Dear Editor,
TODAY, I will offer my opinion on the topical issue of the Global Witness report.
Before I do so, I should make it abundantly clear that I would not consider myself, with any stretch of my intellectual ambitions, an oil-and-gas expert or academic. As a result, it is with great humility that I confess that these are just the perspectives of an intelligent layman. Before I delve into this slippery and presently hot topic of oil, I do feel it would be remiss of me If I do not seize the opportunity to edify the abundantly intelligent masses of some basic education concepts which will guide their understanding of the contents of this missive and may also be applicable in future references.

I do feel compelled to first address and in the process clarify some misunderstandings, misinterpretations and frankly downright masquerading by a known personality. First on the list to be clarified is the noun academic that is commonly misused and misattributed by Kaieteur News for their oil-and-gas correspondent.

To be considered an academic in any given field, one must first be an expert in said field along with extensive research, academic presentations and affiliation with a university in that field. To add further clarification, if not provide further information, to be considered an expert/consultant in any given field, that professional must have extensive post-graduate qualifications, years of experience in the said field and must have undergone rigorous assessments by experts in that field. Therefore, the terms expert/consultant/academic are not titles that one can award oneself or be conferred on correspondence by tabloid newspapers.

In Guyana, we have a self-appointed expert/consultant/ academic in the field of oil and gas who simply did a one-year course in oil and gas but never worked, did research in, done international presentations on or is affiliated with any university, in the field oil and gas. This barefaced and arrogant masquerader, likely after google searches would make daily pontifications and critique on this government’s oil-and-gas policies, in one of the local tabloids. The unembarrassed oil-and-gas expert impersonator, on reading the Global Witness article, suggested that Mr Trotman should resign.

I am not sure if he is aware that Irfaan Ali is first in that “should resign” line? As a result, I would strongly recommend he focus his energies on extricating the disreputable Irfaan Ali out of that opprobrious position by encouraging him to withdraw his candidacy as the PPP’s presidential candidate.

Over the past week there was great international attention on our fledgling oil and gas sector. Global Witness, a NGO which likely means No Good Organisation, painted a less than glowing picture of Exxon Mobil and Minister of Natural Resources,Mr Raphael Trotman. I will attempt to decipher the coded writings of Global Witness, applying my comprehensive training and extensive experience in critically appraising research papers. This research-apprising skills, which I acquired when I was trained as a medical specialist, are transferable to other professional academic papers or columns.

When I first analysed the Global Witness article, what first struck me is the trivial and innuendo-based arguments for such an important matter. For an organisation which considers itself professional and reputable,I would have expected the writer to stick to the scientific, evidence-based relevant facts.

For example, the article claimed that the minister was flown to America first class; was accommodated in an expensive first-class hotel; was wined and dined like a Saudi Arabian Prince and was chauffeur-driven in a limousine, all compliments of ExxonMobil. As I did my analysis, I anticipated reading that what was being alleged to have transpired, to be either illegal or inappropriate. The author clearly stated neither was the case. Therefore, why was it stated when it is clearly inconsequential to the argument being made?

I then read that Mr Nigel Hughes was the local attorney for Exxon and also Chairman of the AFC. Then I read that Mr. Raphael Trotman was deputy Chairman of the AFC and the government’s chief Exxon negotiator. I further read that Mr Nigel Hughes resigned from the AFC before the negotiations began, recognising a potential conflict of interest. With Mr Nigel Hughes already resigned the author opined a potential conflict of interest. Mr Nigel Hughes had already resigned from the AFC and had no political position. What more could he have done? Disappear? The fact is that there was no conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest since the potential “conflict” in MrNigel Hughes, removed himself. Therefore, what was the rational for Global Witness providing information immaterial to the polemic?

Global Witness then pronounced that there was no evidence of corruption on the part of Mr Trotman. As a result, I proceeded to explore the author’s adamant contention of corruption being excluded for the minister’s alleged poor performance and its implications. My interpretation was, the author was proposing that Mr Trotman was incompetent since that was the only conclusion once corruption has been excluded. My contention is that when someone is found to be incompetent, there are only two options available, namely remedial classes with a view to address the deficiencies or termination of contract. Global Witness did not suggest either of the two.

Rather, they suggested an investigation of the minister for incompetence. It is abundantly clear that the author is postulating spending millions to investigate someone who is poor at their job, to confirm that they are poor at their job, then what? Jail him for being poor at his job? To me this is a very irrational position to take. The author then contended that by virtue of the fact that the minister had not acted in the best interest of his country, resulted in a loss of $US55B. The author provided no logical explanation of how this $US55B was arrived at. Recognising my elementary level economics limitation, I did not argue against that number, even though I had my doubts.

Mr Raphael Trotman has always argued from day one that the main factor contributing to him signing the contract sooner than he would have wanted, was down to concerns of imminent military action by the Venezuelans. It would be reasonable to conclude that MrTrotman would have been privy to information that was not available in the public domain. What we in the public were aware of, was Venezuela’s renewed aggression resulted in many boats being seized as acts of provocation.

