Dear Editor,
I recently came across a letter published in Kaieteur News on September 1 by Mike Persaud titled, “Guyana must not be held permanently captive to a fear of Exxon”. This is a picture-perfect example of someone failing to fact check information before proceeding to write an entire letter on the subject.

In the letter, Mr. Persaud referenced YouTuber Jake Tran as a source in his failed attempt to say that ExxonMobil has Guyana and the government in the palm of their hands. He states in the letter “GoG has surrendered its sovereignty to Exxon. Jake Tran asks: Where does the GoG end and where does Exxon begin?” Have we become so gullible that we believe everything we hear, read and see over the internet without questioning its credibility?

As a concerned citizen, I hope that Mr. Persaud’s go-to source for credible information is not Wikipedia. If Mr. Persaud did the responsible thing and thoroughly researched his source, he would have realized that Jake Tran is well known for spreading false information and promoting scams to his viewers for his own benefit; much like the video Mr. Persaud was making reference to in his letter.

There are several videos and published articles that call out Jake Tran for his unscrupulous behaviour. A video published by Coffeezilla on YouTube on August 5, 2022 titled, “The Most Evil Business in the World” stood out as it detailed the tactics used by Jake Tran.

An investigation by Mr. Persaud would have highlighted that Jake Tran does not cite any sources for the information he provides in his videos. Rather, he gives his wild opinions and sensationalises matters that he has little to no knowledge on.
With that, I have a few questions I wish to ask the readers. How can we trust anything being peddled in the letter when Mr. Persaud boldly uses a source who has no credibility? Are we now being held ‘captive’ to sensational information? Why are we allowing someone who has been exposed as a fraud to drive ‘fear’ in our land of many waters?

The letter also asked a number of questions about contract negotiations which have been answered on many occasions as it relates to Exxon’s operations offshore Guyana. Mr. Persaud questions Guyana and Exxon’s share of profit oil which is public knowledge. At the moment, Guyana receives 2 per cent in royalty and 50 per cent in profit share after Exxon is compensated for its investments.

One would think that with all those questions being asked in the letter, Mr. Persaud would have seen it fit to exercise due diligence. That would have provided him with the answers to those questions. It would have saved Mr. Persaud the hassle of writing the letter but most importantly, it would have highlighted that one of the sources used in the letter to make a point is far from credible.

My questions for Mr. Persaud: Do you think it would be wise to force a change of contract? Is Guyana willing to show the world that ‘sanctity of contract’ means nothing? What would that mean for future investments not only by ExxonMobil but other companies looking to conduct business in the fastest growing economy in the world? What would it mean for Guyanese?

Regards,
Donald Singh