Opinion
- Editorial
John Spence:
Reject Alcoa aluminium smelter
In my last two articles I discussed three of the
five issues that I had identified as being of importance
in the decision to agree to an Alcoa aluminium smelter
in Trinidad. These three were Economic, Environmental
pollution and Health. The other two issues - (a)
Social and (b) Development policy-I will discuss
together as they are closely related.
Before
doing this I will refer to the Business Guardian
Editorial of August 6, which reported on an interview
between the Editor, Anthony Wilson, and Minister
Lenny Saith.
Some
important points emerged from that interview.
1.
The price of natural gas to Alcoa (which has not
yet been fixed) will increase with increase in the
world market price of aluminium;
2.
a tax-free holiday will not be given. These are
both to the benefit of this country.
Two
other important points emerged: firstly, the price
received for our natural gas would be greater if
it were converted to LNG and secondly a very curious
circumstance was revealed (I quote from the Business
Guardian): "Because of the royalty agreement
with bpTT, were it not for the fact that the natural
gas was going to be converted to electricity for
industry, it would not be available to us."
Why should bpTT insist (if indeed it did) that natural
gas supplied to this country (in lieu of royalty?)
should be used in a particular way? Would we be
paid royalty if we were not supplied with this natural
gas and, if so, how would that royalty payment compare
with the price at which we would sell the gas to
Alcoa?
Further
it appears that there will be insufficient "royalty"
gas (supplied in lieu of royalty) to supply both
Alcoa and the iron and steel industry which, because
it is "different", will "benefit"
from normal gas purchases. Are we to presume that
the normal gas purchases are at a higher price than
that at which we are proposing to sell to Alcoa?
I
will now discuss the other issues:
Social
and Development policy
There
are immediate concerns of the local people in the
area expression of which has drawn the attention
of the country to the issue of the smelter. These
are health, dislocation of individuals and communities
and change in the physical and social environments
which may reduce their quality of life.
The
general concern is that the construction of the
aluminium smelter will convert a rural, agricultural
area-the south-western peninsula-into an area of
heavy industry.
Much
is made by the Government (and by Alcoa) of the
benefits of having the smelter by way of the employment
to be generated. These benefits cannot be denied
but proper development planning would weigh the
benefits and negatives and, most importantly, would
examine alternative pathways of development which
might have lesser negative effects while providing
perhaps even greater benefits both to the local
communities and the country.
As an aside, the apparent belief of this Government
that only Cabinet has the wisdom to discuss development
alternatives is, to say the least, unfortunate.
So in the Express of August 9, the Prime Minister,
while addressing a breakfast meeting of stake-holders,
is reported to have said: "much more was taking
place than they had been privy to" but which
he was aware of as chairman of Cabinet. Why do we
have such a secretive Government? If there are developments
taking place that affect us all why should the total
picture only be apparent to the chairman of Cabinet?
To
return to the issue of the development of the south-western
peninsula, I will refer to two of the many important
points made by Prof Julian Kenny in the debate on
this issue. The first is that the biodiversity in
that area (which includes many unique species of
plants and animals) is threatened by the industrial
developments.
This biodiversity we have agreed to preserve by
signing international treaties and by decision of
Cabinet in approving the National Biodiversity Strategy
and Action Plan. It is Prof Kenny's view that the
south-western peninsula meets the requirements for
declaration as an Environmentally Sensitive Area
under the Environmental Management Authority Act
and to fulfil our obligations under the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity and other UN
treaties that we have signed.
Prof
Kenny has also pointed out that in the National
Physical Development Plan, approved by Parliament
in 1984 under the Town and Country Planning Act,
the area under discussion is designated for agriculture
and forestry. Any significant departure from that
plan would require parliamentary approval by way
of revision of that plan.
It
is difficult not to become cynical when members
of Government, including the Attorney General and
the Prime Minister, continually state that no one
is above the law while at the same time the Government
appears to disregard the provisions of the Town
and Country Planning Act with respect to Government-sponsored
developments.
John
Spence
is a columnist of the Trinidad Express. Petroleumworld
not necessarily share these views.
Editor's
Note: This commentary was published by The
Trinidad Express,
on
Thursday, August 10th 2006, Petroleumworld reprint
this article in the interest of our readers.
All
comments posted and published on Petroleumworld,
do not reflect either for or against the opinion
expressed in the comment as an endorsement of Petroleumworld.
All comments expressed are private comments and
do not necessary reflect the view of this website.
All comments are posted and published without liability
to Petroleumworld.
Petroleumworld encourages persons to reproduce,
reprint, or broadcast Petroleumworld Editorial articles
provided that any such reproduction identify the
original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com and
it is done within the fair use as provided for in
section 107 of the US Copyright Law
Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com
are appreciated.
Petroleumworld
Trinidad
August 14th 2006
Copyright
© 2006
John Spence.
All rights reserved
