Skip to main content

At the head of the table are Ministers of Natural Resources Raphael Trotman (at centre) and Simona Broomes (at right) with committee members at the front on both sides. (Terrence Thompson photo)

Odinga Lumumba

May 19 2018

Source

Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman yesterday said that the award of 600 oil blocks to ExxonMobil’s subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), in 1999 was legal and the government would not be clawing back any as it was vital to border security that the US company retain control of the entire stretch.

Addressing the National Assembly’s Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources, Trotman also said it would be the last time he would be answering questions on petroleum issues as he has given up responsibility for the sector.

Trotman’s referencing of border security was the first time since oil was discovered here in 2015 that a senior government official has publicly stated that the award of 600 blocks was a strategic move to blunt any possible aggression from neighbouring Venezuela. The usual maximum number of blocks that should be assigned is 60 and questions have persisted in recent years as to why the 1999 Janet Jagan administration awarded more than 10 times this amount to the US oil giant’s subsidiary.

Trotman told the bipartisan committee that the law provides for the  minister to give more than 60 oil blocks and his  government is not at this time keen on  taking away any of EEPGL’s current 600 blocks  as the allocation remains vital for border reasons . 

“We have also kept the acreage. I see much writing about it being illegal…[I] wish to point out to you the law does allow for the minister with responsibility, Section 13 of the Petroleum regulations [say that] the minister may consider any application in respect of more than 60 blocks, where the minister is satisfied that special circumstances exists for doing so,” Trotman said.

“Circumstances so existed in 1999 when the then [PPP/C] government saw it fit to give. Certainly, we believe that those circumstances have not diminished in 2016. We believe it continues to be strategically sound that the Exxon blocks remain intact as it was in 1999…It was not happenstance; it was deliberate to cover the sea space tip-to-tip and that company will be an American company,” he added.

Asked by Chairman of the Committee, PPP/C MP Odinga Lumumba, who initiated the decision to make changes to the 1999 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) with EEPGL, Trotman replied, “The Government of Guyana, sir,”

“Why did you do that, in national security interest?” Lumumba questioned.

 Trotman replied, “That is so, sir.

“Not in economic interest?” Lumumba asked.

To the Chairman’s question Trotman answered, “No sir, because we are already going to earn at 3.2 billion barrels some 50% of that and if one may multiply…you would be in the realm of US$300 billion and Guyana would get half of that. We wanted to anchor Exxon to let them know we are serious…we wanted to work with a company with international gravitas and strength, financially and politically to represent us in the international arena.”

He would add that while there is a relinquishment clause in the agreement, he believes that while Exxon’s release of a certain amount of blocks and the acreage towards the North West is catered for, the company should be allowed to keep them for strategic reasons as they are the only company to demonstrate boldness by working in that area. 

Fundamental

Lumumba was not convinced by Trotman’s defence and asked if government would allow it if another company signaled that it too was not afraid of Venezuela’s threats and was willing to work in the area.

“If I may be allowed to give an explanation. Our reasons are dual they are both economic and strategic but there are only I believe two companies in the world that are prepared to venture in the North West area. If other companies want to partner with Exxon, we would not interfere,” Trotman stated.

He was interrupted by the Chairman. “I am dealing specifically with the fundamental issue that you said that they did not relinquish the additional blocks was because of national security interest. I am saying Exxon and the Government of Guyana can keep the national security interest but they can benefit economically if another company … says, ‘I want to be a part of the equation’…would you have a problem with that?” Lumumba asked.

“No,” Trotman said. 

Using a PowerPoint presentation as he reviewed the petroleum sector since his APNU+AFC government took office in 2015, the minister said that it was “important to go back in time” so that the public, especially Guyana’s citizenry, understands the historical, economic and strategic contexts  involved in government’s decision making.

And in going back to the genesis of the agreement with EEPGL, he reminded that it was the former ruling party, the PPP/C that had signed to the agreement for the acreage given. 

In 2016, when the APNU+AFC government renegotiated the PSA with EEPGL, it did not address the issue of the 600 blocks and in this respect left the PSA as it was in 1999.

The block allocation has resulted in many criticisms of both governments, with the current administration feeling the brunt of it for not correcting in 2016 what many see as an illegality.

Government has defended its actions in not reclaiming the areas, saying that it was strategic then and remains the same but has never provided details.

“Much, if not all, of our decision-making was informed on what was happening in the West,” Trotman said.

“What many Guyanese were not aware of was on the very day the President was sworn into office (May 16, 2015), Venezuela issued a decree which claimed for the first time the sea space off the coast of Guyana …we needed a partner to cover the entire sea space. Beal (Aerospace), did not make it through, Exxon did…,” he added.

