Both distinguished lawyers appeared on the Charles Sugrim Globespan show on Monday night (August 31st), and fielded a question from Dr. Jerry Jailall: “Are you for Renegotiation of the Oil Contract?”
Attorney Timothy Jonas’ gave a very nuanced answer. He said, “if you have a citation where I said I am against, send it to me”. From this you can infer that he is for renegotiation; but then he quickly added that governments should abide and fulfill contracts they signed. And, gave the usual reasons for abiding by contracts – not wanting to scare away foreign investors and protect your nation’s reputation, etc.
Attorney Sanjeev Datadin gave a similarly nuanced answer.
Both distinguished lawyers – both performed heroic roles in the recent 5-month long election impasse – did not answer the question in the context of the specific issues surrounding the Oil Contract. Global Witness report said Minister Trotman signed the contract despite being advised by two paid consultants to delay the signing so that he can negotiate for a better deal. Guyana’s contract provides for a 2% royalty; all other similar PSA-type contracts provide for 6 -15% royalty. (Suriname has a PSA-type and gets a 6.25% royalty, in addition to profit-sharing and the Oil Company paying corporate income tax).
The 2016 Contract was negotiated in secret and kept secret for more than a year. Lack of transparency together with the fact that Minister Trotman may have been compromised are good reasons that form the basis for asking ExxonMobil for a review of the contract. I have always urged the GoG to write a simple letter asking Exxon for a meeting of both parties to conduct a review. What is there to lose by simply asking?
Asking the Oil Company for a review is not a demand for “renegotiation” (a politically loaded word), nor is it threatening confrontation or litigation. A week ago, I watched a media conference in which Alistair Routledge (Exxon’s Guyana president) said he is open to a “review” with the goal of making it fairer and equitable. Dr. Jan Mangal said it best when he said “the relationship between an Oil Company and a host country is like a good marriage” – both parties need to be happy. It is unfortunate that the headlines coming out of that conference was that “Routledge threatens to take his investment elsewhere” – he said what he said in response to a question that may have sounded like a threat of litigation. I think Mr. Routledge’s statements were positive – he is open to a review.
I wish Attorneys Datadin and Jonas would have taken the opportunity to provide more specific answers, given the context of the compromised circumstances in which the contract was negotiated and signed.
Mike Persaud
