What Governments Must Do to Attract Capital in 2026+

Gayle Meikle, CEO, Frontier Energy Network

I once read that if you want to learn, write about it. That's one of the reasons I enjoy this weekly newsletter - it encourages me to explore the topics shaping our industry and learn from some of the best minds in the business. Thank you to our speakers for a fantastic discussion this week, and congratulations to Daniel Davidson for another excellent session as moderator.

Our latest edition of Frontier Upstream Insights brought together a distinguished panel of experts to discuss bid rounds vs open door policies and what governments must do to compete for exploration capital in 2026 and beyond.

A fantastic line-up including Graeme Bagley , Head of Global Exploration and Appraisal at Westwood Global Energy Group; Valerie Marcel , Executive Director of New Producers for Sustainable Energy; Vandana Gangaram Panday , Director at Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname N.V; and a new friend to Frontier, Adriano Roessler Viana , Global Exploration Advisor at Petrobras.

If you missed it, you can watch on demand here, or enjoy the summary below.

More Capital Does Not Automatically Mean More Wells

Opening the discussion, Graeme Bagley noted that while upstream capital expenditure has increased significantly in recent years, exploration activity has not increased at the same pace. According to Bagley, the number of companies actively exploring has fallen substantially compared with a decade ago. Exploration portfolios have become more concentrated and companies are increasingly focused on drilling only their highest-ranked opportunities.

As he observed:

"You can't just turn on the tap of exploration."

Bagley explained that before a well is drilled, companies must mature acreage, assess risk and determine which prospects deserve scarce capital. In today's market, companies are choosing carefully where to invest and ensuring they pursue only their highest-quality opportunities.

Energy Security Has Shifted the Conversation

Several contributors pointed to energy security as a major factor influencing investment decisions. Valerie Marcel highlighted how geopolitical developments are reshaping perceptions of supply security and creating renewed interest in new producing regions, particularly across Africa and the Atlantic Margin. However, she cautioned that increased interest must still translate into real investment before its full impact can be measured.

Adriano Roessler Viana agreed that the global conversation has changed significantly in recent years.

As he put it (this is an excellent quote which I will be sure to use myself!):

"The fashion world of energy transition has moved to security."

Viana explained that countries and companies alike are increasingly focused on reserve replacement and long-term supply security, creating renewed interest in exploration opportunities around the world.

I argued that a combination of energy security concerns, geopolitical uncertainty and a more longterm demand outlook is helping to restore confidence in exploration investment. While activity has yet to accelerate significantly, there is renewed momentum behind exploration globally.

Data Remains Fundamental

Data featured prominently throughout the discussion, with every panellist highlighting its role in reducing uncertainty and improving investment decisions. Marcel argued that quality data is fundamental, particularly in frontier basins where investors need confidence in the geological potential before committing capital. Vandana Gangaram Panday outlined how Suriname continues to invest heavily in geological studies, seismic acquisition, data management and digital accessibility.

As she remarked:

"You're never done with data."

Gangaram Panday explained that data acquisition, reprocessing and interpretation are ongoing processes, with new technologies frequently providing fresh insights from existing datasets. Staatsolie has also worked to make information readily accessible through digital platforms and publicly available geological studies.

The conversation also touched on the growing importance of reprocessing legacy seismic datasets. New imaging technologies continue to unlock additional value from data that may have existed for years. Viana reinforced the point that data alone is not enough. While advanced seismic technologies and artificial intelligence are providing powerful new tools, he stressed that experienced geoscientists remain essential to interpreting information and reducing exploration risk. Technology can accelerate analysis, but human expertise remains critical in identifying the opportunities worth pursuing.

Investors Can Manage Geological Risk but Not Uncertainty

Alongside geology, several contributors highlighted the importance of fiscal stability, contract sanctity, regulatory certainty and political consistency. Bagley argued that investors remain focused on opportunity scale and speed to value, but they also require confidence in the wider investment environment.

As Bagley noted:

"The only thing that is there for the long term is the rocks."

He continued:

"Governments come and go, fiscal policy comes and changes, but the rocks are there for the longest."

The panel reflected a common industry view that while companies are accustomed to managing geological uncertainty, they are far less willing to invest where regulatory uncertainty, changing fiscal frameworks or political instability create additional risk.

