By KNEWS

Copyright kaieteurnewsonline

Oil contract did not figure in election

Sep 16, 2025
Letters

Reference is made to your editorial, “Foreign Preference” (Sep 12) commenting on low turnout and Exxon. There is no relationship between the two subjects and oil contract did not figure in the campaign.

The editorial is spot on that many voters felt “disgusted and betrayed and sent a message of condemnation by abstaining from voting”. That much I picked up traveling around the country on voting day and querying from non-voters why they did not vote. The turnout was lower than in 2020 and earlier elections in terms of percentage; the turnout was significantly lower in African (Mixed) communities than in Indian areas.

Low turnout had nothing to do with oil, S&P Global and Exxon. And the Exxon contract was not among the reasons offered for not voting or how people voted. People were still driven by party loyalty, leadership, personality, and past governance. People looked at leadership and decided PPP’s Ali and Jagdeo and WIN’s Azruddin were better than APNU’s; PPP governed better than the preceding coalition. There was African-Mixed cross over from APNU to PPP and WIN; the latter got the bulk of PNC’s base which was predicted based on surveys in the party’s strongholds. Also, many PNC supporters could not bring themselves to vote for APNU, WIN, PPP, and AFC, ALP, and FGM, and they decided to stay home. Significant number of Amerindians went for WIN.

You mentioned S&P Global, a trusted and respected company that offers sector specific market data and great analytics. You stated, citing S&P (I did not see the report), that Exxon’s executives “harbored tensions during the election”. In any country, during an election there would be tensions among competing parties, voters, and foreign investors; investors are perennially worried about retrieving their investment. And in Guyana case, Exxon is on record of investing over US $40B and plan another $20B. The foreign (and even many local) investors were neutral, meaning they did not take sides in the elections. Generally, foreigners don’t meddle in internal politics and certainly not elections so as not to alienate itself from politicians. And Exxon and other foreign (and even local) companies are commended for not showing any sleight of hand, if indeed they had preferred a particular party in the election. The election never figured in investors’ talking points. They publicly showed no preference.

Regardless of which party would have won the election, the winner would not have pursued a policy that jeopardises the presence of Exxon and other foreign investors. Foreign investment is key to Guyana’s development. It was responsible for Guyana’s phenomenal growth and rapid development and modernisation since 2018.

The editorial is correct that PPP pursued a politically savvy policy (nimble footing) on Exxon contract, not wanting to disrupt the status quo. So did the parties. Oil and Exxon was hardly mentioned in the campaign. It did not figure in the platform speech of any leaders. It was a backburner issue. WIN and APNU mentioned in policy statements that they would discuss the issue of accountability with Exxon but offered no specifics. As the editorial rightly stated, “no party would do anything to disturb or cripple the contract”. And all parties agreed to accelerate exploration and production of oil and gas.

It is in Guyana’s interest. Whatever government and opposition do, they must not deter future investment in the country in fossil (oil and gas) exploration. Oil acceleration is our passport to rapid development.

Foreign preference, non-voters, oil contract, Vishnu Bisram