Guyana stands on the precipice of becoming an oil-producing economy and while the knowledge that oil-producing countries are at an advantage economically is comforting, there is an oxymoronic dynamic that is involved with this particular situation.
On one hand, there is Guyana’s push for a “green economy”, which is premised on the reduction of our carbon footprint, while on the other hand, Guyana is advancing the proliferation of oil for economic gains. The end result of which will invariably add to the already colossal greenhouse gas emissions that come with the extraction, production and consequent burning of oil.
Where does this contrasting equation leave Guyana? One can argue that at this point in time, this concern is not on the minds of the politicians, nor those with the vested interest (ExxonMobil) of extracting the lucrative resource. This in part has to do with the fact that Guyana won’t be producing oil until another well is drilled (the Liza 3) which gives the country a 5-10-year time line before large-scale production is seriously considered.
That being said, oil production, it seems, is inevitable based on the information being disseminated from ExxonMobil that Guyana has a recoverable resource of between 800 million and 1.4 billion oil-equivalent barrels. With that inevitability comes the oxymoronic dilemma mentioned above.
We do believe that if Guyana becomes an economy which is based on oil, it will be at a crossroad, ie from its local push for a green economy/ fighting climate change, and from its international obligations and treaties (COP 21) seeking tangible compliance in the reduction of the world’s carbon footprint from developing countries.
Research has shown the deleterious effects associated with climate change. One of the largest contributors to climate change is greenhouse gases and primary among those gases is Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which is produced naturally, but is excessively exacerbated through human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels (oil).
Ironically, the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases are the developed countries, such as the United States, the European Union members, China and Canada among others. However, the countries that are required to do the most in terms of avoiding further climate change damage are the poor and developing countries. They are being cajoled by developed countries through international organisations to implement changes counterproductive to their projected growth by not utilising the route already advanced and taken by the said developed countries years before.
It is for this reason, former President Bharrat Jagdeo articulated for and succeeded in getting funding from Norway (a developed country) to simply put, pay for Guyana to keep its forest intact. This move ensured that Guyana was compensated for not going down the traditional route of exploiting its natural resource via rapid deforestation for economic gains.
Clearly, Guyana will come under some form of scrutiny and criticism if it digresses from its much-touted going green and combating climate change disposition towards one where the end result would lead to the proliferation of greenhouse gases by contributing to the oil industry and its consequent ills.
To stay clear from such murky waters maybe Guyana should go the route that it did with its forests. A feasibility study should be done to determine the net positive and negative impacts that would be derived if Guyana chose not to mine its oil reserves. Guyana could then be compensated for not going down the path of extracting its reserves.
It might be a farfetched idea taking into consideration the legal ramifications and the amount of resources already invested by ExxonMobil to find and extract oil off of Guyana’s shores and to drill two wells already. However, in the final analysis, even the most entrenched agreements can be restructured and compromised.
It all depends on how serious we are in fighting climate change and protecting the world for the future generations to come.
