Dr. Vincent Adams, energy expert and former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has sharply criticised the Government’s staging of the recent Guyana Energy Conference & Supply Chain Expo 2026—branded the “One Guyana” Energy Conference—describing it as exclusionary, agenda-driven and detached from the concerns of ordinary citizens.
The conference was held in Georgetown from February 17 to February 20, 2026, under the theme “Building Tomorrow’s Future Today.”
In a letter to the editor, Adams endorsed another writer’s characterisation of the forum as “a shrine to greed disguised as progress” and “A government that sells a global illusion while hiding local decay, masters of narrative, and merchants of vanity.”
Adams, who previously headed the Environmental Protection Agency and served for 30 years at a senior level within the United States Department of Energy, retiring as Deputy Manager of EM’s Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, said the conference featured close to 100 speakers, including 20 senior government officials—among them 12 ministers—and more than 50 foreign dignitaries and executives. However, he noted that no member or associate of opposition political parties, which collectively earned nearly half of the votes at the last elections, was invited.
“When this in-your-face unpatriotic divisive behavior was brought to the attention of the Government going back to previous conferences, the unimaginable imperious response was that the Opposition had no one qualified in oil & gas to participate,” Adams wrote. He said the Government “owes the people an explanation as to what they deem to be the qualifications to participate, and how are the PPPC participants more qualified than Opposition members.”
Beyond political exclusion, Adams argued that high costs effectively barred ordinary citizens and small businesses. He said general admission was priced at $89,000—close to the $100,000 government cash grant—while small businesses faced costs of $1–2 million when transportation and accommodation were included.
He further criticised the absence of the University of Guyana, which he described as the “logical institutional anchor for petroleum expertise development,” even as several foreign universities played prominent roles.
Adams also alleged that local attendees who managed to participate were prevented from asking questions. Instead, he said, questions were “asked and answered by handpicked panel members, themselves,” describing the move as “a bizarre authoritarian maneuver” aimed at avoiding scrutiny of serious industry concerns.
“It is troublingly evident that the Government would rather sit at the table with strangers from all corners of the globe to chart what was professed to be the ‘Building of Guyana’s Future’, while systematically excluding nearly half of the constitutional government, and UG; and while pricing out ordinary citizens and small businesses, and barring questions from the Guyanese people who owns the oil and stake in its exploitation,” he wrote, asking: “whose ‘Future’ is actually being built and by whom?”
Drawing on his experience leading Guyana and U.S. delegations and chairing major international conferences, Adams said the event was “an aberration,” arguing that such conferences are typically designed to impart knowledge, share lessons and address host-country challenges.
He contended that corporate sponsorship, including US$150,000 from ExxonMobil, influenced the agenda. “When Exxon sponsors to the tune of $150,000, it buys more than booth space and speaking slots by whom. It buys influence in setting the agenda in its own interest and what remains absent,” Adams wrote, asserting that the company’s fiduciary duty is to maximise production and profit.
Adams said responsibility ultimately rests with the Government, referencing a landmark 2023 ruling by Justice Sandil Kissoon of the High Court in litigation involving Exxon’s local subsidiary and the Environmental Protection Agency. In that decision, Justice Kissoon required Exxon to provide an unlimited parent company guarantee to cover potential oil spill liabilities and concluded that “Exxon’s course of action is made permissible only by a derelict, pliant and submissive” Government.
He argued that the conference failed to address critical issues, including renegotiation of the oil contract, enforcement of environmental laws, gas flaring, disposal of produced water, financial liability for oil spills, production safety limits, labour concerns, delays and escalating costs in the Gas-to-Energy project, decommissioning liabilities, and management of the Natural Resource Fund. He also questioned Guyana’s approach in contrast to Norway’s sovereign wealth model, noting that Norway took 47 years before its first withdrawal, while Guyana withdraws funds shortly after deposit.
Adams concluded that the omissions underscored what he sees as a broader failure to confront the structural, financial and environmental risks facing the country’s oil sector.
