Dear Editor
THE October 3rd, 2018 Kaieteur online newspaper featured remarks by Mr. Charles Ramson on the topic of Local Content (LC). Ramson’s view is that Guyana’s economy could have been infused by US $440 million dollars had the government enacted LC legislation. Ramson’s US $440 million number assumes local businesses would have captured 10% of a $4.4 billion Liza project spending. There is no premise on the 10%, seemingly plucked out of the air.

Below are questions for Mr. Ramson.
1. Name a local company that can design a hull conversion of a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC), making it suitable for a Floating Production Storage and Offloading Unit (FPSO)?
2. Name a local company that has the capacity to participate in the fabrication activities involved in VLCC hull conversion?
3. Name a local company that can design the topside of a FPSO?
4. Name a local company that can manufacture high-pressure pipe spools, pressure vessels, valves and instrumentation?
5. Name a local company that can assemble the topside of a FPSO?
6. Name a local company that can commission and operate a FPSO?
7. Name a local company that can design subsea equipment (SURF)?
8. Name a local company that can fabricate subsea equipment (SURF).
9. Name a local company that can install subsea equipment (SURF).
10. Name a local company that will drill 17 deepwater production and injection wells?
11. What services or products will local companies provide to the tune of US $440 million?
Questions 1-10 cover the major scope for the Liza project. There is no local company with capacity to be rewarded contracts for this specialised work. Local companies will provide services such as transportation, catering, security, etc. It is false that opportunities are being lost capturing Liza project money because LC legislation is not in place. Correctly crafted LC legislation should be the focus. The government and operator should develop a plan with goals for local companies to build capacity, and for locals to be trained for jobs in the sector. Legislation dictating that the operator use businesses with poor standards and no track record must be avoided; the men and women working in the oil sector must have equipment and services of the highest standards. Their lives literally depend on it.
Pivoting to priorities, repeated discussions have centred on LC, production-sharing agreements, pre-contract costs, auditing the operator, etc. There is little discussion on the priority of improving and making robust 1 )the financial accountability systems and processes & 2) contracts and bidding processes, before what will be certainly increased infrastructural spending. Pradoville 2 corruption will be the tip of the iceberg if these systems are not strengthened.

Regards
D. C. Daly