‘Start picking’

Comparing the 1999 agreement and the 2016 renegotiated agreement, Trotman said that his government had two preeminent objectives when it signed and that was to ensure production in the fastest possible time and that it “needed to protect our resource to say this is ours”.

He pointed out that there had been no breach of the 1999 Agreement by either party nor had it expired. Therefore, he said that he could not blame Exxon if they did not want any modifications “because they are in their right to say that they were sticking to the terms” and this country, if it went a forceful route, could have seen itself “in a court of arbitration.”

“Guyana did not have a legal case to say it wants a new and vastly different agreement,” he added.

The controversial US$18 million signature bonus received from Exxon also came in for questioning as Trotman said that it was devised by government to pay the legal fees for Guyana’s current case at the International Court of Justice, where it is asking for a juridical settlement of the border controversy with Venezuela.

“This [US] $18 million signing bonus… was there an equation used? How did the number come up? Did you put your hand in a bag?” the Chairman queried.

Trotman’s response was that “government had the benefit of advisors” who indicated that US$15 million was a fair figure.

The remaining US$3 million, he told PPP/C MP Neendkumar, who queried its purpose and spending, is currently being looked at for capacity building and educational programmes, especially in agriculture, for youths across the country. “The [US] $3 million, it is under discussion. We are to decide how we will use the money so that young people from all administrative regions benefits,” Trotman said. He noted that once the money is earmarked and projects found, “it will be passed though the Consolidated fund.”

Of interest was the Chairman’s refusal to allow the minister to give to the committee a list of local companies that Exxon has used here as he argued that it was “Exxon’s business.”

Trotman said that government, as part of its monitoring of the local content, has a list and he agreed to share it with the committee.  He later told reporters that he would share the list with the media after supplying the committee with it.

On the issue of local content, the Chairman asked that government work out measures to ensure that locals are not only employees of foreign companies in the service areas but a way be found that they can also own or benefit through shares or other financial means in oil and gas production companies.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

600 blocks was a strategic move to blunt any possible aggression from neighboring Venezuela.

Why was this not public knowledge before? Is he selling Guyana to the US through Exxon? Why only after signing the "Guyana Gone Fuh Channa" and kickback deal he got he is making this excuse? Why were they not afraid of Venezuela before? Where are our brave GDF champions who vowed to defend the motherland?

FM
Last edited by Former Member
skeldon_man posted:

600 blocks was a strategic move to blunt any possible aggression from neighboring Venezuela.

Why was this not public knowledge before? Is he selling Guyana to the US through Exxon? Why only after signing the "Guyana Gone Fuh Channa" and kickback deal he got he is making this excuse? Why were they not afraid of Venezuela before? Where are our brave GDF champions who vowed to defend the motherland?

Ask the PPP when they were in gov't,Janet Jagan signed the 1999 contract with Exxon.

Seems like there are memory loss.

Django
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:

600 blocks was a strategic move to blunt any possible aggression from neighboring Venezuela.

Why was this not public knowledge before? Is he selling Guyana to the US through Exxon? Why only after signing the "Guyana Gone Fuh Channa" and kickback deal he got he is making this excuse? Why were they not afraid of Venezuela before? Where are our brave GDF champions who vowed to defend the motherland?

Ask the PPP when they were in gov't,Janet Jagan signed the 1999 contract with Exxon.

Seems like there are memory loss.

Djanjo, what happens to the change your government promise to get into office. 

You are justifying the  wrong doing this government is doing to the past administration. 

FM
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:

600 blocks was a strategic move to blunt any possible aggression from neighboring Venezuela.

Why was this not public knowledge before? Is he selling Guyana to the US through Exxon? Why only after signing the "Guyana Gone Fuh Channa" and kickback deal he got he is making this excuse? Why were they not afraid of Venezuela before? Where are our brave GDF champions who vowed to defend the motherland?

Ask the PPP when they were in gov't,Janet Jagan signed the 1999 contract with Exxon.

Seems like there are memory loss.

Janet did not reference Venezuela as a threat to Guyana. Only after the give away of Guyana by the PNC, Trotty is scaring Guyanese about Venezuela being a threat. Let's stick to current affairs.

FM
Dave posted:
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:

600 blocks was a strategic move to blunt any possible aggression from neighboring Venezuela.

Why was this not public knowledge before? Is he selling Guyana to the US through Exxon? Why only after signing the "Guyana Gone Fuh Channa" and kickback deal he got he is making this excuse? Why were they not afraid of Venezuela before? Where are our brave GDF champions who vowed to defend the motherland?

Ask the PPP when they were in gov't,Janet Jagan signed the 1999 contract with Exxon.

Seems like there are memory loss.

Djanjo, what happens to the change your government promise to get into office. 

You are justifying the  wrong doing this government is doing to the past administration. 

READ DJANGO: take all weekend to unda stand... that’s yo home wok . 

