Write an debate opposing the following motion:
The Contract Signed by the Government of Guyana and Exxon Mobil has seen Guyana with insufficient Royalties to Harness Continuous Growth and Development in Our Country.
For guidelines on how to write and perform a debate, such as timings, gestures, etc, please see my article on “How to Write a Debate.”
Esteemed judges, learning opposition, timekeepers, fellow colleagues of the proposition, all. I stand here to refute the erroneous idea that, “The Contract Signed by the Government of Guyana and Exxon Mobil has seen Guyana with insufficient Royalties to Harness Continuous Growth and Development in Our Country.”
Before going any further, allow me to define a few key words within the motion that will be dealt with in my presentation.
Contract – a legally binding agreement between two parties.
Signed – consented through handwriting
Government – the officials and law by which the citizens of a country are ruled.
Exxon Mobil – the US oil giant who has taken on the responsibility of drilling for oil in Guyana.
Royalties – payment agreed upon for each barrel of oil produced.
Continuous – not ceasing
Growth – Upward progression and advancement.
To put is simply, the proposition is suggesting that the monies which our Government will receive will not be enough to sufficiently develop Guyana’s economy in a manner that is continuous or self-sustaining.
To being with, such an idea is based on greed. Think of what our condition would be like if Exxon Mobil backed out of the oil deal and left Guyana in the lurch. How would you feel knowing that because of greed, we as a nation has been left with nothing. The machinery, expertise and knowledge possessed by the Oil Giant, Exxon Mobil is one of the top ten in the entire world. Source: Worldatlas.com
If we sold all our possessions and resources, Guyana would not be able to sum enough money to purchase such resources as are given to here freely by Exxon Mobil, along with a reasonable profit. It makes you wonder, “what else could be possible ask for?” Unless of course, you are like our unreasonable proposition, whom, if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.
Secondly, some problems are not solved by throwing money at it. What the proposition is suggesting is that Guyana needs large heaps of money to solve its economic problems and propel is steadily upwards. This alone opens the door for great mis-management of funds. It is not how much money you pump into something, it is how wisely you use the resource you are given. In his recent article on the website “conversationtree.com,” Professor of International Relations and author, Dr. Anthony Byron, shared this exact viewpoint, and I quote him, “Indeed, Guyana’s gross mismanagement of its corruption-plagued sugar and mineral extraction industries raises doubt about whether the coming oil windfall will actually benefit citizens.”
That’s right! Gross mismanagement. And this is what the proposition is silently suggesting in their preposterous strife for “more and more.”
I will conclude my argument by proving that the revenue garnered from drilling, if utilized in the right way, can take Guyana’s economy to the next level. Deep-water surveys estimate Guyana’s oil reserves at around 2 billion barrels. That pales in comparison to neighboring Venezuela but surpasses the reserves of Trinidad and Tobago, long the Caribbean’s biggest oil producer.
Given its marine reserves, by the mid-2020s Guyanese oil production offshore could rise to 400,000 barrels a day. Once production starts next year, Guyana will receive a 2 percent royalty on gross earnings and 50 percent of oil proceeds.
While that’s a fairly low royalty by international standards, it will make Guyana rich. At the current market price of around $50 per barrel, this country of 750,000 people can expect to net $1 million a day in oil earnings. That’s right! One million United States Dollar per day NET PROFIT. And you’re telling me this is not good enough. Or is it that you are not good enough?
Thank you for your attention.