Dear Editor,
It is satisfying to see Alfred Bhulai state that there is no such thing as ‘unlimited insurance’, we can both agree on that. Bhulai erroneously interprets my arguments that higher insurance coverage translates to higher premiums as the creation of a straw man; I have gone to great lengths to show how an amount of spill insurance should be calculated and explain the advances in technology available today as opposed to the time of the oft-quoted BP Macondo (2010). Now that we have quite sensibly agreed on limited insurance coverage, I will look at Bhulai’s desire for ‘assurance’ defined by Justice Kissoon as “an unlimited Parent company Guarantee”, Kissoon’s words, not mine.
Justice Kissoon interpreted ALL to mean UNLIMITED, thereby inserting/ substituting a word and changing the entire meaning of a Law created to protect citizens and the environment into one that creates an impossible burden on investors and a prohibitive investment climate. In short, it creates a logical unsolvable dilemma; ExxonMobil and its partners do not have unlimited assets, nor do oil spills incur unlimited costs; to suggest either is an emotive argument unsupported by data or facts.
Justice Kissoon asserts that “a Parent Company or Affiliate Company indemnity or guarantee to the extent of two billion dollars does not fulfill the obligations of the Permit Holder” and the requirement of “the provision of the unlimited parent company guarantee and the unlimited affiliate company guarantee agreements stipulated at Condition 14:10 of the Permit.” these assertions expose Justice Kissoon’s overreach in changing the language of the Environmental Protection Act; that is the purview of the Legislature, not the Judiciary.
In his letter of 28th May, Bhulai exposes the weakness of emotional, Kafkaesque arguments when he says “When my father assured his children that he would not let anything happen to them, he was doing more. He was saying he would give his life trying his utmost to save theirs” for his Father did not have unlimited lives to give, he had one, a finite number, as defined by scientific data, a fact. Those asking for what they describe as ‘simply a letter of assurance’ are doing so as simpletons, a promise being a comfort to a fool. Bhulai et al. may want to share their take on ‘unlimited assurance’ but I will confine myself to tangible assets; the oil in the Stabroek Block included.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
