Opposition leader Simon Busuttil has urged the government to change its decision to moor a gas storage facility in Marsaxlokk Bay before Mepa is made to take its decision on Monday.

He was speaking in Parliament in a three-hour debate without vote on the environmental permit for the new gas-fired power station in Delimara.

The debate was opened by Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi, who said the building of the new gas-fired new power station was a major national project which would yield cheaper electricity and cleaner air while conforming to high safety standards.

Emissions, he said, would be cut in half and there would be a consequent reduction in respiratory diseases. Waste water deposited in the bay known as Il-Hofra Iz-Zghira would also be reduced by half.

This was in stark contrast to the way how the former government operated power stations using heavy fuel oil, the most polluting fuel. That, Dr Mizzi said, undermined the Opposition's credibility.

The government, he stressed, was not taking short-cuts in the building of the new power station. Local and foreign laws, including the Seveso Directive, were being followed.

Independent experts had shown that the floating storage unit in Marsaxlokk Bay would not pose a risk to the surrounding localities. Nor would Marsaxlokk harbour operations be affected.

Furthermore, having the gas storage facility within the bay rather than offshore, was safer from the navigational point of view and gave added assurance to security of supply.

It was worth pointing out, Dr Mizzi said, that the Opposition had originally been critical of the initial plans to have on-shore gas storage. By shifting the storage facility onto a tanker, the government was now leaving open the option of replacing it by a gas pipeline, once the funds became available for it.

With the building of the new power station, Marsa power station would be closed next year, as would the first phase of the Delimara power station and its high chimney.

The government, Dr Mizzi said, was in line with its plans to reduce energy tariffs by a quarter for domestic users this month and by the same amount for businesses next year.

He criticised the Opposition for scaremongering and obstructing the project, and said its only purpose was to prevent the reduction of energy tariffs.

DE MARCO: DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE MEANS NOT ABOUT THE END

Mario de Marco said the Opposition was not being destructive or obstructionist. It was reflecting the concerns of the residents, the fishermen, the environment NGOs and AD, among others.

The country had a duty to ease the burdens which the residents of the area shouldered for the country.

It was a pity that the government had refused to have this debate in committee, where experts could have given their advice and replied to questions.

The Opposition agreed with the need to convert the power stations to gas from heavy fuel oil, even though the BWSC had not caused a deterioration of air quality. The Opposition also agreed that energy tariffs should be reduced.

The Opposition felt, however, that the new gas power station should be supplied by pipeline, something which the government agreed with to.

The only disagreement was not about the end, but about the means. The government was proceeding with undue haste because of political timeframes the government had imposed on itself.

The tariffs would be reduced because of the interconnector and the BWSC plant which the former government had invested in. The third element was the investment by the Chinese company which the present government had negotiated.

Therefore the haste for the building of the new power station was not to reduce the tariffs, but to meet a political commitment which should not have been made. Such timeframes should not be set in electoral campaign. The government had removed its flexibility despite the risks associated with this project. One should not exaggerate the risk, but neither should anyone act like there was no risk.

What the people expected was action in their interest and the country, without risks being taken. The report by George Papadakis said the risk of an accident was remote, but he also spoke of conditions where risk existed. The Atex directive said such conditions included open flames, lightning flames, mechanically generated impact sparks (such as a hammer blow) electric sparks, high surface temperature, electrostatic discharge and radiation.

Such conditions, natural or stemming from operations, posed too big a risk. A resultant accident would cause an unparalleled disaster for the country. It was therefore only logical that the gas storage facility should be as distant as possible from residential areas and the power station.

Surely, if the government wanted to go ahead, it should opt for a temporary gas storage facility which was well offshore until a pipeline was available. The people of the surrounding area should not be made to shoulder the risk. Tariffs were not a factor, but even if they were, the people's health came first, Dr de Marco said. His appeal was for the government to put Malta's interests first and not to rush unduly.