Despite that fact, Global Witness just dismissed those concerns without providing a rationale as to why they thought they were unfounded. Based on Global Witness’s fallacious presupposition, Guyana should have awaited full-scale war during the negotiations, then hold ExxonMobil’s hands to the dotted lines to sign as we are being pummelled by Venezuelan artillery. Clearly, the author has tunnel vision where only oil and maximising monetary gains were the only variables being considered, but completely ignoring geo-political factors. This is a very dangerous and potential deadly position to take.
Next on the critical appraisal list is an article in Forbes Magazine. Earlier I highlighted my concerns about $US55B loss quoted by Global Witness. Forbes also had similar concerns about the number, since it appeared to have been plucked from the sky with no substantiation.

This is what Forbes had to say about it.
“Rystad Energy forecasts that Guyana’s oil production could reach 1.2 million barrels per day by the end of the decade, lifting total annual oil revenues to about $28 billion, assuming an oil price of about $65 per barrel. Government income in the country – projected to be a modest $270 million or so in 2020 – is forecast to grow rapidly and could reach nearly $10 billion annually within a decade. Putting that figure into context, Guyana’s gross domestic product currently stands at about $3.7 billion.Where the country would stand to actually lose billions would be if it were to follow Global Witness’s advice to not allow the Consortium to drill any more wells going forward, limiting the discovery process at Stabroek to the 16 wells already drilled to date; Global Witness doesn’t include this recommendation in the Executive Summary of the report, choosing instead to bury it halfway through the full report.”

Then Forbes summed up what we all suspected Global Witness is about. “In the end, just a few hours of analysis reveals the Global Witness report for what it is: an ideologically motivated attack piece aimed at some of the biggest players in the oil and gas industry, which, given the group’s history, comes as no surprise at all.”
I then proceeded to examine Oilnow, the newsletter on oil and gas. I have extracted a pertinent snippet. “In that report, Global Witness had said this analysis was based on data put out by Rystad Energy. However, the Norway-based company said Tuesday the average government take for Guyana is around 60%, which is in the range of mature producer Brazil.” It is clear that Global Witness erroneously based their analysis on the government’s share profit of only 52%, is significantly less than the 60% calculated by Rystad.

To further inform my position, I also examined a Bloomberg article on the said matter and the expert opinion of renowned British Oil consultant and fellow of Chatham House, Dr. Valerie Marcel. They both strongly argued against the findings and conclusions of the Global Witness report.

So what can we conclude about this Global Witness article? This was a paper designed for the sole purpose of political propaganda. Many aspects of this paper is plastered with innuendos, immature speculations and smoke and mirrors to create confusion within the masses. The data was likely artificial with no substantiation. A true test of authentic research is the reproducibility of the findings.

Global Witness stand alone with its findings; these findings were not reproducible because inherent in their arguments were assumptions that were not true and lack the support of other experts in the field.The reality facing all readers of this now discredited article is that the nature, tone and vernacular are consistent with that of a Guyanese politician. The politician clearly appeared opportunistic. The politician seems desperate to have the oil money in his hands while intoxicatingly power drunk. This can only mean one person — Bharrat Jagdeo, who has just written or contributed to his maiden column for Global Witness. I must say I, and most Guyanese are far from impressed.

I will now move away from propaganda and direct your attention to facts. These facts would be a listing of completed projects by the APNU-AFC government in 2019, in Regions Nine and 10.

Barack Retreat Corridor open ($473M)
Lethem Industrial Estate($1+Billion)
Annai Maternity waiting home($17M)
First Smart Classroom
Parikwaranau Nursery Schools($13M)
Manari bypass($80M)
Green Enterprise Centre($200M)
The north-south bypass road($200M)
Upgraded water system for Sand Creek and other villages($25M)
Internet connectivity in North Rupununi($25M)
The Linden passport office($31M)
The Linden Broadcasting Network
Land agreement for Coomacka residents
Community Centres, Women’s shelter
Two new logging concessions for Ituni
Refurbished kwakwani Workers’ club
School bus for Linden($15M)
Region 10 water ambulance($16M)
Andyville gets electricity
Boat for Dora Primary

Elections do have consequences that may not only be to your detriment, but to the detriment of generations to come. It is irrefutable that the PPP was corrupt while they were in government. Presently, the very actors that were corrupt for 23yrs are on their knees begging for electoral clemency. Let them know that while they are on their knees they should pray for forgiveness. It is not by chance that under this government corruption has plummetted as published by Transparency International.

It is not by chance that Bharrat Jagdeo, Irfaan Ali and all of the PPP former ministers live in Hollywood-type mansions while you live in shacks. This is not about race or social status;this is about your future. The future of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. You deserve better. Let the PPP kleptomaniacs know that unless they get cognitive behavioural therapy for their grand pilfering ways, they will never get your vote. The only option is to continue to move forward. Backward should never be a recourse.

Regards
Dr. Mark Devonish MBBS MSc Med. Ed