admin

Volunteer Litter Prevention Wardens Being Recruited as NGO Partners with Solid Waste - Antigua Breaking News Antigua Breaking News Home Local News Volunteer Litter...

PNC and AFC hammer Sam Hinds for telling Guyanese to rejoice over pittance from oil Oct 05, 2024 News The PNC and AFC Hammer Sam Hinds for telling Guyanese to rejoice over pittance from its oil resource Kaieteur News – The People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) have hammered former President and Prime Minister, Samuel Hinds – who is currently Guyana’s Ambassador to the United States – for his recent comments that encourage Guyanese to rejoice over the pittance the country has received to date from the oil sector. Former President and Prime Minister and Guyana’s current Ambassador to the United States, Samuel Hinds In a letter published in Thursday’s edition of Kaieteur News, the Ambassador said, “…perhaps we should rejoice that we received directly US$ 4.4 billion, when without oil, we would have received nothing, zero,” Hinds said. “Let’s feel good about the US $4.4 billion. If we have troubles absorbing the US$4.4 billion according to some reports, what more troubles we would have had in absorbing US$10 billion!  Sometimes there could be too much of a good thing,” the former president said. Hind’s letter was addressed to the editor days after Kaieteur News reported that the country should have already received US$10B from the Liza One and Liza Two projects. However, figures from the Bank of Guyana (BoG) revealed that only about US$4.4B has been paid into the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) since the startup of production activities to the end of June 2024. PNC and AFC hammer Sam Hinds for telling Guyanese to rejoice over pittance from oil AFC Chairman, David Patterson Chairman of the AFC, David Patterson in an invited comment said that it was unfortunate that a former President of Guyana could express such simplistic utterances. In fact, he said, “Hinds is now the country’s Ambassador, so we have to be very worried about the level of presentation on behalf of the country, if he is satisfied with seeing his country short-changed.” Patterson said Hinds, like his government, completely miss the point, which was never the country’s ability to spend the resources garnered from the petroleum industry, but rather, ensuring the country receives the maximum benefits for its resources. Furthermore, the former Minister of Public Infrastructure argued that the PPP government feels it is duty-bound to spend all the revenues generated from oil production. PNC/R spokesman on Oil and Gas, Elson Low He said that it is the only explanation for the comments made by Hinds, signaling that there is no consideration of saving for future generations. Patterson  also suggested,  “If you can’t spend all the money, it should be invested and saved for a later generations.” Ambassador’s comments disappointing Meanwhile, the PNC/R’s spokesman on oil and gas, Elson Low said that Ambassador Hinds has once again proven to be a window into the PPP’s true thinking and attitude. “He previously praised the Stabroek block Production Sharing Agreement as “fair” and now his recent comments have made it clear that the PPP is intimidated by the challenges of the oil industry. Virtually, no political leader or party worldwide would say that it prefers not to have more revenue,” Low stated. Instead, the PNC/R insisted that the country should be pushing to earn more revenue to meet the urgent development needs of the country. He was keen to note that the former President in referencing the country’s absorptive capacity is alarming. “His admission that revenues are not being used effectively is damning but more concerning is that he doesn’t seem to see that as a problem that can be fixed. Instead of speaking to the Stabroek Block partners to get more for Guyanese and reforming the government’s operation, the PPP has clearly decided to bury its head in the sand. The Ambassador’s comments are shocking and disappointing in equal measure,” the PNC/R noted. (PNC and AFC hammer Sam Hinds for telling Guyanese to rejoice over pittance from oil) Related Similar Articles

