Responding to Open Oil
Today’s column addresses the third part of my three-part evaluation of Open Oil’s financial modeling of Guyana’s 2016 PSA. It provides responses to the alleged inaccuracies contained in the first column, and identified in a letter by the Author of the modeling exercise. I do not usually respond to such allegations especially where a careful reading of the column is enough for readers to assess. I make an exception here, because the letter may be seeking to restrain discussion, which would be unbefitting for an advocate of openness.
The inaccuracies cited include: 1) “Open Oil did not develop the FAST standard” 2) Open Oil is an incorporated German Company, and not an NGO 3) the claim that it offers “unique specialized training” is inaccurate 4) the claims it “offers its services for sale as an equal opportunity consulting group is a phrase it has not used”; and 5) “the model is focused on Liza I as the first field” is inaccurate. And, finally, 6) the claim the model uses the “February long-term forecast price by the EIA” is inaccurate.
Alleged Inaccuracy 1
Dr. West states: “the FAST standard is in wide use … Open Oil did not develop the FAST standard …it is simply one of hundreds of companies … who use it, some 60 of whom are signatories to the standard”.
