Dissecting the narrative of Exxon’s greed around the world

Jun 28, 2018 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
Just when Chris Ram seemed to have finished scrutinizing the contents of the profane PSA signed by the Government and ExxonMobil, and Exxon’s PRO Guyana, Miss Brasington’s laughable revelation that a few mangoes purchased at Stabroek Square, by Exxon’s workers, is considered as local content, Exxon’s corporate social vicissitude on the international scene is back in the news like a portent for the future.
A few days ago there was Ian Gary, adviser to a watchdog organization in oil and gas, featuring contents of a letter from Exxon to US regulators in the industry in 2016.
The letter stated that, “We (Exxon) understand some non-governmental organizations hold as an ultimate policy objective the concept of so-called ‘contract transparency’ or ‘open contracting,’ under which oil and gas contracts would be negotiated in a kind of public-utility framework whereby groups other than the parties themselves would have seats at the table and pass judgment on contract terms.
Needless to say, such third party intervention in commercial business negotiations would make it more difficult to achieve equitable agreements that appropriately balance risk vs. reward and to maintain those agreements going forward, resulting in serious harm to investors in oil and gas companies…”
Clearly Exxon has no regard for the concept that oil resources belong to the people of a country, and the Company considers any input from people (the rightful owners) in contract negotiation, as interventionist, to the extent of passing “judgement” that would result, “in serious harm to investors in oil and gas companies”.
Has Exxon experienced any of the above scenario? I think not. Maybe it is their mere contemplation that with the people involved they may have to give up much more than they normally grab – having concocted and used regularly, a successful plan for dealing with Government’s alone.
The letter reveals that Exxon not only believes engaging people before contract negotiation is detrimental to the Company’s interest. Can you imagine phrases like, “passing judgment” and” serious harm” being attributed to civic society for their contemplative participation in any contract arrangement with Exxon and government?
When one considers that the letter was addressed to US regulators in oil and gas, you could imagine the clout Exxon holds in the “land of the free” – clout that is suggested to have been achieved through campaign financing over an extended period.
In striking an oil deal with Guyana, I can picture Exxon’s top brass, throwing the present PSA and EIA, designed by their own hands, in front of our representatives and uttering, “sign these and we shall forever make you and your generations in the future wealthy.”
It’s little wonder that Jan Mangal, the IDB-funded expert, never had an input in either our PSA or EIA. If not, how do we explain an EIA that does not hold Exxon liable for an accidental oil spill? How do we justify a PSA that requires the Minister of Natural Resources to give Exxon seven days notification before visiting the site of production and the company gets a slew of tax concessions?
Recently their greed down under (Australia) was revealed – wanting to cut workers salaries and rotation time while making billions there. Here they promised to not get involved in campaign financing. But, can we trust them on their word? I think not. They had paid the Government a signing bonus of US$ 18 million, and remained silent, while the Government vehemently denied, until a whistleblower gave them the number one embarrassment of their life in office. They could do the same for campaign financing.
When their vested interest needs to be protected, the sky does not seem to be the limit for Exxon – they were cited for trying to tweak the climate change science.
Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News