Jagdeo agrees that Suriname has better fiscal benefits in oil contract Oct 05, 2024 News …says Govt. fixed 2016 oil deal with GTE, Local Content law Managing Director Staatsolie, Annand Jagesar (Photo: REUTERS/SCANPIX) Kaieteur News – On October 1, 2024 Suriname announced that it has a Final Investment Decision (FID) to develop a production field in Block 58 offshore Suriname. The timeframe for the construction and installation, according to a release from Staatsolie, would take approximately four years. Suriname can expect first oil in 2028. In a video clip, the Managing Director of the state-owned company Staatsolie, Annand Jagesar, compared the contracts of Guyana and Suriname during the announcement of the FID. “Guyana, they have 2% royalty, and 50% profit split, no taxes, and here in Suriname, we have like 6.25 % royalty, profit split according to a certain formula, so the higher the oil price the better for Suriname, but the lower the oil price then the contractor gets protected and we have a stabilized tax rate of 36%,” Jagesar said adding, “So you can do the math and the deal is good but of course everybody has to survive in this partnership.” On Thursday, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo acknowledged that Suriname has better terms in their agreement than Guyana’s 2016 agreement. Jagdeo’s statement followed the publication of an article by Demerara Waves headlined, ‘Suriname boasts of better oil contract terms than Guyana’. “I noticed Demerara Waves, Suriname boasts of better oil contract terms than Guyana. Not that anyone actually boasted about this… but it’s true that they have better terms than our 2016 agreement has and who is responsible for this again the APNU/AFC,” Jagdeo said. Jagdeo compared Suriname’s royalty rates with that of the new Public Sharing Agreement (PSA) saying that, “So if you look at their royalty rate of 6.2% royalty, we have just put in our new PSA, a 10% royalty rate that’s the new condition but the agreement that they have today is better than the 2016 agreement and we pointed this out many times.” It is important to note that the new PSA referred to has nothing to do with the country’s current deal with ExxonMobil and its partners Hess and CNOOC nor is it related to the lucrative Stabroek Block offshore Guyana. The new PSA will govern the smaller blocks that were part of the recently concluded auction. Furthermore, there have been no exploration activities or discoveries in any of these blocks. Therefore, citizens should be aware that the Stabroek Block arrangement remains the same, Guyana will get 2% royalty and 50/50 profit sharing. Jagdeo in laying blame on the former administration for the 2016 oil deal noting that his government fixed the deal by addressing the non-fiscal terms so that Guyanese can benefit more from the sector. “We sought to fix this by getting more benefits from the contract through the Local Content Law, the Gas-to-Energy project so that we can claim other non-fiscal benefits from the contract and we have had Exxon agree with that from the time we got into office, but this is great and I am happy for Suriname, very happy for them they have worked very hard at this,” he reasoned. Meanwhile, in a statement released by the company Jagesar stated that, “The FID is a historic milestone in Suriname’s oil and gas industry. What seemed like a distant dream is becoming reality. This will be the largest investment ever in our country; one in which Suriname will receive the largest share of the ‘take’. Staatsolie will supervise this. This new opportunity comes with a shared obligation to ensure that Suriname will benefit optimally from the incomes from offshore oil. These will have to be put in use for the long-term prosperity of all Surinamese. This can be achieved through good governance, transparency, zero corruption and the establishment and strengthening of institutions that must guarantee that this income benefits the development of the entire Surinamese society.” Guyana’s leaders are so determined to grant extremely generous fiscal terms to oil companies, that they have agreed to forfeit billions of United States dollars.Two of those generous concessions include an agreement to pay oil companies uncapped interest rates on loans they (the oil companies) take to fund petroleum operations offshore Guyana and an agreement to repay these companies for “pre-contract costs.” Suriname has done a much better job of securing the value in the prolific basin that these two countries share. Suriname’s model Production Sharing Contract (PSC) explicitly states that pre-contract costs and interests on loans are not recoverable. In the Accounting Procedure of the Suriname model PSC, it is stated that “costs incurred before the Signing Date including the purchase of seismic data” and “Interest incurred on loans raised by the Contractor” do not qualify for cost recovery. Suriname’s Staatsolie has described its PSC is world-class. Guyana’s hefty pre-contract costs There are pre-contract costs under several agreements with oil companies operating offshore Guyana. The heftiest pre-contract cost is for the Stabroek Block agreement, including costs owed to ExxonMobil. Section 3 of the Accounting Procedure of the Stabroek Block agreement lists many expenses recoverable by the contractor. Included in these are “all such costs incurred under the 1999 Petroleum Agreement between January 1, 2016 and the Effective Date which shall be provided to the Minister on or before October 31, 2016 and such number agreed on or before April 30, 2017.” This includes the US$460M stated in the contract and an additional amount not made public by the Government. International lawyer, Melinda Janki, estimated that the additional cost would take the total pre-contract cost to US$960M. These costs include “contract costs, exploration costs, operating costs, service costs and general and administrative costs and annual overhead charge as those terms are defined in the 1999 Petroleum Agreement,” according to the 2016 contract. There are pre-contract costs under several other contracts. Unlike the Stabroek Block agreement, a number of these agreements don’t even define pre-contract costs, leaving the public to wonder what it is paying oil companies millions of dollars for. Related Similar Articles

