Latest update June 14th, 2025 12:49 AM
Govt. overrides “sanctity of Exxon contract” with major adjustments in oil licences, permits, new legislation
Kaieteur News – When it comes to the renegotiation of the 2016 Stabroek Block Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) Government has categorically...
Minister Ramson Jr visits GNS Providence ahead of the start of Senior Men’s Inter-County cricket tournament
Kaieteur News – The Minister of Youth Culture and Sport, Charles Ramson Jr, along with the President of the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) Bissoondyal Singh, the Director of Sports Steve Ninvalle...
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The Square Peg Legacy
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News – History in Guyana never dies. It simply waits to be reenacted. What began as a bold experiment in self-determination ended in predictable mediocrity. And the tragedy is not so much that it happened, but that it happened again. Burnham’s dream of ‘Guyanization’—a euphemism for replacing the colonial administrative class with locals loyal to the new order—was, at its core, a nationalist ideal. But ideals without discipline often lead to farce. The result was a bureaucracy filled with incompetents, party hacks, and ideologues. The state became bloated, inert, and suffocating. Burnham, it is said, later confided in private that many of those to whom he had entrusted power had failed him. They were square pegs in round holes, men and women without administrative temperament or managerial ability. Some were gifted only in sycophancy. And yet he could not remove them. He had created a patronage machine and he was now trapped within it. The sugar boom gave the illusion of prosperity for a while, but the gloss wore off. When the lean years came, Burnham had ideas—but no competent lieutenants to implement them. The machinery of the state creaked, groaned, and ultimately broke down. The irony is that the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), the direct descendant of Burnham’s party, the PNC, learned nothing. Rebranded and realigned, first into the PNCR, and then into the APNU+AFC coalition, it returned to office in 2015 after 23 years in the political wilderness. It was given a second chance—rare in the politics of the Caribbean. But instead of introspection and course correction, it repeated history almost step by step. Once again, square pegs were hammered into round holes. Once again, loyalty trumped ability. The ministries became parking lots for political aspirants and loyalists. Critical state agencies were handed over to people who had neither the training nor the talent to lead. Some ministers mistook holding a portfolio for competence. There was noise, announcements, ceremonial ribbon-cuttings—but little substance. There were no large-scale economic transformations, no major development projects completed, no significant legacy to boast of. Just like in the 1970s and 80s, there was the rhetoric of national uplift but the reality of bureaucratic sclerosis. By the time the APNU+AFC coalition faced the 2020 general and regional elections, it had little of significance to show. The hopes of 2015 had curdled into the disenchantment of 2020. Roads were unfinished, jobs were scarce, agriculture remained in decline, and the private sector was increasingly wary of a government that talked reform but delivered stasis. But the worst was still to come. When the electorate rejected the APNU+AFC at the polls, the party did not bow out gracefully. Instead, it sought to squat in power. For five months, Guyana became a theatre of the absurd. Electoral officials became protagonists in a failed political pantomime, aided by enablers who sought to manipulate spreadsheets and fabricate results. It was a scheme so clumsy, so badly executed, that it embarrassed even seasoned strongmen elsewhere. In the end, the APNU+AFC was booted out—not just by the votes, but by the evidence of its own incompetence. The very hands that were supposed to rig the system couldn’t even get that right. History, which had already judged the Burnham years, now turned its gaze on his successors with equal severity. What does this say of the PNCR? That it is an unreformable party? Perhaps not. But it is certainly one that has never come to terms with its past. It has failed to understand that governance requires skill, not slogans. That leadership demands ability, not allegiance. That development is not the outcome of announcements, but of careful planning, execution, and accountability. Burnham believed in the talent of Guyanese. But belief is not a substitute for judgment. His tragedy was that he did not distinguish between faithfulness and competence. The APNU+AFC fell into the same trap. In both cases, the state was transformed into a sanctuary for the unfit and the unprepared. In both cases, the people paid the price. The lesson, then, is not simply that political power must be localized. It must also be professionalized. Guyanization cannot mean Guyanese mediocrity in high office. That is not national pride—it is national sabotage. The PNCR would do well to revisit its own history, not with the reverence of nostalgia, but with the clarity of hindsight. For unless it learns from its mistakes, it is doomed to repeat them. And the people of Guyana deserve better than another chapter in a long and repetitive tragedy. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Read More →
UN Security Council Fails Ukraine, Gaza and the World
