Dear Editor,
To ring-fence or not to ring-fence, is now more than the question. It has risen to the incendiary issue of the hour. Bharrat Jagdeo and Alistair Routledge have announced and pronounced on ring-fencing pros and cons, and in the end, it is not what Jagdeo could do for Guyana, but what must be done because it is best for Exxon. The more that is heard coming out of Jagdeo and Routledge, the more one has to take in the notes that these two deliver.
The essences crystallize to this: Exxon is looking out for Guyana (maximizing revenue), all for Guyana, with helpful, unselfish guidance, where ring-fencing is concerned. At this point, it is well to repeat Routledge’s ring-fencing prescription for Guyanese: cash flow timing is everything, and this is paramount for investors, most sensitive for them. It is why they want ring-fencing and their oil money (revenue/income) maximized now, as in today, and not tomorrow. Guyanese have their own cash flow timing priorities. As if on cue, there came Jagdeo: money in the future is better, will be more.
What Jagdeo did was to eradicate his economics education and dump present value into the rubbish heap. A dollar today, or a billion, is not worth as much today. The song is now “forego” today for ‘massive income later’ and it is a haunting, revealing, melody. It is Guyana’s Jagdeo perfectly echoing, Exxon’s Routledge words. Timing, remember that one? Timing is everything, and as flushed on Guyanese heads, Routledge touts “cash flow timing” and Jagdeo is hustling.
It is two men singing in one voice for one objective: no ring-fencing. In this flawless alignment Routledge is inseparable from Jagdeo, and Jagdeo is for nothing and no one but Routledge.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
