By Mark DaCosta-In a disappointing development for our nation, the Gas-to-Energy project — a cornerstone of the government’s ambitious plans for cheaper electricity and economic transformation — has once again faced delays, becoming emblematic of the administration’s struggles with transparency and effective project management.
The latest completion timeline, set for the second quarter of 2026, underscores a troubling pattern of delays that have plagued this multi-billion-dollar project since its inception. Initially projected to be ready by late 2023 or early 2024, hopes for a timely resolution to the country’s energy crisis have crashed. By the end of 2024, a firm deadline was touted, with both the government and contractor promising delivery. However, this commitment soon unravelled.
As concerns grew in early 2024, Project Lead Winston Brassington was forced to concede that the timeline was no longer realistic. His admission that the project would not be finished until the close of 2025 highlighted the growing chasm between ambitious government promises and the stark realities facing the project. This was the first significant delay, reflecting the increasing hurdles in the execution of what was once viewed as a straightforward initiative. Frankly speaking, many Guyanese have said on social media that the PPP government has misled the public – and that is using kind language.
The situation worsened as 2024 unfolded, with more obstacles surfacing. By September of that year, civil works ran into substantial delays, specifically regarding site preparation and soil stabilisation. Despite the pipeline construction by ExxonMobil Guyana proceeding as planned, the integrated power plant and Natural Gas Liquids facility found itself ensnared in a tangle of disputes. The contractor, Lindsayca/CH4, raised concerns about cost overruns, worrying signs that would culminate in a formal arbitration process between the government and the contractor. These issues stemmed from a late handover of the site, which left the timeline in disarray — a clear indication of mismanagement and poor planning on the government’s part.
The pattern continued into early 2025 when further re-evaluation only determined that the project was pushed back yet again, with leaders expressing a new anticipated completion date of the first half of 2026. In public discussions, Prime Minister Mark Phillips responded to continued pressure from Opposition members by attempting to reassure citizens of the government’s capacity to deliver, stating, “The gas to energy project is slated for completion during the second quarter of 2026. To be on the safe side.” Such assurances, however, ring hollow to a public that has witnessed the repeated failure to keep timelines.
In the wake of these ongoing postponements, trust in the government’s ability to effectively manage the project has waned. Opposition members have articulated concerns that the Gas-to-Energy project is more of a political liability than a beacon of progress. Their calls for clarity on the project’s status have often been met with vague responses and shifting deadlines, which raises questions about accountability, especially regarding the financial implications for taxpayers.
The lack of transparency surrounding the cost of these delays adds further insult to injury. The long-promised benefits of energy independence and economic development seem further away with each successive hiccup. The administration’s failures are not just administrative blunders — they represent a serious concern for the very citizens whose lives stand to be impacted by renewable energy projects. As each deadline slips further into the future, the question looms larger: When will our government take decisive action to rectify the issues plaguing this flagship venture, and at what cost will it eventually come?
As our homeland grapples with these issues, it is imperative for all citizens to demand greater accountability from their leaders, including the silent Leader of the Opposition, Aubrey Norton. The Gas-to-Energy project should serve as a reference point, not only for the potential of natural gas development but also as a cautionary tale of what can happen when a government prioritises promises over practicality.