Gangaram Panday pointed to Suriname's use of stabilisation clauses and pragmatic regulatory processes as mechanisms for creating long-term investor confidence, while Marcel highlighted the importance of governments providing clarity and consistency over the life of a project.

Bid Rounds, Open Door Systems and Direct Negotiation

A significant part of the discussion focused on whether traditional licensing rounds remain the most effective mechanism for attracting investment.

Gangaram Panday argued that no single model is universally applicable. Drawing on Suriname's experience, she noted that bid rounds, open-door systems and direct negotiations can all play an important role depending on the maturity of the acreage and the objectives of the host government. As she explained, the goal is not to follow a specific process, but to secure investment and deliver results. Flexibility, adaptability and pragmatism are increasingly important.

Viana agreed, suggesting that frontier areas often require more adaptable commercial structures and negotiation processes than mature producing basins. Different levels of prospectivity and geological maturity require different approaches to attracting investment.

Marcel noted that while competitive bid rounds remain best practice from a governance perspective, direct negotiations can be effective where investor interest is limited, provided governments have the expertise and safeguards necessary to protect state interests. She also highlighted the importance of strong pre-qualification criteria, transparent processes and robust relinquishment provisions.

I remain firmly in favour of competitive licensing rounds. As I explained:

"I love a bid round because obviously I'm the communications expert. It sends a very visible signal to the market but more crucially it enables a competitive bidding process."

I argued that licensing rounds provide transparency, create market visibility and help ensure opportunities are evaluated through a competitive process. While recognising that direct negotiations can be effective in certain circumstances, I cautioned that some emerging producer nations may lack the experience, information or negotiating capacity required to secure the best possible outcome for their citizens.

In my view, competitive bid rounds remain one of the most effective ways to reduce opportunities for corruption, improve transparency and demonstrate that opportunities are being awarded through an open process. I also highlighted the value of hybrid approaches too, citing examples such as Egypt and Malaysia where licensing rounds operate alongside open-door opportunities.

Local Content Must Be Practical

The panel also discussed the role of local content in attracting investment. Gangaram Panday explained that Suriname's approach focuses on creating opportunities for local participation while ensuring that goods and services remain competitive and fit for purpose.

Rather than imposing rigid targets, the emphasis is on developing local capability, building capacity and creating long-term value for both investors and the host nation. She argued that local content should be viewed as a win-win opportunity rather than a burden.

Viana echoed this view, noting that local content requirements can create significant value when they focus on skills development, technology transfer, research and development, and the creation of sustainable local supply chains.

Competing for Capital

The discussion reflected the reality that governments are competing for a finite pool of exploration capital at a time when companies are becoming increasingly selective. For Bagley, the priority is flexibility and listening to investors.

As he advised:

"Be humble, be flexible and listen."

Marcel emphasised the importance of designing frameworks that can withstand changing market conditions and encouraged governments to think beyond immediate licensing objectives.

Gangaram Panday highlighted pragmatism and speed, arguing that reducing regulatory burdens and maintaining momentum are critical to attracting investors.

Viana stressed the importance of maintaining open dialogue with industry while remaining adaptable as geopolitical priorities continue to evolve.

My focus was on communication - no surprises there.

I concluded:

"Look good, articulate, communicate."

I also argued that governments should spend more time benchmarking themselves against competing jurisdictions around the world. In my view, investors are comparing opportunities globally, not regionally. A licensing round in Africa may be competing directly with opportunities in Latin America, the Middle East or Asia Pacific for the same pool of capital. Understanding how fiscal terms, data accessibility, regulatory processes and investment promotion compare with competing jurisdictions is therefore essential.

As I noted:

"How do we benchmark globally is a key question that governments should be asking?"

I put forward that governments should regularly assess how they compare with competing investment destinations and identify the barriers that may be preventing investors from progressing opportunities. This includes everything from access to data and regulatory efficiency to the quality of digital platforms and the clarity of investment messaging.

Geology of course is fundamental, however the discussion suggested that successful jurisdictions are increasingly distinguished by how effectively they combine quality data, stable investment frameworks, efficient regulatory processes and clear communication with investors. This week's discussion was particularly valuable and will certainly inform my ongoing work developing the agenda for the World Energies Summit | The World’s Premier Global Upstream Conference | 29th - 30th September 2026.

Original article   l   KeyFacts Energy Industry Directory: Frontier