Dr de Marco was followed by Labour MP Chris Fearne, who spoke about how the existing power stations were among the most polluting in Europe, harming people and plant life.

MARLENE FARRUGIA: MPs SHOULD DECIDE ON THE BASIS OF EXPERT ADVICE

Marlene Farrugia (PL) said the people just over a year ago voted for a lasting, positive solution to Enemalta's financial problems, they voted for cleaner air, lower tariffs and a secure power supply, in safety.

Political controversy should have ended with the election and then it should have been left up to the experts to give their responsible advice on what was best for the country.

It was for this reason that she had hoped that the House Environment and Planning Committee could have been able to debate this issue with the experts in an atmosphere which was not political and where the best course for Malta could have been charted. Unfortunately this had not happened.

Clearly, the time had come to accept the political direction set by the people at the election, and then one should work in consensus under the guidance of the relevant experts. Indeed, Dr de Marco had come close to this thinking. All should listen to the experts and thus put the people's minds at rest.

MPs should show the people that they were able to agree and take responsible decision based on the advice given by experts in the field.

Ryan Callus (PN) criticised the government for not publishing or delaying the publication of reports related to this project. He also insisted that the people should come before the project and political interests.

He could not understand how the government wanted to moor a gas tanker in Marsaxlokk when Livorno moored it 22 miles out and circled it with three safety barriers and a guard ship during gas transfer. How was Malta any different?

This, Mr Callus said, was the test for a government which said it listened. Would it listen to the experts and the people?

Environment Minister Leo Brincat spoke about the environmental benefits of using gas for the power station and said the former government only paid lip service to converting to gas. On the contrary, it delayed the closing down of the heavily-polluting Marsa power station for years, and it was the present government which would close it down.

Luciano Busuttil (PL) a resident of Marsaxlokk, hit out at the former government for using heavy fuel oil in the power stations, including the new BWSC plant and for never taking any real action to convert to gas. He said his appeal to the present government was to convert the power station to gas as soon as possible because the residents of Marsaxlokk could no longer stand seeing their children get ill.

Nationalist MP Toni Bezzina said the Opposition was not against having a gas power station but the storage vessel should not pose a risk.

He asked if the government had ignored a bid by a company which proposed to anchor the gas storage facility 10 miles out.

Parliamentary Secretary Michael Farrugia insisted that the government was following expert advice in the building of the new power station and was ensuring that no risks were being taken.

He asked if anybody in the Opposition was actually representing the interests of a losing bidder.

George Pullicino (PN) said that while the gas storage facility would be afloat, the regasification unit would be on land. The government was now saying that the floating gas storage ship would be temporary until a gas pipeline was laid.

But when would this happen?

Which company would invest in a regasification plant of some €120 million if it was to be quickly replaced by a gas pipeline, making it redundant?

Mr Pullicino also noted that the gas storage ship selected for Malta, LNG Gemini, was 36 years old.

He insisted that the government should publish the studies it claimed to have concluded, including the harbour simulation exercises.

He criticised the government for having agreed on a fixed power purchase price of 9c6 with Electrogas, the company which would build the new power station, when power could be bought more cheaply through the interconnector.

Furthermore, the BWSC plant, which Labour criticised so strongly, had yielded Enemalta a saving of €1 million a week, or €64 million so far - far in excess of what it would cost the government to reduce the power tariffs.

BUSUTTIL: GOVERNMENT 'THAT LISTENS' IS IGNORING EVERYONE

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said the government had a mandate, a right and a duty to reduce electricity tariffs, to convert power generation to gas from oil and to build a new power station.

What the Opposition disagreed with was having a gas storage facility moored in Marsaxlokk Bay, alongside the power station. In the many presentations made before the general election by Labour, no mention was made of a gas storage facility in Marsaxlokk. Only a smaller on shorel storage facility was mentioned.

On Monday, Mepa would be asked to decide on this project, including the authorisation for a gas storage facility to be moored in Marsaxlokk.

