Diaspora Engagement

In the collective memory of Guyana, the great flood of 2005 remains a stark reminder of the nation’s vulnerability to the forces of nature. Yet, the silent guardians that stand between the coastland and such catastrophic events —the vast water conservancies —remain largely unknown to a significant portion of the population. The Mahaica-Mahaicony-Abary (MMA) in East Coast Demerara, the Boerasirie on the East Bank of the Essequibo, and the Tapacuma on the Essequibo Coast are monumental feats of engineering, envisioned and constructed in a post-independence era under the leadership of the PNC government led by Forbes Burnham, a time when oil revenues did not fuel the nation’s development. These massive freshwater reservoirs, designed for the dual purpose of flood control and irrigation, are a critical part of Guyana’s infrastructure, and their current state of repair is a matter of national urgency.

The East Demerara Water Conservancy (EDWC), a part of the larger MMA scheme, is a prime example of the critical role these structures play. Located just 15 miles south of the most densely populated coastal region, the EDWC provides irrigation for thousands of hectares of rice and other crops and supplies approximately 60% of the drinking water for the capital city, Georgetown [1]. The Guyana Sugar Corporation is also wholly reliant on water from the EDWC. The origins of this conservancy date back over 125 years, a testament to Guyana’s long history of water management. However, the 2005 flood exposed the fragility of this vital system. The unprecedented rainfall, with some coastal areas receiving over 100 cm of rain in three weeks, overwhelmed the conservancy, leading to overtopping and widespread flooding that affected approximately 290,000 people and caused economic damage estimated at 59% of Guyana’s GDP [2]. The disaster was a wake-up call, highlighting the dire consequences of neglecting the maintenance of these critical structures. The subsequent construction of the Hope Canal, a northern relief channel for the EDWC, was a direct response to the 2005 flood, designed to release excess water and prevent a recurrence of such a disaster.

The Boerasirie Water Conservancy, located between the Essequibo and Demerara rivers, serves a similar purpose, providing irrigation and flood control for the surrounding agricultural lands. With a catchment area of 436 square kilometers, the Boerasirie is a significant piece of infrastructure [3]. However, like the EDWC, it has suffered from a lack of maintenance and is in a general state of disrepair. The original designs and data for the Boerasirie date back to 1951 and are likely outdated due to decades of sedimentation, which reduces the reservoir’s storage capacity. The 8,000-foot-long relief weir, a key feature of the Boerasirie, is designed to prevent overtopping, but its effectiveness is compromised by the overall deterioration of the conservancy.

The Tapacuma Conservancy on the Essequibo Coast is another vital component of Guyana’s water management system, providing supplemental irrigation for 35,500 acres of rice lands [4]. The Tapacuma project comprises three main lakes and a pumping station located at Dawa on the Pomeroon River. However, the system has been plagued by operational and maintenance issues, leading to water shortages for farmers during dry periods. The failure to properly manage the water levels in the conservancy, particularly in anticipation of El Niño events, has had a significant impact on the livelihoods of rice farmers in the region.

The current state of these conservancies cannot be understood without considering the historical context of their development and the political and economic priorities of the post-independence era. The Forbes Burnham-led PNC government, which came to power after independence in 1966, embarked on an ambitious development program to “feed, clothe, and house the nation.” However, there was a significant shift in infrastructure priorities during this period. Allocations for drainage and irrigation were reduced from 30% in the 1960-64 development plan to 17% in the 1966-72 plan, with a significant portion of the allocated funds diverted to other, non-agricultural projects [5]. This neglect of drainage and irrigation infrastructure, coupled with anti-agricultural policies that targeted the predominantly Indo-Guyanese rice farmers, had a devastating impact on food production and the overall economy. The politicization of infrastructure development, with projects often directed towards communities that supported the ruling party, led to a systematic neglect of the critical water management systems that were essential for the nation’s agricultural sector and flood protection.

Today, as Guyana stands on the cusp of a new era of oil-fueled development, it is imperative that the lessons of the past are not forgotten. The conservancies are a vital legacy of a previous generation’s vision for a self-sufficient Guyana. They are a reminder that the nation’s wealth is not just in the oil that lies beneath the seabed, but also in the water that is stored in these vast reservoirs. Significant investment in the repair and maintenance of the MMA, Boerasirie, and Tapacuma conservancies is not just a matter of protecting agricultural livelihoods but a critical step in safeguarding the nation from the ever-present threat of catastrophic flooding. The structural integrity of the dams, spill weirs, and kokers must be ensured to prevent a repeat of the 2005 disaster. The silent guardians that have protected Guyana’s coastland for decades must not be allowed to fail.

References

[1] “East Demerara Water Conservancy,” Wikipedia, accessed September 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Demerara_Water_Conservancy.

[2] “2005 Georgetown flood,” Wikipedia, accessed September 28, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Georgetown_flood.

[3] Victor M. Ponce, “Rehabilitation of the East Demerara and Boerasirie Water Conservancies,” Inter-American Development Bank, July 25, 2006, https://pon.sdsu.edu/protected77/guyana_conservancies_rehabilitation_060710.html.

[4] “Officials failed to ensure Tapakuma Conservancy was filled for El Nino –Charles Sohan,” Stabroek News, January 25, 2016, https://www.stabroeknews.com/2016/01/25/news/guyana/officials-failed-ensure-tapakuma-conservancy-filled-el-nino-charles-ohan/.

[5] “The Failure of Burnham’s ‘Feed, Clothe and House the Nation’ Plan,” Guyana News, accessed September 28, 2025, http://www.guyananews.org/features/postindependence/chapter5.html.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

The Attorney General’s response to the Fisher v. GECOM case reveals a troubling preference for procedural barriers over democratic participation. In submissions filed September 24, 2025, the state’s legal team advances arguments that, while technically sound, fundamentally undermine the constitutional promise of inclusive democracy that should define modern Guyana [6]. Rather than addressing the core democratic deficit identified in our previous analysis—that 120,000 Guyanese voters were denied their full electoral menu—the Attorney General seeks to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, effectively silencing legitimate concerns about ballot access without substantive consideration [5, 6].

