Residents prefer offshore terminal – Delimara gas plant EIA

Social impact study of Delimara gas plant finds residents would prefer to see gas storage and regasification terminal located offshore Marsaxlokk, and express concern with tight, 22-month completion target.

Residents in seaside localities Marsaxlokk and Birzebbugia have welcomed the prospect of better air quality from the new gas plant at Delimara, but a vast majority would still want to see the gas storage infrastructure located outside the Marsaxlokk harbour.

This is one of the findings of an impact assessment into the 215MW gas plant and liquefied natural gas storage terminal that will be built by the Electrogas consortium at Delimara.

National energy corporation Enemalta has discarded the option to locate the gas terminal away from the Delimara site, and instead use an LNG vessel anchored to a jetty. The floating terminal will be anchored permanently to the jetty, as proposed by Electrogas consortium.

The social impact assessment shows the most disliked option is that of storing the gas in gigantic tanks located on land - this was originally Labour's energy plan, and was derided by the Nationalist Party, claiming the tanks were 'as big as the Mosta church dome' and a potential safety hazard for Marsaxlokk.

The land-based tanks have now been discarded due to safety reasons, but it was one of three options assessed in the EIA.

Sociologist Marvin Formosa conducted the social impact study, finding some preoccupation with the tight deadlines set by the government for the gas plant: "It would be a mistake for government to commit itself to construct the plant to 22 months since there might be situations outside its control that might delay works and that hastiness may bring further the possibility of mistakes and shoddy workmanship."

Majority accept floating terminal

66% of Marsaxlokk residents and 78% of Birzebbugia residents - from a survey of 105 and 32 residents, respectively - in July said they preferred a floating LNG terminal.

But Formosa said his interviewees saw the floating terminal as a temporary option that could be "sailed" away once a long-term offshore option, like a gas pipeline, becomes a reality.

Those who preferred a floating terminal said this was more visually acceptable, perceiving the LNG storage tanks as a potential eyesore.

Formosa also asked respondents whether they would favour a floating terminal if there was the other possibility of positioning the storage and re-gasification facility outside the port, unseen from land.

85% of Marsaxlokk respondents and 91% of Birzebbugia respondents said they preferred the offshore location, as one resident explained: "The bay is nice without any infrastructure. The fact that there would be a tanker going in and out the harbour is a source of danger for those who go out with their vessel. The more space there is for those who sail a boat, especially fishermen, the better."

One of the residents echoed concerns over the 22-month timeframe for the new plant. "Such projects can't be rushed. The most important thing is not to finish the project but to complete it with the expected quality. The more you hurry, the more mistakes you make. And if you have a leak because of rushing things? We will face a disaster. Even if you have a leak in the sea, there would be a big problem... It's no joke to build a power station."

Offshore location discarded

Enemalta originally explored the possibility of an offshore, floating LNG terminal that would be connected to gas pipeline, in three locations: 12km off the coast, another at the Hurd's Bank bunkering area, or just 1km offshore at il-Ħofra z-Zgħira, just off the Delimara peninsula.

But with little sea room available for a shallow water platform, which is fixed to the seabed, the offshore options were discarded.

Even a terminal outside Marsaxlokk bay was considered an obstacle for shipping, and too risky for security of supply.

The Birzebbugia Environment Action Group objected to Enemalta's refusal of the Hurd's Bank option, claiming that anchoring the LNG ship in Delimara will effectively close parts of Marsaxlokk to fishermen. A buffer zone will prevent fishing boats to move in or out of the bay from the so-called 'green buffer'.
B.E.A.G. said the storage ship would be visually negative, especially from the  Kavalerizza and Tal-Papa housing estate area, claiming this would bring down property prices.

In their reaction to the EIA, they said only a small number of residents from Birzebbuga were interviewed. "Birzebbuga and Marsaxlokk are at equal distance from the proposed storage gas ship. Whatever the perception of the opinion poll, Birzebbuga residents felt ignored and will never accept the excuse that there was no time."

