1. Q: What kind of audit was conducted on ExxonMobil’s costs?
A: It was a ministerial audit required by Guyana’s 2016 petroleum agreement.
2. Q: What costs were audited?
A: ExxonMobil’s pre-production costs from 1999 to 2015.
3. Q: How much in costs did the audit find were ineligible for cost recovery?
A: $214 million.
4. Q: How much additional revenue would Guyana gain if the $214 million is confirmed disallowed?
A: $107 million.
5. Q: What concerns were raised about the audit process?
A: Records were missing, Exxon had chances to provide more documentation, and the audit report took years to release.
6. Q: How frequently does the agreement require audits to be conducted?
A: Annually, within two years.
7. Q: When was this audit conducted relative to that requirement?
A: Years late.
8. Q: What does the lateness of the audit do?
A: It reduces the audit’s reliability.
9. Q: Does Guyana have the expertise to thoroughly review complex oil agreements and audits?
A: Potentially not.
10. Q: What could happen if Guyana lacks expertise to review audits?
A: It risks not identifying improper cost recovery claims.
11. Q: How did Exxon respond to the initial audit findings?
A: It was able to improperly reduce the questioned costs after the audit.
12. Q: What does the agreement say about the audit process requirements?
A: Details the contractual requirements and process.
13. Q: How well was the audit process managed?
A: The audit process and review was mismanaged.
14. Q: What indicates problems with Guyana’s management of the audit?
A: The lateness, process issues, and potential lost revenue.
15. Q: What is the overall concern raised by the interview? A: That the Exxon audit debacle shows issues with Guyana’s oversight of oil agreements.
