Libya-Malta-Sicily power link

In the early months of 2005, the government was presented with a proposal that had the working title of Tribolite. The aim of the project was to have a tri-point HVDC (high voltage direct current) link between Sicily, Malta and Libya.

... you either have a proper HVDC link (through submarine cables) or a gas pipeline- Norman Zammit

The idea was that electricity would be generated in Libya at much cheaper rates and then transmitted via an HVDC link to Malta and Sicily. This would have meant that Libya could export electrical energy to the European grid via Malta. Malta was therefore to benefit from the lower generation costs with the result of lower electricity tariffs being possible.

If, for any reason, the link between Malta and Libya had to suffer any sort of damage then the energy flow in the link could be reversed such that Malta would receive energy via Sicily from the European grid. This meant there was always security of supply, which is one of the requisites of the EU in such projects.

At the time we were proposing to start works on the link in two phases. Phase one would have been the part of the HVDC link between Malta and Sicily and phase two would consist of the connection between Malta and Libya.

Phase two had political complications and, therefore, in this case it was even more imperative for the government to intervene and act as the interlocutor between Libya and the EU for such a project to be successful.

The implementation of the proposal also meant that the Delimara power station did not need to go beyond phase 1 and that the Marsa power station could be closed down immediately on completion of the link. This was because the Delimara power station phase 1 was sufficient to provide the base generation capacity required even if the link between Malta and Sicily had to fail and needed repairs.

Although the proposal did receive some form of positive feedback at the time we did not, however, find the necessary support to move forward. We were given the understanding that the process of bringing Libya into the equation would have rendered major complication making the project not feasible. We could never subscribe to such a statement because we were sure of the feasibility of our project for the benefit of our country.

Notwithstanding this attitude, we didn’t give up and, instead, moved on and found an Italian company that, together with us, prepared a proposal that we then submitted to the government again in the second half of 2005.

This proposal was a gas pipeline from Sicily to Malta. The project, that would have cost €220 million, was to be financed totally by this Italian company. The only condition we put was that for the initial seven years after project completion, the government would buy gas at the market rates from this Italian company such that the company would cover the investment made.

This project could have been carried out at no cost to the Maltese people.

Its timeline was about a maximum of 18 months. In the meantime, the government would have had time to convert phase 1 of the Delimara power station totally to gas and prepare for a phase 2 equipped with gas turbines.

What would have been the result if this project had gone ahead?

The results would have been:

1. A reduction in the electricity tariffs by up to 40 per cent.

2. Since electricity generation was being carried out using natural gas and since there would not be CO2 generation, then Malta would get what are known as CO2 credits, which could be sold by the Maltese government to EU countries that have higher pollution problems. By buying these credits, such countries would benefit from lower fines imposed by the EU for pollution.

At this stage, I will not explain publicly the details as to why such a proposal was not taken up by the government. All I can say is that when these ideas were presented and backed up by facts to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi he was interested in the implementation of the idea and referred us to the appropriate minister to proceed with the plan. From that point onwards, everyone can understand what happened because, up till today, we do not have the gas pipeline to Sicily and this is many years after it could have already been in use.

What is being planned now is what is being described as a medium- and long-term solution. We are hearing plans of a submarine cable between Malta and Sicily (similar to phase 1 of Tribolite) combined with a gas pipeline to Sicily.

Why all this waste of money? Who is giving this senseless advice to carry out a double investment when a gas pipeline can be installed as quickly as a submarine cable?

It is incredible to see that those who advise people in power are actually given guidance that doesn’t make sense. Whoever understood what I wrote above knows that you either have a proper HVDC link (through submarine cables) or a gas pipeline. Going for both and calling them medium- and long-term strategies is pure nonsense.

I challenge anyone to say the contrary.

Mr Zammit was a director and shareholder of NPFB Group Ltd, setup at the time to facilitate and promote foreign investment especially for infrastructural projects of a certain magnitude.