Ali’s call for reparations is hollow without renegotiation of oil deal

Alfred Bhulai, Darsh Khusial, Kenrick Hunte, Mike Persaud

October 29, 20263 min read

Dear Editor,

An article in The Sunday Telegraph states: “In Guyana, president Irfaan Ali has been a loud and leading voice in the slave-trade reparations campaign”. The article also reports that the Caribbean is calling for US$24 trillion in reparations for slavery^[1]. That amounts to approximately US$3.4 million per person across the English-speaking Caribbean states, with their combined population of roughly seven million.

Britain currently has a public debt of approximately US$4 trillion, or about US$57,000 per person, based on a population of 70 million. The country faces financial difficulties, and many of its citizens worry about paying their heating bills this coming winter. Britain is therefore in no financial position to pay US$24 trillion to compensate for the wrongs of its past.

On February 26, 2020, Guyanese Critic asked Irfaan Ali: “The oil contract [2016 Stabroek PSA]. Do you agree with the $55 billion signed away, um, Global Witness report, and will you revisit the oil contract?”^[2]

Ali responded: “We have made it very clear that we can never agree. How can… how can… I don’t think any Guyanese agree with this. No Guyanese. Except the government that is defending it. We can… we… we have made it very clear that we have to go towards, we’re looking at these contracts, renegotiating these contracts, looking at, uh, contract management, and all of these things. Everything we have to re-look at, because we have to ensure that our country does not get, uh, the wrong end of the stick.”

The clip can be viewed https://www.oggn.org/2021/09/29/irfaan-ali-said-that-all-oil-contracts-are-on-the-table-for-review-and-renegotiation/.

Global Witness based its estimate of US$55 billion in forgone revenue on reserves of 7.9 billion barrels and an oil price of US$65 per barrel. The announced reserves now stand at 11 billion barrels, while oil futures prices are around US$115 per barrel, with spot prices approximately US$20 higher.

The reserves estimate was last updated in April 2022, see https://www.oggn.org/2024/02/24/govt-must-update-total-offshore-oil-reserve-figures/. An estimated 21 discoveries have been made since then, representing an increase of roughly 70% in the number of discoveries since the 11-billion-barrel figure was announced. An increase in discoveries does not necessarily translate into a proportional increase in recoverable reserves. Nevertheless, applying the reasoning behind the Global Witness estimate to higher reserves and prices suggests that Guyana could be giving up more than US$100 billion—approximately US$100,000 per Guyanese citizen.

One would therefore expect Ali to be redoubling his efforts to renegotiate the oil contract. Instead, he continues to falsely parrot “sanctity of contract” as a reason why it cannot be renegotiated, an argument challenged here https://www.oggn.org/2026/10/06/does-sanctity-of-contract-also-apply-to-exxon/.

The gap between Ali’s earlier promises and his current position on renegotiation undermines confidence in his statements about reparations for slavery. He spoke of ensuring that Guyana did not get the “wrong end of the stick”, yet his approach to the oil contract appears inconsistent with that commitment.

Given Britain’s economic strains, Ali should devote at least as much effort to renegotiating the oil contract as he does to advocating for reparations. At least US$3 billion worth of oil is now being extracted every month, and that figure is expected to rise in 2027. The financial stakes for Guyana are immediate and substantial.

Furthermore, if Ali is serious about standing up for the Caribbean, he should push for a parent company guarantee to cover liabilities arising from an oil spill. A major spill could impose devastating costs on Guyana and neighbouring Caribbean countries. Instead, Ali appears to be siding with the oil companies rather than ensuring that Guyana and the wider Caribbean have adequate financial protection in the event of such a disaster.

Yours faithfully,
Darsh Khusial
Mike Persaud
Kenrick Hunte
Alfred Bhulai
On behalf of OGGN ([www.oggn.org/about^[3]](http://www.oggn.org/about^[4]) )

References

Caribbean nations to seek $33trn in slavery reparationswww.thetimes.com ↩
From ‘No Guyanese could agree’ to ‘No interest’: President Ali’s impossible retractionwww.stabroeknews.com ↩
https://www.oggn.org/about ↩
http://www.oggn.org/about ↩

How the King and Queen are preparing for their most ...

www.telegraph.co.uk, Oct 24, 2026

The Bahamas National Reparations Committee has warned the King: “Don’t come empty handed.” And the president of Guyana is on record as saying reparative justice must include a “full and unconditional apology” for the slave trade. ... The King ... his friends, the result ... his own diplomacy ... Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh arriving in Barbados on their ‘rock star’ 1966 trip to the Caribbean Credit: Camera Press/John Reader/ILN In Guyana, president Irfaan Ali has been a loud and leading voice in the slave-trade reparations campaign and might be expected to seek to buttonhole the King while he has the chance. In fact, the two men are friends. It is the sort of unexpected connection that often comes up in the King’s world. Ali was apparently so taken by Charles convening global fundraisers to save the Guyanese rainforest that he appeared in a recent Amazon documentary singing his praises and has modelled the island’s sustainability projects on the King’s Foundation. ... Diplomats and palace alike are hopeful that their friendship will extend to an easier trip than may otherwise have been expected. “I don’t think there is any wish to embarrass the King here,” says one source.

