The AES Corporation, the global energy company which the Bahamas government has been keeping in limbo about its proposed LNG terminal, Ocean Express, announced on Monday its plans to invest approximately $1 billion over the next three years to expand the company’s alternative energy business.
The announcement is part of AES’s strategy not only to beef up its alternative energy business group but also to bring to market new projects and technologies to reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions.
During the three-year investment programme the company will expand its “existing alternative energy business in wind power generation, biomass and the development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals”.
In a press release the company listed a number of initiatives either already started or planned among which are “the commercial development of projects and technologies that directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions or create emission offsets under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol”.
The company also plans to “triple its investment in its wind generation business over the next three years”. According to the release, since October 2005, AES has already committed to approximately $100 million in investments which will generate over 17 million tonnes of carbon reduction credits through 2012.
Meanwhile it continues to wait on the go ahead for construction of its planned LNG terminal in The Bahamas. Since 2003 AES has been assured by various utterances from government officials that its permits would be imminent. To date, however, the government has not indicated either way whether it will grant or deny the necessary approvals for the terminal.
One source told the Guardian that it was “highly unlikely that the government would grant an approval so close to an election”. The source suggested that the government’s reluctance was due to the “people being in the dark on LNG” adding that “what people don’t know about they don’t support”.
The AES debacle points to a number of failures not least of which is the absence of a comprehensive development philosophy and a plan based upon that philosophy. Thus instead of travelling up and down at AES under the guise of learning about the industry to enable them to come to a decision and ultimately opening up the government and people of The Bahamas to a suit alleging a tort of some kind the relevant minister would have informed the AES that The Bahamas intends to continue the kind of development that ensures leadership in tourism and private banking.
Development in other areas – fossil fuels, mining, and in this case LNG – will not be pursued.
Each time the issue arises and pressure is brought to bear on the government about a clear cut decision one hears comments about damage of and to the environment should there be an “accident” in a post 9/11 environment. None of these comments are founded in fact since petroleum which passes through The Bahamas is much more hazardous to the environment than LNG.
As a matter of verifiable fact, following 9/11, Tractebel’s Boston harbour LNG facility was closed for security reasons and the closing would have been permanent except that Lloyds Registry was employed to undertake an independent study on the safety and or threat of LNG to the US, in light of terrorist activity. The US government and its myriad security agencies were satisfied that Tractebel’s LNG facility could be re-opened and has been operational since.
By: C. E. HUGGINS, Business Editor, The Nassau Guardian
