Updated - Adds video - The Opposition's concerns on the location of a floating gas storage unit inside Marsaxlokk Bay are "genuine", according to Mario de Marco.

In a rare acknowledgement of the deep cynicism shown by residents of the south at the Nationalist Party's stand, the deputy leader said it was not easy for any political party to speak on cases like these.

"I can understand that people in the area express cynicism when a political party expresses concern, but our concerns on the location of the gas floating unit are genuine and represent the concerns of many others," he said this afternoon.

Asked what was the PN's next step in this case, given that it was not a registered objector and so could not appeal the planning decision, Dr de Marco said the party was "keeping all options open".

Dr de Marco was addressing a press conference in the wake of yesterday's Mepa decision to grant a planning permit for the construction of a power station and related gas-handling infrastructure.

The PN representative on the Mepa board, Ryan Callus, was one of two board members who voted against the project.

Dr de Marco said the PN agreed with the use of gas to generate electricity and the reduction in electricity rates but had problems with the location of the gas storage tanker. "It should be located outside the port similar to the Livorno case."

He insisted the FSRU (floating storage and regassificator unit) option was a tried and tested technology unlike the impression given by Enemalta.

"We are not against the project but we would have been irresponsible not to flag our concerns," Dr de Marco said, adding this project was not a simple block of flats.

PN president Anne Fenech insisted that the decision was problematic because board members did not have a maritime impact assessment study at hand to reach an informed choice.

She insisted that such a study would determine the size of the ignition-free zone around the LNG tanker and whether this would require Marsaxlokk Bay to be closed while a second LNG tanker docked for refuelling.

Energy spokesman George Pullicino noted that the Greek expert tasked by the authorities to carry out a risk assessment had told yesterday's hearing that if a gas cloud reached the power station it would be devastated.

Mr Pullicino said that with €180 million the consortium would invest in a regassificator, it was doubtful how temporary the LNG tanker would be. Through a gas pipeline the power station will be receiving natural gas in gaseous form and so will not require a regassificator.

"When the Enemalta representative said the regassificator will be needed as backup if something happened to the gas pipeline, was he implying that the LNG tanker will remain there permanently," Mr Pullicino insisted.

He described yesterday's permit approval as "a vitiated exercise" because alternative technologies were not taken into consideration and no alternative site assessment was carried out.

Mr Pullicino said that even in the case of the Marsascala recycling plant, alternative site assessments had to be carried out. When it was pointed out that the alternative site assessment for the Sant'Antnin plant was also vitiated, Mr Pullicino insisted if that was vitiated the gas power station studies were "super, super vitiated".

Mr Callus said it was "unbecoming" for the Prime Minister's letter to be read out at the start of the meeting, which could have conditioned other board members.

He insisted the environment impact assessment did not evaluate alternative sites for the location of the storage facility. "It felt like the decision was a fait accompli."

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.