Caribbean nations to seek $33trn in slavery reparations

www.thetimes.com, Sep 12, 2023

From ‘No Guyanese could agree’ to ‘No interest’: President Ali’s impossible retraction

www.stabroeknews.com, Jan 4, 2025

Introduction ... “No Guyanese could agree with this.” These were the unequivocal words of then-presidential candidate Irfaan Ali in 2020, speaking about the 2016 PSA in a virtual interview on 26 February 2020. Just a reminder – that was one week before the 2020 elections. He went further: “We have to go towards re-looking at these contracts, renegotiating these contracts… we have to ensure that our country does not get the wrong end of the stick.” ... Today, four years later and comfortably ensconced as President, Dr. Ali declares he has “no interest” in even writing to ExxonMobil about renegotiation. The spoken word, like an arrow loosed from its bow, cannot be recalled – yet the President attempts the impossible, a truly regrettable situation which does no justice or honour to President Ali or to the highest office in the land. ... What makes the situation so striking and so stark is the about-turn by Dr. Ali on a position he shared with all Guyanese a few years ago. Except, of course, the perennial bogey-man PNC. Now the President and the PNC adore the same exploitative oil contract, against the rest of Guyana. The contrast between candidate Ali and President Ali could not be starker. In the interview, when asked about the Global Witness report which identified the signing away of US$55 Bn, and about revisiting oil contracts, candidate Ali declared unequivocally: “We have made it clear that we have to go towards renegotiating these contracts. Everything is on the table for review …Review and renegotiate.” ... passionate ... has evolved into the inappropriate principle about ... “sanctity of contracts” which is now opportunistically joined by concerns about ... climate. ... significant contrast was his less than respectful treatment of ... female ... at his recent press conference, in which he questioned her motives and the political connection of her ... Compare ... with his friendly tone with ... male host in ... – ... the ... same ... ation ... he so vociferously promoted ... he ... President ... The banal explanation ... different ... My Oil and Gas Columns 146 to 150 exhaustively examined the legal analysis of the “sanctity of contracts” in a Canadian case. The circumstances of that case were so different that made its application to the 2016 Agreement completely irrelevant and inapplicable. As demonstrated through the Churchill Falls case and numerous other examples, the principle of sanctity has never been an absolute bar to renegotiation, particularly when: 1. The agreement itself provides for renegotiation (Article 31.2) 2. Circumstances have fundamentally changed (reserves quadrupling from 3 to far in excess of 11.6 billion barrels) 3. The original terms were demonstrably secured under duress and unequal bargaining power 4. That the principle cannot in a thousand years trump Guyana’s Constitution.

Irfaan Ali said that all oil contracts are on the table for ...

www.oggn.org, Sep 29, 2021

Gov't must update total offshore oil reserve figures

www.oggn.org, Feb 24, 2024

Does sanctity of contract also apply to Exxon?

kiskadeewatch.com, Oct 6, 2026

Does sanctity of contract also apply to Exxon? - Kiskadee Watch Does sanctity of contract also apply to Exxon? By Staff Editor Tue, October 6 2026, 2:08 AM GMT-4 Dear Editor, President Ali frequently parrots the “sanctity of contract” in discussions of the Stabroek Block Petroleum Agreement (PSA) to convey that Guyana cannot change the contract. Yet the agreement was amended on April 26, 2019, by President Granger, to ensure that the 2% royalty could not be treated as a recoverable cost (see Stabroek News). Thus, the contract has changed since it was initially signed on June 27, 2016. President Ali is either misleading the Guyanese people or is unaware that the most important business contract in Guyana’s history has been modified. Additionally, in Article 32 of the PSA, the stability clause of the 2016 Stabroek Block Production Sharing Agreement, expressly contemplates negotiation and amendment of the contract. Article 32.1 permits amendments with the contractor’s prior written consent, while Article 32.4 specifically provides for negotiations that may result in an amendment to the Agreement. Thus, “sanctity of contract” does not mean—and never has meant—that the parties are prohibited from negotiating mutually agreed changes to the contract. ... On September 19, 2026, we published a letter, see https://kiskadeewatch.com/opinion/letters/apparent-discrepancy-of-us604m-in-oil-revenues-for-first-half-of-this-year/, referencing Section 15.6 of the Stabroek Block Petroleum Agreement, which states in part: “…royalty of two percent (2%) of all Petroleum produced and sold … Cash payment shall be due quarterly, thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar quarter.” At the time, we reviewed the 2026 Natural Resource Fund (NRF) reports available through July and identified an apparent difference in the royalty payments for the first half of 2026. Those NRF reports showed that US$219 million had been paid in royalties. But using figures from the Bank of Guyana report, however, the implied royalty for the first half of 2026 is approximately US$302 million: US$92.50 per barrel × 163.3 million barrels × 2% royalty. That leaves an apparent difference of about US$83 million between the calculated royalty and the amount reported as paid by the NRF. The August 2026 NRF report was released a few days ago. We had expected it to include an adjustment that would reconcile the US$83 million difference, but no such adjustment appeared. If the principle of sanctity of contract is to be applied consistently, it should apply to all parties to the agreement, including Exxon and its partners. We would therefore like President Ali to explain the discrepancy: if the full royalty amount was due under Section 15.6, has the Stabroek Block Petroleum Agreement been complied with by Exxon and its partners? If so, what accounts for the US$83 million difference?

Source

Ali’s call for reparations is hollow without renegotiation of oil deal in Kiskadee Watch, October 29, 2026