While agreeing that Guyana needs an energy mix that is environmentally responsible and cost efficient to fix its nearly 50-year-old power generation problems, a Moray House Trust panel on Saturday said that the interests of citizens must be put above all other factors by policymakers.
Given that “every single citizen will incur the same level of debt,” moderator Isabelle de Caires said that before entangling the country in billions of dollars in debt commitments, policymakers need to answer vital questions of “What will it cost? Who will benefit? What experience are we drawing on? How long will it last? And what is the wider context?”
“To fully address this topic, we need to canvass opinions from economists, planners, social scientists and so forth,” she added.
Saturday’s Zoom panel discussion, titled “Shifting Power: Guyana’s Energy Mix,” saw presentations weighing the options for Guyana’s energy future from Environment and Development Specialist Simone Mangal-Joly, Scientist and Civil Society Activist Alfred Bhulai, Engineer Maurice Veecock and former Minister of Public Infrastructure under the APNU+AFC government David Patterson.
de Caires informed that technocrats were invited to be a part of the forum but “as is customary they were unable to attend.” Nevertheless, she said the panel was reflective of the scale of complexity that lies ahead for the country.
Broad questions, she noted, need to be posed and answered when considering what energy projects will cost the people of this country and particularly who will be the actual beneficiaries.
“Are we really planning to sink US$2 billion in energy infrastructure and at the same time upgrade our physical infrastructure? What about the pressing pandemic and other issues, such as health and education?” she questioned.
“Are we rushing helter-skelter into all of these projects …?” she added before also questioning the provenance as it relates to planning and budgeting.
Noting that a reliable electricity supply has “eluded” Guyana for nearly 50 years, de Caires said that while hydroelectricity is now being floated, the state has dabbled with it for as long as it has struggled with securing a stable power supply “with precious little to show for it”.
And given that government is forging ahead with the Amaila Falls Hydropower project again, she said citizens need to know, given Guyana’s lack of bargaining power when faced with the powers of the developed world, “Who then will manage these huge projects?”
“We take what we are offered and lack the expertise to bargain… the infamous PSA [Production Sharing Agreement] with Exxon…stands as Exhibit A in this regard. Advanced economies in the north are decarbonizing but it selects the tune to which we must dance. How will we respond? What is our game plan?” she questioned.
Each of Saturday’s presenters shared differing opinions on energy choices but all agreed that those should be done with climate change and global green energy shifts in mind.
Harvesting
Focusing on the Amaila project, Veecock said that he believed it is viable but noted that it has to be linked to harvesting water from the Kaieteur Falls, through the Potaro River, to ensure that it is sustainable and should not be a “stand alone project”. He believes the estimated cost is too much for a project that would come to periodic halts for lack of the necessary water flows.
He pointed to the Norwegian Norconsult report, which has said that another linking project at Tumatumari would be more effective.
For Mangal-Joly, who has worked in some 16 countries, Guyana plunging into commitments to develop a nearly US$1 billion gas-to-shore project is risky and is not good for the environment.
She explained that while many persons are touting the use of natural gas as clean for the environment, the public should not be fooled by the name as it is “not a clean fuel” and “at production it is very dirty”.
“We run the risk of being left behind …in the next 20 or 30 years… The global community is beginning to realize this is not a supplement,” she said.
Incentives
Undertaking a comparative analysis of all energy alternatives, Alfred Bhulai contended that solar energy would be the best alternative for Guyana but it would require giving incentives to citizens for generation.
He considered GPL with its Heavy Fuel Oil and LNG turbines, the Amaila Falls project which will have a catchment area, a dam and turbines, the gas-to-shore project which will have an offshore well, a long gas pipeline, gas separation and gas turbines and solar power, which uses panels, controllers, inverters and batteries.
He also noted that GPL operates at a generating capacity of 150MW, while Amaila would be 165MW, gas-to-shore 250MW and solar 250MW.
“[What] I am peddling is 50,000 different sources of power. Fifty thousand sources with the different individuals and conditions will have to be negotiated,” he said while explaining that from his analysis costs for operations could be just US$250 million, compared to the close to billion dollar price tags for the Amaila and gas-to-shore projects.
“We know GPL, the Amaila Falls will have to have a big company. [With] solar we look at plug and play technology and therein have knowledge transfer…The electricity will be in the hands of the people. They will be empowered with dealing with their own energy, prone only to small blackouts and that those will be based on traceable faults…it is far cheaper,” he contended.
Patterson gave an overview of plans by the former government and said that it supported gas-to-shore but that the landing facility should have been at Clonbrook on the East Coast of Demerara as was recommended by a study his administration undertook. “The initial plan was never a grandiose plan. It was to have 20 to 25 acres at Coldingen… to keep the country going with a resource we had because the data did not show a long term industry,” he said.
According to Patterson, the APNU+AFC’s plans was built on a seven-tiered system that would have in the end and over time given the country the reliability in a power system it has been needing for decades.
Their report on the sector showed that the Demerara-Berbice Interconnected System required urgent additional generating capacity and that a gas-to-power solution was economically viable in a phased development.
“We would get 30 mscfd (Million standard cubic feet per day) available for 15 years without affecting optimum oil production. Capex (capital expenditure) was at US$700 million. It determined to the optimum solution as we moved to a renewable energy shift. There would have been 65 per cent power generation by renewable energy sources by 2035 and be self-sufficient in LNG,” he said while noting that further studies were required on the potential of alternative natural gas industries.
And with government adamant that the gas-to-shore project be developed at Wales on the West Bank Demerara, Patterson echoed a position he has been trumpeting in Parliament that studies are needed and must be shown to the nation on how decisions are arrived at.
