Confidence for Whom?

Dear Editor, 

“As public debate renews over whether Guyana should seek a fairer share of its oil wealth, the U.S. Ambassador’s recent warning against renegotiating the 2016 ExxonMobil contract places investor interest squarely at odds with national accountability. This opinion piece examines the deeper issue at stake — whether investor confidence should ever come before the people’s confidence in their own government, and why the reversal of early regulatory gains under Dr. Vincent Adams represents a troubling retreat from sovereignty and responsibility.”

When the United States Ambassador to Guyana warns that it “sends a terrible signal” for a government to revisit an already signed contract, she restates a view shaped by investors, not necessarily by citizens. 

Ambassador Nicole Theriot’s caution about the 2016 ExxonMobil agreement came as Guyana continues to debate whether it should seek a better deal for its oil resources. But in a sovereign democracy, investor comfort can never outweigh the duty of a nation’s leaders to protect the people’s long-term interests.

The argument that contracts are sacred and must never be touched might sound appealing to investors, but even contract law recognizes reality through the principle of “changed condition.” Circumstances evolve, and so must commitments. When Guyana’s Production Sharing Agreement was signed in 2016, the country had no oil production, no experience in petroleum governance, and limited technical capacity. Today, with close to a million barrels of oil being pumped daily, the conditions have changed beyond recognition. To insist that a new country must forever live with its earliest mistakes is to deny the very idea of national growth and maturity.

It is worth recalling that at the very start of oil production, there were meaningful changes achieved—not through renegotiation, but through determination and sound leadership. Under the distinguished tutelage of then EPA head Dr. Vincent Adams, the agency used firm persuasion to secure vital improvements without touching the core of the contract. By simple but lawful coercion, the EPA compelled ExxonMobil’s parent company to guarantee liability in the event of an oil spill, making the corporation—not just its local subsidiary—responsible for potential environmental damage. The EPA also removed an absurd clause that required seven days’ notice before government officials could board offshore vessels, replacing it with “unfettered access, up to and including unannounced visits.” Exxon agreed to both measures.

“These actions demonstrated that where there is will, there is leverage. But will is a political choice. Dr. Adams was later removed by a compliant PPP government, reportedly at the behest of Exxon”. 

The reversal of those safeguards—now at a time when production is tenfold what it was—stands as a symbol of how governance can bend away from public duty toward corporate submission.

At that very juncture, the PPP government took its compliance and subservience a step further when it appealed the landmark ruling of Justice Sandil Kissoon, which had required expanded parent company guarantees for oil spill liability. In that case, the State of Guyana astonishingly stood shoulder to shoulder with ExxonMobil against its own citizens, effectively opposing stronger environmental and financial protections for the country. The move left a burning question echoing through the public conscience — in whose interest is our government truly acting and whom is it protecting?

Ambassador Theriot warns that reopening agreements sends a “bad signal” to investors. Yet the worse signal is sent when a government appears unwilling to defend its people’s interest. Confidence must not mean complacency; stability must not mean silence. A country’s development cannot be built on the fragile comfort of those who extract its wealth.

ExxonMobil is doing exactly what it exists to do—safeguard shareholder profit. The responsibility to safeguard Guyana’s citizens, territory, and future rests squarely with its government. That duty must outweigh any fear of “bad signals.” For in the end, it is not the investor’s confidence that defines a nation—it is the people’s.

Sincerely, 

Hemdutt Kumar