New oil PSA repeats major weaknesses in old contract

Amid calls from the Opposition and other stakeholders for an extension in the time for scrutiny of the new model Production Sharing Agreement released by government recently, Chartered Accountant, Christopher Ram said there should be a public forum for broad and general consultations.

Writing in his weekly Oil and Gas column in the Stabroek News last Friday, Ram mocked the new agreement which he said retains the old foreign exchange framework. “So much for a progressive, nationalistic model promised by the Government. While I intend to address the Model over the coming weeks, I urge the Government not only to extend the 14-day consultation period but to engage the public in a public forum for broad, general consultations. The draft does have some positive features but repeats some of the major weaknesses of the existing regime,” Ram said.

Meanwhile, only last week this newspaper reported that the Government of Guyana (GoG) has so far ignored the calls from both civil society and the Opposition for the review period on the new draft Production Sharing Agreements (PSA) to be extended. Two drafts, for the deep and shallow water areas, were released two Tuesdays ago marking the commencement of a 14-day consultation. Several members of the public had recommended that the consultation period be extended to cater for a thorough review of the agreements.

This newspaper had reached out to Minister of Natural Resources, Vickram Bharrat on Friday for his position on the calls being made, but received no response. However, Stakeholder Coordinator for the Ministry, Ms. Mikaila Prince had explained, “no change to the timeline has been communicated.” The Opposition at its weekly press conference last week said the contracts should be laid in the National Assembly and be put before a special select committee that allows for the involvement of the Guyanese citizenry in the national conversation. Similarly, environment and democracy advocate, Simone Mangal-Joly in a letter to Natural Resources Minister, Vickram Bharrat underlined the need for an extension to the consultation period.

She said, “Unlike government officials, citizens are not paid employees of the State and can only read such documents during their after-work hours. Fourteen days is also prohibitive when it comes to procuring qualified specialists to provide advice so that citizens and civil society organisations can make informed representation to government.”

Mangal-Joly had also suggested among other things that mechanisms be put in place for all comments on the new draft agreements be made public and for government to produce a plan to report on how public feedback was addressed in the development of the final model agreement. Alfred Bhulai had also made a similar request to the administration. The agreements that will govern the 14 oil blocks presently on auction, has significantly improved terms for the country. In the new oil contract, government has preserved the right to review and approve the budgets for the exploration and development programmes of the oil companies. Such powers are not enshrined in the Stabroek Block PSA or any other existing PSA.

Equally important is the insertion of a new provision that ensures the country is not left on the hook for any of the oil companies’ bills. A new arrangement or demand rather, is that oil companies must also ensure their subcontractors have adequate insurance coverage too. Importantly, the draft agreements state that oil companies will not be allowed to acquire the blocks and sit on their hands for decades. Unlike what obtains in the Stabroek Block PSA, the new draft agreements stipulate that the “contractor, affiliated companies, sub-contractors and individuals who are expatriates shall be subject to the income tax laws of Guyana, including, the Income Tax Act of Guyana (Cap. 81:01) and the Corporation Tax Act of Guyana (Cap. 81:03) and shall separately comply with the requirements of those laws, in particular with respect to filing returns, assessment of tax, and keeping and showing of books and records.” The new PSA has proposed that cost recovery be capped at 65 percent and introduces an increased royalty of 10 percent. In announcing the release of the new model contracts, the Natural Resources Ministry explained that to ensure new investments are governed by a comprehensive framework of international best practices, there will be an overhaul of the 1986 Petroleum Act and Regulations.

New PSA fails to fix source of foreign currency shortage

Chartered Accountant, Christopher Ram has reiterated his position that the current foreign currency shortage is a fallout from the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement for the Stabroek Block and he said Guyanese should note that the much vaunted Model PSA has essentially retained the old foreign exchange framework, which is the source of the problem.

Writing in his weekly article which appeared in the Stabroek News on Friday last, Ram observed that in Guyana’s fast changing news cycle, the issue of whether or not there is a shortage of foreign currency appears to have receded into the background. That of course, he said does not mean that the temporary problem has been permanently solved. “Official sources maintain the line that there was never a general shortage, that if anything, the problem was restricted to a few of the commercial banks. The rest have their foreign exchange niches – Scotia from petroleum, Demerara Bank from DDL and Agriculture, and  GBTI from Agriculture and Gold. That’s from the supply side. The shortage, if any, comes from several factors on the demand side, including what is perceived in some quarters as Guyana becoming the Cambio and main source of foreign currency for our Caribbean partners, to borrow from a claim made by Ms. Kamla Persad-Bissessar as Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago in respect of her own country,” Ram, wrote.