The government’s primary strategy centers on a jurisdictional challenge that would prevent the Court of Appeal from even hearing the merits of the democratic inclusion arguments. By invoking Article 163 of the Constitution, the Attorney General contends that only the High Court, sitting as an elections court, can adjudicate such matters [1, 6]. This approach represents a concerning retreat from judicial oversight of electoral practices. While the Constitution establishes specialized election jurisdiction, the rigid interpretation advanced by the state would create an impermeable barrier to the constitutional review of electoral decisions that affect fundamental voting rights. The practical effect would be to insulate GECOM’s decisions from meaningful appellate scrutiny, precisely when such oversight is most needed to protect democratic participation.

The Attorney General’s revelation that the Forward Guyana Movement failed to submit candidate lists for Districts 7, 8, and 9 exposes a critical flaw in Guyana’s electoral framework rather than justifying the exclusion [6]. The state argues that FGM “excluded themselves” by not complying with Section 11B of the Representation of the People Act, but this perspective ignores the broader constitutional imperative for proportional representation “throughout Guyana” as mandated by Article 160 [1, 6]. The current system creates an artificial connection between geographic candidate lists and national proportional representation, effectively disenfranchising voters based on their location. A party approved for national elections should not be able to deny voters in specific regions the opportunity to support that party’s national platform simply by choosing not to field local candidates.

The government’s strict interpretation of statutory law fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between electoral procedures and constitutional rights. While the Attorney General correctly notes that political participation requires compliance with legal frameworks, this compliance should facilitate rather than restrict democratic access [6]. The Representation of the People Act should be interpreted in harmony with the constitutional principles of equal suffrage and proportional representation, rather than as a mechanism for creating geographic voting inequalities. When statutory requirements conflict with constitutional guarantees of democratic participation, the Constitution must prevail.

Most concerning is the state’s apparent indifference to the democratic consequences of its position. The Attorney General’s submission treats the exclusion of 120,000 voters from their preferred electoral choice as merely a technical matter of party compliance, ignoring the fundamental principle that democracy is strengthened when more voices are heard, not fewer [6]. This perspective reflects a cramped view of constitutional democracy that prioritizes administrative convenience over citizen participation. The government’s argument that affected voters “still have a choice of other parties on the ballot” fundamentally misses the point that meaningful democracy requires access to the full spectrum of approved political options, not just those that happen to meet arbitrary geographic requirements.

The international context further undermines the state’s position. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Guyana is bound, requires that electoral systems avoid “unreasonable restrictions” on voting rights [4]. The current practice of excluding nationally approved parties from regional ballots based on candidate list submissions appears to constitute precisely such an unreasonable restriction. Democratic best practices worldwide emphasize expanding ballot access rather than contracting it, recognizing that robust democracy depends on maximizing voter choice rather than minimizing it.

The Attorney General’s reliance on precedents about statutory appeals and jurisdictional limits, while legally relevant, sidesteps the fundamental constitutional questions at stake [6]. Cases like Chung v AIC Battery and Healey v Ministry of Health address technical questions of appellate jurisdiction but do not address the broader democratic principles that should guide the interpretation of electoral law. The state’s heavy reliance on such precedents suggests a preference for legal formalism over substantive constitutional analysis, an approach that ill-serves Guyana’s democratic development.

Perhaps most troubling is the government’s failure to propose any solution to the democratic deficit its position creates. Even if the current electoral framework technically permits the exclusion of parties from regional ballots, the state offers no vision for how Guyana might evolve toward a more inclusive system that honors both constitutional principles and practical electoral administration. The absence of constructive engagement with democratic reform suggests a concerning level of satisfaction with the status quo, regardless of its impact on citizen participation.

The Fisher v. GECOM case ultimately presents a choice between two visions of Guyanese democracy. The appellant’s position, despite its legal vulnerabilities, suggests a more inclusive system where constitutional principles of equal suffrage and proportional representation are fully implemented. The state’s response, while procedurally defensible, represents a retreat from democratic ambition that prioritizes administrative convenience over citizen empowerment. For a nation committed to widening the circle of democracy, the choice should be clear: electoral laws must serve democratic participation, not constrain it.

The Court of Appeal now faces a critical decision that will define the trajectory of Guyanese democracy. It can embrace the narrow, procedural interpretation advanced by the state, effectively immunizing electoral exclusions from constitutional review. Alternatively, it can recognize that true democratic inclusion requires electoral systems that maximize, rather than minimize, citizen choice, even when such systems challenge existing administrative practices. The stakes extend far beyond the immediate parties to encompass the fundamental question of whether Guyana’s democracy will expand to embrace all its citizens or contract to serve only those fortunate enough to live in the right constituencies.

References

1. Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, available at: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Guyana_2016
2. INews Guyana, “Not GECOM’s fault FGM did not submit lists for all regions; no legal breach detected – lawyer argues,” August 26, 2025, available at: https://inewsguyana.com/not-gecoms-fault-fgm-did-not-submit-lists-for-all-regions-no-legal-breach-detected-lawyer-args/
3. Guyana Chronicle, “High Court throws out FGM’s challenge to ballot exclusion,” August 29, 2025, available at: https://guyanachronicle.com/2025/08/29/high-court-upholds-gecoms-decision-to-exclude-fgm-alp-from-ballot-in-some-regions/
4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
5. Filed Written Submissions by the Appellant, Krystal Hadassah Fisher v. The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and The Attorney General of Guyana, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 126/2025
6. AG’s Submissions on Jurisdiction, Krystal Hadassah Fisher v. The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and The Attorney General of Guyana, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 126/2025, September 24, 2025.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

A legal battle with profound implications for the future of Guyanese democracy is currently before the nation’s highest courts. The case, Krystal Hadassah Fisher v. The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and The Attorney General of Guyana, challenges a long-standing electoral practice that prevents citizens in certain regions from voting for political parties that have been approved to contest national elections [1]. At its core, the appeal argues that this practice contravenes the fundamental principles of equal suffrage and proportional representation enshrined in Guyana’s Constitution. The outcome of this case could reshape the country’s electoral landscape, either by reinforcing the existing system or by widening the circle of democracy to ensure that every Guyanese citizen, regardless of their geographic location, has an equal voice in the nation’s future.

