Electricity generation may be the most technical of subjects but this has not stopped it becoming the subject of political controversy.

The latest instalment is the proposal to build a new gas-fired power station at Delimara, including the necessary gas-handling infrastructure.

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority is tomorrow expected to decide on the permit amid contrasting views on the location of the floating gas storage facility.

On the eve of the Mepa board meeting, The Sunday Times of Malta tries to sift through the gas cloud that has created confusion in people’s minds.

The highest risk incidence was that of a flash fire or explosion caused by a leak in the pipeline

The planning authority has to decide on two applications. One is for the construction of a 200MW gas-fired power station and the other is for the construction of a regassification unit and a jetty where the floating gas storage ship will be moored. Both are within the confines of the Delimara power station complex.

Technically-speaking Mepa will only be deciding whether the proposed infrastructure is compatible with the use of land allowed in the area.

Operational matters, such as the type of fuel to be used and the safety features that should be included, will be subject to a separate environment permit – known as the IPPC –that will be decided later on.

However, those lobbying against the proposed floating storage facility argue that Mepa tomorrow cannot ignore operational issues, especially those linked to safety, because these can potentially condition the actual location of the gas-handling infrastructure.

There is general consensus that the country’s choice of fuel for power generation should be the much-cleaner natural gas.

But some experts, politicians and residents have expressed concern at the location of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage ship that will be berthed inside Marsaxlokk Bay. The objections are linked to the risks – real and perceived – associated with LNG storage and regassification.

Any project of this size and nature has inherent risks so experts prefer talking about the probability of a particular accident happening based on scientific data and industry practice.

A risk analysis prepared by Georgios Papadaki, a chemical engineer, for the Occupational Health and Safety Authority investigated a number of accident scenarios, including rupture of the floating storage unit and disconnection of the hose between the ship and the regassificator.

The highest risk incidence was that of a flash fire or explosion caused by a leak in the pipeline from the FSU to the secondary pump on the jetty. The risk of this happening is twice per 10,000 years.

Next in line is a flash fire or explosion caused in the unloading hose between the FSU and the jetty: once every 10,000 years.

A flash fire or explosion caused by LNG released through a hole at the bottom of the storage facility was estimated to happen six times every one million years.

Umberto Maffezzoli, a chemical engineer, one of three experts tasked with a risk analysis by the government says that he will be able to form a final opinion once the exact design of the LNG terminal is known. This means that the risk assessment studies done so far will have to be updated at a later stage, before the planning permit is considered. A maritime impact assessment study still has to be carried out.

Should the LNG storage ship be moored inside or outside the port?

This is the principle question over which controversy has raged. The government has argued that locating the ship out at sea and linking it with an underwater pipeline to shore poses higher risks. This view is shared by maritime engineer Paul Cardona, who says that a permanently moored LNG facility out at sea is more dangerous because it is exposed to all natural elements and all shipping movements.

Dr Cardona says anchoring the LNG ship on the Delimara side of Marsaxlokk Bay should not create problems for ships visiting the Freeport. However, he insists that a full maritime impact study should be carried out to determine the ideal mooring location inside the port.

It is a call made by PN president Ann Fenech, a maritime lawyer, who insists the planning authority should not determine the permit before the maritime study is complete. A problem flagged by Carmel Cacopardo, a consultant to the Birżebbuġa council, is that the risk assessment studies only covered the current proposal – a land-based regassificator and a floating storage unit alongside it – with no evaluation being made of an offshore terminal.

What are the objections?

Engineer Arthur Ciantar, a consultant to the Marsaxlokk council and risk analysis expert Hans Pasman, a consultant for Din l-Art Ħelwa, have argued that although the risks involved are low, if an accident were to happen the consequences would be devastating.

Mr Ciantar insists that even with a one in 10,000 years chance of explosion, nobody could predict when that could happen.

He contends that to avoid devastating consequences on the power station and neighbouring communities the LNG storage ship should be located outside Marsaxlokk Bay.

Prof. Pasman also urges relocating the storage ship outside the port, a view supported by Nationalist Party energy spokesman George Pullicino. Prof. Pasman says the probability of an LNG storage facility leak is small, but the consequences of an accident would be “disastrous”.

He says the risk assessment presented so far lacks precise data on the proposed construction and the formation of an LNG pool on water from a leak in one of the storage ship’s tanks is treated unsatisfactorily.