–says it has absolutely no interest in local politics

US oil giant ExxonMobil on Friday debunked allegations that it is funding political parties and initiatives here.

The company, through its country manager Rod Henson, told the Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources that his company is apolitical, and dismissed the sentiments of political funding as “hogwash”, a term he was later called upon to withdraw.

“Sorry Ma’am, but I have to stop you; ExxonMobil is not involved in politics in Guyana,” Henson said.
“We don’t choose sides; we are apolitical, and we are not funding any political party, side, political initiatives, full stop,” he told the Committee in response to statements made by Opposition committee member, Pauline Sukhai.
Henson was invited by the bi-partisan committee on May 25 to appear before it to provide an update on the company’s operations.

“Actually, you may want to stop me, but you may want to stop the concerns in the public domain, because that is what is circulating and that’s why I chose to raise it here,” Sukhai retorted.

“Well, I can’t control every individual’s thoughts and opinions, and I am thankful for the opportunity to allow me to say that is simply hogwash,” the Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) Country Manager stated emphatically.

His referral to Sukhai’s statement as ‘hogwash’ did not find favour with her and chairman of the committee, Odinga Lumumba.
“I would appreciate if you withdraw the comment, ‘hogwash’,” Lumumba told Henson, who immediately withdrew the use of the word but maintained, “ExxonMobil is not a political entity; does not provide financial or other support to parties here.”

To which Sukhai promptly replied, “A true partner would not consider questions such as mine as hogwash or any other way.”

She had put it to Henson that there is a perception abroad that his company is “actually funding a political initiative that is not yet established and approved by this National Assembly; that is the ‘Green-State Development Strategy’.”

Sukhai also raised with Henson ExxonMobil Foundation’s recent announcement that it will be entering into a new partnership worth some US$10M over the next five years with Conservation International (CI) and the University of Guyana (UG).

The money, the company said in a press statement, will be used to train locals for sustainable job opportunities, and to expand community-supported conservation.

It is also intended to support the government’s ‘Green State’ Development Plan, a 15-year programme that is aimed at, among other things, diversifying the economy, and balancing economic growth with sustainable management and conservation of the country’s ecosystems.
Part of the money, Exxon said, will initially be used to fund a feasibility study led by CI through its affiliate, Conservation International Guyana (CIG), to further define the details of the programme.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Sukhai, however, questioned whether the US$10M partnership with CI represents a conflict of interest. “Don’t you think that CI, being a grantee of US$10M,” she asked, “is actually a conflict of interest because they should be monitoring; be a watchdog?”

Declaring that the ‘Green-State Development Strategy’ is not, “in its totality, comprehensively documented and consulted upon as yet, Sukhai said: “In fact, that Strategy has not even reached the Parliament for its debate or approval, or to be laid as information on government’s main development focal point strategy, and therefore, I would like to say that there are concerns.”

She was roundly supported on this line of argument by Lumumba, who not only contended that CI is supposed to be the “watchdog of the environment”, but also questioned whether the partnership with Exxon was approved by the government.

Henson immediately took him up on this, saying: “This is our ExxonMobil Foundation initiative; this was not directed, or approved, by the government.

“This is a good thing. I am not aware that Conservation International has a sole role as a watchdog; I am not aware of that. “ExxonMobil uses this organisation, or partners with this organisation around the world; and I would also like to highlight that it is not just Conservation International; this is an ExxonMobil partnership with the University of Guyana to help capacity building; to diversify the economy.”

Henson made it clear that he does not agree that there exists a conflict of interest through the partnership. “Chair, I think Conservation International would disagree with you; and I disagree with you respectfully. I don’t think this impedes Conservation International’s roles in the country.”

He noted, too, that the government was informed of the company’s intentions, but stressed that the partnership is something his company chose to do, while reminding the committee that everything done by his company must be done transparently. “The government was aware,” Henson added.

