It is equally important to mention the benefits of oil and gas

Dear Editor,

There are two mentions of Guyana in Rachel Maddow’s book, “BLOWOUT”, currently the New York Times number one non-fiction bestseller. The banner above the title on the front cover reads: “Corrupted Democracy, Rogue State Russia, and the Richest, Most Destructive Industry on Earth”.

The first reference to Guyana is on page 352. The second reference is an entire paragraph starting on page 353 and continuing on page 354. It includes a derisive riff about Guyana’s eighteen million dollars signing bonus, and it unfairly, in my opinion, invites comparison to the kleptocracy in Equatorial Guinea. Then, she astutely teases about ExxonMobil’s “amazing footwork that must have led to those improbable deals” with Guyana.

In her book, Maddow asserts that big oil companies “corrode”, “corrupt” and “sabotage” as part of their modus operandi. She was particularly blistering on ExxonMobil.

She hardly glanced at the benefits that oil and gas has brought to Mankind, such as clean water for billions; kerosene for cooking instead of burning wood; gasoline for cars and buses instead of horses; diesel for tractors and agricultural machines instead of bullocks; fuel for boats

pertaining to the Petroleum Commission, Local Content policy, insulating the country from oil spill damage and the monitoring of claimed expenses, there are other areas where the government cannot even begin to lay the groundwork as in the case of the proposed cash transfers from expected oil revenues. In the last few months there has been feverish debate in the newspapers, broadcast sector, social media and public forums on the cash transfer proposal which has been ardently championed by governing coalition member, the Working People’s Alliance. Civil society has begun to do its job here. It has been the locus for this public ferment of ideas on the cash transfer and how it might or might not work. The proposal is clearly a non-starter for the short-term as the government has no mandate, no revenues will be recognised for appropriation until a 2020 budget is in place, the infrastructure for the Natural Resources Fund has to be activated and the quantum payable for 2020 remains unknown and subject to many variables. Had Parliament been functional there could have already been an initial debate so that MPs from both sides of the aisle could present their views. From all that has been argued about cash transfers in a country with a yawning gap between the rich and the poor and its status as an emerging oil and gas economy, it is clear that it requires careful studying and investigation of the various options. As the premier indigenous education institution in the country and in keeping with the expectation that it will play an increasingly prominent role in oil and gas education and in studying the social ramifications of the sector, the government could have commissioned the University of Guyana to undertake a study on the cash transfer both from the perspective of its possible impact on the impoverished and its larger macroeconomic implications such as on the rate of inflation. It would be intransigent and

instead of oars; jet fuel for airplanes; tar for roads; electricity for powering household and hospital equipment; feedstock for fertilizers and utensils; and energy for making cellphones and medicines and myriads of necessities we often take for granted. Editor, while I believe that it is okay to point out, even attack, the deleterious effects of oil and gas, I think it is equally important to mention the benefits it has brought.

I hope that other, less polluting sources of energy will be as cheap, efficient, plentiful and reliable as the energy we currently get from energydense oil and gas. Certainly, solar

incomprehensible, of course, for any government to make arbitrary declarations on the direct transfer of oil revenues. Whatever decisions are finally made on the cash transfer – it is one of the areas where there should be political consensus – it would seem just and sensible that monies be directed to those in extreme poverty for whom day-to-day living is a hard scrap - families living on the edge. On a regular basis as is evidenced in the media there are families without food for the day, without access to clean water, without the ability to send their children to school, without the means to secure basic health care and residing in conditions that lead to violence and abuse in all of its forms. These are the families that need urgent help and should have the first call on any revenues that might be set aside for cash transfers. This newspaper has long argued for the mapping of extreme poverty in all parts of the country and for this to provide the foundation for targeted interventions to lift those persons from this state and to enable them to begin edging towards independent living. This poverty mapping could have already been initiated to provide an informed basis for action by the various ministries entrusted with improving the circumstances of the people. By its own doing, the government has been left bereft of constitutional legitimacy. There are still, however, areas where it could have beneficial impact such as contextualising the cash transfer debate. It should spend the remaining months before elections addressing matters that will attract broad approval from stakeholders.

and wind are on the cusp of becoming cheap and efficient, and once research, innovation, technology, money and human ingenuity overcome the limitations caused by these sources’ innate intermittency, the world can fully embrace these cleaner alternatives, their high initial cost of entry, notwithstanding.

Editor, for full disclosure, I have benefited from oil and gas directly and indirectly; and more so from renewable, green gas-plants in Texas and Louisiana. I am a former president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Museum, Library and Hall of Fame, in Midland, Texas; and I am a supporter of the Oil and Gas industry here in the Permian Basin in West Texas.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Tulsi Dyal Singh