Captive by Consent: The 2016 Agreement and the Politics of Resignation in Guyana’s Oil Sector

 

Sunday Essay · Oil Sector Policy

Guyana’s 2016 Production Sharing Agreement, while a product of its time, has locked the nation into terms that continue to challenge its sovereignty and fiscal ambition amidst a rapidly evolving global energy landscape.

By Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman · April 18, 2026

On June 27, 2016, amidst a period of political transition and limited institutional capacity, the Government of Guyana signed a Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) with ExxonMobil, Hess Corporation, and CNOOC Nexen Petroleum Guyana Limited for the Stabroek Block. This agreement, which superseded a 1999 accord, was heralded by some as a necessary step to unlock Guyana’s nascent oil potential. However, it has since become the focal point of intense national debate, symbolizing for many a ‘resource curse’ in the making rather than a pathway to prosperity. The terms of this agreement, particularly the 2% royalty and the 75% cost recovery ceiling, have been widely scrutinized, leading to persistent calls for renegotiation and raising fundamental questions about national sovereignty, fiscal equity, and the long-term economic trajectory of the Cooperative Republic.

The Genesis of a Concession: Historical Context and the 2016 Agreement

Guyana’s journey into the oil sector is rooted in decades of exploration failures and geopolitical complexities. Prior to the Liza-1 discovery in 2015, the country was largely overlooked by major international oil companies (IOCs), with its offshore basin considered high-risk and unproven. The 1999 agreement, signed with ExxonMobil, reflected this prevailing uncertainty, offering relatively generous terms to attract frontier investment. The 2016 renegotiation, occurring shortly after the significant Liza-1 discovery, presented a critical juncture. The then-APNU+AFC government, advised by international consultants, opted to largely retain the framework of the 1999 agreement, citing the need for stability, the perceived sanctity of contracts, and the ongoing border controversy with Venezuela as primary justifications for not pursuing more aggressive terms. This decision has been consistently defended by former officials as a pragmatic choice given the geopolitical climate and the imperative to rapidly monetize discoveries (Stabroek News, 2023).

However, critics argue that the government failed to leverage the improved geological understanding and the proven commercial viability of the Liza discovery. Rystad Energy analysis, for instance, has repeatedly highlighted that the fiscal terms of the 2016 PSA are significantly less favorable to the host government compared to contemporary agreements in other emerging oil provinces (Rystad Energy, 2022). The 2% royalty, the absence of ring-fencing provisions for individual projects, and the broad scope for cost recovery have been identified as key areas where Guyana ceded substantial potential revenue. The rationale provided by the government at the time, emphasizing the need to de-risk the investment for ExxonMobil, has been increasingly questioned as the scale of the Stabroek Block discoveries became apparent. The lack of competitive bidding for the block, a common practice in mature oil provinces, further compounded concerns about the process and the ultimate fairness of the terms.

The political environment of 2016 was also characterized by a nascent understanding of the complexities of the oil and gas sector within government institutions. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC) possessed limited technical and legal expertise in negotiating such intricate agreements with global energy giants. This institutional deficit, coupled with a perceived urgency to commence production, created an asymmetry in negotiating power that heavily favored the IOCs. Subsequent analyses by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have consistently pointed to the need for strengthening institutional capacity and legal frameworks to manage the burgeoning oil sector effectively, implicitly critiquing the conditions under which the 2016 PSA was finalized (IMF, 2017).

GBJ Data Note: GBJ Data Note: The 2016 Stabroek Block PSA stipulates a 2% royalty on gross production and a 75% cost recovery ceiling. This royalty rate is significantly lower than the global average for new oil contracts, which typically ranges from 10% to 15%, and even lower than some contracts signed in the Caribbean region, such as Suriname’s 6.25% royalty rate in some of its recent agreements (Rystad Energy, 2022). This disparity underscores the fiscal concessions made by Guyana.

The 2016 PSA represents a critical juncture where national ambition met geopolitical realities, but perhaps at too great a cost to future generations.

