Routledge made the comments in response to questions about demands for ExxonMobil to do more for Guyanese.
“It’s not our job. They didn’t vote for us. We are not representatives of the people.”
The comments, reported by The New York Times journalists Simon Romero and Rebecca F. Elliott, have added fuel to an already intense national debate over Guyana’s oil wealth, the benefits accruing to the country and the role of ExxonMobil in the transformation of the economy.
Adams, who spent approximately 30 years at the U.S. Department of Energy, including serving in the Senior Executive Service, said Routledge’s response was unnecessary and questioned the premise underlying the Exxon executive’s remarks.
“I challenge Routledge to name a single Guyanese who would have ever indicated any expectation that it was Exxon’s ‘job to build Guyana’.”
According to Adams, the issue is not whether ExxonMobil should “build Guyana,” but whether the company should demonstrate greater respect for the country and its people while extracting billions of dollars in petroleum resources.
“As expected of a supposed seasoned Manager, he could have come up with a thousand gracious answers; however, it seems that he just couldn’t resist his proclivity for poking another finger into the eyes of the Guyanese people with his patronizing mouthing off.”
Adams also drew a sharp distinction between Routledge and his predecessor, Rod Henson, whom he described as a committed ExxonMobil executive who nevertheless demonstrated greater respect for Guyana’s institutions and people.
“It must be noted that this is not about Exxon, since Routledge’s behaviour is like chalk and cheese compared to his predecessor Mr. Rod Henson, who, even though a fervent company loyalist, was an exemplary professional who exhibited great mindfulness and respect for the country’s rule of law, Government authorities, and the people of Guyana.”
The former EPA chief then challenged Routledge to acknowledge Guyana’s importance to ExxonMobil’s global operations.
“Instead of washing his mouth on the Guyanese people, I wish Routledge would for once, have the common decency and manners to at least fess up that his company needs Guyana far more than Guyana needs his company; and express his gratitude to the people for resuscitating his company.”
Adams argued that Guyana’s offshore oil production has become strategically important to ExxonMobil at a time when the company was restructuring its global operations.
“It was Guyana’s oil that bailed Exxon out of a financial crisis when it was laying off employees, shedding its high liability assets such as the Canadian tar sands, and yes, being kicked off of the Dow Jones Industrial list of the US 30 blue chip companies…”
The comments come as ExxonMobil’s Guyana operations continue to expand. The Stabroek Block has become one of the company’s most significant global assets, with Guyana’s rapid production growth contributing materially to ExxonMobil’s worldwide output.
Adams also revisited several longstanding disputes involving ExxonMobil, including Guyana’s petroleum agreement, gas flaring, environmental liability, oil-spill preparedness and the regulation of production.
He pointed to previous statements concerning ExxonMobil’s profitability in Guyana and cited company financial statements that, he said, recorded profits of G$132 billion in 2021 and G$637 billion in 2022.
He also criticised ExxonMobil’s position on the country’s environmental protections and its legal battles over liability for a potential major oil spill.
Adams has previously argued that ExxonMobil should face stricter regulatory oversight in Guyana, drawing on his decades of experience within the U.S. Department of Energy. He has said that oil companies operating in the United States face regulatory requirements that would not permit the level of influence he believes ExxonMobil exercises in Guyana.
His latest criticism also comes less than a month after he warned publicly about the financial implications of ExxonMobil’s future developments in the Stabroek Block and called for greater protection of Guyana’s share of petroleum revenues.
Adams ultimately joined previous calls for Routledge’s removal.
“For Exxon to recover any semblance of credibility and confidence of the people as seen during Mr. Henson’s tenure, I join with Christopher Ram and the others in calling for the removal of Mr. Routledge.”
Routledge’s comments have consequently placed renewed focus on a question at the heart of Guyana’s oil debate: while ExxonMobil is not elected to govern Guyana, what level of corporate responsibility and accountability should reasonably be expected from a multinational company whose operations are generating enormous wealth from Guyana’s natural resources?
