Dear Editor,
One of the things that Exxon has not done is to stop drilling. This is good. According to one recent letter (SN Aug 19; There is…), a total of thirty-three ‘successful’ discoveries (more than twenty-five according to Exxon’s website https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/2022/0726_ ExxonMobil-makes-two-more-discoveries-offshore-Guyana) have been made. All of this drilling requires some context. The first question is whether after its first successful discovery Exxon has mapped out the geographical surface area over which the reserve of oil it found extends. Was this done for its second and subsequent discoveries? Because if the answer to all these questions is yes, that the ‘reserves’ do not overlap, then Exxon can safely and justifiably declare that it has successfully discovered thirty-three separate, independent oil reserves within its oil exploration area. Exxon is urged to produce evidence that the oil discoveries are geographically independent.
This is important in computing exploration and development costs associated with finding new oil reserves, which are recoverable, versus recurrent costs which are not. In the absence of evidence from Exxon, it seems a possible, very probable scenario that Exxon’s initial successful oil find was a large reserve, and some or all of the remaining thirty-two ‘successful’ oil discoveries represent drillings on the same, singular oil reserve initially discovered. If this latter is in fact the case, then Exxon cannot claim to have ‘successfully’ discovered thirty-three new wells. Naturally, only those with proven independent reserves can be considered recoverable as developmental and exploratory costs. Exxon could also justify all thirty-three wells, or however many it has dug, or intends to dig. How does each maximize recoverable reserves and increase the efficiency and profitability of Exxon’s efforts over the life of Exxon’s stay in Guyana? Does it intend to set up oil extraction and storage facilities at each of these thirty-three sites? Would this minimize costs?
Exxon’s conduct in respect of the contract it holds with Guyana and the conditions under which this contract was signed have left Guyanese with little room to trust it, and in this context, unless proven otherwise, we need to pay more attention. I have already contended that because the contract signed by the previous administration did not receive parliamentary approval, the blessing of the people of Guyana, it did not, does not represent the interest and wishes of the Guyanese people (SN 08/18/; The Exxon Contract). This lack of representation, or misrepresentation, may be considered fraudulent, and therefore voids the Exxon-Guyana contract. It is important that every Guyanese understand this voidable aspect of the existing contract, that it does not represent their wishes.
Yours faithfully,
Craig Sylvester