The controversy centers on what the appellant’s legal team describes as an “electoral menu” problem. As Dr. Vivian M. Williams argued in his written submissions, “some voters in Guyana are not being presented with the full electoral ‘menu’ because of where they live, despite the Constitution guaranteeing equal suffrage and nationwide proportional representation” [5]. This metaphor captures the essence of the democratic deficit at the heart of the case. While some Guyanese voters can choose from all six approved political parties, others are limited to only four or five options based solely on their geographic location.

The legal challenge brought by Ms. Krystal Hadassah Fisher, a candidate on the national list for the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), centers on the interpretation of Guyana’s Constitution and electoral laws. The case arose after GECOM excluded FGM and another party, the Assembly for Liberty and Prosperity (ALP), from the ballots in several administrative regions where they had not submitted lists of candidates to contest for Regional elections. This exclusion affected a significant number of voters, with an estimated 49,522 electors in Regions 7, 8, and 9 being unable to vote for FGM. A total of approximately 120,000 voters across all affected regions and parties were denied the opportunity to vote for the party of their choice for National Geographic seats. The appellant’s legal team, led by Dr. Vivian M. Williams, argues that this practice violates several articles of the Constitution, including the right to vote, the principle of proportional representation, and the protection against discrimination. The government, represented by the Attorney General, contends that GECOM’s actions were lawful and that the parties excluded themselves by failing to comply with the requirements of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA).

The High Court, in a ruling on August 29, 2025, dismissed the challenge, finding that GECOM had acted lawfully. The court’s decision is now under appeal, and the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal of Guyana. The outcome of this appeal will have significant implications for the future of Guyana’s electoral system and the ability of all Guyanese citizens to participate fully in the democratic process.

The Democratic Deficit: Inclusion, Proportionality, and the Right to a Meaningful Vote

The legal arguments in the Fisher case raise fundamental questions about the nature of democracy in Guyana. The country’s Constitution, in Article 13, explicitly states that the “principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy.” This principle of inclusion is at the heart of the appellant’s case, which argues that excluding any approved political party from the ballot in any region of the country creates a democratic deficit. The practice, in effect, creates a two-tiered system of citizenship, where some Guyanese have a greater say in the governance of their country than others. This is not just a matter of abstract legal theory; it has a real and tangible impact on the lives of the approximately 120,000 voters who were denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred party in the recent elections.

The principle of proportional representation, which is enshrined in Article 160 of the Constitution, is also at stake in this case. Proportional representation is a system designed to ensure that the composition of the legislature reflects the diversity of political opinion within the electorate. By excluding certain parties from the ballot in specific regions, GECOM is distorting the principle of proportionality and making it more challenging for smaller parties to secure representation in the National Assembly. This is particularly concerning in a country like Guyana, where there are deep-seated ethnic and political divisions. A truly proportional system would help to ensure that all voices are heard in the political process, not just those of the largest parties.

The international legal framework for democratic elections also supports the appellant’s arguments. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Guyana is a signatory, guarantees the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage [4]. Article 25 of the ICCPR explicitly requires that every citizen shall have the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs and to vote in genuine periodic elections without unreasonable restrictions. The practice of excluding parties from the ballot in certain regions appears to constitute such an unreasonable restriction, particularly when it affects over 120,000 voters.

The appellant’s legal team has also cited significant jurisprudence from Guyana’s own courts that supports their position. In Esther Perreira v Chief Election Officer (1998), Justice Singh emphasized that “the right to vote is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and any statutory provision that derogates from or dilutes rights conferred by the Constitution” must be strictly construed in favor of the elector [5]. Similarly, in Ram v Chief Elections Officer (2019), Chief Justice George affirmed that “the right to be registered to vote and the right to vote are sacrosanct and fundamental,” noting that this right is “more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live” [5].

The constitutional analysis becomes even more compelling when examining Article 160’s specific language, requiring that votes be cast “throughout Guyana” in favor of lists of candidates. The appellant argues that this phrase must be given its “ordinary and natural meaning,” which would require that electors everywhere in the country must be able to vote for the same set of approved lists. The current practice effectively fragments the franchise into ten unequal compartments, undermining Article 160’s explicit requirement that proportionality be assessed based on votes “throughout Guyana,” not just within individual geographic constituencies [5].

A Crossroads for Guyanese Democracy

The Fisher v. GECOM case represents a critical juncture for Guyana. The nation stands at a crossroads, with one path leading toward a more inclusive and representative democracy, and the other toward a system that perpetuates geographic and political exclusion. The Guyana Business Journal believes that the path of inclusion is the only one consistent with the nation’s constitutional principles and its international obligations. The arguments presented by the appellant offer a compelling vision of a more democratic Guyana, where every citizen, regardless of their location, has an equal opportunity to participate in the nation’s political life. We urge Guyanese to seize this opportunity to expand the circle of democracy in Guyana and ensure that the country’s electoral system more accurately reflects the will of its people.

References

1. Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, available at: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Guyana_2016
2. INews Guyana, “Not GECOM’s fault FGM did not submit lists for all regions; no legal breach detected – lawyer argues,” August 26, 2025, available at: https://inewsguyana.com/not-gecoms-fault-fgm-did-not-submit-lists-for-all-regions-no-legal-breach-detected-lawyer-args/
3. Guyana Chronicle, “High Court throws out FGM’s challenge to ballot exclusion,” August 29, 2025, available at: https://guyanachronicle.com/2025/08/29/high-court-upholds-gecoms-decision-to-exclude-fgm-alp-from-ballot-in-some-regions/
4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
5. Filed Written Submissions by the Appellant, Krystal Hadassah Fisher v. The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and The Attorney General of Guyana, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 126/2025

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

In an era when Guyanese politics often feels disconnected from the lived experiences of ordinary citizens, Attorney Ronald Daniels presents a different narrative. During a recent post-election conversation on the Guyana Business Journal platform, hosted by Professor Terrence Blackman, Daniels offered a window into both his personal journey and his vision for Guyana’s political future—one shaped by adversity, anchored in service, and focused on bridging the divides that have long constrained the country’s potential.

Daniels’ story begins in the mining town of Linden, though his formative years unfolded in Grove on the East Bank, where he was raised by a remarkable constellation of women. His grandmother, Agnes Daniels, served as the family matriarch, alongside his mother, Marcia Veronica Daniels, who, he notes with evident affection, always insisted on being introduced by her full name. The household included his aunts Winifred, Mortal, Osmond, and Odessa, creating what he describes as a “really close-knit family” despite their “relatively humble circumstances.”

