Guyana would make companies liable for oil spill damages in proposed bill
GEORGETOWN, April 29 (Reuters) - Guyana's government has submitted an oil pollution bill to the Parliament proposes to make responsible parties liable for damages caused by oil spills, including from vessels, according to a copy of the act published in the Official Gazette.
The South American country, whose oil production controlled by an Exxon Mobil-led (XOM.N), opens new tab consortium is expected to surpass 900,000 barrels per day this year, is trying to reinforce oversight of its nascent energy industry, where all crude and gas output comes from offshore fields.
Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.
Responsible parties shall provide financial assurance to cover spills, conduct regular inspections and audits, and address any issues found, according to the measure.
The bill includes penalties for companies that fail to comply with regulations, including the suspension of licenses to explore and produce oil for those that do not provide the financial assurance required.
Under the proposed measure, the country's Oil Spill Committee would be assigned more formal duties to oversee the industry and coordinate response to any spills.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Nigel Farage has yet to prove he can work with others
Two days after quitting after a very public dispute with one of the party's five MPs, former Reform chairman Zia Yusuf is returning to the party to take up a new role, with his exact job title yet to be settled on. On Thursday, helping Nigel Farage's party continue its remarkable rise was no longer a 'good use' of Mr Yusuf's time; today, it once again appears to be his primary objective. This will be welcome news for Mr Farage, who was reported to have felt dejected by Mr Yusuf's sudden departure. It is a positive sign, too, that the personality clashes within the party appear to have been put to one side for now. Peace has broken out over the spat that led to his departure, with Mr Yusuf attributing his decision to a combination of 'exhaustion' and feeling blindsided by the sudden raising of a potential burka ban as a policy issue in Parliament. The last two days of drama point,however, to a wider issue: Reform is not yet a professional operation on par with the established rivals it seeks to displace. While the party has made considerable electoral progress in the past year, Reform's institutional structures have lagged behind with repeated embarrassing stories over previous statements made by candidates highlighting in sharp and unforgiving fashion the importance of building back office capabilities to identify, screen and vet candidates to a satisfactory standard. There is, however, only so much staff can do. The concern for Reform will be that the sudden changes in personnel that have unfolded over the last year – the departure of Rupert Lowe MP, the resignation and return of Mr Yusuf – are mirroring a pattern observed in previous episodes in Mr Farage's political career. The former UKIP and Brexit party leader is no stranger to clashes with colleagues, and while apparently not directly at fault in this instance there will still be concerns that some elements of the drama around Reform may be integral to his leadership style. This, rather than the political skill of Sir Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch, may prove the greatest obstacle to Reform's ambitions in the years ahead. While Mr Farage has succeeded in capturing the votes of a large proportion of this country disaffected with Westminster and the traditional parties of government, there is little appetite to return to the squabbling and briefing that marked the dying years of the last Conservative government, or the worst days of New Labour. It is now for Reform to prove it can steer a calmer course.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain's debt is a threat to national security
Our sky high debt is a threat to our national security. This year, the cost of servicing our debt will be almost double what we are spending on defence. And in today's turbulent world, the fiscal buffer to cushion us from shocks is paper thin. The smallest tap could shatter our economic credibility. The Prime Minister has made defence and security the organising principle of his government. Given that, putting our debt on a downward path should be his government's priority. It isn't. Debt will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today. And with global government debt already around $100 trillion, and Donald Trump about to increase that by a further $2.4 trillion, who will buy our debt – and at what price? Last year, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee raised a red flag that UK debt risks becoming unsustainable unless tough decisions are taken in this Parliament. We set out a choice: taxes would have to rise, or the state would have to do less. Being cross-party, we did not opine on which option was best. The Government has taken tough decisions – but in my mind the wrong ones. Taxes are rising to record highs. The Chancellor said last year that her strategy would deliver growth, and that she would not come back for more tax. But the growth forecast has been halved, and further tax hikes are on the cards. Meanwhile, pressure to spend more on defence is going to increase. At the upcoming Nato summit, nations are likely to be asked to commit to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence – double Labour's current commitment. So what is to be done? We need to confront the other option: the state should do less. The Government rightly says that the relentless rise in welfare spending is 'unsustainable'. Spending on disability and incapacity benefits alone is more than on defence. But having announced that action would be taken to curb the growth in the welfare budget, the Prime Minister is now blinking in the face of opposition. The Government – and the nation – cannot afford ministers losing their nerve to keep a lid on spending. The bond vigilantes have saddled up and are on the prowl. Nor can the Chancellor tax her way out of the debt quagmire: to do so would risk us entering into a doom loop of ever lower growth and ever higher debt. If defence and security is the organising principle of government, the Chancellor must set out a credible plan to stop debt's relentless rise and bring it down from today's giddying heights. Not doing so risks economic catastrophe – and our national security.
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump says Elon Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democratic candidates
President Donald Trump on Saturday said there would be 'serious consequences' if tech mogul Elon Musk funds Democratic candidates to run against Republicans who vote in favor of the GOP's sweeping budget bill. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News in a phone interview, but declined to share what those consequences would be. 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,' he added. The president also said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk after a feud between the two men erupted into public view earlier this week. 'No,' Trump said when asked if he had any wish to do so. Asked if he thought his relationship with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was over, Trump said, 'I would assume so, yeah.' Trump's comments were the most extensive since he and Musk exchanged threats and attacks on X and Truth Social earlier this week. He added that he thought the Republican Party was more unified than ever after the two men fell out in front of the world. Trump added that he has no plans to speak with Musk anytime soon, saying, 'I'm too busy doing other things' and 'I have no intention of speaking to him.' Trump also accused Musk of being 'disrespectful to the office of the President.' 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the President,' he added. Musk on Thursday launched a barrage of posts on X against the president, including a now-deleted post highlighting the onetime links between the president and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 'That's called 'old news,' that's been old news, that has been talked about for years,' Trump said on Saturday. 'Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it. It's old news.' For days, Musk had been critical of a GOP-led spending bill that the House passed last month. In the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump responded to Musk's criticisms, telling reporters, 'I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill. I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Shortly after those comments, Musk launched his flurry of posts, including promoting a post calling for Trump to be impeached and another where he said the president's tariff agenda would cause a recession later this year. Trump on Thursday also responded with his own posts on Truth Social. In one post, he wrote, 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' suggesting that Musk knew what was in the bill before it was passed. He also wrote on Thursday, 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' referring to federal contracts with SpaceX. On Saturday, Trump said that he hadn't given his suggestion about canceling Musk's companies' federal contracts any more thought. 'I'd be allowed to do that,' he said, 'but I have, I haven't given it any thought.' He also cast doubt on the notion that Musk's opposition to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' is jeopardizing the bill's chances of success, saying he's 'very confident' that the bill will pass the Senate before July 4. 'The Republican Party has never been united like this before. It's never been. It's actually more so than it was three days ago,' Trump said. Musk contributed major financial support to Trump's presidential bid in 2024, spending over a quarter of a billion dollars to boost him in swing states last year. In the first months of the administration, Trump put Musk in charge of DOGE, where he oversaw mass layoffs of federal workers and the shuttering or partial closing of several agencies. The feud, Trump said, has made lawmakers see the benefits of the bill. 'I think, actually, Elon brought out the strengths of the bill because people that weren't as focused started focusing on it, and they see how good it is,' Trump said. 'So in that sense, there was a big favor. But I think Elon, really, I think it's a shame that he's so depressed and so heartbroken.'
