Dear Editor,
The debate on the Gas to Shore project centered on the transportation by means of pipeline versus Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tankers. That was justifiably so since more than 90% of the world’s gas transport, over sea and land terrain of long distances, was done by those two methods. Accordingly, Tara Singh’s letter, Stabroek News, Saturday, January 28, 2023, “It would not be feasible to use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ships”, bore no relation to the debate.
Was Tara Singh of the mistaken belief that LNG tankers and CNG ships were one and the same? Editor, a few advantages using LNG tankers over the gas pipeline would be better security, safety, flexibility, and safeguard of marine life. Environmentally, the approach would be sounder since, from the Gas to Shore consultant’s report, the gas pipeline would be decommissioned in place. Mention was made of Guyana exporting gas to other Caribbean territories. The LNG tankers would be ideal for that purpose.
The report of the Gas to Shore consultants limited the life of the pipeline to 25 years, whereas the life of a power plant would normally be more than 50 years. The supply of gas to the power plant beyond the life of the pipeline was not addressed.
Sincerely,
Abraham David
