Community awareness and proper gas-to-shore feasibility at Bush Lot’s EPA consultation were lacking
The gas to shore project, as presently configured (245 kilometers gas to shore pipeline, an NGL Plant, a 300 MW power plant and many other ancillary facilities), has the potential of destroying the economy of Guyana if the project is not considered in its totality and the proper feasibilities done.
Editor, I fully support many of the ideas being undertaken to improve the electrical supply, so vital for the development of Guyana. However, I am not aware of feasibility studies being done for the entire project. From my research and the estimates of others this entire project will cost more than US$2 billion. This amount of money can make/break the economy of Guyana if due diligence is not exercised and undertaken.
An EIA of the pipeline project has been concluded and, according to reports, this EIA is now in the public consultation stage. I attended the EIA meeting at Bush Lot Primary School, Region 5 and I must report my severe misgivings on a few aspects of the presentations. Firstly, from the EIA report the life of the pipeline project is 25 years. A 300 MW power plant and an NGL plant when constructed are each expected to have a useful economic life of over 50 years. This leads me to ask the profound question, how will gas be provided to the NGL plant and the power plant at the expiration of the life of the pipeline?
Secondly, we are aware that an ANADARKO leased seismic vessel was escorted out of the Guyana EEZ and taken to a Venezuelan Port. That vessel was considered a SOFT target. Will a pipeline of 245 kilometers not be an even SOFTER target that can bring about untold catastrophic destruction to the surrounding communities and Guyana as a whole? Thirdly, decommissioning the pipeline in place may expose Guyana to untold hazards brought about by climate change and other natural phenomena. The many reports of the scarcity of fish and the effects on other marine life need to be taken seriously. Such effects cannot be comfortably predicted by modelling.
Many letters from persons knowledgeable of the Oil and Gas industry have advocated the use of LNG tankers instead of pipelines to bring the gas ashore. The commonsense metrics of safety and security appear to be so obvious. The flexibility of LNG tankers offers a distinct advantage in that the very tankers can be
used to transport gas to foreign customers to fulfill these markets.
Editor, the EIA consultation meeting in Region #5 was poorly attended. It is obvious that the community awareness of Oil and Gas is lacking. The Government need to take steps to fill this void. I offered the suggestion that our EPA should have had the foresight to invite teachers from the various schools to the meeting, not only to improve their knowledge of the oil and gas industry but, also, to be able to comfortably impart this knowledge to the students. They are the ones on whose backs the burden of our mistakes will fall. Sincerely,
Abraham David