The trajectory of Daniels’ childhood changed dramatically when his mother became ill at age eight. This moment forced a premature maturation that would define his approach to life and eventually politics. “I surrendered my childhood relatively early,” he reflects, “because I realized that mom needed me in a certain way.” By six, he was traveling independently from Grove to Georgetown. By eight, he was cooking his own meals and washing his own laundry. At eleven, he began selling goods on the streets with his brother-in-law, developing the entrepreneurial instincts that would sustain him through years of working multiple jobs while pursuing his education.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Daniels’ candor was his admission about his teenage aspirations. “My aspirations growing up were to become a gangster,” he stated without equivocation. The appeal was pragmatic rather than romantic—after witnessing his mother’s struggles, he reasoned that living “10 years fast with access to all of the resources” seemed preferable to “20 years going through hardships and struggles.” His association with what he terms the “unsavory elements” reflected not moral failing but the survival instincts of a young person navigating trauma and economic hardship.

The intervention that redirected his path came from an unexpected source. Devon Brown, a friend’s cousin and basketball partner, confronted him directly: “I cannot understand how you could be so intelligent and so stupid at the same time.” Rather than taking offense, Daniels saw this as an opening to share his struggles. Brown’s response was both practical and transformative—he began inviting Daniels to practice basketball at 5 a.m. in a churchyard, using these sessions as opportunities for mentorship and redirection toward constructive outlets, such as writing and poetry.

This early experience with mentorship would become a recurring theme in Daniels’ life. Throughout his academic journey—from Central Primary School through land surveying, international relations at the University of Guyana, civil and building engineering, and eventually law school at Hugh Wooding—he worked as a security guard, minibus conductor, construction laborer, and in various other roles to support himself and his mother. His academic distinction was achieved despite, or perhaps because of, these challenges.

His legal career began through another mentorship relationship with attorney Nigel Hughes, where he worked as a paralegal before law school. After graduation, he practiced in Trinidad from 2014 to 2019, returning to Guyana at Hughes’s invitation before establishing his own firm in January 2024. This trajectory—marked by mentorship received and excellence achieved through adversity—provides context for understanding his approach to politics and youth engagement.

Daniels frames his entry into politics through what he calls “spiritual deployment.” Despite years of invitations from various political parties, he waited for what he describes as divine confirmation that the time was right. This spiritual dimension of his political calling may seem unusual in contemporary discourse, but it reflects a worldview shaped by his grandmother’s influence and his own navigation through life’s challenges. After consulting with religious leaders and receiving what he interpreted as confirmation, he joined APNU under Aubrey Norton’s leadership.

His choice of Norton and APNU was informed by both personal experience and policy analysis. Norton had been his professor in international relations at the University of Guyana, and Daniels appreciated what he saw as Norton’s integrity and directness. More substantively, the Guyana Business Journal’s analysis of party manifestos had concluded that APNU’s platform would most rapidly reduce poverty if implemented—a conclusion that aligned with Daniels’ lived experience of economic hardship and his advocacy orientation.

The campaign experience, rather than merely seeking votes, became what Daniels describes as “an extension of what I’ve been doing for a number of years”—engaging with ordinary people, understanding their challenges, and developing policy responses. He systematically cataloged contacts with young people throughout the campaign and continues to engage daily to stay current with their evolving perspectives and needs.

This approach reflects a broader vision for youth empowerment that extends beyond traditional campaign promises. Daniels recognizes that young people represent the largest voting bloc and therefore hold the power to reshape political dynamics. His strategy involves fostering youth-led conversations about Guyana’s future direction, moving beyond ethnic political competition toward what he terms “competition of ideas.”

This emphasis on bridging ethnic divisions represents perhaps the most significant aspect of Daniels’ political vision. He argues that “Guyana cannot be taken to where it needs to be taken by any single political party” due to ethnic voting patterns that have historically constrained resource allocation and created ongoing insecurity. His proposed solution involves youth leadership in building bridges across these divides, recognizing that sustainable progress requires inclusive participation.

The conversation also touched on diaspora engagement, though time constraints limited detailed exploration. Daniels views the diaspora as “a jumbo pot of untapped potential” that extends far beyond remittance flows. His vision involves leveraging diaspora resources—material, technical, and human capital—through reciprocally beneficial relationships that contribute to national development while providing meaningful engagement opportunities for overseas Guyanese.

Professor Blackman highlighted what he saw as a particularly resonant moment from Daniels’ campaign rhetoric: his statement that he supported Aubrey Norton because “I’m a father… I’m lining up behind this leadership because I think it makes the best sense for my children.” This personal stake in political choices, Blackman noted, demonstrated genuine political courage in an environment where such authentic positioning can be politically risky.

The electoral defeat of APNU has not diminished Daniels’ commitment to advocacy. “My advocacy continues to be even on behalf of those who were not supporting me during the campaign,” he emphasized. “I advocate for a better Guyana for each and every one of us, resident and non-resident.” His message to young people centers on maintaining hope and recognizing their agency: “Hope is the absolute last thing that must die. Once you have the breath of life, you have the opportunity to contribute positively to whatever space you occupy.”

The broader implications of this conversation extend beyond one individual’s political journey. Daniels represents a generation of potential leaders whose political engagement is shaped by personal adversity, professional achievement, and a service-oriented approach rather than traditional party machinery. His emphasis on policy-driven politics, youth empowerment, and national unity offers a potential pathway beyond the ethnic political divisions that have long constrained Guyana’s development.

Whether this vision can gain traction in Guyana’s complex political environment remains an open question. The integration of spiritual calling with political engagement may resonate with some segments of the electorate while alienating others. The emphasis on cross-party cooperation and youth-led bridge-building faces the reality of entrenched political interests and historical grievances. The diaspora engagement strategy necessitates the development of concrete policies beyond general statements of intent.

What emerges clearly from this conversation, however, is a political voice rooted in authentic experience and committed to inclusive development. As Guyana continues to navigate the opportunities and challenges of oil wealth, the country’s long-term success will likely depend on its ability to mobilize all available human resources—both at home and abroad—while moving beyond the ethnic and political competition that has historically limited its potential.

