The debate on the Enemalta Delimara power station extension continues unabated. It is taking place on several levels, ranging from the political arena to civil society. For some reason the government seems to be refusing to listen to any aspect of it so that it might, at least, consider appropriate action.

At the political level the opposition has been criticising the government on several fronts. One front is whether the tender issued to select the bidder to execute the extension was issued and processed with due propriety at every step of the way. It was not. That was stated by no less an authority than the auditor general, who took 11 months to dissect the tendering process in minute detail.

The government rested its case on the fact that the auditor general did not find hard evidence of corruption. But that watchman of the public finances did find no less than eight substantial shortcomings which effectively made him qualify the report. Any private company whose accounts are qualified by its external auditors in that manner would find itself in a very bad position, with its bankers and shareholders.

Among other things the auditor general effectively complained that there were those who were not prepared to be open and transparent with him, and resorted instead to the excuse of faulty memory. That serious charge was totally ignored by the government.

The opposition has now turned its attention to a different aspect of the tender. It points out, without being refuted by the government, that three subcontractors engaged by the winning bidder have been found guilty of corruption. The opposition insists that Enemalta is entitled to hit the successful tenderer with a €20 million fine. Enemalta does nothing, nor does the government.

The final cost of the project also keeps changing. What does not change is the fact that the contract conditions are heavily weighted in favour of the supplier, as if the contractor were doing Enemalta a favour by lending it its name.

The opposition attacked the government on the technical level too. It holds that Enemalta should have gone immediately for gas-fired technology (which would have been possible had the government made the necessary preparations for that in time. It did not, but will have to do so later.)

One might say that the opposition's criticism should be considerably discounted since its role is to embarrass the government in every way it could. Actually, it is not easy to do that. The opposition has been and remains very meticulous in detailing its criticism with facts.

Nevertheless, it is also important to see what non-politicians are saying about the way the extension will work. Various organisations have expressed their concern about the waste that the extension will create, and how it will be disposed. Prof. Edward Mallia, definitely not a political figure, did not stop there.

He has repeatedly urged Enemalta not to use heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the extension, as it plans to do. That is already being used at the Marsa power station, with a danger to our health, especially now that the power station's precipitators have been switched off. Prof. Mallia says that HFO fly ash, currently being exported by Enemalta, has a high content of Vanadium and Bickle, which is deleterious to our health. (The Times, June 10)

At the Delimara extension, wrote Prof. Mallia, the problem posed by the one tonne/day of HFO sludge that cannot be burnt in the engines has been glossed over. The scientist recommends the use of diesel fuel, but the Minister of Finance repeatedly claims that would increase electricity bills by 30 per cent. That argument was always dubious, showing that the government put money before people's health. It also raised the question whether the authorities had embarked on a social cost benefit analysis. That would have taken externalities like the potential health hazard into consideration. The government has never entered into that area of assessment.

Neither did Edward Mallia. Instead he played the Finance Minister at his own game. He wrote that Delimara had produced a paper showing that, with all savings being taken into account the diesel "surcharge" (higher electricity bills), from 36 per cent on fuel costs only would come down to 24 per cent. Delimara, said Prof. Mallia, running the standard 11 months of the year would produce under half of current generation, with Marsa switched off. Thereby even Enemalta's 24 per cent diesel "surcharge" would come down to 12 per cent. And that, for various cited reasons, is an upper limit.

The debate continues with the government not really replying convincingly, especially to people like Edward Mallia. That is even more worrying than the government's attitude, a mix of arrogance and resignation, in the political debate.

The extension contract has been awarded. If the cost is indeed greater than it should be taxpayers are lumbered with it. That hurts our pockets. But if the authorities are truly wrong in the fuel that they will allow to be burnt, the side effects will affect our health further than it has already been affected. That is far worse than any monetary costs.

Trouble is, by the time the outcome becomes known those politically responsible for it today will probably be out of office. The bill will have to go to their conscience.