He said the paradox of any shortage in the midst of a petroleum boom is partly explained by the liberal Foreign Exchange Control provisions of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement which allows the oil companies to run their own exchange regime, outside of the national framework. “And here it is worth noting that the regime is enjoyed not only by Exxon’s indirect subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) but also by Hess and CNOOC which have a 55% share in the oil consortium with Esso the remaining 45%,” Ram stated.

He said apart from being the Operator of the Stabroek Block, EEGPL appears to have taken on the role of representative and spokesperson for the other two. He noted that EEGPL is a member of the Private Sector Commission and was represented at the meeting between the PSC and the Bank of Guyana. EEPGL’s representative however, Ram said made no admission, suggestion or undertaking to contributing to any solution. “Indeed, the representative was totally silent, taking in all that was said, no doubt relaying the discussions to his principals. We need to remind ourselves that EEPGL holds a minority interest (45%) in the Stabroek Block with Hess owning 30% and CNOOC the remaining 25%,” the chartered accountant said.

Ram said that, Guyanese must not make the mistake “that it is all down to the oil companies, that the Agreement is the sole cause of the problem or that any fixing of the Agreement would solve all the problems. Rather, if the Model PSA is a signal, it is safe to assume that the Government does not intend to address the issue of foreign exchange – surplus or shortage – but to leave it to the Bank of Guyana and the so-called market. Perhaps the Government has to be reminded that the Bank of Guyana is a statutory creation, bound to act within the policies set by the Government. The central bank does not make policy but only carries out policies set by the Government. Since neither the Governor of the Bank nor the Government has indicated any change in policy on foreign exchange in response to oil, one has to assume that the Government is comfortable with the status quo.”

He said such continued inaction on the part of the Government has grave consequences. “It has become the victim of the Cambios, the tax evaders, the money launderers and the illegal export of the country’s foreign exchange resources, transfer (under)pricing and the faithful adherence to the foreign exchange rules, already limited as they are.”

Take action

Mr. Ram said Government has to get around to managing the economy and to addressing the problems with the economy and the country. He said unless it acts soon, the condition can potentially become totally unmanageable and insoluble. “Maybe the Government fears that necessary action will not be welcome by their friends and supporters but it must surely realise that it has to act in the best interest of the country rather than in the Party’s electoral interest,” Ram stated.

Offering solutions to some of the problems related to foreign currency issue, Ram called for the repeal of the Dealers in Foreign Currency (Licensing) Act by excluding the non-bank cambios which are almost universally personal cambios, impervious to audit or adequate supervision and regulation. These were created for a different era and purpose and have no place in this society. He also called the Issuing of more banking licences, thereby increasing competition among the banks. Ram said too that there is need for strengthening and enforcing the only semblance of transfer pricing rules under the Income Tax Act. “Rigorous enforcement of the laws against those communities of foreigners – regional and international – that rob the revenue of taxes, underpay our workers and take out foreign currency under all forms of guises. We must not hesitate to place the law breakers before the Courts and to apply our extradition laws in appropriate cases. Addressing the large scale smuggling across the extractive sector and not hesitating to make it possible to revoke leases and licences,” he added.

He also called on government to dealing with the gaping weaknesses in the Local Content Act, the review and amendment of the Bank of Guyana Act, and the Immigration Act, strengthen and depoliticise  the Financial Intelligence Unit and SOCU, and ensure that foreign investment means what it says. “After all, if the local economy finances the investment, directly or indirectly, allowing the investor to repatriate both capital and profits, the gains to the economy are significantly reduced. Liberalising the rules for foreign borrowings but subject to thin capitalisation rules,” Ram concluded.

Govt. now siding with ExxonMobil to avoid renegotiating oil deal

Though Guyana’s blossoming petroleum sector is in desperate need of pruning to ensure the fruits satisfy the needs of the local populace, the country’s leaders have not been hearkening to their respective roles.

This much can be said, particularly about Vice President (VP) Bharrat Jagdeo, who is tasked with management of the local petroleum, according to Attorney-at-Law and Chartered Accountant, Christopher Ram.

Ram in an invited comment on Sunday said he believes the Vice President has been shirking his responsibilities in numerous instances.

He pointed out that only recently the VP told the media that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with ensuring ExxonMobil supplies a parent company guarantee.

