In any other country, people would be out the streets protesting because the government, the ultimate guardian of the health and safety of its citizens, is refusing to be transparent and forthright about the Liquified Natural Gas carrier to be berthed in the middle of Marsaxlokk Bay and the outcome of the risk analysis that was apparently conducted.
They told us the studies are fine – so show them to us I say.
I have been talking about the need to conduct a maritime impact assessment and a risk analysis for over three years, from the very moment the original plan to keep the LNG in two tanks on land, each carrying 30,000 cubic metres, changed to the use of a 136,000-cubic-metre vessel.
I simply could not see the scenario of two tanks on land materialise because that meant one would need a vessel of 40,000 to 50,000 cubic metres to fill these tanks. LNG tankers of those dimensions are a rarity; indeed at the time there were only two. For technical reasons it is not possible to part discharge LNG from a big carrier, which is why I felt strongly about the fact that the two-tank scenario would never happen. I was right.
We were informed that the LNG supplying the new gas power station we do not need would be kept in a vessel, permanently moored in the bay alongside a jetty. How could anyone contemplate having an LNG carrier moored in that position without any form of protection from what could be really vicious south, southeasterly winds and seas?
Remember the Bush-Gorbachev summit? Any fisherman in Marsaxlokk will confirm that when these winds and seas blow, nothing in the sea survives and everything that is not removed beforehand ends up aground.
They told us the studies are fine – so show them to us I say
In addition, the tanker will be placed in a location used by the world’s largest container carriers, by a substantial number of fishing vessels, by aquaculture activity, by bunkering activity and more.
The marine traffic in this small sea space is substantial and one does not have to be a rocket scientist to ask the question: what are the chances of a collision between the LNG tanker and any of these other vessels, considering there are over 6,000 moves per annum, excluding the fishing fleet?
On August 9 in the Grand Harbour, the ship Maria collided with a berthed vessel by the name of Angela Arcella, in an incident caused by a technical fault. The Maria caused a gash in the side of the Angela Arcella, which took in water, keeled over and sank.
So the world of collisions is not the world of fiction but of reality. One therefore asks: what did the risk analysis carried out by Marin have to say about the risk of a collision between any of these vessels and the LNG tanker, or indeed with the other tanker that will have to come in regularly to refuel the LNG vessel? What would be the effect of such a collision?
What will be the effect of the severe winds and sea on the unprotected LNG tanker? What about the effect of the severe swell on the contents of the tanker? What did the risk analysis have to say about the speed and displacement required by an oncoming vessel to penetrate the outer and inner hull of the Armada Mediterrana, allowing an escape of LNG?
I recall that during the Mepa hearing, Greek expert George Papadakis, who was brought over to justify the presence of the tanker, stated in his report that “jet fires have not been examined in the present study since immediate ignition of releases is a remote probability assuming that the areas within the boundaries of the regasification unit… are ignition free”.
How very reassuring! We do not need someone to tell us that if the area around the tanker is ignition free that would be OK. What we need is someone to tell us exactly what would happen if there is a release of LNG and the area is not ignition free, as when a collision occurs.
All of the above and more is what ought to have been dealt with in the risk analysis and this government is depriving us of the knowledge of what it said. Just how long are we going to allow this to continue to play with our reputation, our standards and now with our lives?
The bottom line, of course, is that the government should never have contemplated the idea of allowing the tanker inside Marsaxlokk. If it was hell-bent on reaching another dubious deal, it should have at the very least insisted that the Floating Storage Unit be placed out at sea as they did with the LNG Toscana in Livorno, an FSU which supplies gas via pipeline from 25 kilometres out at sea.
Stop playing with our lives.
Ann Fenech is president of the executive committee of the Nationalist Party.