By Stabroek News November 10, 2025

While weeks ago it seemed that Guyana and ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL) were close to signing an agreement to begin the sole expert process to resolve the US$214 million in disputed expenses identified in the IHS Markit audit report on the expenses claimed by ExxonMobil for the period 1999 to 2017, that has not happened.

According to sources, the process has been set back again because of EMGL’s “stalling” tactics. Currently, there is no idea when the agreement could come.

Stabroek News reached out to the government through the Ministry of Natural Resources, although subject minister Vickram Bharrat had explained that the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) was responsible. There has been no word from the GRA.

ExxonMobil weeks ago said that they had not yet agreed to anyone. Stabroek News emailed for a further update which the company’s representative said would be answered today.

“I think we are getting close, I’m not aware that we have fully aligned on who will be the sole expert but I’m sure that information would be available in the not-too-distant future,” EMGL Country President Alistair Routledge had said in response to a question from Stabroek News, earlier last month.

Routledge had stated that his company had “been working with the GRA on identifying a sole expert, with whom both parties are comfortable. That is a process that takes a little bit of time, partly because it’s the first time we’ve done this together.

“It’s not unusual for that to take time, both sides have a view of who might be a suitable sole expert. We make proposals to one another, we review those, and then we have further discussion,” he said.

Spanning two different administrations and nearly six years since initiated, the audit process remains incomplete.

A May 31, 2025 deadline had expired and ExxonMobil had agreed in June to activate the sole expert medium as per the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) to resolve the issue. However, sources had told this newspaper that the agreement signing for a sole expert was stalled because the US oil major wanted to dominate the selection. The names proposed by respective sides have not yet been released.

According to Article 26:34 of the PSA, the sole expert “shall be an independent and impartial person of international standing with relevant qualifications and experience.”

The PSA outlines: “The sole expert shall be requested to issue an opinion for use by the parties in an effort to settle any such dispute. The sole expert shall be appointed by agreement between the parties, and in the event the parties fail to agree on the sole expert within 30 days after receipt of the written notice from any party proposing the appointment of a sole expert, such expert shall be appointed by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in accordance with its Rules for the Appointment of Experts and Neutrals….”

The expert, once appointed, shall have no ex-parte communications with any of the parties to the dispute concerning the expert determination or the underlying dispute.

“The parties shall cooperate fully in the expeditious conduct of such expert determination and provide the expert with access to all facilities, books, records, documents, information and personnel necessary to make a fully informed decision in an expeditious manner. The sole expert shall act as an expert and not as an arbitrator or mediator, and shall endeavour to provide an opinion on the dispute within 30 days of his appointment, but no later than 60 days after his appointment. Sole expert shall decide the manner in which any determination is made, but in any event shall accept oral and/or written submissions and arguments from the parties,” the PSA explains.

“All correspondence, documentation and information provided by a party to the sole expert shall be copied to the other party, and any oral submissions to the sole expert shall be made in the presence of all parties and each party shall have a response. The decision of the sole expert on matters referred to him shall not be final and binding on the parties and the parties shall utilize the recommendation to enter into further discussions on the matter.”

The PSA states that “the fees and expenses of a sole expert (as well as the charges for the use of facilities) shall be borne equally by the contractor and the government. Each party shall bear any other expenses it incurs in connection with expert proceedings.”

From 2019

The IHS Markit audit was the first audit of expenses by ExxonMobil and partners and it was signed by the David Granger administration in December 2019 and covered US$1.67 billion in expenses from 1999 to 2017.

The audit is crucial as 75 percent of all of the petroleum extracted goes to offset expenses claimed by ExxonMobil. If those claims are unjustified, it reduces the amount of profit oil available to Guyana.

The final version of the IHS audit report, after reconciliations, was submitted to the PPP/C government in March 2021. That report remained hidden from public view until a news item on its findings appeared in the April 2, 2023, Sunday Stabroek.

In that report, the audit revealed that a whopping 12.8 percent of its US$1.67 billion expenses (some US$214.4 million) could be disputed by the Guyana Govern-ment as they were not allowable or did not have sufficient supporting documentation.

The government claimed that it was incomplete and over the following years periodic promises were made on its completion.

In 2023, this newspaper reported that there were negotiations ongoing between the Ministry of Natural Resources and ExxonMobil to reduce the US$214 million in questionable claims flagged by IHS Markit to a paltry US$3 million, after the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) stated that the US$214 million sum would stand.

The GRA had written a letter to the Natural Resources Ministry saying that it would not challenge the US$214 million figure and recommended that the audit be closed. That letter was also revealed to the public by Stabroek News and appeared to have forced the government to close deliberations.

Following this, in September 2023, President Irfaan Ali ordered that an investigation be swiftly conducted to determine who authorised personnel at the Ministry of Natural Resources to bypass advice from GRA and enter into direct negotiations with ExxonMobil.

Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo had announced that an investigation would be conducted. “Somebody has to give explanation how they engaged with Exxon and we have to have a policy with people who are at the technical level, and who engage with executives, that they must seek explicit clearance from the ministry and report back on the nature of the engagement; almost a disclosure policy,” Jagdeo had said.

The Vice President had acknowledged that had it not been for the Stabroek News’ report on the issue, it might not have seen the light of day.

For its part, ExxonMobil steered clear of addressing how it entered into dis-cussions with individuals not authorised by the Government of Guyana concerning the US$214 million but stated that it acted in “good faith” and cooperated with consultants.

When the investigation was completed, head of the government’s petroleum unit Gopnauth ‘Bobby’ Gossai was blamed for the audit fiasco and was disciplined by losing 15 days’ pay and a warning over the unauthorised discussions.

On March 6 this year, and following a report by this newspaper, the government broke its long silence on the IHS Markit audit, saying that ExxonMobil has been notified that there is no more room for talks and it will seek recourse to the 2016 PSA for resolution.

Two other audits have been done but neither has been finalised.

Original link posted by Stabroek News on November 10, 2025.