An audit examining approximately US$19.6 billion in spending by the ExxonMobil-led consortium remains unpublished, according to recent reporting, as the International Monetary Fund identifies the resolution of outstanding cost-oil audits as a priority for Guyana.
News Americas Now reported on October 16 that the government had possessed the report since May 2025. The review covers expenditure incurred between 2021 and 2023 and is the largest of the country’s first three Stabroek Block cost-recovery audits. The US$19.6 billion represents expenditure examined, rather than an amount established as improperly claimed or owed to Guyana.
The IMF’s 2026 Article IV assessment, released on October 8, called for outstanding cost-oil audits to be resolved and for stronger auditing capacity, particularly in the petroleum industry. Its recommendations accompanied a broadly positive assessment of Guyana’s economy, with real GDP growth estimated at 19.3 per cent in 2025 and projected at 22.3 per cent in 2026.
Why the audits matter
Cost-recovery audits examine whether expenditure claimed by the oil companies qualifies for recovery under the petroleum agreement. Those costs affect how much petroleum revenue remains available for sharing between the government and the consortium.
Under the Stabroek agreement, up to 75 per cent of petroleum revenues can be allocated to recover eligible costs. The remaining profit oil is divided equally between Guyana and the contractors, while Guyana also receives a 2 per cent royalty. When cost recovery reaches the ceiling, the government’s profit-oil entitlement amounts to 12.5 per cent of total production, before the royalty.
In August, President Irfaan Ali said Guyana’s production entitlement had risen to 39.8 per cent following the recovery of accumulated project costs. Reuters reported that ExxonMobil had announced the recovery of US$55 billion invested since 2014.
That increase does not permanently remove the contract’s cost-recovery provisions. Continuing operating expenditure and new eligible investment can affect the amount available as profit oil. Audits therefore remain important even after previously accumulated costs have been recovered.
Government cites ongoing review and disputes
The Ministry of Natural Resources previously confirmed that the third audit had been submitted and that the Guyana Revenue Authority was reviewing the initial report. It also stated that the first two final audit reports were publicly available. Publication of a report and settlement of disputed expenditure are separate stages of the process.
The government has defended withholding its position while disputes remain open. In an August statement reported by Kaieteur News, the ministry argued that premature disclosure could weaken Guyana’s negotiating position and said outcomes would be reported when finalised.
Earlier audits demonstrate the financial stakes. The first review, covering 1999–2017, led the government to dispute approximately US$214 million in costs. The second examined US$7.2 billion in expenditure from 2018–2020, of which the government initially did not accept US$65.1 million. These figures concern challenged claims and should not be presented as money already recovered.
For Guyana, the outstanding questions concern the findings of the latest review, the expenditure accepted or challenged, and the timetable for resolving disagreements. The IMF’s assessment places those issues alongside the country’s strong growth outlook, underscoring the continuing importance of oversight as petroleum revenues expand.