A Government That Cannot Finish the First Audit Has No Business Expanding Exxon’s Oil Empire

A Government That Cannot Finish the First Audit Has No Business Expanding Exxon’s Oil Empire

OPINION BY :Hem Kumar 2026

More than five years after Guyana was warned that ExxonMobil had placed  US $214million in questionable costs into the country’s petroleum cost bank, the Government of Guyana has finally admitted that it cannot even agree with the company on the appointment of a sole expert.

The matter is now before the International Chamber of Commerce, which will appoint the expert under Article 26 of the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement.

This is not a victory for Guyana. It is a confession of administrative weakness.

A government entrusted with the stewardship of one of the world’s most valuable oil discoveries has been unable to bring the first major Exxon audit to a conclusion. The audit covers expenses from 1999 to 2017,  years before first oil, and involves US $1.6 billion claimed by ExxonMobil. British consultant IHS Markit completed its report in March 2021. It concluded that Guyana had reasonable grounds to dispute US $214.4million, plus applicable overhead adjustments.

Yet, in October 2026, Guyana remains without a final determination.

The first audit is still unresolved. The second audit, involving US $7.2 billion in costs for 2018 to 2020 reportedly identified a further US $65 million in questionable charges. The third and largest audit, covering a staggering US $19.6billion, was reportedly submitted to Government since May 2025, but its contents remain hidden from the public.

That record is indefensible.

The Government Cannot Have It Both Ways

The administration wants Guyanese to believe that it is carefully safeguarding national revenue while, at the same time, it continues to facilitate the relentless expansion of ExxonMobil’s operations offshore.

Every new development approval potentially enlarges the cost bank. Every approved project creates new opportunities for cost escalation, questionable allocations, and expenses that may later become disputed. Yet the State has demonstrated that it lacks either the will, the urgency, or the institutional capacity to resolve even the first major cost-recovery audit.

That should alarm every Guyanese.

A government that cannot settle a US $ 214 million dispute from the earliest audit period cannot credibly assure the country that it is effectively policing billions upon billions of dollars in later ExxonMobil expenditures. If the administration cannot close out an audit involving US $1.6 billion, what confidence should the public have in its oversight of the more than US $26 billion covered by the subsequent audits?

This is not a technical inconvenience. It is a direct threat to Guyana’s national patrimony.

The Cost of Delay Is Paid by Guyanese

Under the Production Sharing Agreement, ExxonMobil and its partners can recover eligible petroleum expenses from oil revenues before profits are shared. Therefore, every dollar that is improperly charged, insufficiently examined, or improperly allowed into the cost bank is a dollar that reduces Guyana’s available profit oil.

The US $214 million dispute is not merely an accounting entry. It represents money that could support hospitals, schools, drainage, sea defense, roads, water systems, electricity upgrades, housing, wages, and local economic development.

And that is before considering the wider implications of the unresolved audit process.

The longer the Government delays, the more difficult the accountability exercise becomes. Personnel change. Records become harder to interrogate. Corporate structures evolve. Projects multiply. The volume of claims grows exponentially. An administration that cannot establish a prompt, transparent, and credible system for audit resolution is creating conditions under which the country’s financial exposure will deepen year after year.

The public is being asked to accept assurances while being denied documents.

Why has the full US $7.2 billion audit not been clearly and comprehensively published? Why has the Government withheld the US $19.6 billion audit report received since May 2025 ? What specific costs were disputed? What was ExxonMobil’s response? Which sums were accepted, reduced, rejected, or carried forward? What steps has the Government taken to protect Guyana from further questionable cost recovery?

These are not unreasonable questions. They are the minimum questions that any responsible government must answer.

EPA Has a Responsibility Too

The Environmental Protection Agency cannot behave as though environmental permits exist in a vacuum, detached from the wider public-interest obligations surrounding petroleum development.

The EPA has authority through its permitting and approval functions. It assesses applications for new developments, production activities, environmental authorizations, modifications, and compliance requirements. It can impose conditions, demand information, require compliance with applicable laws and permits, and ensure that decisions serve the public interest.

Before additional projects, fields, and production expansions are approved, the country must be satisfied that the State has an effective system to monitor the financial consequences of those approvals.

No responsible regulator should ignore the fact that each new approval can increase the scale of cost recovery and the complexity of oversight. The EPA, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Guyana Revenue Authority, the Ministry of Finance, and every other relevant agency must understand that weak financial oversight undermines the national interest just as surely as weak environmental oversight does.

Guyana cannot afford a regulatory system that approves first and audits later—especially when “later” means five years, six years, or perhaps never. We need to let Exxon know that it is our priority to clear up  the fiscal backlog before any further approvals.

This Is Administrative Failure

Article 26 of the petroleum agreement is clear. If the parties cannot agree on a sole expert within 30 days, the ICC is to appoint one. The expert should then seek to provide an opinion within 30 days of appointment, and no later than 60 days.

Yet the Government allowed the selection process itself to drag on for more than a year, long after the contractual timeline had expired. The public deserves an explanation for this delay.

Who proposed the experts? Which candidates were rejected? Why were they rejected? Did the Government invoke the ICC process immediately after the deadline elapsed? If not, why not? What instructions were given to the Government’s legal and technical teams? How much money has Guyana spent managing this dispute? What is the Government’s final position on each component of the US $214.4 million in questioned costs?

These questions go to competence, transparency, and accountability.

A strong government would have pursued a swift resolution, published the audit reports, explained the disputed sums, reported regularly to the public, strengthened its audit and legal capacity, and ensured that new project approvals were accompanied by enforceable safeguards.

Instead, the country has been given secrecy, delay, procedural drift, and reassurance without documentation.

Guyana Must Demand a Moratorium on Further Approvals

The Government must immediately publish the complete audit reports for the 2018–2020 and  subsequent audit periods, including the findings, disputed costs, ExxonMobil’s responses, and the Government’s determinations.

It must also disclose the full record of the US $214 million dispute and commit to public updates once the ICC appoints the sole expert.

Most importantly, the Government and EPA should pause approvals for new ExxonMobil field developments and major production expansions until Guyana can demonstrate that it has a functioning, transparent, timely, and independent audit-resolution mechanism.

This is not a call to shut down the petroleum sector. It is a demand that Guyana stop governing its most valuable resource through blind trust, delayed audits, and secret reports.The country cannot continue granting access to new oil wealth while remaining unable to determine whether ExxonMobil was entitled to recover money from Guyana’s first bill.

Every new project approved before this accountability crisis is corrected sends the same troubling message: ExxonMobil’s expansion is urgent, but Guyana’s oversight is optional.

That is not partnership. It is surrender.

The PPP administration must choose whether it will act as a guardian of Guyana’s petroleum wealth or as a passive bystander while the country’s inheritance is placed beyond meaningful scrutiny.