Jagdeo doesn’t care ‘too much’ about ExxonMobil’s past

Jul 20, 2017 News

– says Guyana must look out for itself

By Kiana Wilburg
Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, is not “too” concerned about the worrying track record US oil giant, ExxonMobil has in some parts of the world.

Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo

He made this comment, yesterday, at his press conference which was held at his Church Street office.
The former President asserted that ExxonMobil is a huge company which has operated in many countries. He said that the company’s gross earnings alone would dwarf the GDP of many countries.
The Opposition Leader also stated that ExxonMobil may even have more technical personnel, in terms of corporate lawyers, than the Caribbean would have at its disposal.
But when it comes to the debilitating state some nations have been left in after ExxonMobil would have set up operations, Jagdeo emphatically stated, “I don’t care too much about what they did…once we protect our national interest.”
Jagdeo emphasized, “We have a duty. Exxon Mobil will always look out for itself. But the idea is we have to look out for ourselves; to get a fair share and then the partnership will run smoothly…”
The Opposition Leader also contended that the Government’s posture regarding information on oil related matters seems to be a defensive one.
Jagdeo recalled seeing news reports which highlighted the fact that various individuals and transparency groups have been calling for the release of certain information, but their appeals continue to go unheard.
The Opposition Leader asserted, “…With this government, you can’t get information. I have seen some of the articles written and groups calling for transparency but the (Government ministers) are not forthcoming at all. In the meantime, they are busy doing political work.”
Several critics have noted that it is crucial for local authorities to pay attention to the mistakes made by other nations and more significantly, how inexperienced governments were outmaneuvered by ExxonMobil. In this way, transparency advocates have said that Guyana would be in an even better position to safeguard itself against instances of abuse and fraud.
Kaieteur News would have carried a few weeks ago, several articles as part of a series which provided crucial information on what the nation needs to know about ExxonMobil.
In that series, this newspaper showed how nations essentially were left worse off after ExxonMobil found oil in those territories. One example cited in this regard, was that of Chad.
The Central African nation is considered to be one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world. When news surfaced in the early 2000s that it struck oil, everyone thought that this should have been an instant blessing.
In spite of the country being landlocked, dirt poor and corrupt ExxonMobil expressed interest in Chad and demonstrated this to a great extent. So great were the contributions that Chad’s President, Idriss Déby, threw out two other oil companies that were operating in the country at the time and decided that ExxonMobil was to be dealt with solely.
In the beginning, oil seemed to be a tremendous economic turning point for the Central African nation. The country earned billions of dollars in revenue; about US$9B since Exxon Mobil opened the Kome oil field near the southern town of Doba in 2003.
But with all that money in its pocket, Chad it seemed, ended up in a situation of ‘more money more problems’.
Instead of oil revenues being used to increase poverty alleviation and improve public services like education, infrastructure, and healthcare—It brought instead, more corruption, pollution, and the misuse of natural resources.
According to the 2004 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), Chad was ranked as the third most corrupt out of 142 countries. The next year, it was ranked as the most corrupt out of 158 nations. Ten years later, Chad placed among the top 20 most corrupt nations on the CPI.
Additionally, the World Bank in one of its reports on this nation found that Chad’s oil failed to reduce poverty, but instead became associated with increased civil conflict and a worsening of governance.
In short, Chad is worse off than it started.