EL PAÍS offers the América Futura section openly for its daily and global information contribution on sustainable development.
If you want to support our journalism, subscribe
here
.
The speech by Gustavo Petro, president of Colombia, was repeated again in Davos.
“We have decided not to contract more oil, gas and coal exploration as a sign of the need we have to decarbonize our economy.”
His words, at least in terms of climate change, are a good political signal, but putting them into practice will involve enormous challenges not only for this Government, but, at least, for the next four presidencies of the country.
And although the path that each of these fossil fuels must take in the coming years is challenging, the case of gas could be one of the most disturbing.
Perhaps, the one with the most nuances.
Currently, natural gas provides energy to around 11 million families, drives 670,000 vehicles and allows 145,000 businesses to carry out their activities, just to name a few cases.
Furthermore, and despite the fact that its presence in the primary matrix has been decreasing – it has gone from representing 28% to 16% between 2000 and 2021, according to data reported by a report from the
Natural Resource Governance Institute (NGRI)
-,
energy security of the country remains highly dependent on gas.
The problem is that from 2022 it was estimated that the proven reserves of natural gas in the country would only be enough for 7.2 more years, the lowest level reached in the last ten years.
Despite this possible gas shortage, the Government has reiterated that it will use gas as a transitional energy.
Something like saying that it is a step that needs to be passed, while renewable energies based on the sun and wind become more powerful and reliable.
It is a narrative that has not only grown in Colombia.
The reason?
Gas, despite generating methane – which is up to 80 times more powerful than CO2 in warming the atmosphere – emits between 50% and 60% less CO2 than coal.
Therefore, if compared to oil and coal, it can be considered a cleaner energy.
When both discourses are put together – the intention to eventually leave gas behind, but use it as part of the transition to renewables – more questions arise.
What are the sectors that will stop using gas first?
By when should it leave the energy matrix?
If there is only gas for 7.2 more years, is it worth continuing to bet on it?
Ricardo Roa, president of Ecopetrol, prefers not to give dates for his departure.
“Demand is going to be what tells when the use of this resource will begin to decline,” he comments in an interview with América Futura.
Meanwhile, experts such as Giovanni Pabón, director of the Energy area at the Transforma think tank, comment that the analyzes indicate that, by 2040, the gas should already be released.
This, taking into account that the country has climate commitments such as reducing its emissions by 51% by 2030 and being carbon neutral by 2050. “Giving up gas is going to be painful and long, but it must be done, too, because it is a fuel that It will increasingly have higher prices,” he adds.
Ricardo Roa, president of Ecopetrol, in September 2023.Victor J. Blue (Bloomberg)
The gas options deck
Doing light math, Colombia would have guaranteed gas until, more or less, 2029. And if a good estimate is that the fuel would have to leave the matrix by 2040, at least more natural gas would have to be assured for about ten years, this taking into account that the Government's mission is to do so without exploring more contracts than those that exist today.
To achieve this, there is a deck of options.
One that Roa talks about first is materializing the exploitation of offshore gas.
“To the extent that we can mature and develop offshore
resources ,
we hope that we can quickly supply this level of reserves,” he comments.
His calculations suggest that, if he determines that it is possible and financially advisable to exploit this gas offshore, the fuel could already be used “at least by 2027 and at least by early 2029.”
“We are talking about an additional 2.5 cubic terapies or, at most, between 10 and 12.5 cubic terapies.”
Gas that, he points out, could double the reserves, in the first case, and even multiply them by four or five in the second case.
Despite his optimism regarding the issue, there are reports that have found doubts about this option.
Last year, the
International Institute for Sustainable Development
published a report that, based on an analysis by the Rystad group, said that two of the large projects expected to be exploited offshore, the Gorgon and Uchuva fields, would only be able to supply gas to system until 2035, “peaking around 2037-2038.”
Some of the conclusions discussed in the document are that the development of these fields is very uncertain and involves high economic risks, that “these investments are considered economically non-commercial” and that “the sale of this gas in the Colombian domestic market will probably "It would require gas to be sold at a higher price than expected by consumers, so the Colombian Government could be forced to pay significant subsidies in order to maintain an acceptable price."
The other option – which could be a mixture with the previous one – is to import more gas.
Where from?
Roa repeats the idea that has been made public of bringing him from Venezuela.
“There has been a legal vehicle since 2007 through which Colombia already supplied fuel to Venezuela and now we can use it so that Venezuela [through PDVSA] supplies us with gas, since it is valid until 2027,” he comments.
“We are evaluating the integrity and physical condition of the gas pipeline to be able to adapt it.”
How much would it cost?
Still not known.
And so far, it's not like there is anything defined.
Workers in Manaure (Colombia) adjust a valve on the gas pipeline that connects with Venezuela, in 2007, a day before its inauguration.William Fernando Martinez (ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Finally, another option in the deck is to create a second import infrastructure, in addition to what already exists in the Colombian Caribbean.
It would be a regasification plant on the Pacific coast, an idea that several governments have been flirting with since 2017, but which has had several detractors.
“Some analysts consider that [the regasification plant] poses environmental and geographical location risks on protected territories, that there are potential seismic threats and a shallow channel for vessels to enter, or that import is not convenient due to the high international price of the gas,” notes the NRGI report.
In the last tenders to assign its construction, the call has been declared void.
Do not encourage gas demand
Regarding gas in Colombia, there are dilemmas and uncertainties.
But there is one thing that seems to be clear: further incentivizing gas demand should be avoided, since it is one that, according to Ecopetrol, has remained stable over the last ten years.
“It is important that what is really promoted are renewables, such as the opportunity to electrify the transportation and residential sectors.
From now on, all new constructions should have electric stoves and not gas,” says Juliana Peña, senior officer for Latin America at NRGI.
"Parallel to this, we must also stop increasing gas-based thermoelectric plants, and thus demand will decrease."
But history does not necessarily speak well of this.
Pabón, for example, recalls that in 2021 Congress approved Law 2028 that requires cities with mass transportation systems to have at least 30% of their fleet operate with gas engines, when what should be incentivized It's that they were electric.
“We must prevent these scenarios from being repeated at all costs.
We must stop encouraging the use of gas because, in the future, it will be a tremendous mistake.”
And, for now, regarding gas, it seems that nothing has been agreed upon.
There is uncertainty about plans, costs and, of course, even Colombia will depend on gas.
The truth, as Peña says, is that “a gas exit plan must be made”, something about which, specifically, the Government has not spoken.