‘REGRETTABLE’
In defence of the government, Minister of Communities, Ronald Bulkan described as “regrettable” the allegations that the U.S. oil giant is seeking to fund political initiatives, in particular the Green-State Development Strategy.

“The Green State Development Strategy is not a political initiative; it is a governmental initiative, and it is exhaustively documented. And I think it is unfair for us to say it is not fully developed; to suggest that the activities of the company before this committee — the funding for the organisation, CI — has an impact on the GSDS. I think it is unhelpful,” declared Bulkan.

Even as Bulkan defended his government, Lumumba, who served under the former People’s Progressive Party (PPP) prior to May 2015, sought to clarify that his party “has no hostility towards Exxon”.

“Just clarification,” he said. “The past government of Guyana; the PPP/C government is responsible for bringing ExxonMobil to come to our shores, and we are grateful.

“I want to make that fundamentally clear: We have no hostility towards ExxonMobil. What we are seeking here is clarification; and I don’t want this committee bugged down by issues that are not relevant to Exxon.”

Having said that, he yet wanted to know who prompted the renegotiation of the original contract between ExxonMobil and Guyana.
And Henson’s response was: “Again sir, I was under the impression that we were talking local content today. And to tell you the truth, that was before my time. I came in May of 2017; I simply don’t know.” Subsequently, Lumumba circulated his letter of invitation to Henson, dated May 25, 2018, which reads:

“In order to effectively carry out its mandate, and in light of the recent revolutionary oil find by your company in Guyana, the Committee, during the deliberations of its 18th Meeting on May 9, 2018, made a decision to invite you and your team to provide an update on your company’s operations and answer questions of concern to members.”

A MISUNDERSTANDING
At this point, Henson readily accepted that he’d misunderstood that which he was invited to present on.

The Committee’s Chairman then questioned what equation or strategy was used to determine the amount of money granted to Guyana in the form of a signing bonus. Guyana received US$18M Signing Bonus from the oil giant in 2016. “Again, I wasn’t in the room,” said Henson, whose concise answers saw Lumumba accusing him of being “pretty slippery”.

“As a member of this committee, I find that you seem to be a bit reluctant to answer some of the key issues which are of concern to our nation. I am sure by now with the assumption of your tenure into office, you would be quite aware of the controversies over the payment of the US$18M signing bonus,” Sukhai said, while asking how ExxonMobil arrived at the figure.

Henson disagreed with the notion that every country that enters into an agreement with an oil company benefits from a signing bonus.
He said: “Ma’am, first, I simply disagree respectfully. I have heard experts that say these bonuses are very customary but that is not always the case. Many contracts are signed around the world with no bonus at all. Some are signed with various amounts and that is always dependent on the risk profile indigenous at the time of the signing.”

The EEPGL country manager explained that prior to the discovery of oil here by his company and partners, there were almost 40 dry holes, and that the risk profile here was very high.
“We chose to find other partners to reduce our equity share; to share risk. At the time of the renegotiations, we did not have the five wells we have now, or the eight discoveries,” said Henson as he called on the Committee members to examine the deal in its entirety.

“I would respectfully submit you look at the entirety of the deal; regardless of what that deal is… to cherry-pick one element of a contract and pull on that thread perhaps doesn’t show the entire picture. That signing bonus is part of a larger agreement with various financial elements; it is a fair, transparent agreement that both parties freely agreed to and it was absolutely within the realm of possibility,” he declared.

Henson was, however, quick to point out that the country’s risk profile is changing, and that as such he expects that Guyana would bid out other areas which are offshore.
“I am sure that the conditions will change,” he said, “but every negotiation is based on the risk profile and the conditions at the time it was signed; and those conditions can change over time, and new agreements will have different conditions and different elements.”

Other Committee members present at Friday’s meeting included Audwin Rutherford, Jermaine Figueira, Yvonne Pearson and Needkumar, while Henson was accompanied by Exxon Senior Director for Public and Government Affairs, Deedra Moe; Tracy Roberts, Socio-Economic Adviser; and Carlton James, Director of Government Relations.