Dear Editor,
In recent letters to the press, Robin Singh, a person who is yet to apologise for publicly labelling me and some members of civil society treasonous, is peddling more illogic. He seems to have now awakened to the concept of ‘unlimited’, as in parent company guarantee (PCG). It was already there to be inferred in the permits that he did not read or understand. The court case was to make the oil companies and the government realize their obligations, to do a good job, and to monitor transparently. What good is monitoring if the people affected are kept unaware? And what good is oversight and legislation when mistakes cannot be sufficiently rectified?
Now Mr Singh has picked his straw man of unlimited insurance and is burning it publicly to impress those who do not think it through. Insurance is commercially defined and requires payment of premium for agreed extent of coverage. There is therefore nothing like unlimited insurance, so why is he fighting mightily against something that does not exist? It must be that he either does not understand what PCG or assurance means, or he is deliberately putting out fallacious arguments to fool the unthinking public. Insurance is not assurance. It is only the commercial part. Parents strive to provide safe facilities and procedures for their children. The physical structures cost money and are tangible evidence of insurance, but when my father assured his children that he would not let anything happen to them, he was doing more. He was saying he would give his life trying his utmost to save theirs.
An existential problem requires an existential solution. Should a company, which claims it is the best in the business, be allowed to exist and carry on the business somewhere (here) and take no responsibility for disasters it might cause? They can’t do that in their parent countries. Possible disasters can be simulated, estimated, and commercially insured. Decent companies do that. Have our oil companies been doing it? Not according to their nonsensical submission for the court case, as recently revealed by Dr Alissa Trotz in letter to the press. If the unforeseen and incalculable disaster happens, should we wait and see if these oil companies will continue to exist and exert themselves to address the disaster? We don’t want to have them say then that they did not sign an unlimited PCG, so let them sign on to accept this responsibility. Then we can believe them. For did they not say they are operating safely? We are tired of unwritten promises. Why should Guyana make the mistakes of other countries and accept only verbal assurances?
Alfred Bhulai