According to Ram, “That is bulls**t. The EPA has nothing to do with insurance. He is refusing to exercise the significant rights and powers that Guyana does still enjoy.”

The Attorney argued, “I think the entire team of people responsible for the oil and gas sector is doing a very poor job. They are not paying enough attention to what the law and what the agreement requires; even the inadequate provisions of the 2016 agreement are not being sufficiently enforced.”

He explained that the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) allows for a renegotiation of the oil contract, yet the government seems more inclined to serve the oil companies, rather than the people of Guyana.

“I know the contract and that is why I am so peeved that our representatives are betraying our trust. They prefer to covert with the Americans now than serve the interest of the people of Guyana,” Ram argued.

The Lawyer also dismissed the Vice President’s claim that the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) said it promised to review the oil contracts rather than engage in renegotiating the Stabroek Block deal.

“That is absolute nonsense. Guyanese are not stupid; we know what Jagdeo said and know what he meant. I also know what he told me in private conversation,” Ram challenged.

When it comes to the government using its discretion where permitted in the oil contract, Ram said the judgment of the leaders is completely off. He said the leaders could have inserted a ring-fencing provision; even without bringing Exxon to the table by simply adding a clause to the production licenses granted to the company.

VP Jagdeo is on record saying that this was a sore issue that the PPP would address. His position has however now changed, as the VP argues the need for ‘sanctity of contracts’.

The Attorney said, “I have made this point Ad nauseam that we did not necessarily need a ring-fencing provision [in the contract]. All they [government] have to do is to say that the revenue under any production license cannot be used to exploration purposes. It’s as simple as that. I really do believe that they are not applying themselves.”

Meanwhile, as it regards conducting audits of ExxonMobil, it was recently reported that Jagdeo directed this publication to the Minister of Natural Resources, Vickram Bharrat.

The Minister has never held a press conference and is usually not the first to address such issues. In fact, when Kaieteur News reached out to the Minister, he explained that the VP had already addressed the audits. The Minister was told that Jagdeo directed the question of the audits to him, but he never responded.

On the other hand, Ram believes that the government is not ensuring the oil companies’ financial statements are being prepared to reflect the nature of the expenses to develop the resources.

He said, “I don’t think that the oil companies’ financial statements are provided in the manner in which they ought to be prepared and that’s a blatant and glaring weakness that is being exploited by the oil company. Annex C sets out the order, nature and presentation of expenses and what the government is doing is allowing Exxon and its two partners to get away with all kinds of improper accounting.”

Ram added, “It all began with the pre-contract costs which were grossly inflated. I am really getting aggravated to see how they are screwing up this entire arrangement.”

The Chartered Accountant pointed out that Annex C identifies how expenses are organized and this is how the company should have been reporting their expenses. None of the reports meet the requirement of Annex C he said. Moreover the reports themselves are inconsistent with each other, according to Ram. Due to this, he said Exxon can bill Guyana for items that should not be recovered through Guyana’s oil.

The Attorney observed, “The manner of oversight is so weak that Exxon and the two other companies can probably prepare their accounts however they wish and organize the accounts in such a way that it becomes extremely difficult to carry out an objective and critical review even as the poor oversight allows claims for cost which are not justified in the agreement.

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Part 104 – March 10, 2023

Is expenditure on Esso’s Ogle Office recoverable contract cost?

Introduction

Following a question raised in the National Assembly by Opposition MP Mr. Ganesh Mahipaul, ExxonMobil’s Country Manager Alistair Routledge, emboldened by his increasingly comfortable relationship with the PPP/C, reacted to Mahipaul by declaring that the approximately US$160 million expenditure to build the company’s headquarters at Ogle, East Coast Demerara, would be recovered from oil revenue. Routledge volunteered that “the cost recovery mechanism had been cleared by both the previous and the current administrations”.

If Routledge is right, it means that Guyana will bear 50% of a cost which is not expressly permitted under the 2016 Petroleum Agreement, in the process reducing the country’s share of profit oil. If we can interpret Routledge, the decision on the recoverability of the cost means that both the APNU+AFC Government and the PPP/C Government have yielded to Esso by agreeing that the petroleum operations should bear the whole cost of a building which Exxon would use for its own investment management and administrative purposes as well.

How and when the clearance was arrived at will no doubt remain a secret, as have so many things about the administration of 2016 Petroleum Agreement under both the APNU+AFC and the PPP/C.

