Dear Editor,
Reference “Five years of oil and infamy” (Dec 20). Ouch! The caption is very negative as though serious incontrovertible crimes or evil acts have been committed against the nation when in fact there have been several benefits. Instead of seeing Exxon’s actions as five years of infamy, it can be restated as a glass half full.
What a painful scolding of the political parties and ExxonMobil! ExxonMobil (EM) and the three main political parties are competent to defend themselves of the charges leveled against them. I prefer to focus on positives rather than almost exclusively on negatives of EM presence in Guyana of which several were cited.
Every Guyanese would like higher percentages in royalties and profit sharing. The country can use the extra revenues. How realistic and practical are the suggestions proffered? How about our strategic national security if suggestions were implemented? I can say with some level of authority that political parties (government and opposition) have access to information, not available to the media and the public, that influence their decision making. The preceding could help to explain their non-actions on repeated suggestions or past promises.
Renegotiation is very complex and involves agreement from both sides. EM says no! Can government, or parliament, act unilaterally? Does the law allow for it? Neither the government nor the opposition, not PPP, APNU, AFC, joinder list parties have addressed the PSA, perhaps for justifiable reasons. Civic society has lobbied government and opposition parties on issues raised by the editorial to no effect. For reasons best known to themselves, governments and opposition from 2015 till now have moved cautiously in handling EM.
Two critiques of the editorial are: 1. It is not balanced as the scale weighs down heavily on the side of negatives. There are several positives, apart from those mentioned, of EM’s investment that have not been mentioned; and 2. There is no mention of the view of the public of five years of oil production and revenue receipts.
It is reported in the mass media that EM has invested a lot of money in women empowerment, STEM initiatives, agriculture (hydroponics), biodiversity, community improvement, sports, a stadium in Berbice, education, training of Guyanese to work in oil, and environmental issues, cultural programs, among others. Significant developmental progress has been made over the past five years, using oil revenues, especially in infrastructure albeit some of poor quality. The gas to shore project at Wales is incomplete but there will be several spinoffs.
Liquid Natural Gas may also come on stream for domestic use and or export, adding to revenues. And the country now has shore bases, to cater for the unprecedented petroleum boom. This boom has given Guyana one of the highest rates of gross domestic product per capita, albeit a skewed one, south of USA. Because of the oil find, Guyana has been open to investment. Many companies have set up operations in Guyana since Exxon’s presence. Foreign exchange is positive and available like never before. It will be dishonest not to say quality of life has improved over the last five years.
It may not be possible to get higher royalties and profits, but certainly EM can be lobbied by civil society and government and opposition to sponsor more community projects, funding of programs to end violence against women, workforce development, tutorial programs for the underprivileged, research, etc., some of which it is already doing. Conditions in Guyana could be better. Instead of looking at the oil benefits as half empty or five years of infamy, it should be considered as a work in progress.
Sincerely,
Dr. Vishnu Bisram