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- When Russian drones stalk civilians along Ukraine’s Dnipro River and Gaza’s hospitals lie in ruins under relentless bombardment, the world cannot pretend that these are distant crises. Yet the UN Security Council, which is entrusted to uphold global peace, is paralyzed by the self-interest of its veto powers, exposing its failure to fulfil both its mandate and its duty to safeguard humanity. Sir Ronald Sanders For small Caribbean nations struggling to build themselves in a world whose financial and trading architecture excludes their meaningful participation, such failures impose immediate costs. Among these costs are: rising energy costs, food insecurity, and the alarming precedent that might, makes right. It is time for every voice, large and small, to rise in defence of law, humanity, and the UN Charter’s promise of global security. Campaign of Fear Since July 2024, Russian forces have executed a coordinated drone assault across Kherson Province in Ukraine, killing nearly 150 civilians and injuring countless more. The UN’s Independent Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine found that these strikes targeted people going about daily life — fetching water, riding mopeds, and even boarding ambulances — using live video feeds to pick off victims with surgical precision. One witness described rescuers, who were tending to the wounded, being blown apart by a second strike. The Commission concluded that these were deliberate war crimes and crimes against humanity, designed to drive entire communities from their homes. Yet when some members of the UN Security Council moved to condemn these atrocities, Russia vetoed the resolution, transforming the veto from a safeguard of human life into a license for impunity. Meanwhile, estimates put the number of Ukrainian and Russian deaths – military and civilian – at much more than 300,000 since the conflict started in 2022. Gaza’s Descent into Collective Punishment Since the horrific attack on Israel by Hamas on 7 October 2023, Gaza has endured an unrelenting counteroffensive that has reduced whole neighbourhoods to rubble by the Israeli military. In the most recent atrocity, the UN reports that nearly 4,000 Palestinians—mostly civilians—have died under a blockade that cuts off food, water, and medicine. This adds to the more than 54,000 that had reportedly been killed before this latest cruelty. The UN Special Coordinator stressed that families are being “denied the very basics” and warned of looming famine. Hospitals and schools, even those sheltering the displaced, have not been spared. Calls for a ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian access have repeatedly faltered on threatened or actual vetoes – each one a vote for further suffering. The Israeli government said its action is to stop Hamas from “stealing aid”, which Hamas denies. Either way, civilians continue to suffer and perish. When the Veto Shields Aggressors The UN Charter gave its five permanent Council members “primary responsibility” for keeping the peace, not for shielding those who flout humanitarian law. Each self-interest veto of this kind is a blow to the rule of law, eroding the norm that civilian lives must be protected from direct attack. Small States, Big Stakes Caribbean nations live daily with the consequences of the Security Council’s failure to act. Rising energy costs sparked by conflict erode their budgets, threaten their food security, and stoke social unrest. Worse still, if veto-wielders can ignore mass atrocity, what protections remain for a small state that cannot count on the UN to safeguard its welfare? National sovereignty, territorial integrity, and individual human rights, which were hard-won through centuries of struggle, demand that small, developing states speak out, or risk standing by while these rights are trampled. Commending the European Union In the current climate of diplomatic paralysis, the European Union (EU) has recently shown rare courage in relation to the horrifying events in Gaza. EU High Representative, Kaja Kallas, declared that “Israeli strikes in Gaza go beyond what is necessary to fight Hamas” and rejected any aid distribution model that bypasses the UN, warning that “humanitarian aid cannot be weaponised”. EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, described recent attacks on civilian infrastructure as “abhorrent” and “disproportionate,” and Germany’s new chancellor publicly questioned Israel’s objectives. By suspending trade talks with Israel and reviewing its association agreement, the EU is sending a clear message: strategic partnerships must not eclipse human life. Raising Voices in Unity Like the EU, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) states need not wait for the UN Security Council to perform its duty. Their parliaments can pass motions demanding accountability; their foreign ministries can coordinate regional statements; their civil societies can keep Ukraine and Gaza in the public eye. When CARICOM states speak with one voice – rooted in their shared history of fighting for self-determination – they amplify the UN Charter’s promise that “representative democracy is indispensable,” and remind the great powers of their pledge to protect it. A Collective Imperative The UN Security Council veto was never meant to be a refuge for perpetrators. If left unchallenged, aggression becomes the new normal, spreading like a cancer until every nation feels its ruin. Now is the moment for Latin American and Caribbean states – and all who value stability – to demand that the Security Council honour its founding covenant. For if the rule of law dies in Ukraine and Gaza, it will be extinguished everywhere. The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean – each forged in the foundry of oppression and steeled by ancestral struggles for liberty – must unmask every veto that shields atrocity, champion resolutions that protect civilians, and restore the Charter’s promise of peace and security. (The writer is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS. He is also the Dean of the Ambassadors of the Western Hemisphere Group accredited to the U.S. The views expressed are entirely his own. Responses and previous commentaries: www.sirronaldsanders.com) Read More →
2024 profit, Exxon, Hess – How so, what formula?