The residents of Marsaxlokk and Birzebbuga were rightly concerned, and 91% had said they did not wish to see the tanker there. They would rather have it well offshore. These people felt that Labour had used them and betrayed them.

One had to consider the implications on health, property prices and tourism, among other factors. But the government was ignoring the residents.

It was a disgrace that the Labour MPs elected from the south and the Labour-controlled councils were not voicing the people's concerns.

The government had given two reasons for mooring the tanker inside the bay - cost and time. But what reasoning was this when there was a very clear risk to the people and the economy?

It was also claimed that the tanker was safer in the bay than offshore. But what of the safety of the residents?

Prof Hans Pasman, whose experience was vast, had warned that: “If this (gas) cloud is ignited – and this can literally happen by just a cigarette – it will kill all the people in the flame and may have a blast effect categorised as being 50 per cent lethal. This means that dwelling walls will collapse and windows shatter hundreds of metres in the distance, also with fatalities.”

Would the government say this expert was scaremongering, as the opposition was accused of doing?

The expert commissioned by the government, George Papadakis had submitted his own report with a huge disclaimer about ignition sources. His report certainly did not give peace of mind.

Where was the maritime study about shipping movements in Marsaxlokk Bay, which was also used by the freeport?

The Marsaxlokk fishermen themselves had warned of the ferocity of the weather in Marsaxlokk Bay itself in certain conditions. What is it moved the storage facility? Why take the risk?

What had happened to the 'government that listens'?

Alas, this government had not prepared proper studies of all options. It took its decisions first and then carried out some studies afterwards, but they were not comprehensive.

It was essential, Dr Busuttil insisted, that the regulatory authorities decided with the interests of the nation and the people in mind, rather than the government's political targets.

The PN, when in government, had started talks with the EU on sourcing funds for a gas pipeline and the government should continue on that path. This would not delay the reduction of power tariffs since savings were being made from the BWSC plant - which had been shown not to be a cancer factory - and savings which would be made through the interconnector. Savings would also be made by cracking down on theft of electricity.

Dr Busuttil said the PN on Sunday morning would hold a rally in Marsaxlokk to voice the people's concerns and would also be present at the Mepa meeting on Monday. However he hoped that before then, the government would find the courage to listen and change its decision.

MIZZI: ALL RISKS MITIGATED

Winding up the debate, Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi restated the benefits of using gas instead of oil for the power station. He said the government's decision was based on expert advice and all risks were being mitigated.

The government had decided on a floating facility because it could be towed away when it was not needed.

The storage  facility would have no impact on sea currents and movements in Marsaxlokk or on ecology on land. Nor would shipping movements be affected.

Amid interruptions, Dr Mizzi said the people of Marsaxlokk and Birzebbuga were in favour of this project.

David Agius (PN) said the minister should name the source of his claim.

Continuing amid further interruptions, Mr Mizzi said the relevant reports had been published, including the Environment Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment.

Ryan Callus (PN) said the minister should say where it was stated that the people of Marsaxlokk and Birzebbuga were in favour of the project.

Dr Mizzi said this resulted from the Social Impact Assessment, which he would tabled.

The Speaker said the document should be tabled. Mr Mizzi said he would provide a link for the document to be accessed.

Continuing, he said the project would not require land reclamation or dredging.

He said that the advantage of having the regasification facility on land was that should there be a supply problem through a future pipeline, a tanker could return and supply the new power station.

Concluding, he reiterated that this project would mean lower cost of electricity and the closure at last of the Marsa power station next year. The Delimara One station would also be removed.

He appealed to the Opposition not to continue to obstruct the project. This was a safe project which would yield lower tariffs, health benefits and greater competitiveness for the national economy.

At the end of the sitting, amid interruptions, the Speaker asked the minister to indicate the page where he had said that the people of Marsaxlokk and Birzebbuga were in favour of the project. The minister read an extract and Opposition MPs protested across the floor claiming that what the minister had read was different, speaking of 'many' not 'most' people being in favour of the project.

The prime minister did not take part in the debate.