The question is not whether individuals like Daniels will continue advocating for change, but whether Guyana’s political system can evolve to accommodate and amplify such voices. The answer may well determine whether the country can fulfill Professor Blackman’s vision of actualizing “the potentials of Guyanese” or whether it will continue to fall short of what its people deserve.

—–

This essay is based on the Guyana Business Journal post-election conversation between Professor Terrence Blackman and Attorney Ronald Daniels.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

Three influential United States senators have launched a high-stakes investigation into ExxonMobil’s tax practices in Guyana, raising fundamental questions about whether American taxpayers are unknowingly subsidizing the oil giant’s lucrative operations in the world’s fastest-growing oil economy. The probe, initiated by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Chris Van Hollen, and Jeff Merkley, centers on a complex but potentially problematic arrangement: ExxonMobil may be claiming U.S. tax credits for taxes that the Guyana government pays on the company’s behalf, rather than taxes the company actually pays itself.

The crux of the matter is straightforward despite its technical complexity. Under Guyana’s 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) with ExxonMobil, the government pays the company’s local income taxes using revenue from oil sales. ExxonMobil may then be telling U.S. tax authorities, “We paid taxes in Guyana, so reduce our American tax bill accordingly.” The senators argue that this is fundamentally unfair – akin to receiving a discount on your U.S. taxes for taxes you never actually paid yourself. Their letter to ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, dated September 23, 2025, demands detailed explanations of how the company has handled these tax arrangements and their impact on its U.S. federal tax liability [1].

This controversy emerges against the backdrop of Guyana’s unprecedented economic transformation. Since oil production began in 2020, the country has experienced the world’s fastest GDP per capita growth, with a staggering 62.3% expansion in 2022 alone [2]. The discovery of approximately 11 billion barrels of oil reserves off Guyana’s coast has propelled the nation from one of South America’s poorest countries to a key player in global energy markets. ExxonMobil and its partners now extract around 900,000 barrels daily, with production expected to reach 1.5 million barrels per day in the coming years.

The 2016 Stabroek Block PSA contains the controversial provision at the heart of the senators’ inquiry. Article 15.4 stipulates that the Government of Guyana pays ExxonMobil’s income taxes from the government’s share of oil profits. This means ExxonMobil never writes a check for its Guyanese taxes – the government handles these payments directly. Under the broader PSA structure, ExxonMobil can recover 75% of oil revenues to cover operational costs, while the remaining 25% is split equally between the company and Guyana’s government. This arrangement effectively gives Guyana a 14.5% take of total revenues (12.5% profit share plus a 2% royalty).

The senators’ concern centers on U.S. tax law governing “dual capacity” taxpayers – companies that both pay taxes to foreign governments and receive specific economic benefits from those same governments, such as oil extraction rights. Under current regulations, specifically Regulation 1.901-2(a)(ii)(B), such companies can claim foreign tax credits to avoid double taxation on the same income. However, the law is clear that payments made to foreign governments in exchange for economic benefits should not qualify for these credits. The senators argue that when Guyana pays ExxonMobil’s taxes from oil revenue, these payments are more akin to subsidies than legitimate tax obligations.

Think of it this way: foreign tax credits exist to prevent unfair double taxation when companies genuinely pay taxes in multiple countries. But if your business partner pays your taxes for you using money from your joint venture, should you still get credit for paying those taxes? The senators clearly believe the answer is no, particularly when the arrangement involves a partnership with the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), a Chinese state-owned company.

The financial implications are substantial. Independent auditors report that ExxonMobil’s Guyana-related income tax expense was $660 million in 2023 and $1.2 billion in 2024. If the company has been claiming these amounts as U.S. foreign tax credits, it could be saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually on its American tax obligations. The senators have given ExxonMobil until October 23, 2025, to provide detailed responses to seven specific questions about its tax practices, including the legal justifications for any foreign tax credit claims and their impact on the company’s U.S. tax bill.

For Guyana’s business community and citizens, this investigation highlights long-standing concerns about the transparency and fairness of the 2016 PSA. While the oil boom has generated over $5.4 billion for the country’s Natural Resource Fund since production began, critics have consistently argued that the contract terms are overly generous to the oil companies [3]. The current arrangement, which was only made public after significant pressure on the government, has been described by some analysts as among the most favorable to oil companies in the region.

The senators’ probe also raises broader questions about international tax policy and resource extraction agreements. A 2024 U.S. Treasury Department proposal aimed at closing similar loopholes could save American taxpayers an estimated $71.5 billion over ten years. If implemented, such reforms would limit foreign tax credits to amounts equivalent to what non-dual capacity taxpayers would owe, thereby fundamentally altering the economics of international oil ventures and potentially influencing the structure of future production sharing agreements globally.

The timing of this investigation is particularly significant as ExxonMobil recently announced a final investment decision for its seventh offshore project in the Stabroek Block – the $6.8 billion Hammerhead development. This massive investment will further accelerate Guyana’s oil production capacity and economic growth trajectory. However, the tax controversy highlights the critical importance of transparency in how multinational corporations structure their operations to optimize global tax positions, particularly when these strategies may impact both U.S. and host country fiscal interests.

For ordinary Guyanese, the key question is whether their country is receiving a fair value from its oil wealth while potentially facilitating tax avoidance strategies that benefit foreign corporations and their home-country taxpayers. The investigation may also influence how other developing nations approach production sharing agreements with multinational oil companies, potentially setting new precedents for transparency and accountability in the global energy sector.

The outcome of this congressional inquiry could have far-reaching implications beyond the immediate parties involved. It may reshape international tax policy, influence future resource extraction negotiations, and determine whether one of the world’s most lucrative oil ventures has been structured in a way that unfairly benefits corporate interests at the expense of both American and Guyanese taxpayers. As Guyana continues its remarkable transformation into a major oil producer, the resolution of these tax questions will likely influence the country’s approach to managing its vast petroleum wealth for generations to come.

