Latest update October 11th, 2026 10:40 AM
Exxon’s Guyana boast
(Kaieteur News) – There is something remarkably audacious about ExxonMobil holding up Guyana as a success story to persuade other resource-rich countries to do business with the company.
At a recent Barclays Conference, Exxon’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Neil Hansen proudly pointed to Guyana as evidence of what the company can accomplish for resource owners. Exxon has recovered the astounding US$55 billion it invested in exploration and development of the Stabroek Block, and Hansen said the recovery occurred about two years earlier than the company had expected.
Exxon is clearly pleased with the achievement. It should be. Recovering US$55 billion is an extraordinary corporate milestone. The company says the rapid recovery reflects the execution of its projects, the performance of its operations and its ability to run the floating production, storage and offloading vessels efficiently.
But there is another side to this story that should not be lost amid Exxon’s self-congratulation.
The company did not recover that US$55 billion under some ordinary commercial arrangement in which Guyana simply watched from the sidelines. The recovery was made possible by the extraordinarily favourable terms of the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement.
Under that agreement, Exxon and its partners were permitted to take up to 75% of the oil produced each month to recover costs. The expenses accumulated in the so-called cost bank, with unrecovered costs carried forward until they were eventually cleared.
That mechanism meant Guyana received only 12.5% of profit oil during the cost-recovery period. The remaining profit oil was divided between the contractors and Guyana, with the country receiving half.
Now that Exxon says the US$55 billion cost bank has been completely cleared, Guyana’s profit share has risen dramatically to 39.8%.
That contrast tells its own story.
For years, Guyanese have complained that the 2016 PSA is heavily weighted in favour of the oil companies. The agreement has been the subject of sustained criticism precisely because of the extent of the benefits granted to the contractors, including the generous cost-recovery provisions.
Yet Exxon now presents Guyana to the rest of the world almost as a corporate showroom—a place where it can demonstrate how quickly it can recover billions of dollars and then tell prospective resource owners that ExxonMobil is the “partner of choice.”
Hansen went even further, suggesting that resource owners looking for a company capable of executing projects efficiently, recovering its investment quickly and allowing the resource owner to benefit more promptly should look to ExxonMobil.
That is an impressive sales pitch.
But there is an obvious irony.
Guyana is being used to advertise Exxon’s success precisely because the company was operating under terms that many Guyanese regard as deeply disadvantageous to the country.
Exxon has every right to celebrate its commercial success. Guyana should equally have the right to examine whether the country received a proportionate benefit during the period in which that success was being achieved.
The company also says its Guyana experience demonstrates the advantages of direct negotiations, noting that countries are increasingly opting for one-on-one discussions with oil companies rather than open bidding processes.
That claim deserves particular scrutiny. Guyana’s experience demonstrates not merely that Exxon can execute major projects and recover enormous sums of money quickly. It also demonstrates the long-term consequences of the contractual terms under which such investments are made.
And Exxon is not finished.
Hansen disclosed that the fifth FPSO is already in Guyana’s waters and that the company is looking at advancing a ninth FPSO. The company therefore intends to continue investing in Guyana, even after recovering its historic US$55 billion.
That makes the terms governing future developments even more important.
The lesson Guyana should draw from Exxon’s boast is not simply that the company can execute projects efficiently. It is that contractual terms matter enormously.
Exxon may be celebrating the fact that it recovered US$55 billion faster than expected. Guyanese should remember what the country surrendered while that money was being recovered and ensure that future agreements do not repeat the same imbalance.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
One thought on “Exxon’s Guyana boast”
Leave a Reply
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
The Brutally Blunt Truth IS: ExxonMobil, Exploited, The Ignorance, of The People, who Did Not Fully Understand, The Pros, and Cons, of The Contract, they were Signing with ExxonMobil, at The Time,
The Contract, was Initiated, and
ExxonMobil, have Tecnically, SWINDLED Guyana, with their Eyes, Wide Open, Due To Lack of Knowledge, re: The Pros, and Cons/In-Depth Details, re: their Crude Oil, and The Hawk/Highly Experienced ExxonMobil Entity!
IT’S 💔 SAD, and DESPICABLE; REPULSIVE, and TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.👎😡🤬💯, and Instead of BOASTING, ExxonMobil, MUST, LET their Consience Be their Guide, and Financially, Re-Imburse, 🇬🇾 with A Decent $$$ Amount, for their CRUDE OIL, etc! Thanks!