datadin for the EPA sought to reemphasize his client’s position, arguing among other things that the judge’s finding that the financial assurances set out in the permit were “unlimited; “was a flawed line of reasoning.

He said that the financial assurance is an estimate—a quantifiable sum—which is not unlimited, for which he argued the terms of the permit provided.

He said that Justice Kissoon’s ruling wrongly gives the impression that an unlimited guarantee somehow prohibits the environmental ills referenced, from occurring.

Datadin said that the existence of insurance is never to prevent the ill from happening, but rather to compensate after the fact. He said that this is how the insurance needs to be viewed and not as a shield from what would be the ill.

Datadin argued that the trial judge interpreted the statute and permit incorrectly, which led to the resultant incorrect conclusion at which he arrived; even as he argued that nowhere in the permit is provision made for “unlimited.”

He said that that word was imported by the trial judge because of a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the law; which he said further resulted in overreach on the part of the court in the orders made against EPA which he said are “coercive.”

Echoing the sentiments expressed by Datadin, Luckhoo said that the condition in the permit clearly contemplated an estimate; while adding that the judge took into consideration extraneous considerations.

Senior Counsel Seenath Jairam who represents the respondents by whom the initial action was brought against the EPA argued, however, that both Datadin and Luckhoo were “cherry-picking” aspects of the permit that suited their arguments, and not looking at it holistically.

He said that Justice Kissoon’s ruling was clear that the permit-holder is to be liable for “all” costs in accordance with condition 14 of the permit, for which no mere estimate would suffice.

He said that the Appellants—EPA and Esso—ought to bring themselves into compliance with the judge’s orders as they are currently in contempt, having not even sought an extension of time to comply, while the appeal pends.

Jairam said that they are to comply until and unless the order is set aside by a superior court. On this ground