Guyana’s Oil Revenue Books Don’t Add Up by $6.7 Billion, Analysts Say
Energy
Key Facts
—The gap. Analysts say Guyana’s central bank reports about $6.7 billion less oil revenue than Exxon’s own cost figures imply.
—The math. Exxon says it recovered $51 billion in costs; at the contract’s 75 percent ceiling, that implies at least $68 billion in revenue.
—The central bank. The Bank of Guyana’s reports put total oil revenue through end-2025 at about $61.3 billion.
—The stake. At Guyana’s 14.5 percent share, the unexplained gap works out to roughly $972 million.
—The source. The calculation comes from the Oil and Gas Governance Network, a Guyanese watchdog group.
A watchdog group says Guyana’s own Guyana oil revenue figures do not match the numbers ExxonMobil reports, and the difference runs to about 6.7 billion dollars.
The claim comes from the Oil and Gas Governance Network, a Guyanese watchdog. It rests on a simple piece of arithmetic drawn from the oil companies’ own statements.
In June, an Exxon executive said the consortium had recovered about 51 billion dollars of its costs by the end of 2025. Under the contract, up to three-quarters of oil revenue can go to cost recovery in any period.
How the Guyana oil revenue gap is calculated
The logic is direct. If 51 billion dollars represents at most three-quarters of revenue, then total revenue must have been at least 68 billion dollars, dividing the recovered sum by that ceiling.
Yet the Bank of Guyana‘s reports put total oil revenue through the end of 2025 at about sixty-one billion dollars. That leaves an unexplained difference of about six point seven billion dollars between the two accounts.
Apply Guyana’s current share of roughly fifteen percent to that gap, and it translates to about 972 million dollars. In other words, the country may have been shortchanged close to a billion dollars, even on the thin slice it receives today.
The watchdog stresses it cannot say where the discrepancy comes from. The two sides may be using different production volumes, different oil prices, different accounting periods, or different definitions of revenue.
Why the Guyana oil revenue question matters abroad
For a reader in London or Munich, this is about transparency in one of the world’s fastest-growing oil economies. Guyana has fewer than a million people and a windfall that could reshape the country, so how the money is counted is not a technicality.
The backdrop sharpens the point. Exxon says its recoverable costs are nearly repaid, which should soon lift Guyana’s take from a small share toward its full half of the profits.
That makes accurate accounting urgent right now. If the base revenue figure is wrong, then the royalties and profit-oil payments calculated from it may be wrong too, and there is no easy way for the public to check.
Exxon has defended its numbers before. It argues the gap between its reported profit and Guyana’s earnings reflects the difference between international accounting rules and the cash-based cost-recovery system written into the 2016 contract.
Other Guyanese analysts have gone further. The chartered accountant Christopher Ram has argued the partners’ accounts fail to tell a consistent story despite sharing one block, one agreement and one auditor.
The scale of the field explains why small percentages matter. The Stabroek block pumps well over nine hundred thousand barrels a day and is heading toward far higher output by the end of the decade.
At those volumes, even a rounding difference in how revenue is defined can move hundreds of millions of dollars. That is the heart of the watchdog’s demand for a clear, reconciled set of figures.
The stakes are heightened by Guyana’s still-modest take. Despite years of production, the state has captured only a fraction of the crude’s value while its public debt has climbed alongside the boom.
What is the Guyana oil revenue gap?
It is a difference of about six point seven billion dollars between the oil revenue the Bank of Guyana reports through end-2025, near sixty-one billion dollars, and the roughly sixty-eight billion dollars implied by Exxon’s statement that it recovered fifty-one billion dollars in costs under a three-quarters cost-recovery ceiling.
How much could the Guyana oil revenue gap cost the country?
At Guyana’s current share of about fifteen percent, the unexplained gap works out to roughly 972 million dollars. Analysts frame this as a possible shortfall, not a proven loss, since the source of the discrepancy is unknown.
How does Exxon explain the Guyana oil revenue difference?
Exxon officials have attributed apparent mismatches to the difference between international accounting standards and the cash-based cost-recovery system in the petroleum agreement. They have not publicly reconciled the specific multibillion-dollar gap the watchdog raises.
More: Latin America news in English, every day from The Rio Times.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does the $6.7 billion gap in Guyana's oil revenue come from?
The gap comes from a mismatch between two sets of numbers: Exxon says the consortium recovered $51 billion in costs, which implies total revenue of at least $68 billion under the contract's 75% cost-recovery ceiling, but the Bank of Guyana reports only about $61.3 billion in total oil revenue through end-2025. The Oil and Gas Governance Network, a Guyanese watchdog group, identified this difference.
How much money could Guyana have missed out on because of this gap?
At Guyana's roughly 14.5% share, the unexplained gap works out to about $972 million — close to a billion dollars. Analysts describe this as a possible shortfall, not a proven loss, since no one has yet explained where the discrepancy comes from.
How does Exxon explain the difference in the numbers?
Exxon has said the apparent mismatch reflects the difference between international accounting standards and the cash-based cost-recovery system written into the 2016 contract. The company has not publicly reconciled the specific multibillion-dollar gap the watchdog group raises.
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error
Read More from The Rio Times