Fiscal Leakage and the Cost Recovery Conundrum

One of the most contentious aspects of the 2016 PSA is the provision for cost recovery, which allows the consortium to recoup 75% of its exploration, development, and operating expenses before profit oil is split. While cost recovery is standard in PSAs, the specific application in Guyana has drawn significant criticism. The absence of robust ring-fencing provisions means that costs from new projects or exploration activities can be deducted from revenues generated by producing fields, effectively delaying the point at which Guyana receives a larger share of profit oil. This has direct implications for the government’s immediate revenue streams and its ability to fund public services and infrastructure (Kaieteur News, 2023).

The auditing of these costs has also been a persistent challenge. The government’s initial attempts to audit billions of dollars in reported costs by ExxonMobil and its partners have been fraught with delays and disputes. A significant audit of costs incurred between 1999 and 2017, amounting to over US$1.7 billion, faced considerable pushback and took years to finalize. The Ministry of Natural Resources has acknowledged the challenges in scrutinizing complex financial records from multinational corporations, often citing capacity constraints and the sheer volume of documentation (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2023). This auditing bottleneck creates a potential for ‘gold-plating’ – the inflation of costs by operators – which further erodes Guyana’s share of revenue.

Bank of Guyana reports indicate that despite rapidly increasing production, the actual cash flow to the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) has been slower than projected by some analysts due to the front-loading of cost recovery. While production has soared from 120,000 barrels per day (bpd) in late 2021 to over 600,000 bpd by early 2024, the government’s share of profit oil only begins after the 75% cost recovery ceiling is met each month. This mechanism, coupled with significant capital expenditures for new projects like Yellowtail and Uaru, means a substantial portion of gross revenue is continuously allocated to the contractors for cost recovery (Bank of Guyana, 2024). The IMF, in its Article IV consultations, has repeatedly urged Guyana to strengthen its audit capabilities and ensure transparency in cost recovery mechanisms to safeguard national interests (IMF, 2023).

GBJ Data Note: GBJ Data Note: As of December 31, 2023, the total balance in Guyana’s Natural Resource Fund (NRF) stood at US$1.97 billion. This figure represents the cumulative oil revenues received since production began in late 2019, reflecting the 2% royalty and profit oil after cost recovery (Natural Resource Fund, 2024). While substantial, this amount is significantly less than what might have been accumulated under more favorable fiscal terms or with more aggressive cost recovery auditing.

The 75% cost recovery ceiling, without robust ring-fencing and auditing, acts as a continuous siphon, delaying the true realization of Guyana’s oil wealth.

The Politics of Renegotiation: Between Contract Sanctity and National Interest

Calls for renegotiation of the 2016 PSA have been a consistent feature of Guyana’s political discourse since its terms became widely known. Civil society organizations, opposition parties, and even some government officials have advocated for a revised agreement that would deliver a larger share of revenue to the Guyanese people. The argument for renegotiation often centers on the concept of ‘unconscionable contracts’ or ‘changed circumstances,’ asserting that the initial terms were agreed upon under conditions of information asymmetry and geopolitical vulnerability that no longer fully apply given the proven scale of discoveries and the country’s enhanced negotiating position (Stabroek News, 2022).

However, the incumbent PPP/C government, while acknowledging the less-than-ideal terms of the 2016 PSA, has consistently maintained that renegotiation is not a viable or desirable path. Their primary arguments revolve around the sanctity of contracts, the potential for deterring future foreign direct investment, and the risk of protracted legal battles that could delay production and revenue flows. President Irfaan Ali’s administration has instead focused on improving local content provisions and strengthening regulatory oversight within the existing framework, rather than attempting to alter the core fiscal terms (Guyana Times, 2023). This stance, while pragmatic in its avoidance of immediate conflict, has been criticized for perpetuating a fiscal regime that many view as inequitable.

