๐๐ก๐ ๐ง๐๐ฐ ๐๐๐
๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ๐งโ๐ญ โ๐ญ๐๐ค๐ ๐๐%.โ ๐๐ญโ๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐
๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ. ๐๐โ๐ซ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง๐ฎ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐โ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐ค๐๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ซ ๐๐% ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐. ๐๐ก๐๐ญโ๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.
๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ
โข The amended NRF formula is a cap that scales with Fund size and production; it does not enable depletion.
โข The higher the Fundโs balance, the lower the effective withdrawal rate โ by design.
โข Example: On US$6B: old rule cap = 23%; revised formula ceiling = under 75%, calibrated to production rising from ~120,000 bpd (Dec 2019) to 600,000+ bpd (2024/25).
โข On US$12B: maximum effective withdrawal rate = 41%. As the Fund grows further, the effective cap declines.
โข Policy intent: minimise borrowing, keep debt-to-GDP under 30%, and match investment to rapidly rising inflows; in effective terms, the withdrawal rate is virtually unchanged relative to the old rule.
โข The โ99%โ claim is false and not supported by the formula.
๐๐ฒ๐ญ๐ก ๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐
๐๐๐ญ
Myth: Opposition Leader claimsโโThe government changed the law to take 99% of the Natural Resource Fund.โ
Fact: The new rule is a moving cap tied to the projected growth in the Fundโs size and production. On US$6B the ceiling is under 75%; on US$12B itโs 41%; and the effective cap tightens as balances grow. No depletion clause.
๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ (๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฑ๐ญ)
โข Dec 2019: first oil; ~120,000 bpd.
โข 2024/25: sustained 600,000+ bpd.
โข 2030 (planning horizon): ~1.7 million bpd capacity as additional FPSOs come online.
Iโve heard the line: government โchanged the law to take ninety-nine per cent of the Fund.โ It sounds explosive. Itโs also wrong.
The revised NRF rule is a cap, not a siphon. It scales with reality โ the size of the Fund and the volume of production โ and it tightens as the Fund grows. Bigger balance, lower effective withdrawal rate. Thatโs by design.
Now for the math. On a US$6B balance, the old formula capped withdrawals at 23%. Under the revised ruleโcalibrated to oil output rising from 120,000 bpd in 2019 to 600,000+ bpd in 2024/25โthe ceiling is under 75%, not 99%.
At US$12B, the new cap is 41%, while the old formula would lock it at 13%.
And hereโs the kicker: as the fund grows, that effective cap keeps falling. No โ99%.โ No raid. Just a rule aligned with production growth and fiscal prudence.
Why adjust the cap? Because Guyana is rapidly transforming. Output is expected to peak at nearly 1.7 million bpd by 2030, more than double current output level. Freezing a smaller-economy cap in a much larger economy would push us into more foreign borrowing to finance the national budget. Therefore, the reform enables utility of more of our own cash now, save more as the Fund grows, and pay less in interest โ all while keeping debt under 30% of GDP. That is fiscal discipline, not depletion.
Why adjust the cap? Because the economy is rapidly transforming and expanding. Oil output is set to peak near 1.7 million bpd by 2030โmore than double todayโs level. Freezing an old cap in a booming economy would force more foreign borrowing to fund the budget. The reform fixes that: use more of our own cash now, save more as the Fund grows, and pay less in interestโall while keeping debt under 30% of GDP. Thatโs not depletion. Thatโs fiscal discipline in action.
Governance still matters. Transfers are published, debated, and scrutinised โ as they should be. But politics shouldnโt replace arithmetic literacy. The new formula is a guardrail, not a getaway car. Bigger Fund, smaller cap. Build more, borrow less. Thatโs how you turn oil into broad-based prosperity without mortgaging Guyanaโs future.