Elson Low’s critique of Gas-to-Energy Project misses strategic imperative

Dear Editor,
Economist Elson Low’s critique of the Wales Gas-to-Energy (GtE) Project overlooks the strategic necessity of the initiative. His call for disclosure and accountability is valid, but shelving the project over soil stabilisation costs overlooks the long-term vision guiding it.
Public scrutiny is essential, and his queries deserve a response from the authorities. However, constructive dialogue is best built on shared facts, which are most reliably obtained through direct engagement with the relevant agencies.
For over forty years, energy insecurity has been a primary barrier to Guyana’s progress. The GtE project is not merely a power plant; it is a foundational intervention aimed at resolving this chronic issue. Achieving a modern economy is inextricably linked to secure, low-cost energy. Dismissing its promised benefits as “fiction” disregards the strategic long-term analysis behind the initiative.
To provide a balanced perspective, let’s consider two key points:

The $100 Million Soil Stabilisation
Framing the $100 million expenditure solely as a failure of due diligence ignores both global precedent and strategic context. Progressive nations have routinely transformed challenging terrains into engines of growth, and the following two are among many examples:
The Battersea Precedent: The iconic Battersea Power Station in London was constructed on the reclaimed, marshy banks of the River Thames. The significant investment required to stabilise that site yielded a strategic asset that powered London for over 50 years.
The Eemshaven Example: The Netherlands, a global leader in land reclamation, constructed the RWE Eemshaven Power Station on land reclaimed from the UNESCO-protected Wadden Sea. It is now a cornerstone of the Dutch energy grid.
Both of these projects had initial soil stabilisation issues and unforeseen costs, but they confronted those challenges when they needed to be confronted in the interest of their national development. History will show both the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are better as societies because they persevered and made the hard decisions at the right time.  Guyana is in the same position today; we must press on!
Guyana is undertaking several foundational projects on an unprecedented scale, with the GtE being one of them. The challenging, liquefaction-prone soils of our coastal region are a geographical reality. This stabilisation cost, while substantial, is a necessary, one-time investment to create a viable, stable industrial platform for the next 50 years. The alternative – abandoning development due to complex geology – is not a viable path for a nation on the cusp of transformation.
In this regard, the contractor’s sobering warning about the facility’s risks if built improperly is not an argument against construction; it is a powerful justification for undertaking the correct engineering interventions, regardless of cost, to ensure long-term safety and integrity.
Furthermore, this project is the incubator for a much larger vision: the development of over 30,000 acres of undeveloped land on the West Bank of Demerara as a result of the planned transportation links from Bartica to the Timehri Docks and to the new Jagdeo Bridge passing the GtE Project. Therefore, the GtE is the anchor that makes this broader development – and its potential for cross-subsidisation – economically feasible. I encourage Mr Low to visualise the “BIG THINK”.
The delays and costs associated with these extensive geotechnical investigations have, in fact, provided Guyana with an invaluable repository of knowledge for executing future large-scale projects of a similar nature, since there will be many other projects of a similar scale that will add to the compendium of national assets to push our ambition at industrialisation. Thus, it is to our benefit that the developers are mitigating these extreme risks with the seriousness they deserve.

The “Dead on Arrival” Prognosis is Flawed
The assertion that the site is now unsuitable is illogical. The soil stabilisation is the definitive solution that transforms the land into a stable asset. The GtE project, as the anchor tenant, will provide the cheap, reliable energy needed to overcome the single greatest barrier to Guyanese manufacturing, attracting the very industries meant to create the jobs and growth in question.
Guyana’s energy instability is a long-standing crisis. The GtE is the permanent solution; the current expensive power ships are interim measures. To blame the GtE for the costs of the crisis it is designed to solve is a circular argument.
The call to shelve this US$2 billion strategic project is misguided. It is the cornerstone of Guyana’s economic future. The path forward is not abandonment but rigorous oversight and course correction. Abandoning it now would guarantee the loss of this strategic investment and the promise of a modern, industrialised Guyana for generations to come. The cost of stabilisation, however high, pales in comparison to the cost of forfeiting our energy future.

Kind regards,
Sasenarine Singh