Latest update May 13th, 2024 12:59 AM
Apr 29, 2021 Letters
Dear Editor,
I endorse your front page reports and critique (Apr 27) and Mr. Glenn Lall’s commentary of the gas-to-shore project on his Monday radio programme (Apr 26).
It is madness for government to move ahead with the gas-to-shore project even though studies are not completed. From the sound of it, this is a project that will benefit Exxon and a few individuals in the government with their front persons in the private sector. Clearly, Exxon would continue to increase its wealth off Guyana and a few who own land along the path where the pipes would be laid down. They would become enormously wealthy selling land to the government.
Brassington said the cost would be about US$900M. Technical experts say it would be closer to $1.3B. The costs would be part of Exxon’s oil project and included in the costs that Guyana would pay. But Exxon would co-own it and rent it to us. Since we are paying for the construction, why is Exxon owning it? Paying rent is double billing benefiting Exxon which will also sell us our own gas which it would have flared or inject back into the well. Who is negotiating this arrangement? It seems like another one of those negotiated by the coalition. It should be noted that when the gas becomes depleted in twenty years, the pipes would be useless. They would not even have scrap metal value and not worth bringing the pipes back to the surface for recycling.
The shore gas will be piped from the ocean floor to Crane. From there, it would be transported by 22KM pipe to Wales for the power generating plant. Why not set up the power plant in the Crane area? There is so much land on the coastal area. An artificial island can be built to station the power plant or the government can land it on the East Coast where there is enough revetment land for a power station, avoiding the US$80M cost for on land transportation of gas.
The government has not accounted for maintenance cost and purchasing of land to run the pipe. The pipe from Crane to Wales would require a safety or buffet corridor of at least 250 meters on each side. That is .5 Km of land that would go wasted for 22 Km length. That is the equivalent of 11 square KM – a huge chunk of fertile land that would no longer be available for agriculture. The use of 11 square KM of good land to locate the project in Wales in itself does not make it viable. It is about the same amount of land that constitutes the entire Wales community.
The pipe pathway would have to be maintained routinely that would cost a fortune. The pipes would also have to be protected and maintained, generating additional costs? Why would government want to maintain 22 Km of pipeline in agricultural and residential areas? There would have to be corrosion protection which in itself also needs maintenance. This is a huge cost that would drive the up the price of electricity. During maintenance, the whole operation would have to be shut down. Or will there be two pipe lines — which would further increase the cost.
Also, one must take cognisance that the pipe would run thru prime residential and agricultural land that would be decommissioned from housing and farming. Why waste good land that can be used for agriculture? People would want huge compensation. Would politicians and friends who own land in the area stand to make a killing selling it to the government? Why not look to East Coast for the total project? East Coast does not need the 22 Km pipeline to set up a power generating plant.
Would it not be more feasible to transport the gas via ships and or supplied to storage tanks at the power station? This would avoid all the risk to bring the gas on pipeline. If surplus gas is to be exported, why not load it on tankers at production site and send directly to destination. Why bring it to shore and then export?
If at all the gas project to Wales is to alleviate suffering of that depressed community and sugar workers, a tiny fraction of the US$900M can be used to employ them in varied agro and animal husbandry industries such as dairy products and canned processing. This project is clearly not thought through enough. This makes it all the more imperative to hire experts who can assess and ascertain costs and who can give a fair, objective, professional evaluation. Politicians must not try to be engineers. We saw what happened at Skeldon, the East Coast and East Bank highways and the Amalia road. Government should adopt the consensus of the engineers of this project.
Yours truly,
Shawn Simmons
Listen how to run an oil country
May 13, 2024
GCB T10 Blast Semi-finals… Kaieteur Sports – The semi-finals of the GCB T10 Blast will get underway today, barring inclement weather as the final four teams look to book spots in the...Kaieteur News – The PPP is engaging in myth-making in seeking to perpetuate the narrative that it is now an ideologically... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Is it ever justifiable for journalism to fan the flames of geopolitical tension? This question arises... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]