Delimara: why all the haste?

The BWSC power station is not a 'cancer factory', this is now an established fact. The latest studies by the University of West England show that the BWSC plant has not contributed to an increase of emissions over and above the limits set by EU directives regulating ambient pollution.

That does not mean that HFO was or is the best available technology. The plant's scrubbers still produces hazardous waste which has to be exported. It also produces more carbon emissions, which contribute to global warming than any gas plant.

Yet these results mean that there is no health imperative to finalise the gas plant project by next year.  The health imperative is that of closing the Marsa power station (which is a proven health hazard), which can still be closed as soon as the Malta-Sicily interconnector comes in place.

A gas-fired plant is clearly a better alternative both for environmental and economic reasons.  LNG is a safe technology, with no serious incidents occurring in past 70 years. 

The last major accident dates back to 1944 when a flammable gas cloud from a land based tank killed 131 people.

Still, despite the safety of the technology, putting a gas storage vessel in the vicinity of a power station carries with it a minimal risk of a catastrophic domino effect, which is best avoided due to the high stakes involved.

Ultimately, the safest solution would be that of locating the entire gas storage and re-gasification infrastructure offshore at a safe distance away from Delimara and Marsaxlokk. 

In Livorno, Italy a similar plant is located 22 km away from shore. Residents remained apprehensive, especially in view of the novelty of the technology, however experts insisting on the safe distance factor shot down most of the arguments against the plant in Livorno.

OLT the company behind the project even dismissed concerns on the impact of earthquakes and any resulting tsunamis, insisting that such events do not affect any moored vessel in deep water but may affect moored vessels in shallow water close to the coast.
It is also true that an FSRU located in the open sea carries some risks, which have to be assessed before any decision is taken.

Yet, no comprehensive studies been conducted to assess the risks of both options before a decision was taken in favour of an Floating Storage Unit anchored to a jetty right in Marsaxlokk harbour. 
The EIA was limited to assessing land based storage versus a floating storage unit (FSU) or a floating storage and regasification plant  (FRSU) located in the harbour.

The only study considering the option of locating the infrastructure outside the harbour was a social impact study conducted by sociologist Marvin Formosa. 

This study showed that 91% of Marsaxlokk residents want the gas to be stored outside the harbour.  But this option was never given due consideration due to the present government's tight political deadlines and commitments.

The proper way to proceed on this issue would have been to conduct an SEA on changes to the energy policy approved in December 2012. This study should have preceded the issue of an expression of interest and the EIA which was limited to three options all located within the Marsaxlokk harbour.

An SEA would have ensured that our energy policy is not project- but policy- driven. A revision of the Energy Policy would have given local communities the chance to express their concerns and influence policy makers. 

On the other hand policy makers would have had the time to assess various scenarios; not just the option of locating an FRSU outside the harbour but also determining the level of usage of the Malta-Sicily interconnector. 

God forbid that commitments made to Electrogas Ltd will determine the level of use we will be making of this facility.

The government's decision not to conduct an SEA was not in breach of EU legislation. This is because the directive states that an SEA is only required on published amendments to the energy policy. Since the energy policy was not changed, no SEA was legally required. 
Yet in practice the energy policy of the country is being changed radically and a major decision is being taken which has consequences on the every day life of local communities who will wake up everyday to the sight of the massive storage vessel every day for the next 18 years. 

While the kind of alarmism which compares the new plant to some sort of time bomb is exaggerated and best avoided, taking more time to assess the safest option is more than justified. 

The other question which government has to answer is whether it is willing to pay more maximum safety. But if the answer is no it should not have pandered to the fears of Marsaxlokk residents before the elections when Joseph Muscat incorrectly referred to the BWSC plant as a cancer factory. 

Recent events simply vindicate criticism made before the general election that while Labour's energy plan made a lot of sense after years of inertia in the sector, the timeframe was too tight to allow for proper studies, risk assessments and meaningful consultation with local communities.