Recoverable or not recoverable

The answer to the “how” of the question requires an understanding of the concept of Recoverable Contract Costs, defined in the Agreement to mean “such costs as the Contractor is permitted to recover, as from the date they have been incurred, pursuant to the provisions of Annex C [to the Agreement]”. It also requires an understanding of how costs are classified (section 2 of the Annex) and the kind of authority required for recovery of costs (section 3 of the Annex).

Both sections contain superficially exhaustive lists, but a more granular reading shows that these are not exclusive or exhaustive but are rather terms of expansion such as “including”, “all”, “any other contract costs” and “including but not limited to”. So let us review the authority conferred under section 3 of the Annex to make the building cost recoverable against petroleum operations.

Section 3.1 provides for Costs Recoverable Without Further Approval of the Minister as follows:

Costs relating to Surface Rights; Labour and Associated Labour Costs, including any personal income taxes owing by employees of the parties comprising the Contractor and paid or reimbursed by a Party comprising the Contractor; Transportation; Charges for Services; Material; Legal Expenses; all Training Costs; General and Administrative Costs and Annual Overhead Charge; Pre-Contract Costs; Interest and Financing Costs; and Abandonment Costs.

What does “including any personal income taxes owing by employees of the parties comprising the Contractor and paid or reimbursed by a Party comprising the Contractor” mean? Seems to mean that Guyana bears half the cost of the employees’ taxes which one can say is only half as bad as the Government actually paying the taxes due by Esso, Hess and CNOOC.   

Section 3.2 specifies as Costs Recoverable only with Approval of the Minister beingCommission paid to intermediaries by the Contractor; Donations and contributions to organisations in Guyana; and expenditure on research into and development of new equipment, material and techniques. On the other hand, section 3.4 allows the recovery of “Other Costs and Expensesincurred by the Contractor in the conduct of the Petroleum Operations”, but subject to the approval of the Minister.

The difference between 3.2 and 3.4 is that 3.2 is specific about those costs requiring approval while 3.3 makes costs not otherwise recoverable to be recovered subject to approval of the Minister – a classic case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

No public disclosure is required anywhere. One therefore fears the private discussions between demonstrably underinformed politicians and avaricious oil companies, enabled by hamstrung and fearful public servants. The opacity of the annual financial statements of the oil companies and the refusal of the PPP/C to establish an independent Petroleum Commission is ominous and not unrelated.

For completeness, section 3.3 specifies costs and expenses which are expressly not recoverable such as arbitration expenses and court fines and penalties.    

Construction of the Head Office

Deductively, the cost to build the Head Office is not recoverable under sections 3.1 and 3.2, leaving 3.4 as the only avenue. The case for a huge capital cost on a building for the exclusive use of one of the contractors to the Petroleum Agreement seems weak and would no doubt require help from the Minister. And as Routledge gloated, both the APNU+AFC and the PPP/C have colluded with Exxon in a procrustean contortion of contract interpretation to serve the oil company’s greed to inflate recoverable cost. The only outstanding question then is the identity of the Minister granting the special approval for “clearing the cost recovery mechanism”. Is it Raphael Trotman under the APNU+AFC Government or Vickram Bharat under the PPP/C?

And the question of the land

Another issue concerning the Head Office relates to the land on which it is being constructed. Esso has sub-leased from Ogle Airport Inc. (OAI), ten acres out of the hundreds of acres of land leased from the Government to OAI for Airport development. There are two “clearances” which were required to make this legally possible. One, OAI needed approval for subletting the land for non-airport purposes and two, by virtue of section 333 of the Companies Act of Guyana, Esso needed a licence, authorised by the President no less, to hold land in Guyana.

Was it President Grainger whose Administration sleep-walked into signing arguably the worst oil contract in the petroleum world in the modern era, or President Irfaan Ally whose PPP/C Government in 2012 birthed the model for the infamous 2016 Petroleum Agreement, and which has failed at every opportunity to protect, promote and defend Guyana’s interests ahead of those of the oil companies? There is no doubt that when it comes to maladministration, negligence, slackness and selling out the people’s patrimony, not even water, let alone oil, separates the PPP/C from the APNU+AFC.   

Next week’s column will join the exchanges on allegations of a foreign currency shortage amidst a petroleum production bonanza in the fastest growing economy in the world.  

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Part 103 – March 3, 2023

Court decision in Glenn Lall’s court challenge to tax provisions in 2016 Petroleum Agreement

Introduction

On 22 February 2023, the Guyana High Court handed down its decision in the action brought by newspaper publisher and crusader Glenn Lall. The action was filed on 22 January 2022 naming the Attorney General as the respondent and essentially sought 17 declarations by the Court that the breadth of concessions granted by then APNU+AFC Petroleum Minister Raphael Trotman not only to the oil companies but to their affiliates, subcontractors and employees of the oil companies and their subcontractors were not permitted by law and were therefore illegal.

