Exxon needs Guyana more than Guyana needs it

October 5, 2026·4 min read

Dear Editor,

Exxon’s Alistair Routledge’s usual full of himself outburst that “It’s not our job to build the nation…they didn’t vote for us…we are not representatives of the people” in response to a media question about Guyanese demanding more from his company, was typical of his imperiousness and disdain for the Guyanese people from the day he set foot in Guyana, to the extent that distinguished Attorney Christopher Ram joined by others, publicly called for his removal. See October 25, 2025 Kaieteur News article “Ram calls for dismissal of Exxon Guyana President…”.^[1]

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, 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.

I challenge Routledge to name a single Guyanese who would have ever indicated any expectation that it was Exxon’s “job to build Guyana”; so, his melodramatics in answer to a fair and predictable question in context of his company hauling off record breaking profits from a country with 58% poverty, was uncalled for, and unnecessary. As expected of a supposed seasoned Manager, he could have come up with a thousand gracious answers; however, he just couldn’t resist his proclivity for poking another finger into the eyes of the Guyanese people with his patronizing mouthing off.

Instead of washing his mouth on the Guyanese people, I wish that 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. 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; and it is Guyana’s oil that accounts for 60% of his company’s 19.3 billion barrels of worldwide proved equivalent oil reserves, even with his company’s lowballing of Guyana’s reserves to Exxon’s financial advantage. In other words, there will be no Exxon without the people of Guyana’s oil.

Emboldened by the government described by the Honourable Judge Kissoon as “derelict, pliant and submissive” to Exxon^[2], there seems to be no end to the disrespectful behaviour of Routledge taking the warm hospitality and good natured-ness of the people as weakness. Was it Mr. Henson’s respect and caring for the Guyanese people, the reason why he was removed and replaced by Mr. bombastic Routledge?

Well, the answer became obvious ever since Routledge arrived, taking full advantage of the “derelict, pliant and submissive” PPP/C Government, to, among his numerous absurdities:

Falsely declare that “prior to 2023, we were not making profits here in Guyana, so there were no tax credits from that”, though Exxon’s own income statements recorded profits of G$132 billion in 2021 and G$637 billion in 2022.
Put up billboards across Guyana falsely propagandizing that Guyana receives 52% of oil revenues^[3], which is an impossibility, when in fact, Guyana only received 14.5%.
Reverse the prohibition on flaring of billions of tons of toxic produced gas into the atmosphere, allowing unlimited flaring for a paltry fee that is miniscule to the money Exxon makes from the flaring.
Contemptuously justify flaring, saying that poor Guyana needs the money charged for the flaring and that flaring in Guyana is OK because Guyana’s atmosphere is clean; so, has room to take up more pollutants, when, at the same time, Exxon had committed to cut flaring by almost half in the rest of the world.
Publicly threaten that if Guyana doesn’t cooperate and allow for this flaring, Exxon may take its business elsewhere;
Join with the Government to fight tooth and nail in court to overturn the full liability assurance enshrined in environmental permits to cover oil spills^[4], without which, Guyana and Caribbean countries could be left with an environmental catastrophe and be bankrupted.
Join with the Government to drop the EPA’s legal proceedings against Exxon for refusing to pay the small fine of $500 USD for six small oil spills^[5], with the bonus of the removal of the EPA Attorney prosecuting the case for EPA.
Illegally exceed the safe oil production rate enshrined in the permits, compromising the health, safety and environment, and increasing the risk of an oil spill without liability coverage.
Triple to 9 days, the time to deploy the capping stack equipment to stop an oil spill, thus, recklessly allowing an extra 6 days of oil gushing into the ocean.
Impose upon the Government that there shall be no talk of renegotiation of the lopsided oil contract, despite both President Ali and VP Jagdeo prior shouting from the rooftop that it was the worst contract ever which steals the nation’s patrimony and will be renegotiated as soon as they get into office; but when in office, became so muted and scared to even request renegotiations under the cover of “sanctity of contract”.
Add further insult with his recent ridiculousness that Guyana’s oil reserves have dropped from the already preposterous 11 billion barrels, further increasing Exxon’s withholdings by $ billions for decommissioning.

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.

