Dear Editor,
Despite the 2021 budget occupying much attention and commentary, talk of that gas to shore project, with Wales seeming to be the shoo-in location for onshore facilities, has not faded. Whether it is the best location around is not my focus today. Rather, I look at a number of surrounding factors and ask: why not seek a local alternative that features an emphasis on renewable energy? Instead of asking, I would recommend such thinking, and following it to wherever it leads.
I get the sense that it might be heresy around these parts to speak of renewable energy at this time when oil discoveries, oil expectations, and oil prosperities are all the rage. But I would not be true to myself, if I were not to table what may be construed as contrarian, but makes for much good sense. To begin with, that gas to shore project, whichever location is settled for, is going to be one gargantuan debt beast; a bona fide billion-dollar monster, if ever there was one. When I think of debt service and interest payments, even under generous borrowing scenarios, I think that we would be, if we are not already, in hock for a million or more per man, woman, and child in this country, when aggregated debt is considered. Further, there is a cost, as per Exxon’s terms, to transport and market (and all the rest) that gas, our gas, to us. Being more familiar with Exxon’s predatory capitalist ways these days, it stands to reason that the final selling price of that gas is going to be sharp. We will be more inseparably and helplessly attached to Exxon’s navel string. Guyana could be held hostage. Again. I would bet on that prospect.
Editor, it is against this unappealing backdrop that I revisit that question tabled at the start of this writing: why not look into an alternative? Instead of rushing pell-mell into a potentially costly (and highly likely corrupting) gas to shore project, which could end up being a spirit elephant, since gas is invisible, I think it would be better to interest and incentivize Guyanese to pursue solar and other non-fossil fuel possibilities. The raw materials and other feeder stock are present in abundance, with sunlight being uppermost, and agriculturally based and animal-sourced byproducts running a close second or third if something along these lines is done in a large enough scale, there could be enough energy to sell some to the national grid run by the GPL, Inc. Employment would be provided. Our visionaries, entrepreneurs and patriots could find outlet through government-private partnership to get such a project off the ground. Since it would be heavily weighed on private investment funding, this should be an added attraction for the leaders of the state to be intrigued and involved in such an undertaking. We could be kings in our own castles, masters of our own destiny.
To be sure, there would be a need for heavy foreign institutional borrowing, except that would not be with sovereign backing and taxpayers being on the hook, but largely from privately driven vision and energy. The more I think about this, the more I like it, the more it makes sense. That is, when compared to the controversies and possible costs of a full-blown gas to shore project, which is already mired in some doubt. It is why I say let our people run with it, and do the heavy lifting. The government gets to sit back as a junior and largely silent partner, and reap the benefits and goodwill before too long. I share that familiar adage that has stood the test of time, and proved to be more infallible than other man-made concoctions. It is that if the interest is to muck up something (anything), then there is no better approach than giving it to government. For these reasons, I say for the last time: let us try something different. Let us challenge our local outside-the-box thinkers to move farther away from the box and deliver. I think they would.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
