Melinda Janki’s response leaves more questions than answers (Part 1)

Dear Editor,
Readers would recall that I had questioned Melinda Janki’s modus operandi in challenging ExxonMobil’s operations in Guyana, wherein she is seeking to sue that company together with the Government of Guyana (GoG).
I had pointed out that there is some amount of evidence that suggested she worked for ExxonMobil sometime during 1999 and 2015, and that it appears her services were not retained. In another letter, I challenged some of her arguments on financial matters; her position on the feasibility of the gas-to-energy project, for example, and I exposed the inherent weaknesses and flaws of her contentions on these matters.
I am now writing in reference to her letter of February 3, 2023, captioned “I did not represent Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement.”
There are, in her letter, several inconsistencies that I am hard pressed to leave unaddressed. The author, who is often described as an international attorney and transparency advocate, claimed that she did not represent Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement. The undersigned’s contention, however, is not whether she represented Exxon in the 1999 petroleum agreement per se, but whether she worked for ExxonMobil, and earned from ExxonMobil at some point in time in relation to Exxon’s operations in Guyana. Given her response, she has explicitly and implicitly confirmed that she had worked for ExxonMobil in Guyana.
To this end, she claimed in her letter that De Caires, Fitzpatrick and Karan were the lawyers for Exxon at the time, and confirmed that she was one of the firm’s consultant lawyers. She went on further to state that Miles Fitzpatrick “put her name” on the document because nobody else (in his law firm) knew anything about oil. By her own admission, as described above, the international attorney confirmed that, although in a third-party capacity, she was contracted by a law firm in Guyana that was hired by Exxon at the time.
According to her, she was hired on the basis that no one else in the law firm had experience in the global oil and gas industry. In the very letter, the transparency advocate goes on to implicate herself further by disclosing her experience working as a lawyer with big oil companies like BP during those days.
She also disclosed that Exxon had a power of attorney with her in 1999, which authorised her to receive full notices, accept service of process etc. Obviously, these services provided by her to Exxon directly and indirectly through the referenced law firm were not for free. In these respects, the attorney and transparency advocate confirmed categorically that she worked for Exxon. This means she earned from Exxon in the past, and now she is leading a campaign against Exxon’s operations in Guyana.
The obvious question in these circumstances is: Why didn’t she drive these campaigns during those years? Why now? If, as she claimed, she is championing a good cause for the planet with utmost sincerity, then why a lawsuit with EEPGL, a subsidiary company of ExxonMobil in Guyana, together with the Guyana Government? This should be a global campaign, and she should be fighting her legal battle with the parent company in the United States (U.S) and in a U.S court of law, and NOT Guyana.
Having said that, here are some other critical questions that come to mind, for which the transparency advocate ought to provide answers for the Guyanese public:
1) It appears that she is suing Exxon and the GoG on behalf of the Guyanese people’s interest by way of protecting the environment. What is she suing Exxon for exactly?
2) Is it a declaration? If so, what are those declarations?
3) Is it for monetary compensation on behalf of the Guyanese people? If so, how much?
4) And if she wins this case, what would she do with the money she is suing for, if that is the case?
5) Will the money be deposited into a special fund?
6) Will it be transferred to the Consolidated Fund?
7) Will it be used in community development projects?
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for argument’s sake, let’s examine the merits and demerits of the attorney’s reasoning for the lawsuit against ExxonMobil –that is, fossil fuel is dangerous to the environment, and the risks it poses to mankind are deadly.
There is no doubt that fossil fuels are not climate-friendly, and that the world needs to transition to cleaner sources of energy.
It is within this framework that the development and exploitation of the resource need to be done in a sustainable manner, and in a way that minimises the environmental risks. These are also the new guiding principles upon which global industry operates.
In spite of this, the international attorney and transparency advocate opted to pursue an extreme position in addressing these issues with the oil companies in two ways: (1) by exaggerating the risks of the operations without credible scientific evidence and (2) by driving an extremist campaign for the oil companies to cease oil production in Guyana (only).

Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin
Financial & Economic
Analyst