And the PN also considered integrating the two, a hypothetical offshore terminal to be used for commercial purposes, tapped into by the addition of a pipeline as a spinoff benefiting Malta making it more than eligible for EU funding.

The EU gets access to the terminal as part of the European global energetic strategy.

Clockwork.

Then a Joe Mizzi comes along to tell us the PN doesn’t have an energy policy.

Where is Astrid Vella?

Worrying about some baroque house in Sliema?

Oh, this is a Labour project. Best not open our mouths, then.

I’d put it differently:

EU citizenship
Membership of EU agencies
Normal relations with other states
Sensible diplomatic relations
EU regulations applied back home, with consequent raising of standards in countless aspects of daily life
Brilliant move to regulate igaming before many EU states in order to attract investors

It’s about the intangibles more than anything else. The lifting of that awful feeling of being the freak among nations.

Road networks
Rehabilitation projects
Infrastructure
Education
Parks
Animal sancuary and clinic
Wasteserv plant
Heritage projects
Employment
Hospital and medical services
Investment
EU funds, and many other which do not come to mind.

I say this because Joseph Muscat and all the stupid people around him are trying to use the water and electricity bills to make the voters forget about the huge improvement Malta has made during the years when the PN was in goverment.

Every 1996-1998 Labour Minister claims credit for the Qawra project. Alfred Sant. Karmenu Vella. Charles Buhagiar…

the fact that LNG and CNG infrastructures, particularly those related to the shipping elements,
would be likely to have a useful life of around 20 years, whereas the gas pipeline would have a
useful life of around 30 years – viewed in this manner, the pipeline option would have a residual
value of around USD106 million, implying a net investment cost over the 20-year horizon of
circa USD214 million;

operational and maintenance costs in the solutions involving shipping are likely to be higher
than those of the pipeline;
land utilisation is likely to be less intense in the case of the use of the pipeline infrastructure – it
is appreciated that the shore infrastructure for the CNG and LNG options would use the area
already being allocated to the power plant;

the complexity of shipping operations and attendant economic, financial and environmental
risks, particularly those related to on-shore storage facilities within a densely populated
territory, would not be present to the same extent under the pipeline approach.

Contrasting these elements would be the fact that the pipeline infrastructure would possibly limit
diversification opportunities for the sourcing of fuel from a geographical market perspective, in that
such infrastructure would be tied to a particular geographical location. This consideration, however, is
not deemed to outweigh the advantages listed above.”

see Annex I of this report http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=6442

And they said that the Qawra promenade project was the greatest achievement that any governent had ever had. What a bunch of amateurs!