The political calculus is complex. While public sentiment largely favors renegotiation, the government faces pressure from IOCs and international financial institutions that emphasize contract stability. A comparative analysis of resource-rich nations shows a mixed record on contract renegotiation; while some countries like Norway and Malaysia have successfully revised terms in their favor over time, others have faced significant challenges and investor backlash. The Guyanese government’s position reflects a cautious approach, prioritizing perceived stability and continued investment flow over a potentially disruptive, albeit fiscally beneficial, renegotiation. This ‘politics of resignation’ suggests a strategic decision to work within the confines of the existing agreement, focusing on maximizing benefits through other avenues like local content development and improved regulatory enforcement (OilNow, 2024).

GBJ Data Note: GBJ Data Note: The estimated recoverable resources in the Stabroek Block have grown from approximately 3.2 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) at the time of the 2016 PSA to over 11 billion BOE by early 2024 (ExxonMobil, 2024). This dramatic increase in proven reserves significantly alters the risk-reward profile of the block, strengthening the argument for renegotiation based on ‘changed circumstances’ from a national perspective.

The government’s refusal to renegotiate, while framed as pragmatic, is seen by many as a capitulation to the very forces that shaped the unfavorable 2016 agreement.

Local Content: A Partial Remedy for Fiscal Disparity?

In the absence of renegotiating the 2016 PSA, the government has placed significant emphasis on its Local Content Policy and Act (2021) as a primary mechanism to ensure that Guyanese citizens and businesses benefit from the oil sector. The Local Content Act mandates specific percentages for Guyanese participation in various categories of goods and services, ranging from catering and transportation to engineering and financial services. The aim is to foster domestic industrial growth, create employment opportunities, and build national capacity, thereby distributing the economic benefits of oil beyond direct government revenue (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2021).

Initial reports from the Local Content Secretariat indicate progress in certain areas, with Guyanese companies securing contracts and Guyanese nationals filling more positions within the oil and gas supply chain. For instance, the secretariat reported that over 4,000 Guyanese businesses were registered and actively participating in the sector by late 2023 (Village Voice News, 2023). However, challenges persist, including the capacity of local businesses to meet international standards, access to financing, and the potential for ‘fronting’ – where foreign companies use local partners as a façade to circumvent local content requirements. The effectiveness of the Local Content Act as a compensatory mechanism for the fiscal terms of the PSA remains a subject of ongoing debate.

While local content initiatives are crucial for broad-based economic development, they cannot fully offset the revenue foregone due to the unfavorable fiscal terms of the PSA. Direct government revenue from royalties and profit oil provides the fiscal space for large-scale public investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare. Local content, while stimulating job creation and business development, operates at a different scale and with different economic multipliers. Therefore, while a robust local content framework is essential, it serves as a complementary strategy rather than a substitute for a more equitable revenue-sharing agreement. The IMF has also highlighted the importance of a well-designed local content policy but cautions against protectionist measures that could increase costs and reduce overall efficiency (IMF, 2021).

GBJ Data Note: GBJ Data Note: The Local Content Act (2021) sets targets for Guyanese participation across 40 categories of goods and services. For example, it mandates 90% Guyanese participation in areas like immigration support services and ground transportation, and 25% in areas like drilling and well services by the tenth year (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2021). These targets represent a significant policy effort to redirect economic activity towards local enterprises, though their full impact on broader economic development is still unfolding.

Local content is a vital artery for economic diversification, but it cannot fully compensate for the fiscal bloodletting of an imbalanced production sharing agreement.

The Natural Resource Fund and Macroeconomic Vulnerabilities

The management of Guyana’s oil revenues is primarily channeled through the Natural Resource Fund (NRF), established to ensure intergenerational equity and macroeconomic stability. The NRF Act (2021) outlines strict rules for deposits, withdrawals, and investment of oil proceeds, aiming to prevent the ‘resource curse’ phenomena observed in other oil-rich nations. The fund receives all government oil revenues, including royalties and profit oil, and withdrawals are subject to a formula-based fiscal rule designed to smooth government spending and insulate the budget from oil price volatility (Natural Resource Fund, 2021).