Sincerely,
Dr. Vincent Adams

References

Ram calls for dismissal of Exxon Guyana President over ... — kaieteurnewsonline.com ↩
Judge rules 'submissive' EPA must enforce liability clause in ... — www.stabroeknews.com ↩
PROFIT-METRIC IS MISLEADING and FALSE: USE REVENUE METRIC (14.5/100 BARREL) TO EDUCATE THE NATION ABOUT GUYANA’S SHARE OF OIL REVENUES - Kaieteur News — kaieteurnewsonline.com ↩
Supreme Court Hears Climate Liability Case Against Big Oil | CourtNews — www.courtnews.org ↩
ExxonMobil, EPA, Vincent Adams clash over 'full liability ... — www.stabroeknews.com ↩

Ram calls for dismissal of Exxon Guyana President over ...

kaieteurnewsonline.com · 2025-10-25

Ram calls for dismissal of Exxon Guyana President over inaccurate profit reporting - Kaieteur News ## Ram calls for dismissal of Exxon Guyana President over inaccurate profit reporting Oct 25, 2025 News (Kaieteur News) – Attorney-at-Law and chartered accountant, Christopher Ram has called for the dismissal of the president of ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL), Alistair Routledge over his serial misrepresentations to the media and lack of transparency under his tenure. ... Ram in his weekly column, published on Friday by Stabroek News, exposed Routledge’s attempt at misleading the nation on the company’s earnings in Guyana. ... The chartered accountant however demonstrated, using Exxon’s audited financial statement, that Routledge manufactured those inaccurate remarks. Ram pointed out, “In truth, Exxon recorded profits of G$132 billion (2021) and G$637 billion (2022).” He even attached a screenshot of the company’s income statement to support his argument. Consequently, the lawyer reasoned, “For his serial misrepresentations to the Fourth Estate, Mr. Routledge has lost the confidence and respect of his hosts. Under his watch, ExxonMobil Guyana has resisted transparency, delayed relinquishment, and overseen the improper reduction of US $214 million in disallowed audit costs.” Ram was keen to note that an executive with such a pattern of mistrust in the United States (U.S.) would have been summoned before Congress or shown the door, whereas in Guyana, he remains a “guest of honour”. Ram therefore made it clear that Routledge should be dismissed for his inexplicable behaviour in Guyana. The lawyer also fired at Exxon’s Vice President and Business Services Manager, John Colling for what he described as repeated distortions and evasions, especially on the company’s financial reporting. ... In a letter to this newspaper, Dr. Kenrick Hunte and other OGGN members highlighted, using the company’s financial statements, that Exxon recorded profits during the period Routledge claimed it did not. ... OGGN pointed out, “Financial filings in Guyana by ESSO Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (now EMGL) show income of GY$132 billion (US$681 million) and GY$578 billion (US$2.98 billion) for fiscal years 2021 and 2022, respectively.” The body therefore called on Routledge to correct his comments and clarify these discrepancies in the profit reporting and sharing. “The Guyanese people must not be misled,” the Network argued. The President of ExxonMobil Guyana made the inaccurate statements while explaining that the company did not seek any tax credits in the U.S., since it did not register a profit during that specific period. He explained, “Exxon Mobil Corporation in its 23, 24 tax filings, there were no Guyanese tax credits that were included in either of those filings and you will recall that, prior to 2023, we were not making profits here in Guyana, so there were no tax credits from that. So, from this point up until this point, there have been no Guyana tax credits that have been used by Exxon.”

Source

Exxon needs Guyana more than Guyana needs it in Kiskadee Watch, October 5, 2026

Judge rules 'submissive' EPA must enforce liability clause in ...

www.stabroeknews.com · 2023-05-04

In the action brought against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the liability clause in the permits issued to ExxonMobil Guyana for its offshore oil operations, Justice Sandil Kissoon, in a ruling yesterday, said the EPA, which he described as “submissive,” had abdicated its responsibilities “…thereby putting this nation and its people in grave potential danger of calamitous disaster.” ... that the circumstances giving rise to ... action disclosed the existence of an ... affairs that has engulfed ... quagmire of its own making. “It has abdicated the exclusive statutory responsibilities entrusted to it by Parliament under the Environmental Protection Act 1996 and the Environmental Protection Regulations 2000 to ensure due compliance by Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited [EEPGL.” ... “The EPA has relegated itself to a state of laxity of enforcement and condonation compounded by a lack of vigilance thereby putting this nation and its people in grave potential danger of calamitous disaster,” Justice Kissoon declared. ... on the evidence that EEPGL ... when it sought ... while simultaneously optimising production at the ... Petroleum Production Project in the ... Directly calling out the EPA for its failings, the judge said that EEPGL “engaged in a course of action made permissible only by the omissions of a derelict, pliant and submissive Environmental Protection Agency.” ... Justice Kissoon said ... were not unknown to Esso or the EPA and consistent with the benefits of its petroleum production activities to which Esso was entitled, came the burden of fulfilling its obligations under the permit which were ... of the state, its citizens and the ... and for which ... was the sole ... mandated with oversight to ... Justice Kissoon was keen in pointing out that the EPA, before and subsequent to the filing of the matter, but for an order he had to make, refused to disclose any information as to the status of compliance by Esso with its financial assurance obligations for pollution damage set out at Condition 14 of the permit. He said that the agency instead “sought refuge in silence, avoidance, concealment and secrecy notwithstanding the grave potential danger and consequences to the state and citizens if an event occurred at the Liza Phase 1…” in absence of such financial assurances mandated by the permit. ... The judge declared EPA to be in breach of its statutory duty by its failure and/or omissions to enforce compliance by EEPGL of its financial assurance obligations, and keep indemnified the agency and the Government of Guyana against all environmental obligations of the permit holder and co-venturers within the Stabroek Block. He also specifically declared that EEPGL had failed to comply with its financial assurance obligation; and ... that Con-dition 14 imposes on EEPGL, “unlimited and uncapped liability for all costs associated with clean up, restoration and ... for all damages caused by any discharge of any contaminant arising from its exploration, development and petroleum production activities within the Stabroek Block.” The judge ordered the EPA to issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 26 (1) and (2) of the Environmental Protection Act, no later than next Tuesday, directing EEPGL to perform its obligations under the permit and to provide, within 30 days thereafter, the unlimited liability Parent Company Guarantee Agreement and/or unlimited liability Affiliate Company Guarantee to indemnify and keep indemnified the Government of Guyana and the agency against all such environmental obligations of Esso and its co-venturers within the Stabroek block, together with environmental liability insurance as is customary in the international petroleum industry in accordance with the Conditions 14 from an insurance company standing and repute that equates to Grade A Plus as envisaged by Condition 14.