References

[1] Whitehouse, S., Van Hollen, C., & Merkley, J. (2025, September 23). Whitehouse, Van Hollen, Merkley Probe ExxonMobil’s Guyana Offshore Oil Contract and the Company’s U.S. Tax Liability. U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-van-hollen-merkley-probe-exxonmobils-guyana-offshore-oil-contract-and-the-companys-u-s-tax-liability/

[2] Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2024, October 15). Guyana’s oil-driven economy has had the largest GDP per capita growth in the world in recent years. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/guyanas-oil-driven-economy-has-had-the-largest-gdp-per-capita-growth-in-the-world-in-recent-years

[3] ExxonMobil. (2024, November 13). 500 million barrels of oil produced from Guyana’s Stabroek Block. https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/locations/guyana/news-releases/11132024_500-million-barrels-of-oil-produced-from-guyanas-stabroek-block

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

President Irfaan Ali’s administration has demonstrated commendable recognition of the Guyanese diaspora’s potential. Still, the time has come to move beyond well-crafted speeches and photo opportunities to deliver substantive policy frameworks that can truly harness the transformative power of this global community. With Guyana experiencing unprecedented economic growth—GDP surging 62-63% in 2022 and 38% in 2023—the nation stands at a critical juncture where the diaspora’s contribution could determine whether this oil boom becomes lasting prosperity or merely a footnote in economic history. The numbers tell a compelling story: an estimated 1.5 million Guyanese living abroad contribute US$550 million in remittances annually, representing not just financial support but an untapped reservoir of human capital that could drive innovation and sustainable development far beyond petroleum revenues.

The foundation laid during President Ali’s first term deserves recognition, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of Guyana’s remarkable economic transformation. The resuscitation of the Diaspora Unit in 2020 and the inaugural Virtual Diaspora Conference in May 2021 marked important symbolic steps forward during a period when the country was emerging as the world’s fastest-growing economy. The President’s articulation of five pillars for diaspora engagement—influence, investment, information, identity, and integration—provided a conceptual framework that acknowledged the diaspora’s multifaceted potential beyond mere financial contributions [1]. The administration’s processing of approximately 2,000 qualified re-migrant applications since 2020, with 409 Guyanese returning in 2024 alone, demonstrates that some mechanisms are functioning effectively [2]. However, these achievements, while meaningful, represent the low-hanging fruit of diaspora engagement rather than the transformative policy architecture needed to harness what Dr. Terrence Blackman describes as the “wellspring of talent and resources” that extends far beyond remittances [3].

The challenge lies not in the administration’s intentions but in the execution gap between aspiration and implementation, particularly given the scale of opportunity that Guyana’s economic boom presents. Dr. Blackman’s comprehensive analysis reveals the stark reality that, despite swelling national revenues, many ordinary Guyanese still face high costs of living and limited job opportunities, with the nation’s continued reliance on remittances reflecting “not prosperity but desperation” for many households [3]. His research demonstrates that roughly 90% of Guyanese with tertiary education and 40% of those with secondary education emigrated between 1965 and 2000, creating a global network of expertise spanning engineering, healthcare, finance, education, and technology [3]. Yet despite years of conferences and consultations, Guyana still lacks comprehensive policy frameworks that would enable systematic diaspora investment in sectors beyond real estate and small-scale ventures.

The concrete examples of diaspora-driven innovation that Dr. Blackman documents illustrate both the immense potential and the policy gaps that need to be addressed. Dr. Jason Mars, the Guyanese-born computer science professor who co-founded the leading AI company Clinc, exemplifies the transformative impact that is possible when diaspora expertise is strategically harnessed. His 2018 graduate scholarship program enabled top Computer Science graduates from the University of Guyana to pursue PhDs at the University of Michigan, while his partnerships with local tech firms provided Guyanese software engineers with training on cutting-edge projects, including those with companies like Ford Motor Company [3]. Most significantly, his 2022 collaboration with Guyana’s Ministry of Education to launch an Artificial Intelligence and Leadership Training Programme reached 136 secondary school students nationwide, demonstrating how diaspora knowledge can be systematically transferred to build local capacity [3].

Similarly, Karen Abrams’ STEMGuyana initiative, which has reached over 20,000 Guyanese students across all ten regions through robotics clubs and coding workshops, shows the scalable impact of diaspora-led educational programs [3]. The 2020 STEMGuyana International Academy connected students of Guyanese heritage globally, with 15 scholarships for under-resourced communities funded by New York-based diaspora associations [3]. These examples represent exactly the kind of structured, strategic engagement that should be replicated and institutionalized across all sectors. Yet, they remain primarily individual initiatives rather than components of a comprehensive national strategy.

The economic data underscores both the diaspora’s commitment and the policy imperative for more systematic engagement. The 44% increase in remittances from 2019 to 2023, reaching US$550 million—equivalent to Guyana’s entire education budget—demonstrates the diaspora’s financial capacity and emotional investment in the homeland [4]. However, these funds flow primarily through informal channels for family support rather than structured investment vehicles that could multiply their developmental impact. The absence of diaspora bonds, investment facilitation mechanisms, or sector-specific incentive packages represents a significant policy vacuum that no amount of engaging rhetoric can fill.

President Ali’s September 2025 diaspora engagement in New York, while symbolically important as the first such event of his second term, exemplified both the promise and the persistent problem. His message, “We are ready for you,” resonated powerfully, and his catalog of infrastructure achievements—from the Berbice River Bridge to new regional hospitals—demonstrated tangible progress in creating the foundation for diaspora investment [5]. However, the event’s focus on showcasing development rather than unveiling concrete diaspora engagement mechanisms highlighted the persistent gap between presentation and policy substance. The administration’s success in streamlining re-migration processing, reducing application times from 21 to 7 working days, represents exactly the kind of practical policy improvement that should be replicated across all diaspora engagement areas [2].

The path forward requires learning from both successful diaspora initiatives and international best practices. Dr. Blackman’s analysis highlights countries such as Ireland, which successfully issued diaspora bonds and established networks for overseas alumni investment, as well as India and China, which leveraged their Silicon Valley diaspora communities to stimulate domestic tech industries [3]. Closer to home, Jamaica and Barbados have established “diaspora desks” and held regular diaspora summits, which have led to initiatives in tourism, healthcare, and education [3]. These examples demonstrate that diaspora engagement is not merely charity or nostalgia, but a strategic development approach that necessitates institutional frameworks and sustained political commitment.

The administration must take decisive action to establish three critical policy frameworks. First, a comprehensive Diaspora Investment Code should be established that provides clear, attractive, and enforceable frameworks for diaspora capital deployment across priority sectors, with specific incentives for investments that transfer technology and create employment opportunities. Second, the creation of institutional mechanisms—such as diaspora bonds and co-investment funds—that can systematically channel remittance flows into productive investments while offering reasonable returns to diaspora investors. Third, the development of what Dr. Blackman calls “brain circulation” programs that enable diaspora professionals to contribute their expertise without requiring permanent relocation, addressing both Guyana’s human capital needs and the diaspora’s desire to maintain international careers [3].