However, the NRF’s effectiveness is intrinsically linked to the volume of revenue flowing into it, which, as discussed, is constrained by the 2016 PSA’s terms. The rapid increase in oil production has led to significant inflows, with the NRF balance growing to nearly US$2 billion by the end of 2023 (Bank of Guyana, 2024). Yet, the government’s annual withdrawals have also been substantial, reflecting the pressing development needs of the country. The fiscal rule allows for a significant portion of the annual inflows to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund, raising concerns among some economists about the pace of spending versus saving, particularly given the finite nature of oil resources.

The macroeconomic implications of this oil-driven growth are profound. Guyana has experienced unprecedented GDP growth, projected by the IMF to be among the highest globally. However, this rapid influx of foreign exchange and capital also brings risks, including Dutch Disease – where the appreciation of the local currency makes other sectors uncompetitive – and inflationary pressures. The Bank of Guyana has been tasked with managing these pressures through monetary policy, but the sheer scale of oil revenue relative to the size of the non-oil economy presents a significant challenge. The long-term sustainability of Guyana’s economic model hinges not only on prudent NRF management but also on effective diversification strategies that are not entirely dependent on oil revenues, which are themselves influenced by the terms of the 2016 PSA (Bank of Guyana, 2023).

The political discourse surrounding the NRF often highlights the tension between immediate development needs and long-term savings. While the current government emphasizes the need to utilize oil revenues to address historical underdevelopment and improve public services, critics argue for a more conservative approach to withdrawals to build a larger intergenerational fund. This debate is fundamentally shaped by the perceived adequacy of the oil revenues, which, in turn, circles back to the fiscal terms of the 2016 agreement. Had the PSA been more favorable, the NRF might have accumulated wealth at an even faster rate, potentially easing the pressure to withdraw large sums for immediate spending.

GBJ Data Note: GBJ Data Note: The Natural Resource Fund (NRF) received a total of US$1.62 billion in oil revenues in 2023, comprising US$228.6 million in royalties and US$1.39 billion in profit oil. This represents a significant increase from US$1.16 billion in 2022, reflecting higher production volumes and oil prices. However, the government also withdrew US$1.002 billion from the NRF in 2023 to finance national development priorities (Natural Resource Fund, 2024).

The NRF, while a critical safeguard, operates within the fiscal constraints imposed by the 2016 PSA, challenging the balance between present needs and future generations.

Comparative Regional Analysis and Future Policy Trajectories

Comparing Guyana’s 2016 PSA with agreements in other emerging oil provinces, particularly within the Caribbean and Latin America, reveals a consistent pattern of less favorable terms for Guyana. Suriname, for example, in its more recent deepwater agreements, has secured higher royalty rates (e.g., 6.25% for some blocks), greater government participation, and more stringent cost recovery provisions. Brazil’s pre-salt discoveries led to a production-sharing model with a higher government take and significant local content requirements, albeit with a more mature regulatory framework (Rystad Energy, 2022). This regional disparity underscores the ‘opportunity cost’ of the 2016 agreement for Guyana.

The long-term policy trajectory for Guyana’s oil sector must navigate the tension between maintaining investor confidence and maximizing national benefit. While the government has committed to honoring the 2016 PSA, future agreements for new blocks or extensions are expected to feature significantly improved terms. The new model PSA, unveiled in 2022, proposes a 10% royalty, a 65% cost recovery ceiling, and a 10% corporate income tax, alongside stronger ring-fencing provisions (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2022). This indicates a clear policy shift towards a more assertive stance in future negotiations, learning from the perceived shortcomings of the 2016 agreement.

However, the bulk of Guyana’s current and projected production for the next two decades will come from the Stabroek Block under the existing terms. Therefore, while future PSAs will be more favorable, the immediate and medium-term fiscal landscape will remain heavily influenced by the 2016 agreement. This necessitates a dual approach: rigorous enforcement and auditing of the existing contract, particularly concerning cost recovery and local content, alongside the development of robust regulatory and institutional frameworks for future projects. The ongoing capacity-building efforts within the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Guyana Revenue Authority, and the NRF Secretariat are crucial for this (IMF, 2023).

