Dear Editor,
This is reference to your news report (SN April 27, 2021) on the Vice President’s press conference on the gas to shore project. Related expenses on the project were not included, therefore, costs would be in excess of US$900M – for example, government would have to purchase land for the land portion of the pipe from Cane to Wales and also engage in maintenance work that would increase costs. Exxon would be in a win-win situation regardless of costs.
The costs would be part of Exxon’s oil project and included in costs that Guyana would have to pay. 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 injected 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 ocean floor to Crane. From there, it would be transported by 22 Km of pipes 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 buffer corridor of at least 250 meters on each side. That is .5 Km of land that would go wasted for the 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 and 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 up the price of electricity. During maintenance, the whole operation would have to be shut down. Or will there be two pipe lines? This would further increase the cost.
Also, one must take cognizance that the pipe would run through prime residential and agricultural land that would have to 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, East Coast and East Bank highways, and the Amaila Falls Project. Government should adopt the consensus of the engineers of this project.
Sincerely,
Shawn Simmons
