The Irony Of a “Downtrodden” Nation Lifting The World Out Of Poverty

Dear Editor,

The rhetoric flowing from the podium at the fifth Guyana Energy Conference and Supply Chain Expo suggests a tale of two nations. In one version—the one peddled by ExxonMobil Upstream President Dan Ammann—Guyana is a global engine of “transformation” and a savior of the world’s poor. In the version lived by the citizens picketing the 2026 National Budget, it is a nation where “Mathematics in your sleep” is a survival skill to stretch a $60,147 monthly wage against $45,000 rent. Ammann’s assertion that Guyana’s oil will “lift the world from poverty” is not just tone-deaf; it is a clinical masterclass in corporate gaslighting. While ExxonMobil and its partners pocketed a staggering **US$8.4 billion** in profits from the Stabroek Block in 2024, the “owner” of the resource, Guyana, received a mere US  $ 2.6 billion

To fully grasp the maths of exploitation let’s examine the “Global Saviour” narrative ; to really  understand the depth of the “tomfoolery” being presented, one must look at the structural imbalance of the 2016 Production Sharing Agreement (PSA). The data from 2024 tells a chilling story of extraction:

• The Profit Gap: Exxon and its partners realized approximately US$8.41 billion in profit, while Guyana received only US$2.6 billion—roughly 24% of the available surplus.
• The 75% Chokehold: Under the current PSA, Exxon is permitted to deduct up to 75% of gross production every month for “cost recovery,” leaving only a quarter of our own oil to be split.
• The 12.5% Crumbs: When the math is finalized, Guyana effectively receives only 12.5 barrels out of every 100 produced in the Stabroek Block.

While glaring red flags challenge Ammann’s absurd assertions with claims  that Guyana’s oil helps “lift people out of poverty” globally,  he is conveniently overlooking  the facts that the primary beneficiaries are shareholders in Irving, Texas. While global energy markets may benefit from increased supply, the specific “lifting” occurring is the elevation of Exxon’s quarterly dividends. If this oil is meant to cure poverty, why does 58% of the Guyanese population remain trapped in economic hardship? Furthermore, Ammann praised how the resource is being “managed.” From a corporate perspective, this is true—Exxon has secured perhaps the most lopsided contract in modern history, devoid of ring-fencing provisions and featuring a tax-exempt status that costs the Guyanese treasury billions in forfeited revenue. To call this “exceptional management” is to congratulate oneself on a successful heist.

The actual reality on the ground dispels any corporate mirage, as  Exxon celebrates its 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) milestone, the socio-economic disconnect is reaching a breaking point. The “transformation” Ammann points to—new roads and clinics—is cosmetic if the people using them cannot afford to eat. When a “healthy school meal” is reduced to a pine tart because the budget doesn’t stretch, the oil wealth is clearly not reaching the kitchen table. The “Eagle’s view” Dan Ammann claims to hold seems to be missing the people on the ground. You cannot claim to be a global poverty-fighter while presiding over a contract that leaves the host nation with the crumbs of its own banquet.

The world doesn’t need Guyana’s oil to save it from poverty; Guyana needs a fair deal to save its own people from Exxon’s “generosity.”

Respectfully,

Hemdutt Kumar