Those present, myself included, left the public consultation meeting organised by Mepa on the storage and regasification of natural gas next to the power station with one conclusion: Enemalta, or Electrogas, has decided to opt for what suits it best.
It has opted for the project design as its suits its interests and those interests are only two: the cheapest and quickest option.
In fact, the feeling at the end of the meeting was that it was not meant for consultation at all. The planning authority had no fault in this for this message was not given by its representatives but by those who were representing or advising Enemalta/Electrogas.
It was so obvious that priority was being given to what suits Enemalta and the selected operator best that, in the meeting, I called upon Mepa and Enemalta to ensure priority be given to the life of those families living in the vicinity, as opposed to finances and time frames.
An accident would not only damage the vicinity but a much more extensive area
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi made promises on finishing this project within a time frame they chose but to do so at the cost of de-prioritising security is politically immature and irresponsible.
The use of gas for the generation of energy is not in dispute but the positioning of a 300-metre-long gas storage facility moored in the bay of Marsaxlokk is.
The concern runs deeper than a worry on visuals and whether it will look good or otherwise. It is one based on human realities.
Enemalta and the operator want to place about 140,000 cubic metres of liquefied natural gas on a ship and permanently moor it right next to the power station within a sheltered bay.
This is like deciding to place a time bomb on the door step of a power station as well as on the door step of households, when the setting of the timer is unknown.
The explosion and fire hazard from the vessel alone ought to have at least been of concern to Enemalta itself to protect its own assets, that is, the power station itself. Why has Enemalta chosen a proposal that would jeopardise its own assets should an accident occur? True, this is the worst-case scenario that could possibly happen, yet not even one of those presented as experts in the meeting in question would guarantee that this will never occur. They just don’t know if/when this will occur.
Other hazards caused by less extensive accidents arising from the project as designed are no less damaging.
Can Enemalta or Electrogas control where a vapour cloud will move to if one such cloud forms? And this is where I think the concern over the design of the project ought not be raised merely by the residents living in the vicinity.
An accident at the projected plant would not only damage the vicinity but a much more extensive area that goes beyond the villages surrounding this site.
Let us not also forget that placing the vessel right next to the power station also means that an accident on the vessel will damage the power station itself. How about that for guaranteeing a continuous supply of power? The project as proposed raises other questions that have a bearing on safety and security. Why is it being proposed to use a vessel for storage and a regasification plant on land within the power station?
Why not have a storage vessel with a regasification plant on board? If the regasification process is the one that raises most security risks, why choose to place it right next to our power station?
This leads me to ask: has a vessel already been chosen and identified? Is there already an underhand agreement?
To remove such a doubt, could Enemalta and the project proposer tell us where they will find this ship or if they have already found one? It is also interesting to see that another LNG terminal in the Mediterranean Sea has been placed as far away as possible from urban areas. Look at that of Greece operated by the Greek national natural gas system operator Desfa. The LNG terminal is placed on Revythousa island, away from land and even further from urban areas.
Does this not raise questions that while others seek to keep the liquefied natural gas storage and the gasification process away from residents and other establishments, in Malta’s case it is being proposed to place the riskiest of processes involved right on land?
Is it of any concern to Enemalta and the project proposer that they are storing liquefied natural gas and undertaking a gasification process in the vicinity of the storage tanks of petrol in Birżebbuġa?
When one considers the proposal from a financial aspect it sounds all fine and dandy but look at it from a safety and security concern and all the confetti fly away.
Therese Comodini Cachia is a PN candidate for the European Parliament elections.