Dear Editor,
My prompt for writing this letter is to make a small contribution to the letter exchanges between Keith Bernard and Chris Ram. They are debating who to blame for the lopsided contract. See their letters in KW over the last 4-days.
Chris Ram has written 199 columns on this oil contract. Read all of them to get a clear understanding of Ram’s position on the oil contract. In a word, Ram supports renegotiation to make the contract a little bit less lopsided. Bernard defends the contract, he says he is an Exxon shareholder.
It is not about blaming PNC for signing the PSA – and now redirecting blame to the ruling party, as Bernard seeks to frame the debate. It is about focusing on what must be done now.
VP Jagdeo has adamantly put his foot down against renegotiation. He chose to defend the PSA on the principle of “sanctity of contract”. If the PSA had provided for a 1% royalty and 90% Cost Recovery, would he still make the “sanctity” argument? I assume not; therefore, he should not use that argument.
Secondly, the Law of Contract provides for “tests” to determine whether a contract is valid or not. Every day contracts are litigated in court, and many are set aside by Judges for “insufficient consideration”or that they may have come into existence through backroom deals.
Bad as it was for PNC to sign that deal, it is infinitely worse for Jagdeo to defend a lopsided contract, after first promising to renegotiate it.
Mr. Keith Bernard, if you choose to do PR for Exxon, presenting this PSA as a good deal for Guyana, please do so based on facts and sound reasoning.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
Discussion