Dear Editor,
Amazingly, the discovery of oil off the coast of Guyana seem to generate many pseudo experts on petroleum and gas. With their legitimate, or store-bought advanced degrees, they jostle to provide numerical analyses on Guyana’s oil reserves, annual production, global market demands and prices. This they do under the pretext as qualified authorities either with years of professional experience in conducting market research on oil producing countries, or knowledge in oil production. Some of these newly minted experts utilize numbers and analytic gamesmanship that mesmerize readers into thinking that they provide valid results as to the true state of Guyana’s oil production and its accrued income. Yet, any academician, or analyst, familiar with statistical analysis, or estimates and projections/forecasting will tell you that numbers and use of equations can be manipulated to provide desired results. And that analytical assessments are grounded in, and guided by, clear and verifiable assumptions that facilitate the verification and validation of research results.
In looking at analyses provided by some of the self-anointed oil and gas experts over the past year, I am yet to find clear specifications of their assumptions. In addition, limitations regarding their source(s) of substantiated and verifiable figures on oil reserves on which they base their results and conclusions are not clearly stated. For example, whether Exxon, Hess, or the government are the sources of their secondary data: What verification tests did they conduct to ascertain the veracity of such data? And, since accurate projections/forecasting are customarily based on reliable and verifiable data collection over time: How many years of production and global market prices for oil and gas did they take into consideration in ascertaining the validity of their estimates and projections/forecasting? This is not to say that analysts refrain from making projections/forecasting on limited data, but when they do, do they regularly acknowledge that the results are crude estimates? In short, have limitations.
Undoubtedly, Guyana’s oil and gas production is in its infancy, still developing and expanding within the dynamics of a complex fast-paced global marketplace. Hence, analysts who make claims as to the accuracy and validity of their projections/forecasting results should be viewed with a dose of skepticism. This is especially in cases where the analysts fail to clearly acknowledge that their results are crude estimates, (e. g. Professor Kenrick Hunte’s evaluation, May 18, 2023). Most analytical experts would acknowledge, if asked, that it would take a minimum of three to five years’ accumulation of data to provide valid, and trustworthy results that facilitate accurate projections/forecasting. This then begs the following questions: (i) Why did the “so called experts” on Guyana fail to mention the limitations of their analytical assessments? Renowned and qualified experts regularly do. (ii) Was the intent to discredit or cast doubt or suspicion on the current PPPC Government? Or: Was the intent to support opposition forces unsubstantiated claims of governmental wrongdoings or mismanagement? (see Damien King’s analysis March 2022). From the inferences and conclusions of several locally published analyses, it seems clear that an underlying intent is to discredit the current PPP/C Government policies on oil. This becomes abundantly evident when one takes into consideration the exclusion from analyses, APNU’s role in the extraction and sale of Guyana’s oil.
Given the above, the current PPP/C Government appears to find itself in a quandary in trying to dispel, or dispute every flawed assessment provided by opposition forces, their sympathizers, or disgruntled opportunistic credentialed individuals, (see Nigel Hughes, December 2022). In this regard, the acquisition of a group of internationally renowned consultants -oil and gas as well as national development specialists – could be assets to the government to evaluate, assess, advise, and provide reliable and valid information on which to base national policies (if not yet in place). Such consulting groups would most likely buffer or debunk false claims by credentialed and non-credentialed individuals seeking to discredit or cast doubt on the current government.
The sponsoring of a group of renowned expert consultants is not new to Nation States intent on development. Those familiar with the United States would recall the hiring of Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal to examine race relations in the country. Myrdal study resulted in a two-volume report entitled An American Dilemma, which provided much information for policy decisions. Today, several of the oil producing countries have also acquired outside consultants to assist them in oil and gas production, and many of whom are still employed in doing so. In trade, China too has hired outside consultants to help inform and guide trade policy decisions.
Factually, Guyana is a newcomer in the arena of oil and gas production, and lacks the expertise to fully capitalize on the benefits to be accrued from its newfound wealth. Hence, it would serve the PPP/C Government well to formalize the acquisition of consultants to provide both experts’ advise, and assist in the training of Guyanese employees to contribute to a just and economically advanced society that serve to the benefit of all. That is, in building a truly representative and globally respected ONE GUYANA.
Sincerely,
Narayan Persaud, PhD.
Professor Emeritus
