American journalist Steve Coll describes an illuminating exchange in 2001 between then President George Walker Bush and the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Worried that the United States (U.S) multinational ExxonMobil was delaying a deal with India’s largest state-owned oil company, Vajpayee allegedly asked Bush: “Why don’t you just tell them what to do?” The 43rd President’s response was ominous: “Nobody tells those guys what to do!”
Yet Guyana harbours great dreams of rich royalties and fair proceeds from recent huge petroleum finds by ExxonMobil (XOM). Before any oil is even pumped up from its promising off-shore reservoirs, this country is already ambitiously and incongruously contemplating the viability of setting up a refinery. The powers that be, need to scrutinise Trinidad and Tobago’s expensive learning experience with its State-owned, loss-inducing, inefficient and uncompetitive Petrotrin, given the high electricity demands, low profit margins, extravagance and the disgruntled, premium-paid workforce, as the current Government contemplates possible divestment.
It is painfully ironic that the very resources slated to bring poor Guyana sudden, unexpected wealth will also contribute to increasing vulnerability. The burning of non-renewable fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thickening the layers of greenhouse gases and making the Earth warmer.
This means a rather grim future for low-lying and impoverished countries like ours, confined to a fragile and narrow strip of coastland, its residents already struggling with the regular consequences of floods with each black sky and heavy rainfall, rising sea levels and extreme weather shifts. The worst case context would mean eventually relocating the entire belt to higher zones further inland.
The unpublicised contract governing Guyana exploration with the world’s leading oil giant was signed in 1999, the same year Exxon and Mobil merged, during the long reign of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) Government. The ruling APNU+AFC coalition is on record as stating it is reviewing certain segments to secure “an even stronger relationship with Exxon.” Vital production sharing agreements still have to be hammered out together with stronger, targeted environmental protection laws and a supervisory Petroleum Directorate.
In his book “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power,” Pulitzer Prize winner Coll recounted the memorable Bush chat as part of a damning study in how the mighty entity operates. TIME’s correspondent Bryan Walsh warned in his 2012 review that the “Media” appendix for the firm’s spill response strategy in the event of a serious accident was four times longer than the scenario for oil removal. Filed with the U.S Department of Interior, the corporation detailed extensive proposals for public and press communication in the wake of a possible accident, say in the Gulf of Mexico.
Walsh noted that it described, down to the exact wording, how Exxon’s experts would respond to media inquiries. If criminal charges were a possibility, for example, the pre-emptive statement would be: “We believe that there are no grounds for such charges. This was clearly an accident and we are working to respond to the immediate needs of the incident.” As Coll would tell Politico in an interview, the memo amounted to a “playbook of deliberate obfuscation in an accident, whatever the cause.”
“In the U.S, Exxon has been extremely partisan, its political action committee essentially acting as a finance arm of the Republican Party,” Walsh surmised, asserting this distinguishes Exxon from most large companies which give to both political parties knowing that power tends to change hands.
“When Barack Obama took office in 2009, Exxon was essentially shut out of the White House. The few Democrats the company (had) strong ties with were connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. And even among oil companies, Exxon was unusually aggressive in the fight against mainstream climate science, only ending its investments in climate-skeptic groups in 2006. Obviously any oil company would be wary of climate science, given what cutting carbon would mean for fossil fuels, but Exxon went far beyond in its opposition. None of that puts it in a most-favored-company position when the anti-climate science, pro-oil GOP (Grand Old Party) is not in power.”
Well the brash Republicans are back with a bold bang, as are their propositions and promised profits for further fracking of American shale gas and oil, and resuscitating the country’s coal sector. XOM spent US$31 billion to buy major natural-gas producer XTO Energy in 2009 and now it appears perfectly poised to reap the benefits.
The group can also celebrate the impending confirmation of its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Rex Tillerson, as the new U.S Secretary of State. At the recent Foreign Committee hearing, as Senators from both sides clashed with the Texan businessman, he calmly disagreed with the view of “others” that climate change was an “imminent national security threat” and declined to make any direct links with national disasters, terming the scientific literature “inconclusive.” Tillerson, 64, appeared at odds with his Commander-in-Chief on some topics, accepting that climate change exists even as its future impact is hard to predict.
“I came to my personal position over about 20 years as an engineer and a scientist, understanding the evolution of the science, (I) came to the conclusion a few years ago the risk of climate change does exist, and that the consequences could be serious enough that action should be taken,” Tillerson said.