PROFIT-METRIC IS MISLEADING and FALSE: USE REVENUE METRIC (14.5/100 BARREL) TO EDUCATE THE NATION ABOUT GUYANA’S SHARE OF OIL REVENUES - Kaieteur News

kaieteurnewsonline.com · 2024-03-19

The “52%-profit” touted on those Exxon’s billboards in Guyana is mathematically incorrect. In Mathematics, you cannot add 2% of 100 barrels (2 barrels) to 50% of 25 barrels (12.5 barrels) and get a result of 52% profit. As Attorney Chris Ram said, “You cannot add two unlike things”. Treating base 100 and base 25 as the same thing is like adding apples to oranges. Somebody at the highest level of the government should have recognised this Mathematical error and called it out two years ago when the billboards were first mounted. If we want to educate the Guyanese nation about its “take” from the State’s Oil Enterprise, we should avoid using the profit-metric. Better to use share-of-revenue metric or share of barrels out of every hundred. I present two illustrations to show how the profit-metric is false and misleading: (1) Total production 100 barrels. Cost Recovery 75; 25 available for profit-share. Guyana gets 12.5 barrels. That is 50% profit. (2) Total production 100 barrels. CR 90. Ten remaining for profit-share. Guyana gets 5 barrels. Those 5 barrels are also 50% profit. ... 12.5 and 5 barrels represent 50% profit ... can lead to absurd ... Surely, to represent 12.5/100 barrels or 14.5/100 as 50% and 52% profit respectively, on billboards is false, misleading, and damaging to the psyche of the Guyanese people. It is simply an outrage. The govt of Guyana should order Exxon to take down those billboards. Order Exxon not to use the word profit on those billboards. Say simply: Guyana’s share of revenues is 14.5 out of every 100 barrels. Or 14.5% of revenues. Note: If Guyana ramps up production from 460,000 bpd to 1.2 million bpd, Guyana’s share will still be 14.5/100 and will remain so until all the oil is pulled from the seabed. Absence of Ringfencing will make sure Guyana’s share of revenues does not rise above the 14.5/100-barrel level. To think that production ... 27 and ... 30-years ... renegotiated Fair Deal ... reasons for renegoti

