Dear Editor,
Mr. Alistair Routledge is more than Exxon’s Country Head in Guyana. Mr. Routledge has earned a well-deserved reputation as being the company’s chef propagandist. Now, Mr. Routledge has been invited, is pushed, I would say, even challenged by Mr. Chris Ram, noted Guyanese lawyer and numbers man, to provide answers for the Guyanese people on 30 oil-related questions.
Mr. Ram may be a tad peeved at me, but I will go easy on Mr. Routledge. Take it as an Easter gift from one American to another. If the man from Exxon feels that his company is better served by sidestepping some of those 30 questions, then that generous leeway is afforded. He, however, is not extended the luxury of picking and choosing which ones he can answer. Whatever he answers, the Exxon Guyana Country Head must come forward early with answers that tell Guyanese what they need to know. Because Mr. Routledge is recognized by me as the total package, a complete oilman, Mr. Ram’s questions ought to be smooth sailing for him. I just said he must tell this nation early, and there is a reason for doing so. For the longer he hides behind Exxon’s skirts, or makes himself invisible, or lets his voice not be heard, then the swifter, more pronounced, the discrediting. There are a handful of Guyanese who care little about corporate icons. I am one of those. Tell the Guyanese people, Mr. Routledge. With characteristic American aggressiveness and audacity, I stand before him, and wish that I don’t have to get his face. But I will, if he does not come clean, and come straight.
For me, these are the important-must answer-questions. First, how much did Shell pay Exxon for those farm-ins (Q1)? Next, why is there, how does he explain [away], that US$92M gap in Exxon’s expenses re pre-contract costs (Q3)? Then, how can there not be questions or concerns about the ethics of collecting tax receipts for taxes not paid (Q9)? Moreover, and this is the burly granddaddy, how much has the lack of ringfencing provisions diminished Guyana’s share of Profit Oil since 2020 (Q18)? Further, how many new billions of barrels have been found in the last eight discoveries that Exxon itself announced (Q26)? If Mister Routledge cannot answer these few that I have selected, how can he answer anything? How can Exxon not be seen as precisely what it is? A rapacious corporate predator?
Ponder this: at different times, this patrimony has been heralded as a ‘crown jewel’, and ‘worldclass’, and ‘unprecedented’. Conspicuously, all those superlatives are mainly based on their significance for Exxon and its people. This oil is Guyanese patrimony, not that of Exxon first, and its people next. In the beginning, it was 5.5 billion barrels, then 11 billion. Thus, I have more questions. Again, how much new oil in those eight new discoveries? If the people’s oil cannot be fully disclosed to them, then how does that not amount to a dark conspiracy between Exxon and the PPP [govt]? Also, how does Exxon call itself a trusted partner when it conceals and wiggles? Partners don’t do that, Mr. Routledge.
Further, I offer a piece of free advice, Mr. Routledge: responding is not a job for any public relations department. They are detected for what they are: sugarcoating and honey dripping productions that only fool the gullible. I urge Mr. Routledge to answer all 30 questions in his own words, with his own wisdom, and from the warehouse of Exxon’s Guyana archives. He should know them like the scent of his own sweat. Most of all, I am looking forward to Mr. Routledge coming forward and standing as an honourable American, in his delivering (hopefully) of the truths about Guyana’s oil. Those that are so have what is universal, what is inarguable, about them.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
