AT a recent press conference, the Alliance For Change continued its tradition of meaningless opposition, especially in matters relating to Guyana’s emerging oil and gas industry.
Dr Vincent Adams, the party’s lead spokesperson on oil and gas, made statements that not only showed a fundamental misunderstanding of basic industry concepts, but also highlighted the party’s tendency to prioritise criticism over constructive dialogue.

A good example of such a misguided approach is the recent assertion by Dr Adams that Guyana’s income from oil will never reach 50 per cent. In his haste to disagree with the statement of Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo that Guyana will eventually receive its full 50 per cent share of returns, Dr Adams confused ‘cost oil’ with ‘profit oil,’ thereby misrepresenting the revenue-sharing mechanism.

It is important to understand that, no matter what the production costs are, the cost oil, the remaining oil is 100 per cent of the ‘profit oil’, which is shared 50/50 between Guyana and the oil companies.
Besides, the two per cent royalty is taken from gross production and not as an additional percentage of profit oil. This rather basic industry knowledge appears to have escaped Dr Adams, and such a mistake brings into question the competence of the AFC to discuss such critical national issues.
Not only that, but also the accusation of Dr Adams that the government reneged on a promise to renegotiate the current Stabroek Block Production Sharing Agreement is without basis. No such promise has been on record from either the current PPP/C government or its predecessor, the APNU+AFC administration.

In fact, both major parties have steadfastly held that they would not force renegotiations of existing contracts.
The persistence of the AFC in pursuing this non-issue only shows the party to be politically bereft and not willing to contribute positively to the debate on oil and gas at the national level.

Other than arguing the potential improvements that could have been made to the present agreement, or substantive critique, the party seems satisfied with making uninformed pronouncements that hardly serve the interest of Guyana.
This incident is, therefore, a sober reminder that informed debate in national politics is an imperative, especially when it involves such a critical sector as oil and gas. As Guyana continues to navigate the challenges of newfound oil wealth, all political actors must assume responsibility for fact-based discussions and put the long-term interests of the country above short-term political gains.

The AFC would do better to revise its position on oil and gas issues, rather than indulging in misbegotten criticism, building competence and constructive contribution.