Ultimately, the politics of resignation surrounding the 2016 PSA highlights a profound policy dilemma. While the agreement facilitated rapid development of the Stabroek Block, its terms continue to be a source of national debate and fiscal constraint. Guyana’s challenge is to leverage the current oil boom to diversify its economy and build resilient institutions, ensuring that the wealth generated from its natural resources translates into sustainable development and broad-based prosperity, even as it navigates the legacy of an agreement widely perceived as a ‘captive by consent’.

GBJ Data Note: GBJ Data Note: The new model Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) introduced by the Government of Guyana in 2022 for future offshore blocks includes a 10% royalty rate, a 65% cost recovery ceiling, and a 10% corporate income tax. This represents a significant improvement in fiscal terms compared to the 2016 Stabroek Block PSA, potentially increasing the government’s take by several percentage points for future developments (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2022).

The 2016 PSA is a historical anchor, but Guyana’s future policy must chart a course towards greater fiscal equity and national sovereignty in its resource management.

---

References

1. Bank of Guyana. (2023). Annual Report and Statement of Accounts. Retrieved from https://bankofguyana.org.gy
2. Bank of Guyana. (2024). Quarterly Reports and Press Releases. Retrieved from https://bankofguyana.org.gy
3. ExxonMobil. (2024). Guyana Operations Overview. Retrieved from https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/locations/guyana
4. Guyana Times. (2023, October 29). Govt. committed to existing oil contracts – President Ali. Retrieved from https://guyanatimesgy.com
5. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2017). Guyana: Staff Report for the 2017 Article IV Consultation. IMF Country Report No. 17/373. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org
6. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2021). Guyana: Staff Report for the 2021 Article IV Consultation. IMF Country Report No. 21/249. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org
7. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2023). Guyana: Staff Report for the 2023 Article IV Consultation. IMF Country Report No. 23/345. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org
8. Kaieteur News. (2023, December 10). ExxonMobil’s Cost Recovery: A Deep Dive into Guyana’s Oil Wealth. Retrieved from https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com
9. Ministry of Natural Resources. (2021). Guyana Local Content Act 2021. Retrieved from https://mnr.gov.gy
10. Ministry of Natural Resources. (2022). Guyana’s New Model Production Sharing Agreement. Retrieved from https://mnr.gov.gy
11. Ministry of Natural Resources. (2023). Annual Reports and Sector Updates. Retrieved from https://mnr.gov.gy
12. Natural Resource Fund. (2021). Natural Resource Fund Act 2021. Retrieved from https://nrfguyana.gov.gy
13. Natural Resource Fund. (2024). Monthly and Annual Reports. Retrieved from https://nrfguyana.gov.gy
14. OilNow. (2024, January 15). Guyana’s Oil Future: Balancing Contracts and National Interest. Retrieved from https://oilnow.gy
15. Rystad Energy. (2022). Fiscal Regime Benchmarking: Guyana vs. Global Peers. (Proprietary Report, often cited in public analyses). Publicly referenced in various news articles and industry presentations.
16. Stabroek News. (2022, July 24). Calls for renegotiation of ExxonMobil contract intensify. Retrieved from https://www.stabroeknews.com
17. Stabroek News. (2023, September 10). Former Minister defends 2016 oil deal amidst renewed criticism. Retrieved from https://www.stabroeknews.com
18. Village Voice News. (2023, November 5). Local Content Secretariat reports significant progress in Guyanese participation. Retrieved from https://villagevoicenews.com

---

Supported By

We are grateful for the partnership and support of individuals and organizations committed to advancing Guyanese and Caribbean development and human capital investment.

Individual Supporters
Courtney Allen | All Te Networks | Corine Locke | Tony Harris | Roderick Alsopp | Dr. Michelle Luard

🇬🇾 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today