@Former Member posted:

Canadian hired to review Exxon’s US$9B Payara project benefited $$$ from Exxon subsidiary

Nov 25, 2020 News, Source - https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...om-exxon-subsidiary/

Kaieteur News – Alison Redford, the former politician sent by Canada to review ExxonMobil’s US$9B Payara project, has benefitted from thousands of dollars in donations made to her political party by a subsidiary of ExxonMobil called Imperial Oil.

Former Alberta Premier, Alison Redford

Experience in this specialized and intricate industry ?????

Hmmmmm; interesting indeed.

That does not look like a bribe to me. The money was given to her political party. She may not have anything to do with that although it sounds very fishy.

Kaieteur News – No leader should be given a pass, given the madness and corruptions that are going on with this oil of ours. Alison Redford, QC, is the first case in point.

The PPP contracted Canadian Alison Redford to review the US$9B Payara oil project, and do right by us. This was expected from a woman, who couldn’t do right in her own business. Her already tainted record is now worsened by disclosures that Exxon money contributed to her political coffers. This is how cozy and incestuous Exxon’s relationships are, and this is how Guyana gets raped. What could this so-called world class expert do for us that was clean and reliable? This is the garbage that PPP leaders dump on Guyanese, while telling us how lawfully and cleanly they are overseeing the nation’s oil.

The second instance is that of Baker Hughes, Inc. to be partnered with for onshore capacity development. Baker Hughes has compiled a record of bribery and corruption the world over. Now our leaders are about to greenlight the company to corrupt Guyanese, especially Custom Officers, by spreading its poison and getting its oil business done its usual way. These are the types of people, the Canadian Redford and the American company, Baker Hughes Inc., that PPP leaders welcome here. This is how corrupt leaders corrupt our oil oversight and corrupt our people.

@Ramakant-P posted:

That does not look like a bribe to me. The money was given to her political party.

She may not have anything to do with that although it sounds very fishy.

More than fishy , her political party received donations by a subsidiary of Exxon ,who interest will she favored ?

@Django posted:

More than fishy , her political party received donations by a subsidiary of Exxon ,who interest will she favored ?

It better be Guyana. (sarcasm)

Govt. refuses to disclose report by Canadian Consultant who did speedy review of US$9B Payara Project

Dec 04, 2022 News --- Source --- https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...us9b-payara-project/

Kaieteur News – It appears that the political opposition, and the nation by extension, may never see key reports that led to the speedy approval of ExxonMobil’s US$9B Payara Development Project two years ago.

When the People’s Progressive Party /Civic (PPP/C) had assumed office back in August 2020, it left many industry stakeholders stunned after it approved the Payara project in a mere 42 days.

Central to the speedy review process was a Canadian lawyer and former politician, Alison Redford.

Transparency advocates as well as the Opposition questioned how such a review, which usually takes a minimum of 12 months to be properly completed, was done in less than two months.

In light of such a glaring red flag, they urged the government to release Redford’s review of the development plan for the project.

Alison Merrilla Redford, a Canadian lawyer and former politician.

Stakeholders said the nation needs to ascertain whether the project was properly scrutinized by the consultant in question. Though there were promises in the media to do so, the government never fulfilled these.

Hoping to break the spell of non-disclosure, the political opposition took to the National Assembly this year where it asked Minister of Natural Resources, Vickram Bharrat to provide Redford’s report to the House.

Unfortunately, the spell of secrecy over the contract remains unbreakable as the government cleverly avoided having to fulfil the request made by Opposition Member, David Patterson.

Minister Bharrat has since directed Patterson to read the Payara Petroleum Production Licence if he seeks to understand the work done by Redford and the government’s supporting team.

Minister Bharrat said in his written response to Patterson that “On the 16th day of July 2019, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited made an application for a Petroleum Production Licence for the Payara Production Area together with a Field Development Plan (FDP) as is required by law. The said application and FDP were then duly reviewed by a panel of experts and the Pyara Licence was approved on September 30, 2020.”

Bharrat added, “This approval was based on the review and recommendations done by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, Department of Energy under the Ministry of Natural Resources, Bayphase Consultants and Alison Redford.”

It appears from the Minister’s response that Patterson, and the nation by extension, will never have access to the raw report produced by the consultant.

Kaieteur News previously reported that Redford was also part of the review process for Exxon’s US$10B Yellowtail Project. Her review of the Field Development Plan (FDP) for this project which was done in a record 52 days also came under question by transparency advocates.

More than a dozen industry experts who have experience reviewing FDPs said emphatically that no proper review can be done in 42 or 52 days.

Specifically, one industry expert said, “For most FPDs, you have over 100 items to check. That is why a proper review takes a year and change, sometimes longer depending on project size. In the first instance, the government must have its own FDP guidelines on minimum requirements they expect from the company. That should be public. This is needed because citizens would better understand the standards the administration is setting for companies to abide by. The North Sea Transition Authority (NTSA) does this. That authority regulates and influences the oil, gas and carbon storage industries of the UK Continental Shelf.”

The NSTA clearly states via its guidelines on its website that all FDPs must provide a clear explanation why the development concept being presented is considered optimum from a technical, environmental and economic perspective. The authority also requires that companies set out the commitments they will follow to ensure enhanced oil recovery and sound development. The expert noted that Guyana is yet to prove if the Redford/Bayphase group achieved this since their findings remain a State secret.

Experts also told Kaieteur News that FDPs must also provide a production strategy that aligns with the country’s interest. Such a strategy includes: short-term and long-term plans on production acceleration and recoverable reserves, the number of production and injection wells and the cost to the nation, and an explanation of hydrocarbon bearing sands penetrated not included under the current development plan but which could be profitable if assumption changes such as extent of reservoir or oil price.

FDPs also include detailed information, which the government needs experienced persons to review regarding production technology and well engineering. In this area, government specialists must diligently assess proposed well design concepts including trajectory and location, in flow performance prediction, sand control and sand management, explanation of concept selection and how value for money would be achieved on each component of the project.

In light of the foregoing, and in the interest of transparency, the industry experts agreed that the PPP/C Government should disclose a summary of the work performed by Bayphase and the Redford group to date, along with a summary of the type of data used and the methods by which it was assessed.