Safety risk of 'gas cloud' downplayed

The EIA says a gas leak from the gas storage ship would be "highly unlikely".

The apocalyptical scenario of a gas explosion was raised by the PN during the 2013 election, having used chemical engineer Miles Seaman to raise questions on Labour's energy plan for an LNG terminal located on land.

The study shows that the diesel tanks, currently used to run the Delimara plant, would be in reach of a highly-flammable gas cloud in the case of a leak, something that could have a "devastating effect on the Maltese power system".

But it downplays the safety risk of LNG terminals altogether. "During the past 60 years of LNG operations, not a single general public fatality occurred anywhere in the world because of LNG operations."

The only noteworthy accident resulting in 120 casualties occurred in Cleveland, USA in 1944, destroying one square mile of the city of Cleveland.

The EIA described LNG tankers among the safest in transportation modes. "In the last three decades, after more than 40,000 voyages by sea worldwide, there has not been a single reported LNG release from a ship's cargo tank."

Despite these reassurances, two risk assessments were commissioned. The first concluded that a land-based gas storage terminal was the most risky option, and that a floating terminal was preferably. But it also warned of the probability of a shipping collision, from a nautical perspective.

The second assessment focused on the Electogas proposal to anchor the LNG ship to a jetty, finding that in case of a major accident this would not trigger a domino effect on the fuel tanks, and deemed the risks acceptable. Even in the case of a gas cloud, no major consequences were expected for the diesel tanks if these were correctly protected with flame arrestors.

Interconnector is vital

Better air quality from the gas plant would only be possible if energy demand does not increase over and above current levels.

And a better use of the Malta-Sicily electricity interconnector would further improve air quality, apart from closing down the Marsa power station.

The new power station will include three 75-metre chimneys, and three 30-metre-high chimneys. "Making more use of the interconnector and reducing the use of the proposed plant may result in less environmental impact, but such a decision is not only taken on the environmental impact but on a range of other considerations including but not limited to economic issues," the EIA says.

Emission targets for both nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and atmospheric particulate matter (PM2.5) can only be met "under the assumption of extensive use of the 'clean" electricity from both the interconnector and the gas-fired units at Delimara."

Under Labour's original plans, the energy mix would only include 25% of the interconnector's electricity supply.

Compliance with Malta's commitment under the Gothenburg protocol - which regulates EU emissions targets - an be reached under the assumption that the electricity demand by 2020 "does not exceed current levels" and that this can be met using the interconnector and the two gas-fired units at Delimara, with the diesel-fired units serving only as emergency backup.

The EIA coordinators failed to answer conservationist NGO Din l-Art Helwa's question on the expected utilisation rates of the proposed combined-cycle gas plant (CCGT) plant, the interconnector, and the rest of the Delimara plants from 2015 to 2020.

This information will be made available at a later stage when MEPA will issue an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control permit for the Delimara plant.

avatar
When every time the PL suggest any new project the PN always try to derail on its tracks.Take the promise of reduced tariffs, the PN called it a Cinderella.When the PN decided to build Delimara Power Station,the MLP/PL at that time suggested a different location to preserve the characteristic beauty of that fishing village.The PN ignored it.The only reason was,to spoil the location where Dom Mintoff had a small property,exactly behind the Power Station.I was there protesting with others,BUT BUT,the majority of us protesters consisted of people not from M'Xlokk as expected,but from different locations.Even KMB was there protesting.So now,the lesson had been learned by those PN fanatics,who were scared to protest during that time,should now have their interests noticed.
avatar
I don't see how a moored ship in the bay is better than onshore tanks. It is certainly more of an eyesore in the bay than tanks on land, and they will be closer to the villages surrounding the bay if something goes wrong which - all other things being equal - is more likely to happen with a sea-based facility exposed to the sea and waves, than an on-shore one.