An expert has expressed serious doubts on the geological study tender issued by the government on the proposed Malta-Gozo tunnel, branding it a “superficial” exercise which may have safety and budget implications.
“This so-called geological study devised by Transport Malta is very disappointing. The methodology and approach proposed is insufficient and characterised by unacceptable shortcuts when compared to geological studies for tunnels in other countries, such as Norway [considered a world-leader in this field],” geologist Peter Gatt told the Times of Malta yesterday.
It is a very superficial approach, and the amount of information which will be derived from it will be “very limited”, he added.
Dr Gatt was contacted after he raised concerns on his Facebook account in the wake of last week’s announcement that Transport Malta had issued a tender to gather geological data on the sub-surface of the channel between Malta and Gozo. The study aims to determine the feasibility of the tunnel project.
Asked for its reaction, Transport Malta said Scandinavian research institute Sintef – with over 30 years’ experience in sub-sea tunnelling – had been commissioned to provide technical and advisory services on the project.
“Their tunnelling experience in Norway puts them in the forefront at providing advisory services for large infrastructural projects and will definitely be of benefit for the cost-effectiveness of the project,” TM said.
Are we sure it is the safest, as well as the most cost-effective?
In his criticism, the geologist pointed out that the study would involve the drilling of nine boreholes 175 metres below sea level, which was deeper than the drilling proposed in a preliminary report by Mott Macdonald in 2011.
While the purpose of this fresh study is to discover the least costly and safest route for the tunnel, the tender defeats that fundamental purpose, Dr Gatt said.
“The location of boreholes strongly suggests that TM has already decided on a particular route for the tunnel. On what grounds has this route been selected? Are we sure it is the safest, as well as the most cost-effective?” he asked.
Furthermore, the terms of reference of the tender indicate the intention to excavate the tunnel through Lower Coralline limestone, which according to Dr Gatt poses a number of problems, as it is the least known.
“It includes a particular 50 metre layer which is unrepresented in the geological map of Malta. The information available dates back some 50 years and was obtained during studies conducted by the British. It is now partly outdated,” he warned.
Dr Gatt also raised questions on the list of key experts being requested in the tender document, as it does not include a geologist, but a civil engineer and an engineer.
“One cannot imagine how an engineer can produce a geological model, as required by the tender,” he said.
Dr Gatt called for the setting up of a national geological service with a remit to carry out research and gather information, in line with many other countries.
He said such an entity would have been of great help in a project like this. “We are going from an insufficient geological study to applications for a tunnel, which requires detailed geological knowledge. The consequences will be reflected in increased cost and greater risk to lives. Gozitans and Maltese deserve better,” Dr Gatt said.
Meanwhile, similar doubts were also expressed by Front Ħarsien ODZ. The NGO said yesterday that the tender had raised a number of questions.
In its reply, Transport Malta said the borehole alignment for the tender had been suggested by Sintef on the strength of the existing studies and information available to date.
The authority invited local scientists and foreign consortia to partner in the process for the project to move forward.