Dear Editor,
In a letter in the Stabroek News, written by Ms. Bulkan captioned “Proposed Gas to Shore Pipeline appears to be not viable” dated 21/08/04…. In it was stated that the gas availability may be quantified as 50 million standard cubic foot per day (SCFPD). Her conclusion that the Gas to shore pipeline project in question is not viable is premature and shortsighted. She supported her conclusion by arguing that Exxon is reinjecting 95 per cent of the 50 mscfpd gas back into the wellheads under pressure to enhance well production. As a lay person I saw reason to put on paper as I understand the issue. There is no question as to Guyana’s need for a resolution which would be beneficial to Guyanese. One which addresses the efficacy of a power generating facility capable of producing low cost energy to everyone, while concurrently protecting the environment. There is no question that burning cleaner, cheaper fuel, providing more reliable electricity, addressing a present hazardous environmental problem, should be the focal point. At the same time the population would benefit from cheap cooking gas. There is no question that this project would enhance the quality of life of Guyanese by the provision of low cost energy while simultaneously reducing the carbon footprint by the burning of cleaner fuel. While arguments can be made that gas injection of associated well heads may be necessary to maintain a reservoir to extract more petroleum and that deviation may cause oil to eventually leak out of the capped well, polluting the ocean, is there an alternative to the method stated by Ms. Bulkan? But before I examine this I would like to discuss the problem. Guyana has Oil & Gas, lots of it. It’s here to stay for several decades, let’s ensure it works to all our benefit.
Ms. Bulkan suggested that instead of moving ahead with the gas to shore project the country should invest in renewables. Hydro is renewable but has its own problematic and the time frame is futuristic, however, natural gas is here. Solar is renewable but it is not 100% reliable. Arguing that Guyana is in the tropics, with the benefit of sunlight has merit, but there is always heavy overcast, too many rainy days, panels are still inefficient, costly and to compound it all there is only 5-6 hours of effective sunlight per day for power generating. It’s just not a simple fix. Hydrogen is gaining substantially and may be the future. Having said the above it is my opinion that we should not rush through with the deal for USD 900m. We need to reexamine the price so we are not shafted. In its study of infrastructure through 2035, the American Petroleum Institute estimated average U.S. pipeline costs of $178,000 per inch-mile for 2016 (in nominal dollars) for large gas transmission pipelines. Limited research indicates that the Norway gas pipe line price was about $3.8M per mile and that was over 44 inches. The Langeled pipeline was 725 feet with about 239 ft under sea was about $3.5M and it was between 42 and 48 inches. From what I gather ours would be underwater for about 120 miles and some overland. With regard to the gas generating plant one was constructed in 2015, was over 6500 MW and cost about $812/KW. It is estimated that a new gas generating plant should produce electricity at about 7 cents per KWh. All the more reason to go this route. Are we going to pay for our gas? Should Exxon not share in the cost as this would save them from having to flare? These and many questions need some answers.
Sincerely,
Rajendra Bisessar
