Are we at risk of building another white elephant?

Jan 14, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – In May last year, a US$22.58 million contract was signed for the construction of a 15-megawatt (MW) solar farm in Linden. When completed, it will be the largest solar farm in Guyana.

The cost of this project works out to roughly US$1.5 million per megawatt. Observers note that as solar projects scale up, the cost per megawatt falls. By this logic, a much larger 300 MW solar farm could be built for around US$360 million. For comparison, the 300 MW Cauchari Solar Plant in Argentina, mostly funded by Chinese investors, was built at an estimated cost of US$390 million.

In the Philippines, a 300MW solar farm was built at around US$300M. A similar facility in high-cost Wisconsin was built at a price tag of US$423M.

These numbers raise important questions when juxtaposed with recent media reports about the gas-to-energy plant currently being constructed by the government of Guyana. Some reports suggest that the cost of this project may have ballooned to over US$1 billion – more than twice what it would cost to generate the same amount of electricity through solar power.

Other reports place the final costs at US$2 billion, although that figure may include the cost of the power plant itself. Either way, the discrepancy is striking and should prompt a serious conversation about costs and transparency.

Concerns over the gas-to-energy project are not limited to its price tag. There have been growing questions about the transparency of the process. Citizens and observers alike are asking: What is the current state of the project? How was the site chosen? And what is the expected final cost? These are basic questions that any government should be able to answer clearly and publicly.

One of the most debated issues has been the choice of land for the project. Media reports have highlighted concerns about possible site instability at the Wales location, citing poor soil conditions and potential liquefaction risks that could affect heavy industrial construction. There have even been suggestions that over  US$100 million was reportedly spent to remediate the site. Other reports suggest that the site identified was swampland.

If this is true, serious questions arise: Were thorough soil studies conducted before the site was finalised? Were environmental and engineering assessments carried out to ensure the land could support a major power plant? Without such studies being publicly shared, confidence in the project suffers.

Calls for a feasibility study specific to the project have been made in the past. Unfortunately, instead of commissioning an independent feasibility study, the government has reportedly said that assessments conducted by the Exim Bank of the United States. While this may have satisfied financial requirements for lending, it does not replace an independent evaluation of the project’s technical, environmental, and economic feasibility.

The bank’s primary concern would have been the ability of the project to generate enough revenue to repay its loan, especially with a sovereign guarantee. In other words, the bank’s approval does not automatically mean the project is in the public’s best interest.

The fact that Guyana has abundant natural gas should not automatically dictate energy policy. Just because a resource is available does not mean it should be exploited without careful consideration of alternatives. Solar energy, as the recent Linden project demonstrates, offers a potentially cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable option. A 300 MW solar farm, for example, could generate the same amount of electricity at a fraction of the cost of the gas-to-energy plant.

The government’s approach to this project must avoid the mistakes of the past. Guyana has experienced white-elephant projects before, most notably the Skeldon Sugar Factory, which was plagued by mismanagement, inefficiencies, and cost overruns. Citizens understandably fear a repeat scenario with the gas-to-energy plant if transparency is not prioritised.

Transparency is not just about good governance; it is about protecting the people’s money and ensuring that Guyana invests in energy projects that are economically and environmentally sensible.  The public has a right to know the rationale behind site selection, the engineering and environmental studies conducted, and the projected final cost

When it comes to energy development, the decisions made today will affect the nation’s economic, environmental, and social future for decades. Solar energy presents a viable path forward, but only if citizens are informed, costs are clear, and decisions are transparent. The time for openness is now – before the gas-to-energy plant becomes another Skeldon Sugar Factory.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Linden, Peeping Tom, risk, solar farm, white elephant

---