The 1999 PPP/C contract with EXXON does not bind the Coalition Government

The Coalition Government has resorted to the oldest trick in the book. It is diverting attention from its own shortcomings by casting blame for its failings on the Opposition.
The government is resorting to political propaganda in order to justify its actions in signing a lopsided agreement with ExxonMobil. This is as low as any government can get.
The government has released the contract which was signed by the PPP/C Administration with CGX in 2013. It has sought to do this so as to show that what the PPPC agreed to in that contract which is almost similar to that which the APNU+AFC signed with ExxonMobil. In of other words, it is saying that if the PPP/C can do that, then what is wrong with us doing it.
This old three-card trick may convince dunderheads but not persons with discriminating minds. The government is only fooling itself into believing that this worn-out trick will bring acceptability to the foul-deal which it signed as ExxonMobil.
The APNU+AFC Government signed a Petroleum Agreement with Exxon. It was signed after oil was discovered. It is essentially a Production Sharing Agreement (PSA).
On the other hand, the PPPC signed a Petroleum Agreement when no oil had been discovered in Guyana. The agreement was essentially (and this will be further explained) was a Petroleum Prospecting Agreement (PPA).
The PPP/C has explained that it signed the agreements with both ExxonMobil and CGX based on a template which was being used at the time when the country was seeking investment in the petroleum. No oil had yet been found.
In the past and now with this disclosure of the CGX contract, the APNU+AFC Government had sought to suggest that it was not lawfully obligated to re-negotiate the 1999 Agreement which was signed by the PPP/C. This is not so. I will show how the deal that the APNU+AFC Government signed with ExxonMobil had to be re-negotiated because the 1999 agreement had lapsed.
The APNU+AFC have long asserted that it was limited in what it could have done during its negotiations with ExxonMobil because it inherited the 1999 deal. The 1999 deal, as I will show had expired, and therefore did not bind the APNU+AFC.
When it comes to petroleum prospecting and production, the law of our land is the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act, not any agreement, whether it was signed in 1999 or 2016. No agreement can make a fool of the law. The Petroleum Act is what matters and which effectively had invalidated any prospecting licence issued under the 1999 Contract.
Section 24(1) of the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act states:
“Subject to this Act, a person who holds a petroleum prospecting licence may apply for the renewal of the licence, but not more than twice, in accordance with the Regulations.”
Section 25(1) limits the term of each renewal to a period not exceeding three years. The accumulative effect of these two sections of the Petroleum (Exploration and Production Act) in respect to the petroleum prospecting is that any prospecting license issued under the 1999 contract under the PPP/C would not have been valid under the law six years after the effective day of that licence.
The PPPC contract with Exxon was signed in 1999 and therefore, assuming that the prospecting licence was effective from 2001 (the Contractor has to be given time to mobilise capital), no prospecting licence could have been lawfully issued after 2007.
Therefore, the APNU+AFC cannot now contend that it inherited the Exxon contract from the PPPC. It inherited a contract which could not have issued a lawful prospecting licence and therefore the 1999 contract could not bind the APNU+AFC.
But assuming, for argument sake, that somehow there was a valid prospecting licence issued to Exxon, there is nothing in the law which would have bound the government to issue a production licence on the same terms as the 1999 contract. The law clearly makes provision for what happens when oil is found under a prospecting licence and what happens afterwards in terms of the application for a production licence.
The government bungled the negotiations. As a result, it is now resorting to blaming the PPP/C. Of all the parties in the country, look whose standards, the APNU+AFC are judging its own track record against!

FM
Dave posted:
Dave posted:
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:

600 blocks was a strategic move to blunt any possible aggression from neighboring Venezuela.

Why was this not public knowledge before? Is he selling Guyana to the US through Exxon? Why only after signing the "Guyana Gone Fuh Channa" and kickback deal he got he is making this excuse? Why were they not afraid of Venezuela before? Where are our brave GDF champions who vowed to defend the motherland?

Ask the PPP when they were in gov't,Janet Jagan signed the 1999 contract with Exxon.

Seems like there are memory loss.

Djanjo, what happens to the change your government promise to get into office. 

You are justifying the  wrong doing this government is doing to the past administration. 

READ DJANGO: take all weekend to unda stand... that’s yo home wok . 

Ask the man to write a couple paragraphs of his understanding of the article.

FM
skeldon_man posted:
Dave posted:
Dave posted:
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:

600 blocks was a strategic move to blunt any possible aggression from neighboring Venezuela.

Why was this not public knowledge before? Is he selling Guyana to the US through Exxon? Why only after signing the "Guyana Gone Fuh Channa" and kickback deal he got he is making this excuse? Why were they not afraid of Venezuela before? Where are our brave GDF champions who vowed to defend the motherland?

Ask the PPP when they were in gov't,Janet Jagan signed the 1999 contract with Exxon.

