Is Bhagwandin qualified to say Exxon paying fair share taxes?

Jun 05, 2021 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Reference is made to a missive by Prof. Ganga Ramdas (June 2) and response by one Joel Bhagwandin (Jun 3) who signed as a financial expert and Adjunct Professor at Texila. Since when Guyana has Adjunct Professors? There are adjunct lecturers, not professors.
Dr. Ramdas asks a fair question – How much taxes would have been paid by Exxon if not exempted. And he arrives at a proximate number of US $62M, although it could be a lot more because of the vagaries of oil price on the international market. Since we do not have an audit of oil extracted, there is no way to tell whether Guyana is receiving the right amounts of barrels of oil in terms of the quarterly lift of about a million barrels each.
Bhagwandin asserts that because oil drilling is capital intensive, Exxon should not have to pay any tax. Should anyone take J.C. Bhagwandin’s commentary seriously? Here are some facts to consider, As capital extensive as it is, and Exxon invested multiple times in cost in capital equipment in other countries, Exxon paid taxes of between 25 percent and 35 percent in every jurisdiction it operates, as well as duties on imports. Because Guyana is a gravy train, Exxon is shutting down operations all over the globe and focusing on Guyana, its most profitable venture in history. If you don’t have to pay taxes and or duties on imports and no user fees and your staff are exempted from taxation that is the right place a company would want to do business.
Bhagwandin was very disrespectful of Prof. Ramdas, an accomplished academic. Can Bhagwandin be described as an expert in taxation or finance or oil or a lecturer or banker without examining his credentials? If not, he would get an undeserved legitimacy ahead of Ramdas. I Googled his name to find out about his expertise. He describes himself as “Chief Financial Advisor/Analyst providing business & financial consulting in the areas of banking and corporate finance advisory solutions to private corporations and the Public Sector.” He also says that he is “a prolific academic and a part time Lecturer for MBA and BBA programmes in business economics at Texila.” Wow!
There is no information where Bhagwandin was or is a banker and his experience in banking. I look to see if he is a CPA or an accredited accountant. None listed. Bhagwandin does not tell us where he studied and his degrees. He did say he is doing a second MA and a PhD simultaneously through long distance. Congrats? But first, we need to know where he did his BA and MA degrees. I do not know if he did a BA degree at University of Leonora Business School on the West Coast. I was told that he enrolled at Guyana Nation’s University and got an MBA. Is that correct? Was that without meeting the entrance requirement of a BA? Can he please verify? Is Nation’s accredited? By which accrediting agency?
For the benefit of this “prolific academic,” the progression of studies is GCE/CXC, Associates (not given in Guyana), Bachelors, Masters and then PhD. In traditional real academia, BA degree is mandatory for entrance into a MA programme. UG is the only recognised degree-granting institute in Guyana.
Listed in Google are a few papers Bhagwandin wrote presumably for the on-line courses he took. But these papers seem cut and pasted without originality and not offering new ideas. The writing is poor like his response to Dr. Ramdas. Should readers take Bhagwandin’s outpouring seriously? He has consistently sought to debunk the argument that Exxon has ‘cheated’ Guyana of fair royalty and taxes. Bhagwandin’s idea that Exxon should not pay taxes has been circulating since 2016 and has been responded to, debunked by real academics. What Bhagwandin wrote is not a critique of Ramdas. It is called singing for supper. It is propaganda for the oil company. The whole aim is to repeat the Exxon mantra, so people buy into it that Exxon is enriching Guyana.
Exxon is good for Guyana if it pays its fair share in taxes and international norm on royalty and profit sharing of about 22 percent. Bhagwandin engages in mirage mathematics. Where in the contract does it say that 75 percent cost recovery would end after a fixed period or after Exxon recovers the cost of Liza 1? Seventy-five percent upfront cost recovery is likely to remain forever in the extraction of oil because there is no ring fencing – meaning costs for other explorations would continue to be deducted from oil sales. What is tragic for Guyana is someone without serious training from a traditional university setting, and seemingly of below-par academic credentials, is an advisor to the Private Sector Commission and the government (?) in the fields of finance, banking, and the economy. What does that say about the government and the PSC?

Yours truly,
Shawn Simmons

---

---