Concluding, “The type of action seem to be where the largest areas of debate exist in the public discourse. I think it’s important to recognize the U.S has done a pretty good job,” Tillerson agreed “the increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect” on the climate but felt “our ability to predict that effect is very limited.” One of President Donald Trump’s most important choices, Tillerson, who has no prior diplomatic experience having spent more than 40 years working with the Irving-based Exxon from the bottom up, was narrowly approved by the Committee, 10-11 along party lines as the last Republican holdout, Florida’s Marco Rubio joined Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham in support. Rubio voiced reservations about Tillerson’s commitment to defending human rights abroad, while McCain and Graham were concerned about the nominee’s uncomfortably close ties to the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin who rewarded him the Order of Friendship.
The Washington Post reported Tillerson won the 2013 award after business with the State-owned Russian oil enterprise Rosneft. The partnership had begun a drilling programme in the Arctic’s Kara Sea where Exxon spent US$650M on an exploratory well, and agreed to explore shale oil sites of West Siberia and the Black Sea. But then U.S. sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea kicked in and the partnership was put on hold, the newspaper said.
Senate Democrats remain unanimously opposed to Tillerson, with Ben Cardin, protesting the nominee had been “repeatedly prioritising narrow business interests ahead of these core national security interests.”
Since Republicans hold 52 of the 100 Senate seats, his full endorsement is definitely assured. Tillerson’s appointment and the impending policy shifts of the incoming regime could bring serious and sobering changes to organisations ranging from the United Nations (U.N) to resource-rich, climate-hit countries such as Guyana where XOM oil production is due to start in 2020. During his January 11 hearing, Tillerson signalled the U.S will review funding for the U.N Green Climate Fund and “look at things from the bottom up.” He refused to commit to honouring the landmark Paris Agreement and declared Trump’s “priority in campaigning was – America First.” Insisting the pact could put the country at a “disadvantage” Tillerson nevertheless conceded the U.S would be “better served by being at that (Paris) table.”
The Fund was formed to help keep the planet’s temperature rise to below two degrees Celsius by investing in low-emission and climate-resilient projects in developing countries while assisting needy societies adapt to the unavoidable impact.
Within the U.N’s Climate Change Convention, the Paris Accord covers cutting greenhouse gases, adaptation and finance from 2020. Many nations have signed the treaty and 126 countries, including Guyana, have ratified it. In force since early November it has binding signatories such as the Big Three polluters of China, the U.S and India, which together account for 42 per cent of emissions. Magnate Trump has long maintained he doubts whether global climate change is real, terming it “a hoax”. Preparing to take over as the 45th President, he appeared to soften his campaign stance to pull out of the Paris covenant. When Trump assumed power, the White House’s official webpage was immediately updated and its climate change presentation laid out under the Obama Presidency, vanished.
In the “Issues” section the transition team now highlights six topics, including the “America First Energy Policy.” It touts Trump’s intention to tap America’s own oil and gas reserves and to revive the “hurting” coal industry, but does not mention renewable energy. “The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry,” the website proclaims.
Underlining the commitment “to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan” it argues that “in addition to being good for our economy, boosting domestic energy production is in America’s national security interest.”
“President Trump is committed to achieving energy independence from the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) cartel and any nations hostile to our interests,” the White House said, citing America’s US$50 trillion in “vast untapped domestic energy reserves.”
Democrat Tim Kaine charged, XOM funded groups that challenge the scientific consensus on climate change and requested Tillerson clarify what the conglomerate knew about global warming. “Senator, since I’m no longer with ExxonMobil, I’m in no position to speak on their behalf,” Tillerson answered. Kaine reminded Tillerson that he had worked there for more than four decades. “Do you lack the knowledge to answer my question, or do you refuse to answer my question?” the Senator queried. Tillerson replied coolly, “A little of both” to laughter in the room, the Guardian newspaper said. Later, Kaine tweeted: “It’s shameful Tillerson refused to answer my questions on his company’s role in funding phony climate science. Bottom line: #ExxonKnew.” Tillerson refused to commit to recusing himself from decisions about XOM as Secretary of State outside of an initial one-year period required by law. Instead, he suggested it would be enough to solicit and follow the advice of the Office of Government Ethics when it came to potential conflicts of interests.
The oil-industry executive who Republican politician Sarah Palin called “T. Rex” took an 18 percent pay cut last year to bring his salary down to US$27.3 million, the Post revealed. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil’s Texas headquarters, nicknamed “The Death Star” announced a US$180M retirement package in trust for its former boss once he is appointed as America’s most powerful diplomat, transferring the equivalent value of 2M unvested shares he was set to receive at his previously expected March retirement.
ID considers writer Steve Coll’s admission that the 400-odd interviews for his expose proved harder than getting inside the Central Intelligence Agency. “In many ways Exxon operates almost as an independent country, with its own diplomats, intelligence analysts and security services,” TIME wrote.