On 31 March 2022, Esso applied to be added as a respondent. The optics appear to have been lost on the Government that here it was on the same side of the oil companies fighting a public-spirited private individual citizen who was challenging the Agreement which the PPP/C Government had committed in its 2020 Manifesto to renegotiate. As the case moved to the next stage, the lawyers for both the government and the oil companies raised procedural issues seeking to prevent the case from being heard. The gist of the Attorney General’s response was that the Agreement was a contractual matter falling in the realm of private law. The attorneys for Esso challenged Mr. Lall’s standing to bring the case, his delay in bringing the action, the manner and procedure in which Lall brought his action, and the right of the Court to hear the matter.  

The Judge did not rule on the procedural challenges but rather, called for submissions by all the parties on the procedural and substantive issues, indicating his intention to deal with both sets of matters at one time.   

The Judge compressed the several issues raised by the parties – two procedural and two substantive. 

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi for the declaratory reliefs prayed for?

In an elegant criticism of the inelegantly worded method by which the action was initiated, the Court noted that the allegation that the Minister with responsibility for petroleum had acted ultra vires of the provision of statue by granting tax concessions, exemptions and waivers to parties other than the oil companies, justified the Court’s intervention. Stating as the correct legal position that Lall’s locus standi only applies if  “he can establish that his rights were either being infringed or threaten with infringement by the defendant”, the Courthowever, exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules to grant relief which the Court considers just, and that since the application raised matters of a public interest, Lall had the locus standi to bring the matter.

  • Whether the delay in filling the applicant was fatal to the Applicant’s case?

While a delay by itself may not justify a refusal by a court to hear a matter, an applicant has to offer an acceptable explanation to justify an unusually long delay, even if that included 15 months during which the Agreement was kept from the public. Lall had proffered that he had relied on the commitment by the PPP/C in its 2020 Manifesto to renegotiate the contract once in Government.

The Court found that the case involved a matter of public interest, well beyond the interest of the litigants and that it had advanced significantly. In declining the Respondent’s application that the matter be thrown out, the Court recognised that the case was the first of a kind in a  new industry registering a phenomenal growth. The Court emphasised that it was for those reasons only that it allowed the extensive delay. .

It could have added that since Lall was not seeking a ruling that would apply retroactively, the oil companies actually benefitted from the delay.

  • Whether tax concessions granted under section 51 of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act, (PEPA) extended to persons other than Licensees?

The Court recognised that the purpose of section 10 of PEPA is to authorise the Minister to enter into Petroleum Agreements, while section 51 is to give the Minister the power to direct that the several tax laws referred to in the section shall not apply to or in relation to the licensee.

It found that the Minister’s powers applied not only to licensees, such as Esso, Hess, CNOOC, but also to their sub-contractors, affiliated companies, and to their expatriate employees under defined circumstances. It further declared that the tax provisions of the Petroleum Agreement are consistent with the words, context and purpose of sections 10 and 51 of PEPA.

  • Whether section 49 and 51 of PEPA violate the Financial Administration [and Audit] Act.  

Lall alleged that section 49 of PEPA violated section 6 of the FAA which requires fiscal concessions to be granted only under a Tax Act. The Court did not agree and ruled that the fiscal concessions set out in Article 15 of the Petroleum Agreement were authorised by section 51 of the PEPA and Order No. 10 of 2016 made under section 51. The Court concluded that the power of the Minister was neither abrogated nor diminished by the FAA.

Conclusion

I close with the caveat that the court has not yet issued its judgement in written form and my assessment is based on second-hand information. However, Mr Lall has publicly stated that he proposes to appeal the judgement. I encourage all Guyanese to support his call for changes in certain of the contractual terms to prevent this travesty and disaster being perpetuated until 2056 when the Agreement will finally come to an end.

The PPP/C Government probably considers the results of the case as a success, enabled by and for the benefit mainly of the oil companies. In the process, it has abdicated its responsibility to Guyanese and broke its Manifesto commitment. As if these are not bad enough, it fails to exercise any regulatory oversight over the oil companies with which it now engages in an incestuous and unholy relationship.

The battle might have been lost but the war has to go on. Next week’s column will examine the deductibility of Esso’s Head Office Cost.