An attempt at deception of Wärtsilä contract

Dear Editor,

We refer to the articles, “Edghill’s figures on Wärtsilä are grossly inaccurate”; “Minister David Patterson responds to Juan Edghill”; and “Patterson slams Edghill’s statements on Wärtsilä’s operation in Guyana”, in sections of the local media.

Regrettably, this response penned under the name of Minister Patterson is nothing but a public relations exercise, a sleight of hand, and an attempt at deception. We, the PPP/C, were astonished when the Minister proclaimed that Wärtsilä received its contract payment for just “checking-off” from time to time what the skilled Guyanese workers had done. The question was not the contract figure, but what were the goods and services being provided by the Wärtsilä contract. A question the Minister studiously avoided. To conform with the public, a figure for a sense of what was at stake, we the PPP/C, put the Wärtsilä contract figure at approximately US$7.5 million per year. The Minister’s response lists figures of US$6.2 million from 2008 to US$9.6 million for 2015, averaging US$7.9million per year over the period, close enough for purpose – neither of the charges against MP Edghill of gross inaccuracy or that of “slamming Edghill” is justified.

Recall that the Honourable Minister Patterson had claimed in Parliament that Wartsila received US$25,000/day for just “checking-off” the work done by the 194 skilled Guyanese. We, the PPP/C, have maintained that the Wärtsilä Contract paid the wages and all benefits, including the training of the 194 skilled Guyanese, as well as all additional expert services and paid for the running spares. The Minister has totally bypassed this issue and we are now even more fearful of a scam being perpetrated on the people of Guyana.

To claim, maintain and justify the savings of switching from Wärtsilä to PPDI, the Minister must tell us forthrightly:

I. Who are PPDI and whom might they have retained (we need to know the names), and whether they can and would provide a similar level of skill, experience oversight and continually interactive management, and that they are all being paid from the contract? So far, we have only been told that there are two Directors, the Permanent Secretary of the Public Infrastructure Ministry Mr Balram Balraj, and Attorney-at-Law Mr Ronald Burch-Smith. This, thus, appears to be a Government-owned company. Are we to see it being transitioned to a public-private partnership or a totally private company? One would need to keep an eye on any transition to see the movement of risks, obligations and responsibilities.

II. Whether the 194 skilled Guyanese and all additional expert services, as required from time to time, are to be paid by PPDI from the contract, as was with Wärtsilä?

III. Whether the “running spares” and expert services are being provided (paid for) by PPDI from the contract, as was with Wartsila?

IV. Whether the attainment of similar efficiencies (conversion of fuel to kWh), lube oil consumption and availability are included and whether the penalties for shortfall are the same as in the Wärtsilä contract?

If the answers to questions II, III and IV are not all affirmative we have a scam: and if any is affirmative, the Honourable Minister must retract what he said in Parliament.

Yours faithfully,

Juan Edghill, PPP/C MP