Introduction
In last week’s column I sought to recall, for the benefit of readers, several key observations and conclusions that were drawn from my earlier review of refinery economics in order to support Decision Rule 2. This rule posits that in the present circumstances, there is no overall economic justification for proceeding with a state-owned, controlled and operated oil refinery in Guyana. This followed on the results of the Pedro Haas commissioned desk-review feasibility study on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MoNR). Today’s column wraps up last week’s presentation. Specifically, it responds to several queries I have received concerning Decision Rule 2. After today’s responses, I shall engage other arguments, especially those regarding the claim that a state-owned oil refinery must be constructed in order to serve as the leading edge of government’s drive to maximize potential downstream value-added, consequent to Guyana’s significant oil and natural gas finds. When undertaking this next task, I shall similarly draw upon my earlier reviews (March 26, 2017 – May 17, 2017) of the literature on local content requirements (LCRs), in the oil and natural gas sector.
Queries I – II
At the last count, readers have made five pointed queries. And these will be addressed today in random order. First, I was asked about the likelihood of the Pedro Haas’ Study being made public. Regrettably, I do not have the answer to this. Privately, I have been desperately hoping that this would have been done by now, given the wide circulation of the Power Point presentation made in May this year.
