Category: Letters to the editor

Posted on

Gov’t needs a rational, coherent plan for oil sector

As reports of new oil discoveries are announced, it is becoming increasingly evident that Guyana is on the cusp of becoming a Petroleum Republic with all the attendant implications and consequences. How effectively the country and the government manage the petroleum sector will determine whether we become the petroleum El Dorado or another victim of the Dutch Disease. It is approaching three years since the Granger Administration took the reins of power and therefore assumed responsibility for the management of the country’s petroleum resources. While three years would not normally be considered a long time, in the context of the emerging petroleum sector, Guyana does not have the luxury of time.

Legislatively, the framework for the petroleum sector is outdated and hardly relevant, consisting of the Petroleum (Production) Act of 1939, which was effectively repealed in 1986 and which now has a mere two sections; the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act of 1986; and the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Regulations of 1986 which has never been reviewed or revisited in thirty-one years. Neither the Environmental Protection Agency Act nor the Occupational Health and Safety Act passed in 1996 and 1997 respectively, specifically addresses the petroleum exploration sector. Clearly, that is a grossly deficient platform from which to engage in negotiations that will shape the future of the country and the destiny of its people. Continue reading “Gov’t needs a rational, coherent plan for oil sector”

Posted on

Ad against investment crossed a line

On page 24 of yesterday’s edition of Stabroek News appears a paid ad that reads ` Investors beware, GOINVEST elsewhere’.

I salute Stabroek News, Kaieteur News, and the rest of the Guyana media for the work they have been doing in protecting Guyana’s natural resources. Their direct and indirect exposes and analyses of the 2016 Esso/Hess/CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Agreement are courageous, patriotic and worthy of any national media. They have exposed the weaknesses of persons like Ministers Greenidge and Jordan and the dishonesty and doublespeak of Minister Raphael Trotman. The collective errors of judgement, honesty and integrity will cost Guyana dearly for decades to come if the Contract is not renegotiated.

Guyanese therefore have a right to be outraged, but under no circumstances do I support an advertisement that discourages investors to our country. The country needs foreign investors bringing capital, technology and expertise, and providing jobs, revenue and models of good governance practices.

Yes, there will be carpetbaggers, as they are everywhere. Our duty is to establish a system for identifying and weeding those out. In fact, specific to the petroleum sector, if Janet Jagan and to a considerably greater extent, Raphael Trotman had ensured that the requirements of the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act and Regulations were applied, many of the concerns about the 2016 Agreement – important constituent parts of which are still being kept secret – would not even have arisen.

We therefore have legitimate reasons to believe that our Government has acted against the national interest. We must however respond in a measured and patriotic manner. The ad in my view has crossed a line.

Posted on

Minister Trotman’s statement on the negotiations is at odds with the preamble to the agreement

Even as Minister of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman touts his academic and professional qualifications (S/N 30-12-2017 GGMC team clinched Exxon pact –Trotman) including negotiations skills, he reportedly distanced himself from any participation in the renegotiations leading to a new Petroleum Agreement with Esso/Hess/CNOOCNexen. He is reported as stating that “the technical staff of the GGMC… Mr Newell Dennison (Commissioner of GGMC) and his team were the principal negotiators (of the Exxon petroleum agreement).”

If one is to believe Mr. Trotman then it means that the Preamble to the Agreement is false and misleading. On the other hand, if the Preamble is accurate, then we have Mr. Trotman once again lying to the country. Continue reading “Minister Trotman’s statement on the negotiations is at odds with the preamble to the agreement”

Posted on

Mr Norton voted in favour of the bill on Article 161

Discretion, if not wisdom, suggests to any public official who mis-cites himself, misrepresents the facts on which he makes false claims, accuses others of amnesia and of stupidity, that at the very least, he should just stay silent, if not apologise. Expressed another way is the rule that when you are in a hole, you stop digging. Mr. Aubrey Norton seems unfamiliar with these common sense principles.

In his letter in the Stabroek News of yesterday’s date, Mr. Norton describes as “the summit of stupidity”, the question by attorney-at-law, Mr. Kamal Ramkarran, on how he, Norton voted on the constitutional amendment to article 161 in 2000. Mr. Norton goes on to lecture Mr. Ramkarran that “you don’t vote in such circumstances—the Speaker merely notes that the ayes have it.” Continue reading “Mr Norton voted in favour of the bill on Article 161”

Posted on

Mr Norton was wrong about the date of the GECOM proviso

The debate on the interpretation of Article 161 (2) of the Constitution has continued, with increased intensity, following the rejection of lists of eighteen persons named by the Leader of the Opposition and the unilateral appointment of Justice James Patterson by President Granger. Unfortunately some writers have made claims that are at best incomplete, or are otherwise unsupported by facts.

Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye, WPA executive member in another section of the print media refers to Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine’s advocacy at the level of the WPA Executive of the “need to revisit the Carter formula” and that Roopnaraine had reminded the Executive “that the Carter Model was never intended to be a permanent arrangement and it had outlived its usefulness.” Former General Secretary of the PNC and member of Parliament and now Government functionary, Mr. Aubrey Norton, seeking to justify the President’s unilateral decision, writes that “Jagdeo and PPP laid basis to move away from Carter Formula and it has come back to haunt them”, a claim challenged by Mr. Kamal Ramkarran in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek. Perhaps a little bit of history of the Constitution and the Elections Commission will help. Continue reading “Mr Norton was wrong about the date of the GECOM proviso”