Alternatives to the gas-to-shore project

Dear Editor,
The author who responded to my published letter by stating that the administration should first show success in its ongoing undertakings (the GuySuCo turnaround, integration of the Skelton Power Plant into the grid, and the effective running of GPL) before venturing into the gas-to-shore project has avoided the core of the discussion as it relates to the pipeline.
What CRG had proposed was the use of sea vessels to transport the gas to sell it overseas. The funds from that undertaking should then be used to both subsidise the cost of electricity and to build the new power plant. The author’s technical analysis is interesting, but it does not address the business case being discussed.
The current approach being taken by Government does not have, as a key objective, the focus on earning revenue from the gas during the initial stages of the project. A fully or partially self-financed project would establish our presence in the natural gas market, and would ensure that our citizens reap the benefits of our gas resources sooner, rather than later.
What is also interesting in the technical data shared by the author is the assumption that a sea vessel as an alternative to a pipeline is not economically feasible. I would caution against such a rash conclusion, especially when the total cost of the venture is unknown. As stated previously, the maintenance costs can be substantial, not to mention the inherent risks of such a project in Guyana, where arson is ongoing.
A full analysis of the project with the relevant scenarios is lacking. CRG strongly suggests that this be done before additional funds are invested. In the interim, selling of our gas overseas should be a top priority.

Best regards,
Jamil Changlee