On Exxon-linked US law firm updating Guyana’s energy laws If there is conflict of interest, we have to address it – Energy Dept. Head

May 09, 2020 News

---

By Kiana Wilburg

For the past few weeks, the government of Guyana has faced mounting criticism for allowing a law firm that enjoys a decades-long old relationship with ExxonMobil to rewrite the nation’s archaic laws.

In early February it was announced that the American law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP had been hired to update Guyana’s outdated energy laws and regulations, most notably the 1986 Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act for US $1.2 million. The firm’s local partner is the Ralph Ramkarran-helmed Cameron and Shepherd, one of the country’s oldest and more prestigious firms.
A month after the announcement a German environmental rights organization, Urgewald highlighted that Hunton Andrews Kurth enjoyed a long relationship with the Exxon, the principle private player in Guyana’s fledging oil sector.
According to a UK Guardian Article of March 8, “Hunton Andrews Kurth has acted for ExxonMobil for 40 years, including multiple cases involved in climate impacts, such as an action by native Americans in the Alaskan village of Kivalina who argued that the climate crisis was threatening their way of life.”
This paper has since raised the issue in our reporting over the past several weeks but during an online press conference on Monday, Energy Department Head, Dr. Mark Bynoe did not divulge whether a decision was taken to conduct a probe in light of the said concerns.

Were you aware?
During the press briefing, Kaieteur News asked Dr. Bynoe to state if he or the department was aware that the law firm enjoys a 40-year relationship with Exxon. Dr. Bynoe responded that all companies are asked to present information on the history of their work while adding that the law firm would have done same.
That said, Dr. Bynoe asserted that it is almost impossible to find any company worth their salt that would not have worked with one of the oil majors. The official said the important thing is to ascertain what that relationship entailed against what the firm is being asked to do for the government. He said that there were intrinsic safeguards in the contractual arrangements that would serve to counter any real conflicts.
“Let me say here and now,” Bynoe said, “…this firm is partnering with one of our leading law firms in Guyana and as it is , our RFP , our Request for Proposal, as well as our draft contract, speaks to entities having conflicts of interest. So they are expected to identify if such conflicts arise. If you are asking me if an entity has a conflict, if I am concerned, I have to be concerned but this is something which we go through as part of the procurement process.”
He also sought to remind that consultants do not determine what the government finally does, stressing that while the law firm was contracted to draft laws, it was not its responsibility to set them. After it would have completed its assignment, he noted, the drafts would be subjected to a process of going through the Attorney General’s Chambers and then to the National Assembly.
While Dr. Bynoe holds this position, it should be noted that Guyana’s Parliament has done nothing since the discovery of oil to boost its capacity so that the nation’s parliamentarians would be equipped with the technical resources they need to support the review of such laws before they are voted on.

The World Bank
Also coming in for heavy criticism from Ungewald was the World Bank since the legal firm’s fee is being funded as part of a US$20M loan to Guyana covering governance in the oil sector. Transparency advocates are saying that the matter needs to be immediately investigated on the grounds that the Bank is showing utter disregard for its regulations on clear conflict of interest.
With regard to this aspect of the controversy, Bynoe offered that it is government that selects a contractor after which, “It is then sent to the Bank for no-objection…once an entity has said ‘No we don’t have any conflict,’ we try to do as much due diligence as we can but anything short of hiring some kind of PI (private investigation) firm to do due diligence on every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane that comes in, we will not be able to ascertain who has a conflict and who doesn’t.”
Further to this, the official said that the issue of conflict of interest is a continuous one while adding that it has been the case with almost every consultant the department has hired.

The ‘Bigger Picture’
He noted that Guyanese should be concerned about a much bigger picture that is emerging in the wake of such criticisms.
“I am not here to defend that firm,” he offered, “If there is a conflict, yes, we have to address it because we want the best for Guyana. But I am a bit concerned when I see an NGO out of Germany, speaking for example, that Guyana should leave its resources as is, because if it should go ahead, it would have per capita emissions greater than any other country in the world.”
The Energy Department head noted that such an argument can only be seen as nonsensical as the real concern is about “global emissions.” Further to this, Dr. Bynoe said he is bothered by other statements from the said NGO and others that Guyana should essentially leave its oil in the ground.
“Why is everyone saying to Guyana, leave these resources as they are when we have for the first time, an opportunity for self determination? Why isn’t this being spoken to Norway, to the USA which has massive shale exploitation and is the only country to have opted out of the Paris agreement? This bothers me somewhat,” the official expressed.
He also addressed the insinuations about impropriety contained in some criticisms of the contract.
“It is almost insulting to the intelligence of Guyanese to say that somehow, once these laws are drafted, it becomes a quid pro quo. We have to be guarded against such an assumption,” the official said.

 

 

---

---