STRATEGIC decision-making is the process of charting a course based on long-term goals and a longer-term vision. By clarifying your country’s big picture aims, you’ll have the opportunity to align your shorter-term plans with this deeper, broader mission. When governments make complex decisions in the context of geopolitics, national and international goals, strategic decision-making is critical. The 2016 contract has to be seen in this context. In June 2018, the 1999 Agreement and the 1999 Licence were due to expire and the Contractor Consortium-Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), HESS Guyana Exploration Limited (HESS), and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) had already renewed the 1999 Licence twice in 2012 and once in 2015, which is maximum number of times allowed under Guyana’s Petroleum Exploration and Production Act. These facts required measured and careful stately deliberations because the Venezuela threat loomed large. It is not the best deal, it is not a bad deal, it is a strategic deal.

THE OMNIPRESENT VENEZUELA THREAT TO GUYANA’S DEVELOPMENT
It is such a sad reality that Venezuela’s baseless claim of three fifths or 50,000 Sq. miles of Guyana’s territory is being denigrated or de-emphasised for political reasons vis-à-vis the signing of the 2016 contract. As a national policy, our differences and political debates should end at the border. Some issues should not be exploited for narrow political enterprises, Venezuela’s false claim stands at the top of the pile for this consideration. Regrettably, some have crossed this Rubicon, caught up in the rashness of their anti-government scorched earth strategies. To deny Venezuela’s omnipresence over anything of economic consequence in the zone of unfounded claim is to completely ignore history, geopolitics and the competition of resources by nations. It is dangerously naïve to suggest the Venezuela threat was not an issue in the context of negotiating the 2016 contract. How can persons who profess love for this country and slight what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes as ‘Fifty Years of Venezuelan ‘filibusters’? The early years included the 1966 violation of Guyana’s territorial integrity on Ankoko Island, intervention in Guyana’s internal affairs through the ‘Rupununi Uprising’ and the government of Venezuela under the aegis of Raul Leoni Otero, President of Venezuela from 1964 to 1969, placed a full-page advertisement in the Times of London Newspaper on June 15, 1968, that warned that any economic investment granted by the Government of Guyana in the Essequibo will not be recognised by Venezuela. In the early tenure of Hugo Chavez, Guyana was about to close the deal on a major investment with the American company, Beal Aerospace Technology, the Chavez regime successfully stopped the investment, arguing that it was a Trojan Horse being set up by the United States to compromise the security of his country. In October 2013, the Venezuelan military boarded the Teknik Perdana owned by Anadarko Petroleum which was exploring for oil in the Essequibo River and arrested the crew. The Government of Venezuela consistently sends letters of protest to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over the Guyana Goldfields business operations in this country. In December 2018, Norway’s Petroleum Geo-Services seismic survey vessel being run by ExxonMobil Corp. was intercepted by the Venezuelan military while operating in Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). After Exxon announced discoveries, the mother of all economic sabotage was being put in place with the issuance of a presidential decree No.1787 on May 27th, 2018 establishing the ‘Atlantic Coast of Venezuela’ by President Nicholas Maduro. This decree was directly aimed at claiming any oil discoveries in the EEZ. It is in this context, the Government of Guyana made a strategic decision to secure a partnership with ExxonMobil Corp., Hess and CNOC in 2016.

STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING AND GEOPOLITICS CANNOT BE EXCLUDED
Open Oil documents, ‘Instead of receiving US$168 billion, Guyana would receive US$223 billion’ (Global Witness, ‘Signed away’: Pg.6). This submission is made in the context of the company alleging that Guyana will lose US$55B if there is no financial consideration for strategic decision-making and geopolitics. This testimony begs the question: how could any assessment that proceeds from a place of honorable intentions not include geopolitical considerations for a country that has a border controversy settled in 1899 under the Treaty of Washington and resurfaced in 1962? Imagine assessing the trade fortunes of a landlocked country without noting its lack of access to the sea. There is absolutely no doubt, Guyana’s border controversy with Venezuela looms large in any investment discussions that lie within any proximity the disputed zone, whether on land or sea. It is for this reason, the Government of Guyana made a strategic decision on the 2016 oil contract and strategically secured our oil wealth.

WHAT IS THE FINANCIAL TRUTH ABOUT THE 2016 CONTRACT?
Some anti-government forces have sought to engage in laser-focused strategic communication which suggests we will earn ‘pickings’ from the 2016 contract. This is far from the truth. The anti-government report, ‘Signed Away’ by Global Witness, concedes that Guyana will earn US$168B over 40 years from the 2016 contract which is only attributed to one block. Rystad Energy, a highly-respected independent oil and gas consulting firm submitted, ‘In the current fiscal regime, the government collects its share through a two per cent royalty and a 50 per cent profit oil levy. Rystad Energy estimates that this will give the government 60 per cent of the profit from the various projects (government take), while the remaining 40 per cent will go to international E&P companies.’ (Article: Favorable Fiscal Terms Have Helped Guyana Prove Its Oil Potential). Experts such as Dr. Valerie Marcel point to Guyana’s unusually positive position of having their barrels of oil per capita at a very high level. Put in simple language, we can’t receive ‘pickings’ from these discoveries. These financial projections are related to only one block and one contract, there is much more exploration being conducted.

Global economic competition is not a child’s play. Now we have demonstrated that there can be uninterrupted economic activity in our exclusive economic zone, we can now negotiate from a position of strength with other contracts while seeking to quietly improve our present contract which is tied to just one block.