Dear Editor,
I read with great interest the article entitled “Gas-to-power seen as a game changer for Guyana’s energy sector” as found in the impressive second edition of the local publication ENERGY. On the surface it appears to be an excellent idea particularly when one considers the high costs of electricity in Guyana and the potential for usage of the gas for energy hungry industries as discussed in the well-written article.
Having said that I do note the lack of discussion as to a) the size of the proposed pipeline and b) the potential for utilizing a pipeline for the recovery of associated gas from the other fields that are slated for development.
Let me very briefly address these points starting with the size of the discussed pipeline. My understanding of the Liza development is that there is some 35,000,000 to 50,000,000 scuf (standard cu. ft.) available per day after gas injection into the Liza reservoir and gas utilization for power generation. My limited knowledge of the size of pipe that would be needed to accommodate these flow rates would be in the range of 3 to 5 inches in diameter. I, however, would yield to further discussion on this by experts in the area of pipelines.
I raise this in the context of the other fields that are proposed for development such as Liza Phase 2 and Payara both of which are estimated to produce some 220,000 bbls per day. If one compares these production rates with Liza 1, it appears as though these two fields add an additional 440,000 bbls per day. Then if one also assumes that the GOR (gas oil ratio) is similar at Liza Phase 2 and Payara and the injection requirements are somewhat similar as are the requirements for gas for power generation then it appears, at least to me, that there will be a significant increase in the gas availability and therefore my question is why is there no consideration being given to a gas gathering subsea system to accommodate this additional gas with a larger diameter pipeline to shore.
Therefore, I am quite surprised to not see further discussion on a) the size of the proposed pipeline and b) the potential for a far greater source of gas either for additional industrial growth or for LNG even in the context of the depressed pricing situation.
I offer these thoughts as someone who has a very limited knowledge of the gas transport business but as someone who has been following offshore activities in Guyana since the discovery of Liza 1 and as someone who would like to see further discussion on the concept of utilizing the apparent excessive gas.
Furthermore, as I am a strong believer in an open and transparent industry, I do hope that this letter will generate much discussion about options for Guyana which in the long term may indeed be a benefit to the people of your country.
Perhaps naively submitted but with best wishes!
Regards,
Rob Strong and Associates
Suite 202, 70 Portugal Cove Road
P.O Box 23185
St. John’s, NL Canada A1B 4J9