The example of Omkaar Sharma, who invested approximately US$750,000 to establish the Amaya Milk Company and is helping to reduce Guyana’s annual US$25-30 million dairy import bill, demonstrates the economic multiplier effects possible when diaspora investment is properly facilitated [3]. His dairy farm now produces 600 gallons of fresh milk daily, creating local employment while building food security and reducing import dependence. Such investments require not only individual entrepreneurship but also supportive policy environments that streamline bureaucratic procedures, provide infrastructure support, and foster market linkages.

President Ali’s second term presents an unprecedented opportunity to transform diaspora engagement from a series of well-intentioned events into a systematic driver of national development. The foundation of goodwill and basic infrastructure exists, enhanced by the country’s remarkable economic growth trajectory that projects another 115% GDP increase by 2028 [3]. What’s needed now is the political will to move beyond the comfort zone of conferences and photo opportunities to the more complex work of policy design, legislative reform, and institutional building. The diaspora has demonstrated its commitment through decades of financial support, its growing confidence through increased remigration, and its innovative capacity through initiatives led by Dr. Mars, Ms. Abrams, and Mr. Sharma.

The stakes could not be higher. As Dr. Blackman eloquently argues, the true measure of prosperity is not GDP growth but the breadth of opportunities available to every Guyanese [3]. Guyana’s oil boom provides a finite window of opportunity to build the diversified, innovation-driven economy that can sustain prosperity beyond petroleum. The diaspora represents the human capital and financial resources essential to this transformation, but only if the government moves decisively from rhetoric to policy reality. The time for symbolic gestures has passed; the moment for substantive action has arrived. The question is whether President Ali’s administration will seize this historic opportunity to turn Guyana’s global family into the engine of lasting prosperity that both the President and the diaspora envision, or whether future generations will look back on this moment as a missed opportunity to transform temporary oil wealth into enduring national development.

References

[1] Diaspora support key in building a new Guyana – President Ali

[2] 409 Guyanese re-migrated in 2024 – Foreign Minister

[3] “Turning Guyana’s Boom into Lasting Prosperity: People, Innovation and the Diaspora” by Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman, CBER Conference Paper, September 24, 2025
[4]Diaspora Bonds: A New Frontier for Guyana’s Development Financing

[5] ‘We are ready for you’ – Guyana Chronicle

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali made bold claims about his country’s commitment to a clean energy transition, funded by its newfound oil wealth. He stated, “We’re investing in solar farms, hydro, natural gas, wind, and biomass, all aimed at transitioning to a low-emission energy grid. We are building off-grid systems, solar farms, wind farms for the hinterland community, where the Indigenous people live” [1]. This report provides a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of these claims, examining the current state of renewable energy projects in Guyana across four key areas: biomass, wind, hydropower, and large-scale solar farms.

Biomass Energy: Limited Progress Despite Potential

President Ali’s claim of investing in biomass is supported by limited evidence. While Guyana has one operational biomass facility, the 30-megawatt Skeldon Biomass Power Plant, this facility was commissioned in 2008, predating the current administration by over a decade [2]. The plant utilizes bagasse, a byproduct of the sugar industry, and remains the country’s only significant biomass power source [3].

Research conducted by the National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute (NAREI) in 2017 highlighted the significant potential of agricultural waste, particularly rice husk, for bioenergy production [4]. The study estimated that Guyana could generate over 5.8 megawatts of energy annually from rice husk alone. However, implementation has been minimal, with only one rice husk gasification plant currently in operation, powering a single rice mill [4].

While the government has explored bioenergy opportunities, as evidenced by a 2008 Inter-American Development Bank technical cooperation project [5], there is little documented evidence of new, large-scale biomass investments under the current administration. The evidence suggests that while the potential for biomass energy is significant, tangible progress in expanding this sector has been slow.

Wind Energy: Ambitious Plans, Limited Implementation

The evidence for significant investment in wind farms, particularly for rural or hinterland communities, is limited. The most prominent wind energy project, the Hope Beach Wind Farm, has a lengthy and complex history, marked by multiple changes in scope and timeline since its initial conception in 2007 [6, 7]. While the government continues to engage with private developers for a 10-megawatt wind farm at Hope Beach, there is no clear evidence of its completion or operational status [6].

A more recent, smaller-scale project is a planned 450-kilowatt wind turbine farm on Leguan Island, intended to complement an existing solar farm [8]. This project, however, is a far cry from the large-scale wind farms implied in President Ali’s statement.

Furthermore, the claim of building wind farms for hinterland communities is not well-supported. While the Guyana Energy Agency has conducted wind speed monitoring in several hinterland regions, the results were deemed “not very attractive” for commercial development [6]. The focus of wind energy development remains on the coast, rather than in the hinterland, where many Indigenous communities reside.

Hydropower: A Tale of Two Scales

President Ali’s claim of investing in hydropower is supported by mixed evidence, with significant progress in small-scale projects but substantial delays in the country’s flagship large-scale project.

The 165-megawatt Amaila Falls Hydropower Project has been plagued by delays and setbacks. Originally planned for a 2027 start-up, the project has been pushed back to 2029, and the government is currently in the process of re-tendering the project for the third time since 2020 [9, 10].

In contrast, Guyana has made significant strides in small-scale hydropower. The 1.5-megawatt Kumu Hydropower Station and the rehabilitated 0.7-megawatt Moco Moco Hydropower Plant, both in Region Nine, were commissioned in 2025 and 2024, respectively [11]. These projects provide clean energy to thousands of residents in hinterland communities, directly supporting the President’s claim of building off-grid systems for Indigenous populations.

Large-Scale Solar Farms: A Clear Area of Investment

The evidence of investment in large-scale solar farms is the most robust. The Guyana Utility Scale Solar Photovoltaic Program (GUYSOL), funded by a US$83.3 million grant from the Guyana-Norway partnership, is a significant initiative aimed at diversifying the country’s energy mix [12]. The first phase of GUYSOL, which includes 18 megawatts of solar PV farms in Regions Two, Five, and Six, is currently under construction and expected to be completed by 2026 [13].