Magistrates’ Court remands duo accused of abduction following High Court order to release them Oct 05, 2024 News Kaieteur News – Despite a High Court order for their release, two men were remanded to prison on Friday after being charged with the alleged abduction of Joshua David, known as ‘Bricks,’ one week prior. Alpha Poole (right) and Osafo Peters (left) on remand Alpha Poole, 35, of Stanley Place, Kitty, Georgetown, and Osafo Peters, 28, of William Street, Kitty, Georgetown, appeared before Principal Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. The charges allege that on September 26, 2024, at Main Street, Georgetown, Poole and Peters, in the company of others, abducted David with the intent to secretly and wrongfully confine him. The men were not required to plead to the charge and were remanded to prison, with the case adjourned to October 11, 2024. Before their court appearance, a legal dispute arose when attorney Everton Lammy-Singh informed the court that an order was issued by the Supreme Court of Judicature (The High Court) for both men to be released from custody. This order, handed down by High Court Judge Nichole Pierre, stated that the men had been held beyond the legal 72-hour detention period. Despite this ruling, the men were still brought before the Magistrates’ Court. Lammy-Singh indicated that he plans to return to the High Court to seek contempt charges against those responsible for ignoring the order. During court proceedings, the prosecution, led by Inspector Jones, objected to bail on the grounds that the men might face more serious charges, as David has not been located and is now presumed dead. Jones argued that if released on bail, the accused could tamper with evidence and noted that eyewitnesses had positively identified them. In contrast, Lammy-Singh and fellow attorney Glenn Hanoman, representing Poole, argued that under Guyanese law, the offence is bailable and does not carry a penalty of more than five years. They pointed out that while their clients’ images are circulating on social media, they were not identified in the video of David’s abduction. Furthermore, the lawyers stated that bulletins for Poole and Peters were issued just one day after the incident, without the police making any prior attempts to locate them. They emphasized that both men had voluntarily surrendered to the police. After considering arguments from both sides, Magistrate McGusty remanded the men to prison and ordered that, on the next court date, still images and the video of the abduction be presented. Related Similar Articles

Dem a Look Fuh Trouble Oct 05, 2024 Dem Boys Seh, Features / Columnists Dem Boys Seh… Kaieteur News – Y’all ever see dem people walking by yuh car and slowing down to peep or glance inside like if something catch dem eye? People walking normal on de streets but dem eyes not looking ahead; it peering into dem parked cars like if dem leff something inside. Dem ain’t got no business wid yuh car, but dey acting like dem waiting fuh yuh fuhget a bag o’ gold pon de seat. Dem more interested in what inside de car dan de model of de car. And dem is not junkies. Some of dem well-dressed. And is dem same peepers who giving ideas to de tiefman dem. You leave yuh bag on de seat, and dem boys seh that like putting a big sign, “Come tek me!” Next ting you know, window smash, and yuh things gone! Dem boys seh now it ain’t safe to leave nothing in de cabin. You gotta put it in de trunk, outta sight. Cuz dem peepers, dem ain’t curious—dem looking like dem planning fuh snatch something. People gotta watch dem. Dem moving quiet-quiet, like cat stalking a bird. Dem don’t even blink. Just walking past slow-slow, eyes darting left, right, like dem looking fuh  free pickings. Dem boys seh, when you see dem peepers, check yuh locks. Dem like dem waiting fuh yuh turn yuh back, and poof! Yuh stuff gone. So remember, don’t give dem any reason. Put yuh things away. And when you see dem, just know dem ain’t admiring yuh ride. Dem boys seh dem a plan fuh de big score! Keep dem guessing, and keep yuh goods hidden. Talk half. Leff half. Related Similar Articles

