Dear Editor,
“Maduro had in his possession, several volumes of documents, containing information on the 2016 ExxonMobil PSA and the various reports by citizens claiming that ExxonMobil is robbing Guyana of its oil and gas resources”, says AG Nandlall (SN Letters, Dec 17th). I don’t understand how Maduro can use these mostly [news-clippings] to pressure ExxonMobil to do anything. Exxon has a good deal in Guyana (profits’ tax waived for life of contract or as some say GoG pays Exxon’s tax out of GoG’s profit-share; 2% royalty vs Suriname’s 6.25%; No Ring Fencing of CAPEX) – so could Venezuela offer Exxon a better deal to entice Exxon away from Guyana?
News-clippings reporting on Guyanese citizens’ agitation for renegotiation of the oil contract. These are not “negative reports” – and they don’t give “fuel” to Maduro on anything. Leaders of their respective nations, Maduro and Ali, were there to talk about the “boundary controversy” and Maduro’s contrived referendum and his threats to takeover Essequibo. If Maduro had a stack of these news-clippings, I don’t see what use he could make of them to help his cause. I think Exxon is cheating (some say “robbing”) Guyana to the tune of $100 billion on 11 billion barrels of oil. Exxon is able to do this because VP Jagdeo (together with his aides Joel Bhagwandin, Robin Singh et al) have chosen to defend the contract. They have even developed a firm No Renegotiation policy.
Citizens of Guyana who seek to pressure their govt to renegotiate the PSA offer no help to Maduro on anything. Period. Guyanese citizens, whom AG Nandlall seeks to disparage, are engaged in a legitimate cause. AG Nandlall needs to educate himself on how a democracy works. AG Nandlall, of all people should know that a 30-year contract that contains a clause that provides for renegotiation can be renegotiated. So, why does he seek to disparage those folks who agitate for renegotiation? Further, he should know that VP Jagdeo was making a political decision when he chose to develop a strict No Renegotiation policy. Not a decision based on the lopsided nature of the contract, a contract that was not negotiated, not read and not ratified by the parliament.
Sincerely,
Mike Persaud
