* Calls on BPC, Gov't to 'avoid trench warfare'

* Claim oil spill response not 'offensive' enough

* Activist review alleges plan 'not acceptable'

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Environmental activists last night urged the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) to "meet us on the battlefield" amid claims its oil spill response plan is insufficiently "offensive".

Fred Smith QC, the Callenders & Co attorney and partner, urged both the oil explorer and the Government not to employ "procedural guerrilla tactics and trench warfare" to halt or bog down the Judicial Review challenge launched by his clients.

The attorney for Waterkeepers Bahamas and the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay (Save the Bays) also confirmed he had sent all filings with the Supreme Court to BPC via its lawyers, Graham, Thompson & Company, after the oil explorer told its shareholders and the London stock market that the case presently amounted to little more than "media speculation".

Noting reports by this newspaper and others on the Judicial Review's filing, BPC's short statement said: "BPC presently has no further knowledge in relation to this matter. BPC has not been served, and is not aware that the Government of The Bahamas has been served.

"BPC will continue to monitor the situation closely, and will make a further announcement as and when it becomes aware of any material developments." However, Mr Smith said he had last night made sure BPC was fully aware by providing it will all the necessary legal documents.

"The statement by BPC is mischievous and misleading," the outspoken QC blasted. "BPC is not a party to the proceedings, and the coalition [Mr Smith's clients] is not obliged to serve BPC with anything.

"However, out of courtesy, because doubtless BPC will ask permission of the court to be heard at the trial, we did provide BPC with notice of the proceedings yesterday via their attorneys and they have today been sent copies of the papers."

With BPC already demanding "security for costs", a form of performance bond that the activists would have to lodge to cover the oil explorer's legal and other expenses if so ordered by the Supreme Court, Mr Smith voiced fears that both the company and the Government would seek to stifle the Judicial Review case by employing legal technicalities.

"We hope BPC and the Government will not bedevil this case with procedural guerrilla tactics and trench warfare," he told Tribune Business. "We consider we have an excellent case and we invite them to have a trial urgently on the merits. Meet us on the battlefield."

Some may argue that the activists have made it harder for BPC to "meet them on the battlefield" given that the oil explorer has, for the moment at least, not been included as a party to the Judicial Review bid.

And BPC's attorneys have already argued that the case for halting exploratory oil drilling in Bahamian waters is "doomed to fail" and very weak. Carl Bethel QC, the attorney general, declined to comment on the Judicial Review filing in a message to Tribune Business.

Meanwhile, an assessment of BPC's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that was carried out for the activists argues that the oil explorer's pollution/spill response and containment plan is not proactive enough given "the sensitivity and uniqueness" of the marine and land habitats that could potentially be impacted.

Dr William J. Rogers, of Omega EnviroSolutions, who has worked on multiple oil and other hazardous waste project assessments and clean-ups, said in his review of BPC's EIA: "The response strategy to a major spill of monitoring, use of dispersants and beach clean-up is not acceptable considering the sensitivity and uniqueness of the potentially impacted habitats and natural resources.

"They have no plans for oil recovery using oil skimming equipment. They also have no plans for oil booming to protect sensitive areas in the event of a spill. They have not addressed the capacities of Grand Bahama, Cuba or US capabilities or the need for capacity building."

BPC has argued that its de-risking work over the past ten years has reduced the chances of any oil spill to the bare minimum. However, Dr Rogers argued in the review seen by Tribune Business: "A detailed offensive interventions spill response plan must be developed to replace the defensive 'wait-and-see and then clean-up the beaches' plan.

"There is no discussion on the Incident Command structure other than the first command on the drill rig. There needs to be a clear process for initial command, and then hand-offs in the event of a large spill. This is not addressed in the EIA or Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

"An offensive plan must include specific strategies to protect sensitive ecological resources and specifically endangered, threatened and vulnerable species and their habitat."

BPC has previously vigorously defended its EIA on multiple occasions, pointing out that it was assessed and approved by the Government's own agencies as well as the international consultants that it hired.

However, Dr Rogers argued that it did not properly address what he termed the "cumulative impact" of drilling multiple wells - as BPC has previously stated it plans to do - rather than just the initial Perseverance One well.

"As written, the EIA is a failure and does not meet the accepted intent of transparency and clear presentation of the cumulative impacts.," he wrote in his analysis. "It can be summed up by one very consistent problem: In its 307 pages, it reads as an effort to throw up a distracting wall of information around the proposed project without performing any of its primary purposes, namely to disclose and mitigate risks of an offshore drilling project to the people of The Bahamas, weighing the overall impacts (including worst-case scenarios) against any societal benefits of the project, and presenting alternatives, so an informed decision can be made.....

"In rough terms, it states: 'We have a plan, it is very complicated but the risk is low and all laws will be followed'...... In short, it’s a thick volume and contains complex and convoluted language, rather than clear, understandable language providing the context and understanding needed by government officials to approve the EIA and EMP."

However, Robertha Quant, BPC's environmental scientist, previously told this newspaper that "five full-time 'man years' of work" - equating to more than 8,000 hours - went into producing the company's latest EIA and EMP over the past two years.

Arguing that its environmental work has been available for public scrutiny since 2012, she added: "To our knowledge, there has never been a single comment or question to the company, challenge or inquiry, despite this availability to the public.....

"The process was very stringent and very strict, consistent with the processes common all around the world for projects of this nature, and also consistent with new Bahamian legislation introduced in 2016, which is amongst the most modern anywhere in the world, and for which the government of the day received advice from various hydrocarbon and resources industry experts, experienced international consultants, and other Commonwealth countries."

Describing the risk of an oil spill as "minimal", a conclusion she said was "grounded in science and procedure", Ms Quant said the EMP contained a "detailed oil emergency response plan" to deal with any pollution or spillage incidents.