Dear Editor,
In an interview I gave to the Kaieteur News and reported in their Sunday 13th Edition, I noted that much was expected from the presentation of President Ali and Vice President Jagdeo and Mr. Darren Woods, CEO and Chairman of ExxonMobil at the conference on sustainable development currently taking place in Guyana. President Ali, who was also hosting the Presidents of Suriname and Ghana as well as Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados, spoke confidently of his wish to share the benefits of Guyana’s natural resources with the region, and indeed the rest of the world. Vice President Jagdeo announced the Government’s plan for the acceleration of petroleum resources supported by fiscal incentives.
Ms. Mottley made a strong defence of Guyana’s policy on local content, showing why she is now regarded as one of the world’s highly respected leaders. Woods was most disappointing as what was listed as a feature address, was no more than brief remarks in which he praised the country’s stable regime, the euphemism for the contentious stability clause, and also the partnership between his company and Guyana. Indeed, as a nod to the PPP/C, he traced his company’s success not to the fact that his company forced a second and questionable Petroleum Agreement on the naïve APNU+AFC, but to the 1999 Agreement signed by Janet Jagan. He seems to be a good student of politics.
Having listened to our government leaders, it is now clear to me that the Government is clearly content to live with the Stability Clause which ties the hands and feet of the Parliament for the next thirty-five years, with paying the billions of taxes on the income to be earned by Exxon over that period, and with living with a lopsided contract.
Against this, the other disappointments pale into insignificance. Apart from the high-level political participation – the Vice President and Winston Brassington are scheduled to speak twice, while Minister Vickram Bharrat and Foreign Secretary Robert Persaud will also deliver addresses – there are no Guyanese speakers to contribute to a healthy, technical and balanced debate on sustainable energy, or on charting a future. Maybe the organisers had other objectives in mind. Which may also explain why they did not allow any floor participation in the discussion on local content in which inaccurate and at best half-true statements were made. That gave the impression of good stage management.
If this does not change for future panels, the substantial expenditure to attend in time and money would go down as a waste.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
