Dear Editor,
A word of thanks is due to both Mr. Chris Ram, Chartered Accountant, and SN for its editorial of June 20th titled, `Bring ExxonMobil back to the negotiating table.’ Both did yeoman service to this country, and I bow in recognition of their efforts. My position, however, differs slightly. Because I am of the view that it would be the most uphill of battles, and a path littered with frailty, uncertainty, and possibly treachery, I would leave alone, for now, a direct confrontation with Exxon in insisting upon renegotiating the contract, as dastardly as it is.
I think that there is a high probability that such aggressive action would consign us to the loser’s enclosure, and leave us stranded there for the duration of the deal. As much as I would like nothing better than getting on a more equitable footing with Exxon (and Mr. Ram’s numbers, as presented, make the blood boil), I think we must be realistic, and employ a more careful, controlled, and savvy approach. There are other ways, and the editorial did touch upon that for a moment.
We should have made the fullest use of both Payara and Yellowtail as leverage to stake out the new approach, and new relationship with Exxon. Nobody would whisper a word about renegotiating the contract, or going anywhere close to violating the sacred nature of contracts. But Guyana’s position on both occasions (projects) had to be this is what we have to have, or we will get back to you. In other words, no approval. This is how uncompromised leaders operate, which is something (compromise or the opposite) that SN was studious in avoiding. I make no such distinctions, given the history of our leaders specifically, and politicians in general.
On a similar note, striving to get more for Guyana is what patriotic leaders do for their poor, dependent peoples. Payara should have been the testing ground for making a start with extracting more from Exxon. Next, Yellowtail would have provided the opportunity to raise the ante still more, using Payara as the new baseline. The attitude of local leaders had to be: the oil companies want to play hardball, so can we.
However, we can lament all we want about missed opportunities, but when all is said and resaid endlessly, those are gone, as in moot; and can’t be resurrected or touched, other than for pointless discussion. It is why we must not fail with the next projects coming up for consideration and approval, which are numbers five and six, and whose names currently elude me. We must walk away with something; and if the oil companies’ spearhead, Exxon, digs in its heels, then so must we. Nothing new for Guyana means nothing new for Exxon.
Our leaders must cease speaking of the sacrosanct nature of contracts. That should be Exxon’s line, so let it run with that for its own objectives. We have our dreams, and our leaders must not let those be dashed by passing up the openings in projects five and six. If they conduct themselves in the exact same way as they did with Payara and Yellowtail, there should be absolutely no doubt in the mind of a single Guyanese of how much they are in the thrall of Exxon and, thus, enslaved to the company dictates. I close with this: John Hess is already speaking of projects five and six, as if they are done deals, as in approvals guaranteed. I wonder what gives him (and the others) such supreme confidence?
Sincerely,
GHK Lall