Supreme Court Hears Climate Liability Case Against Big Oil | CourtNews

www.courtnews.org · 2026-10-05

Supreme Court Hears Climate Liability Case Against Big Oil | CourtNews # Supreme Court Opens New Term With Major Climate Liability Case The Supreme Court opens its new term with Suncor v. Boulder County, a climate liability case that could decide if states can sue oil companies for climate harm. ## Case Information Country/State United States / Federal (U.S. Supreme Court), originating in Colorado Case Number Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County ### Case Status Accusation/Allegation Boulder alleges Suncor and ExxonMobil misled the public about the role of their products in climate change. On Trial Oral argument on whether federal law bars Boulder's state-law claims. Current Status Argued October 5, 2026; decision pending. Outcome A ruling is expected by mid-2027. Thomas Bennett October 5, 2026 T he U.S. Supreme Court opened its new term on Monday, October 5, with one of the most closely watched environmental cases in years, as the justices heard arguments in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. At stake is whether the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, can use state tort law to seek money from oil companies for the costs of climate-related harm. Boulder first sued Suncor and ExxonMobil in April 2018, claiming the companies misled the public about how their products contribute to climate change. The local governments say they have paid for wildfire response, drought and extreme heat, and want the companies to share those costs. Colorado's Supreme Court sided with Boulder in a 5-2 ruling in May 2025, allowing the case to continue toward trial. Suncor and Exxon then asked the nation's highest court to step in, and the justices agreed to take the case in February 2026. A decision is expected by mid-2027. > " > > Whether a single county's jury can dictate energy policy for the entire country. > > — Jason Isaac, American Energy Institute, on what the case is really about The oil companies argue that climate change is a global problem that cannot be handled through one state's courts. In their view, federal law, including the Clean Air Act and the Constitution, pushes aside Boulder's state-law claims, because the alleged harm comes from emissions produced across many states and countries. Boulder answers that it is not trying to regulate emissions or halt oil production. Its lawyers describe the suit as a claim about deception and about the money taxpayers have spent responding to disasters. There is also a threshold fight. Boulder argues the Court lacks jurisdiction because the Colorado ruling was not a final judgment, a point the oil companies dispute. ## Why the Ruling Matters More than two dozen similar lawsuits brought by states and local governments are pending against fossil fuel companies. Because the justices chose to hear Boulder's case now, their reasoning could end many of those cases early, or clear the way for them to move ahead. ### Main Takeaways Boulder wants oil companies to help pay for climate-related costs under state law. Suncor and ExxonMobil say federal law blocks the claims. Colorado's top court ruled for Boulder, 5-2, in 2025. A decision is expected by mid-2027. ## What Comes Next Supporters of Boulder, including 28 groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in August, want the case to go to trial. Industry groups and allied commentators say the question belongs with Congress, not local juries. However the Court rules, the outcome will shape how Americans can use state courts to hold energy companies accountable, and who gets to set climate policy. Check back for coverage as the justices work toward a decision. Thomas Bennett Law And justice Author

ExxonMobil, EPA, Vincent Adams clash over 'full liability ...

www.stabroeknews.com · 2022-08-08

“…Routledge arrived, he (1) threatened that if Guyana doesn’t cooperate, Exxon may take its business elsewhere; (2) ignored the legal requirements enshrined in the Liza 1 and 2 Permits signed by Mr Henson calling for full liability coverage; (3) justified flaring by saying Guyana needs the money because things bad from COVID; (4) enjoyed the Government parroting that it is OK to flare because Guyana is a carbon sink and so has the capacity to take up more pollutants, while at the same time Exxon is committing to cut flaring by almost half in the rest of the world; (5) changed the EPA Permits from prohibition of flaring to unlimited flaring for a fee that is a laughable 3% of the money Exxon makes from the flaring; and (6) he got the Government to drop EPA’s legal proceedings against Exxon for refusing to pay a piddling fine of $500 USD for six small spills,” the letter stated. ... In response, the EPA said that only the Liza-1 permit issued in 2017 did not have a specific requirement for insurance coverage. It noted that whilst the insurance requirement was introduced in Liza-2, it was only in the Payara, Yellowtail and the recently renewed Liza-1 Permits that the requirement for insurance coverage and parent guarantee was clearly defined. The EPA said that the Yellowtail Permit ensures that EEPGL is held liable for all costs associated with clean-up, restoration and compensation for any pollution damage which may occur as a consequence of the project. ... “Each of these insurance policies have been executed and has coverage of a total of US$600 million per occurrence of a spill event. This per occurrence value covers third-party liabilities, clean up and well control. None of the insurance policies provided has US$2.5 billion coverage for oil spill as is purported by the former EPA Head,” EPA explained. Additionally, the EPA said that it was presented with a draft parent company/ ... iliate guarantee and is engaging EEPGL on its proposed total guarantee of US$2 billion from an affiliate company in the event EEPGL and its partners default. The agency added that it is ensuring that the circumstances under which the affiliate guarantee will be operationalized and the specific obligations covered are clear and acceptable. The EPA explained that both the Yellowtail and renewed Liza-1 permits require that a ... iliate Guarantee Agreement is provided which “indemnifies and keeps indemnified the EPA and the Government of Guyana in the event EEPGL and its Co-Venturers fail to meet their environmental obligations under the Permit.” ... “The requirement for insurance and parent guarantee and the terms and conditions for each of these were strengthened in the recent Permits issued namely Payara, Yellowtail and renewed Liza-1 in late 2020, and 2022 respectively. The EPA is not in possession of any documentation that indicated any commitment by EEPGL to the former Head to provide US$2.5 billion in insurance coverage. If this is available the EPA humbly ask that Vince Adams provide a copy to the EPA and or the public. A draft Parent company/Affiliate Guarantee received in 2021 and offering guaranteed coverage of US$2 billion is being negotiated by the EPA at this time,” EPA said.

Exxon needs Guyana more than Guyana needs it — Dr. Vincent Adams — Opinion