Just over a dozen civic groups are calling for a “systematic, inclusive and transparent” consultation process on energy options available to Guyana.
The call, made in response to the announcement of plans for the construction of a natural gas pipeline at Wales and other mega infrastructure projects, came in a joint statement endorsed by Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR); East Coast Clean-Up Committees (ECD7); Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA); Guyana Society for the Blind (GSB); Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD); Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous People (GOIP); Policy Forum Guyana (PFG); The Benab Foundation; Red Thread; Rights of Children (ROC); Silent Walls Mural Project; Transparency International Guyana Inc (TIGI); and Ursuline Sisters in Guyana.
The groups say the proposed gas pipe-line is “eminently unjustifiable” in terms of Guyana’s energy needs, which it summarised as replacement of Bunker-C fuel as the main source of electrical energy. “Justification for the pipeline, therefore, has to rely on providing energy to a range of new industrial projects which as yet have not been identified, much less justified. In the absence of such projects, constructing a gas pipe-line is equivalent to building the run-way before determining whether an airport is feasible,” they argue.
They further say that the serious challenges posed by a gas pipeline are numerous, including economic (cost, markets, longevity), climatic (flaring, methane leaks and emissions (87 times more potent than CO2), environmental (damage to the deep sea).
“Over-estimating benefits and under-estimating costs of large-scale infra-structure projects is routine world-wide,” they note, while citing an Oxford University study as estimating that nine out of ten roads, bridges, tunnels and railways built over the past 70 years saw average cost over-run of 30% and upwards. “Guyana could add the Skeldon Sugar Factory, Amaila Falls and the Cheddi Jagan International Airport as our national contribution to this dismal list of mega-miscalculations,” they say, while adding that against this pattern of miscalculation, the US$900 million price tag of the underwater proposed gas pipeline is notional at best and the risk assessment is 90% certain to be 30% higher at least.
They are also concerned at the idea that the Natural Resources Fund (NRF) likely being used for financing the pipe-line, saying that it consists entirely of proceeds from the sale of oil, which as a shared natural resource inheritance belongs entirely to future generations of Guyanese people.
According to the groups, one of the many unknowns of the project is the impact on the deep sea. “The deep sea is the most difficult area on Earth to access…It is also extremely vulnerable to human disturbance. No one can predict the repercussions of a deep-sea gas-pipeline. Scientists believe that as many as 10 million species may inhabit the deep sea,” they note.
Despite their criticisms, the groups acknowledge that simply listing the negatives of a gas pipeline is inadequate as a public response and that it is incumbent on Guyana’s civil society to coalesce around more acceptable positive alternatives to Guyana’s energy needs. “Determining acceptable alternatives cannot be limited solely to the convenience of the current generation of Guyanese, nor driven by industrial and commercial considerations alone. Decisions of this nature must include our obligations to future generations of Guyanese and also to resolving the world’s climate crisis,” they argue.
“Guyana needs to recapture the momentum and leadership of a decade ago when Guyana’s climate strategy – developed and supported by a wide spectrum of business, civic and government organizations – was at the forefront of the global climate struggle,” they add, while calling for independent, Guyanese-driven energy consultations grounded on principles of equity, inclusivity and climate justice, seeking broad-based democratic legitimacy, and aiming at a coherent integration of all major issues in a National Climate Policy.