Seems like there are memory loss.

Djanjo, what happens to the change your government promise to get into office. 

You are justifying the  wrong doing this government is doing to the past administration. 

READ DJANGO: take all weekend to unda stand... that’s yo home wok . 

Ask the man to write a couple paragraphs of his understanding of the article.

I am sure this article was published on this site ... and Djanjo telling people about memory loss 

FM

Dave,

sorry there is nothing you can present to educate Django.

I have pointed to the Skelly where to look for the answers to his questions.Further read the article presented by SN of "Minister Trotman Addressing the National Assembly’s Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources"

Noticeably the opposition chairs are empty.

Django
Last edited by Django
Django posted:

Dave,

sorry there is nothing you can present to educate Django.

I have pointed to the Skelly where to look for the answers to his questions.Further read the article presented by SN of "Minister Trotman Addressing the National Assembly’s Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources"

Noticeably the opposition chairs are empty.

I do not need to look; I have a good memory. I don't have time to live on this site all day. Life is not sitting on GNI all day or looking for fake news articles to contradict other posters. I am an outdoors person, so I am outside the house a lot of time.

FM
skeldon_man posted:
Django posted:

Dave,

sorry there is nothing you can present to educate Django.

I have pointed to the Skelly where to look for the answers to his questions.Further read the article presented by SN of "Minister Trotman Addressing the National Assembly’s Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources"

Noticeably the opposition chairs are empty.

I do not need to look; I have a good memory. I don't have time to live on this site all day. Life is not sitting on GNI all day or looking for fake news articles to contradict other posters. I am an outdoors person, so I am outside the house a lot of time.

Re-read the how you contradict your self.

Django is not here 24-7,whenever Fake News from the crew are noticed and it's plastered by Django,alyuh running helter skelter.

Django
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:
Django posted:

Dave,

sorry there is nothing you can present to educate Django.

I have pointed to the Skelly where to look for the answers to his questions.Further read the article presented by SN of "Minister Trotman Addressing the National Assembly’s Sectoral Committee on Natural Resources"

Noticeably the opposition chairs are empty.

I do not need to look; I have a good memory. I don't have time to live on this site all day. Life is not sitting on GNI all day or looking for fake news articles to contradict other posters. I am an outdoors person, so I am outside the house a lot of time.

Re-read the how you contradict your self.

Django is not here 24-7,whenever Fake News from the crew are noticed and it's plastered by Django,alyuh running helter skelter.

Don't burst your bubble. You have been whipped so many times, I am surprised you can sit down on a chair. You seem to take the whipping and create fake news all the time. Whatever keeps you happy, keep on truckin'.

FM
skeldon_man posted:
Django posted:
skeldon_man posted:
 

I do not need to look; I have a good memory. I don't have time to live on this site all day. Life is not sitting on GNI all day or looking for fake news articles to contradict other posters. I am an outdoors person, so I am outside the house a lot of time.

Re-read the how you contradict your self.

Django is not here 24-7,whenever Fake News from the crew are noticed and it's plastered by Django,alyuh running helter skelter.

Don't burst your bubble. You have been whipped so many times, I am surprised you can sit down on a chair. You seem to take the whipping and create fake news all the time. Whatever keeps you happy, keep on truckin'.

Whipped with what ? if you thinks "Name Calling" is whipping,then certainly a self examination needed.

Fake News ? check your crew they are noted culprits.

Have a great day.Rain falling here so i am stuck indoors.

Django
Last edited by Django

Janet Jagan was very clever and strategic in this move. She knew the Venezuelan position can change anytime and Locked a commitment that could pit Venezuela against US interest. She was politically astute not to mention it as she wanted to cultivate good relations with Venezuela. 

The gog is correct not to change the agreement as it stands.  More than ever now, Guyana needs this hedge.  

Kudos to Janet Jagan.

Baseman
Baseman posted:

Janet Jagan was very clever and strategic in this move. She knew the Venezuelan position can change anytime and Locked a commitment that could pit Venezuela against US interest. She was politically astute not to mention it as she wanted to cultivate good relations with Venezuela. 

The gog is correct not to change the agreement as it stands.  More than ever now, Guyana needs this hedge.  

Kudos to Janet Jagan.

One of the reasons i mentioned the oil find is a blessing in disguise,Guyana will gain a few ways ,Revenue form the find, Settlement to Venezuela claim,more investments in the mineral rich Essequibo.

What are needed for the country developments are good governance,that is in the hands of the people elect credible leaders.

Django
Last edited by Django
yuji22 posted:
Django posted:

Dave,

sorry there is nothing you can present to educate Django.

 

Bai Dj, Ah suh you dunce ?

That's what you get from the sentence,extracted from the full post ?

As expected exposing your poor comprehension.Skelly will say your response is licks.

Django

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×