The 15-megawatt Linden solar farm, another significant project, is also under construction and expected to be completed by 2026 [14]. This project, along with the GUYSOL program, will contribute to Guyana’s goal of having over 39 megawatts of solar capacity by 2025 [15].

In addition to these large-scale projects, the government has also implemented a program to distribute 30,000 solar home systems to off-grid communities, further supporting the claim of providing clean energy to hinterland and Indigenous populations [16].

President Irfaan Ali’s claims about Guyana’s clean energy transition are a mix of ambitious plans and tangible progress. The evidence strongly supports the claim of significant investment in large-scale solar farms, with multiple projects under construction that will substantially increase the country’s solar capacity. The government’s commitment to small-scale hydropower projects in hinterland communities is also well-documented and represents a clear success story.

However, the claims regarding biomass and wind energy are less substantiated. While the potential for both is significant, there is little evidence of new, large-scale investments in these sectors under the current administration. The flagship Amaila Falls hydropower project also faces significant delays, casting doubt on the timeline for large-scale hydropower development.

President Ali’s vision for a comprehensive clean energy transition is ambitious, but the implementation is uneven. The government has made strides in solar and small-scale hydropower, but has yet to translate its plans for biomass and wind energy into significant, on-the-ground projects.

References

[1] Irfaan Ali, President of Guyana, on Putting Oil Profits Into Clean Energy – The New York Times

[2] Power plant profile: Skeldon Biomass Power Plant, Guyana

[3] Guyana – Countries & Regions – IEA

[4] Converting agricultural waste to energy Part one – Guyana Chronicle

[5] IDB | Expanding Bioenergy Opportunities in Guyana

[6] Wind – Guyana Energy Agency

[7] Hope Beach Wind Farm Project Information Note (PIN)

[8] 🔋450KW Wind Farm Planned for Guyana

[9] Guyana’s hydropower project pushed to 2029, as Gas-to-Energy advances – Finance Minister | OilNOW

[10] Govt. to retender for Amaila Falls project – Kaieteur News

[11] New 1.5 MW Kumu Hydropower Station commissioned, set to expand access to renewable energy and support development in Region Nine – Guyana Energy Agency

[12] Guyana Utility Scale Solar Photovoltaic Program | Guyana Power and Light Incorporated

[13] US$83M contract inked for solar farms in Essequibo, Berbice – News Room Guyana

[14] Linden to lead Guyana’s clean energy transition with largest solar farm – Guyana Chronicle

[15] Guyana solar energy capacity: Impressive 39 MW by 2025

[16] Increased electricity access in Region Nine – Guyana Energy Agency

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

ExxonMobil has formally made its final investment decision (FID) on the Hammerhead project, the seventh major development on Guyana’s prolific Stabroek Block. With regulatory approvals now secured, Hammerhead is expected to come online by 2029. This project, with a price tag of approximately US$6.8 billion, will involve the development of 18 wells, including both production and injection wells, and will utilize a Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel. The FPSO is expected to be capable of producing around 150,000 barrels of oil per day. Hammerhead joins six other approved developments on the Stabroek Block, all of which collectively represent a multi-billion-dollar investment in Guyana’s oil and gas sector.

The economic upside for Guyana is significant. Since production began in 2019, more than US$60 billion has been committed across the seven approved projects, and over US$7.8 billion has already been paid into Guyana’s Natural Resource Fund. The projects have also had a positive impact on local employment and supply chains, with approximately 6,200 Guyanese now employed in support roles for Stabroek operations, accounting for about 70% of the workforce. Furthermore, over US$2.9 billion has been spent with Guyanese suppliers since 2015. Production is also on the rise. Currently, the Stabroek block is producing approximately 650,000 barrels a day. With the recent start of the ONE Guyana FPSO, the fourth FPSO on the block, overall production is forecast to exceed 900,000 barrels per day by year-end.

However, the large-scale operations also bring risks and considerations that must be addressed. The use of FPSOs and offshore wells raises environmental concerns about potential spillage, emissions, and the disruption of marine ecology. Guyana will need robust regulation, strong oversight, and comprehensive environmental monitoring, particularly as production scales up. There is also the risk of the “resource curse,” where overdependence on oil revenues can distort other sectors of the economy, make national budgets vulnerable to oil price volatility, and reduce incentives for economic diversification. Social accountability is another critical factor. With the influx of revenues and contract work, transparency in how contracts are awarded, how revenues are distributed, and how community impacts are addressed is crucial. Ensuring that local skill development, environmental protection, and equitable benefits continue will be key to sustainable growth.

The Hammerhead decision marks a significant step in Guyana’s transformation into a major oil producer. Less than a decade after the first discovery in the Stabroek Block, Guyana is now poised to harness substantial revenues, build local supplier networks, and boost employment. The stakes are high: if managed well, this era could produce long-term prosperity; if not, the challenges may multiply. For neighboring countries, Guyana is becoming a case study in how a small developing economy can govern large oil projects, balance short-term gains with long-term sustainability, and preserve or restore environmental systems threatened by offshore drilling.

ExxonMobil’s Hammerhead project is more than just another FPSO project; it is a signal that Guyana is accelerating its development and that global energy markets are still betting on its oil future. But with this speed must come responsibility. The decisions made now—on royalties, taxes, environmental protection, labor, and transparency—will determine whether Hammerhead is remembered as a cornerstone of prosperity for all Guyanese or as another story of wealth extracted with little shared.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

References

[1] Wikipedia. (2025). 2025 Guyanese general election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Guyanese_general_election

[2] User-provided data for the 2006 election.

[3] Guyana Standard. (2025, September 21). How much further can the APNU fall, Mr. Norton? https://www.guyanastandard.com/2025/09/21/how-much-further-can-the-apnu-fall-mr-norton/

[4] Stabroek News. (2008, December 7). Corbin should step down, McAllister says. https://www.stabroeknews.com/2008/12/07/news/guyana/corbin-should-step-down-mcallister-says/

[5] Kaieteur News. (2025, May 20). Aubrey Norton Leader of the PNCR: Why he should go. https://kaieteurnewsonline.com/2025/05/20/aubrey-norton-leader-of-the-pncr-why-he-should-go/