“Would you consider storing 140,000 cubic metres of petrol on a ship inside Marsaxlokk?” asked Hans Pasman. While the audience tried to grasp what exactly was being asked of them, Prof. Pasman continued: “No you wouldn’t and LNG is much more hazardous than petrol.”

This was, by far, the loudest and most eloquent message that came across the floor during the public consultation exercise, as part of the EIA process for the development of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) storage, a re-gasification facility and a power station the government is trying to lump down the Maltese taxpayer’s throat.

Prof. Pasman is a resident of Malta and a renowned international authority in the assessment of process risks. He spoke on behalf of Din l-Art Ħelwa at the hearing and is a man of talent, available to the government, way before the Henley & Partners ponzy scheme took effect.

He urged the authorities not to issue any land use planning permit yet. He emphasised that the risks associated with this floating ship (not yet clear if it is self-propelled) containing a very hazardous and odourless cargo that has to stay cooled at -180°C, unsheltered from the fierce southeasterly winds, permanently connected to a land-based regasification plant through a flexible connection that has never been tested anywhere else in the world, close to some of Malta’s most strategic installations (most notably the power station itself) and sitting about a kilometre away from the heart of crowded urban zones, must be understood.

Systems and procedures (to mitigate these risks) must be devised and approved by an international competent authority before any land use permit is issued.

Every expert in the room, including the experts representing Mepa, the local councils and Prof. Pasman himself, confirmed that the risk assessment is preliminary and incomplete.

Risks associated with marine traffic in the port of Marsaxlokk, having over 1,000 movements of vessels a year (excluding fishing crafts), have not yet been studied.

Maritime law expert Ann Fenech remarked that the discussion on the EIA is irrelevant and premature because it has not yet been made certain that the floating storage facility (known as FSU), upon which this whole Labour Party delusion hinges, poses no risk whatsoever to the visiting transhipment tankers entering the Freeport, as well as to the tankers entering Marsaxlokk ferrying national stocks of aviation fuel and petrol.

The proponents of the project, who ordered the FSU way before the signing of the agreement with the government, brushed off these concerns, saying that as soon as the land is permitted, the risks associated with the facility will be studied. This makes a mockery of the whole planning process because once a site is committed, the project will never be reversed.

All of these developments are being carried out in the absence of an approved energy plan. This project was never contemplated in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) that was carried out as part of the 2012 National Energy Policy.

The four options for LNG supply, contemplated in the national policy, had to be studied in depth from an environmental, social and economic impact prior to embarking on an EIA for the preferred LNG option. None of this was carried out before the EIA on this FSU option commenced.

It is a shame that the heavyweights behind this project will be committing the Maltese taxpayer to buy electricity at a price that may be more expensive than buying it over the interconnector. It is a shame that, until today, we have not been presented with any economic justification for the project when this new power station will generate more electricity than is required under normal circumstances. It is a shame that the financial advisers of the project have not explained what penalties have to be paid to the consortium if Enemalta fails to buy the agreed amount of electricity from them when, for example, Malta starts to generate more electricity as part of our 2020 renewables target.

The people of the south have a right to live in peace of mind from the fear that one day the unthinkable will hit them

It is a shame that the EIA did not disclose the impact on the housing market in the south, now that it will be made to sit on a source of major accident. It is a shame that the EIA has not managed to secure the endorsement of Malta’s competent authority on the control of major accidents and hazards for this project. It is a shame that the EIA did not disclose alternative site assessments for the floating storage facility, including Herds Bank.

It is a shame that the gas dispersion model used to characterise the risk in Marsaxlokk is not site specific and not specific to LNG. It is a shame that the EIA did not recommend the removal of the Delimara power station chimney, as promised in the election campaign, or what the environmental impacts resulting from the relocation of the aviation fuel dolphin in Marsaxlokk will be if this project goes ahead.

It is a shame that the EIA did not assess the penalties Malta will have to pay as a result of higher CO2 emissions now that Malta will be generating more electricity rather than purchasing it through the interconnector.

It is a shame that so much remains unanswered because of the government’s urgent need to circumvent the process when taxpayers today may already benefit from savings gained from the BWSC plant.

Yes, the people of the south have a right to cleaner air, and that is why the previous administration had reduced the use of sulphur in fossil fuels and stabilised emissions from the power station to well within EU thresholds. Similarly, under Labour, the people of the south have a right to live in peace of mind from the fear that one day the unthinkable will hit them.

George Pullicino is the Nationalist Party’s spokesman on energy and water conservation.