Hard Truth… By GHK Lall Kaieteur News – Recently, it was the King Cobra, Exxon. Before the Guyana offshore oil consortium leader, there was senior of the two lesser partners, Hess Corporation with its 30% share in the Stabroek Block investment. Is this middling to bottom feeding US oil company getting a new lease on life in Guyana! To dream of a return on capital of 30-40% is just that, dreaming, so mindboggling it is. To achieve a return on capital of 68.5% is mouthwatering and jaw dropping, to put it mildly. But this is what ExxonMobil’s 30% partner in Guyana’s Stabroek Block, Hess Corporation, just did. It is worth repeating: 68 and a half cents on every dollar of capital invested. Even money laundering does not yield that kind of return on capital. Maybe the drug trade, but oil, nah! But Hess did just so. According to the company’s own financials lodged at Guyana’s registry, it made a profit of GY$877.34 billion in 2024. Using an exchange rate of GY$215 to US$1, Hess’s profit from its 30% oil stake in Guyana for 2024 was slightly over US$4 billion. When this came out on May 25, 2025, my thinking was that if Hess Corporation did so well with its 30% share, what about ExxonMobil with a share of the Stabroek Block that is almost 50% bigger at 45%? But, of still more importance, how is it that Guyana’s 50% share of profits and 2% royalty adds up to a mere US$2.6B? Something is challenging about the math. Hess’s share of the oil producing Stabroek Block is 30%, while Guyana’s profit percentage is 50% and another 2% in royalties. The company collected US$4B (World Energy News reports US$3.1 billion), Guyana’s total receipts from its oil topped out at US$2.6B. The oil money accounting is not comforting, not when the corporation’s 30% portion beats the 50 percent + 2 percent of this country. To make matters still more baffling, Hess’s 30% is its part, what comes to it, is from ExxonMobil’s half (50%) with Guyana getting the other 50%. There is more than a standard formula in operation here. There is what gives off strong whiffs of yet another secret in Guyana’s oil sector, in which just about everybody benefits more than the owner of the oil. I am kind of ashamed to say Guyana. My bottom-line question is this: what is the profit calculation, the formula, used by Exxon to derive its half share and Guyana’s half share? I don’t think that is something that should be a secret to Guyanese. On this particular issue, I am sure that the Exxon Guyana Country Head, Mr. Alistair Routledge would have neither objection, nor disagreement. I am waiting. So are all other Guyanese; those who are honest, those who still love this motherland. I am not holding my breath, though. Because Exxon has everything going in its favour. One little something that perplexes is the practice of the ExxonMobil-led consortium of presenting separate financials, instead of a consolidated set of documents. This would facilitate the presentation of the clearest picture of revenue and expenses, and the total profit, for a start. Thereafter, there is clean and clear reporting of how the total profit from Guyana’s oil is divided up with this country’s 50% in one column, and that of the three oil companies, in the next. The problem with calling for this is that ExxonMobil has struck more than an oil bonanza. It has discovered another one in the leeway that it is given with accounting for it, and presenting it in the straightest manner. It is given considerable leeway with its tens of US billions in expenses (they are not shared with Guyanese). Another leeway given to the consortium by a crass and captive PPP Government is that it can and has blocked scrutineers from accessing certain areas at its offshore operations. Why is that so, even necessary? What is there to hide, or is there that Guyana shouldn’t see and know? How come all of this is happening, without so much as a whimper from the likes of VP Jagdeo, HE Ali? This is the conduct of a government that either doesn’t know or which doesn’t want to know. The secrecies of the PPPC Government only add another layer of mystery to the management of this oil. What more could an ExxonMobil ask for, when the host country’s government is so negligent with its responsibilities to its citizens. Or colludes with it, probably to deceive all Guyanese, who are the true owners of this wealth. Why should Exxon conduct itself any differently? Why given that accounting for the billions in oil collections is shrouded in darkness, crudely kept away from locals, likely deliberately? Remember! the question about that profit formula still stands. What about it, Messrs. Routledge, Ali, Jagdeo? (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Read More →
Weekend Cartoon
