The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana has rejected a recent communiqué issued by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela objecting to Guyana’s decision to advance a three-dimensional multi-client seismic exploration programme within Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
In a statement, the Government of Guyana said it had taken note of the Venezuelan communiqué dated March 11, 2026, but categorically rejected the assertions contained therein.
“The Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana has taken note of the communiqué issued by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela dated 11th March 2026, which purports to object to Guyana’s decision to advance a three-dimensional multi-client seismic exploration programme within Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Guyana categorically rejects the assertions contained therein, which are legally unfounded, inaccurate, and entirely inconsistent with established principles of international law.”
The Ministry reminded Venezuela that Guyana has the legal authority to grant permission for activities within maritime areas linked to its coastal territory, as defined by the 1899 Arbitral Award which established the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela.
“The Ministry wishes to remind the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela that the Government of Guyana has the authority to grant permission for any activities within the maritime areas appurtenant to the coastal territory of Guyana, as defined by the Arbitral Award of 1899, which established the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela.”
According to the Government, Guyana exercises sovereignty within 12 nautical miles of its territorial sea and sovereign rights beyond that limit within its EEZ and continental shelf.
“As such, Guyana’s decision to facilitate the acquisition of high-resolution seismic data through a 3D Multi-Client Seismic Survey represents a legitimate and lawful exercise of its rights and is entirely consistent with international law and established state practice.”
The Ministry explained that the seismic acquisition initiative forms part of a broader national strategy to strengthen the scientific understanding of Guyana’s offshore petroleum basin, enhance transparency in resource management and improve the attractiveness of Guyana’s offshore acreage to responsible international investors. The programme will utilise advanced geophysical techniques to produce high-resolution subsurface imagery to support exploration planning and strengthen the long-term governance of Guyana’s offshore energy sector.
Guyana also rejected Venezuela’s claim that the activities are taking place in “undelimited maritime areas,” describing the assertion as a misrepresentation of both geographic and legal realities.
“Accordingly, Guyana firmly rejects Venezuela’s attempt to characterise these lawful activities as occurring within ‘undelimited maritime areas.’ Such claims constitute a deliberate misrepresentation of both the geographic and legal realities governing Guyana’s maritime jurisdiction.”
The Ministry noted that Guyana has consistently exercised peaceful administration and jurisdiction over its maritime space, including the licensing and regulation of offshore exploration activities, in accordance with international law and with due regard for the rights of other states.
The present controversy forms part of the long-standing Guyana–Venezuela border controversy over the Essequibo region, a territory that makes up about two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass. The boundary was determined by the 1899 Arbitral Award, which granted the territory to then British Guiana. Venezuela later declared the award null and void in 1962, prompting the signing of the 1966 Geneva Agreement to establish a process for resolving the controversy. Guyana maintains the award is legally valid and binding, and the matter is currently before the International Court of Justice for a final determination.
“It should be recalled that when the boundary between the two States was definitively settled more than a century ago by the 1899 Arbitral Award, Venezuela accepted and benefited from that settlement and the legal certainty it provided.”
The Government said the Award brought finality to the territorial boundary and allowed both countries to exercise the rights arising from their respective territories and maritime projections.
Guyana therefore rejected Venezuela’s protest and dismissed any suggestion that Guyana’s maritime space or continental shelf could belong to Venezuela.
The Ministry also emphasised that the Geneva Agreement imposes no obligation on Guyana to refrain from economic development activities within its territory or maritime areas.
“Moreover, Venezuela’s assertion that it will not recognise concessions, licences or activities authorised by Guyana in its maritime domain is wholly without legal effect.”
According to the Ministry, under international law no state can invalidate the lawful sovereign decisions of another state within its own territory or maritime zones.
The Government of Guyana has called on Venezuela to refrain from issuing what it described as inflammatory and misleading statements that seek to undermine Guyana’s sovereign rights or discourage legitimate economic activity within Guyana’s maritime domain.