The constitutional framework governing the appointment of the Commissioner of Police in Guyana Oct 05, 2024 Peeping Tom Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News – The issue of appointing someone to either act as or become the substantive Commissioner of Police in Guyana has been the subject of constitutional litigation and judicial scrutiny. In particular, the legal question arose as to whether the President can validly appoint someone to act as Commissioner of Police in the absence of formal consultations with key constitutional actors such as the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairperson of the Police Service Commission (PSC). The August 2022 ruling by Chief Justice Roxane George, SC, has clarified this issue. It has affirmed that the President’s appointment of Clifton Hicken as acting Commissioner of Police was not unconstitutional due to unique circumstances that made full compliance with Article 211(2) impossible. However, it is essential to understand that the President’s ability to make such appointments, under normal circumstances, hinges on his meaningful consultations with the relevant authorities as outlined in the Constitution of Guyana. It will be recalled that this column had argued that a distinction can be made between someone who is acting as Commissioner of Police and someone who is appointed to perform the duties of such a post. The Court rejected this distinction, and it is therefore a moot point now. Therefore, once the President meaningfully consults with the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairperson of the PSC, he is constitutionally empowered to make a substantive appointment to the post of Commissioner of Police. Constitutional Provisions: The appointment of the Commissioner of Police is governed by Article 211(2) of the Constitution of Guyana, which requires the President to consult two key stakeholders: (i) the Leader of the Opposition and (ii) the Chairperson of the PSC after the Chairman has consulted with the members of the Commission. These consultations are intended to ensure that the appointment reflects a broad consensus among critical constitutional actors and that the choice of the Commissioner is free from political partisanship. Specifically, Article 211(2) of the Constitution provides: “The Commissioner of Police shall be appointed by the President after meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairperson of the Police Service Commission, after the Chairperson has consulted with the other members of the Commission.” This provision ensures that the appointment process involves substantive input from both the political opposition and the independent constitutional body responsible for police oversight. The question, however, remains: what constitutes “meaningful consultation,” and how can the President discharge this constitutional duty? The term “meaningful consultation” is defined within the Constitution itself. According to the Constitution, “consultation” or “meaningful consultation” means that the person responsible for seeking consultation shall identify the persons or entities to be consulted and specify to them in writing the subject of the consultation and an intended date for the decision on the subject of consultation. It also entails that each person or entity to be consulted is afforded a reasonable opportunity to express a considered opinion on the subject of the consultation. The critical elements of meaningful consultation, therefore, include the requirement that the President must formally inform the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairperson of the PSC, in writing, of the intended appointment and the timeline for the decision. The consulted parties must be given sufficient time to provide a considered opinion on the matter. The consultation process must not be rushed or tokenistic. It is my opinion that consultations need not take place in person. The President, in my estimation, can conduct the consultation through written correspondence, ensuring that both the Leader of the Opposition and the PSC Chairperson have the opportunity to deliberate on the candidate and provide their feedback. This consultation can be done by someone so authorized by the President. This I believe is so because the legal obligation on the President is to ensure that the views of the consulted parties are sought and considered. However, the President is not bound to act on those views. The essence of consultation is the exchange of information and the opportunity for dialogue, not necessarily agreement. In the case concerning the appointment of Clifton Hicken as acting Commissioner of Police, the court was asked to determine whether the President had violated the Constitution by appointing Hicken without the required consultations. At the time of the appointment, the position of Leader of the Opposition was vacant, and there was no functional PSC. Chief Justice Roxane George, SC, ruled that the President’s actions were not unconstitutional, as full compliance with the consultation requirements of Article 211(2) was impossible due to circumstances beyond the President’s control. In her judgment, Chief Justice George acknowledged that the Constitution requires meaningful consultation but noted that the absence of the necessary constitutional actors rendered full compliance impracticable. In such cases, the President must act to ensure that the office of Commissioner of Police is filled, as public safety and law enforcement cannot be compromised by political stalemate. This ruling underscores that while the constitutional framework mandates meaningful consultation, it also allows for flexibility in extraordinary situations where consultation is impossible. However, in normal circumstances, the President must comply with the consultation requirements before making any substantive appointment. In the case of appointing someone as the substantive Commissioner, so long as the President adheres to the constitutional requirements for meaningful consultation, he retains the ultimate authority to appoint a substantive Commissioner of Police. Consultation does not equate to concurrence. The President is required to listen to the opinions of the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairperson of the PSC, but he is not obligated to follow their recommendations. Once the consultation process is fulfilled as defined in the Constitution, the President is free to exercise his discretion in making the appointment. This framework balances the need for checks and balances with the President’s executive authority. It ensures that the appointment process is inclusive, transparent, and participatory, while also recognizing that the final decision lies with the President. The Constitution does not give the consulted parties a veto over the President’s choice but ensures that their views are formally considered. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)  Related Similar Articles

Banks DIH workers to get 25% wage hike following signing of Agreement with Union Oct 05, 2024 News Photo (L-R): President of the General Workers’ Union Norris Witter, Chief Labour Officer, Dhaneshwar Deonarine; Banks DIH Limited’s Finance Director, Deonarain Seepaul and HR Chief Executive / General Counsel Banks DIH, Kavorn Kyte-Williams. Kaieteur News – Banks DIH Limited on Friday announced that it has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the General Workers; Union at the Ministry of Labour that would see among other things, a 25 per cent wage increase for staff. The signing was chaired by Chief Labour Officer (CLO) Mr. Dhaneshwar Deonarine. Attendees included General Workers’ Union: Norris Witter (President), Pancham Singh (General Secretary), Quincy Bailey (Branch Chairman), Lawrence Drakes (Branch Secretary), Colin Miller (Field Officer), Dennis Glasgow (Branch Committee Member), and Nunyam Haynes (Shop Steward). Banks DIH Limited was represented by Mr Deonarain Seepaul (Finance Director) and Mrs. Kavorn Kyte-Williams (HR Chief Executive/General Counsel). According to a statement issued by the beverage company, Norris Witter (GWU’s President) emphasized the smooth and non-adversarial nature of the negotiations, which were completed in five days over 30 working hours. He praised the positive relationship between the union and the company, highlighting the mutual reliance and recognition of employee importance. Deonarain Seepaul, Finance Director of Banks DIH Limited called the agreement a significant milestone and underscored the company’s commitment to job security, medical benefits, life insurance, and retirement benefits. He stated that negotiations were concluded swiftly, resulting in a 25% wage increase and enhanced benefits over three years. He emphasized the importance of sustainability for shareholders, employees, suppliers, and customers. CLO Mr. Deonarine commended the negotiations as a model for other companies, praising the willingness of both parties to engage constructively. Related Similar Articles