Dear Editor,
The Kaieteur News’ front-page headline of January 01 blared that the “Gas-to-shore project, a recipe for bankruptcy” and went on to quote a “US Financial Expert” who shared a very pessimistic view about the viability of any proposed gas to shore project being executed by the government of Guyana. He based his views on the fact that the previous government (s) negotiated bad contracts with oil companies.
Based on his faulty logic, because our political custodians blundered on one negotiation, it definitely must mean the country’s officials will blunder on every subsequent negotiation. This is an insulting and egregious assertion and one that’s grounded on negative assumptions by some individuals from developed countries that Guyanese nationals are incapable of effective leadership, management and decision-making. Maybe if he or one of his developed countries’ counterparts are in the driving seat only then can the project have any chance of success.
Additionally, he sees no benefit and utility of such a project but rather emphasizes that only the oil companies stand to benefit. Is he arguing and promoting that we are better off as a nation being at a standstill and never attempting any forward, modern development projects if the oil companies, which are major stakeholders in all this, stand to benefit? Taking this logic to full conclusion, Guyana would not have had any oil and gas sector since all the exploration arrangements that led to discoveries had to involve oil companies for their experience and capital resources.
The upside of the gas to shore project has transformational potential, for both our public/private enterprises and our citizenry, and is one that should be pursued despite premature and nonsensical grumblings from so called “experts”.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Urling
