It’s not that easy FP, not when people need to sit down and listen carefully to the technicals.

But on the other hand, you’re so right. Labour’s having it too easy with their conspiracy theories.

Let’s not confuse matters.

The PN is considering two options, a direct pipeline without any storage plant required, and a possible offshore terminal, in line with European global strategy, which will become the major hub in the southwest Meditteranean.

The two possibilities can be considered on their own, the second one being rather ambitious if it has to be finalised.

Whereas the first isn’t.

There is the third way, doing the direct pipeline first, gas flow Sicily – Malta, but including a tiny detail, a two way flow feed into Delimara.

This will give the possibility to change from the pipeline from Sicily to the eventual one from the terminal, using the original one to Sicily as supply instead. ie. flow Malta – Sicily.

Coordination with Italy required, decision to concentrate on gas taken by Berlusconi and finally being implemented.

Location of joint terminal, Hurd Bank.

Labour intend to concentrate on the terminal first. In Delimara, go figure. No agreements mentioned.

Joseph’s aware of all the details of the PN’s long term strategy, what he mentioned yesterday, albeit distorted of course, seems to be an admission of what I’ve been suspecting since Konrad did his presentation.

Labour do not intend to latch onto the gas grid as consumers, but as suppliers.

If it means inflicting the terminal onto the people of Brizebbuga, Marsaxlokk and thereabouts, so be it.

Does anyone doubt Labour won’t come back to us and say we’ll need to have four tanks instead of just the two?

Match the capacity to the ships, m’hemmx x’taghmel.

Parnis and Buontempo reinforced my impression when they proceeded to make the distinction between PN infrastructure and Mintoff’s cathedrals dedicated to the proletariat in the south.

St.Antnin bad, Drydocks gritblasting brilliant, and so on.

The below would be the PN’s terminal, consider it an extension of the initial pipeline we’re discussing today.

The pipeline to Sicily wouldn’t depend on it. Joseph’s lying it would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvwDF8H-qlM

The PM was in Qatar last year.

Perfectly rounded up!

Each reading “il-ginger woz here”

Forgetting the rubbish thrown at the flock of gullibles, the only things which struck me were the hussy in the green top (0.54 to 0.60) and the one in the white sleeveless blouse at 3.58 or thereabouts.

This needs to be recorded and rebroadcast repeatedly.

Forget the question of the terminal cost.

If Joseph Muscat said this, then this shows that he’s an idiot when it comes to energy generation.

And it has nothing to do with the pipeline being storage vessels in themselves.

The fact is that GAS is piped through a gas pipeline, not liquid. LNG transport and storage is about natural gas in LIQUID form (thus Liquefied Natural Gas).

Were we to pipe natural gas in liquid form through a pipeline, that pipeline would cost orders of magnitude more because the pipeline itself would require heavy insulation to keep the liquid gas at cryogenic temperatures.

The difference between piping natural gas and transporting it is in the overhead costs of moving the gas from one place to the other.

There are no recurrent overhead costs in piping natural gas, other than the maintenance of the pipline, and since gas would be in constant supply through the pipeline, there is no technical or economic need for storage at the delivery end.

On the other hand, when transporting gas both by sea and on land, the recurrent overhead costs are obvious. And this is the economic reason for cooling natural gas to its liquid state when transporting it: same overhead costs for transporting 600 times more gas per shipment (600 units of natural gas compress into 1 unit when liquefied). The savings in volume more than justify the high cost of cooling the gas – a process which would otherwise be a waste of time, energy, and money since the liquefied gas needs to be converted back to gas before it can be consumed for energy generation.

HAVE THE PN CAMPAIGN ORGANISERS THROWN IN THE TOWEL?

WTF?

Indeed. However it´s the nerds turned dangerous here.

This is an outright lie.

An LNG terminal is only required when the gas is delivered by ships in liquid form. No storage gas tanks are required when the gas is delivered by means of a pipeline. This was clearly stated by Miles Seaman recently. He stated that the pipelines are storage vessels in themselves so no tanks would be needed.

And even if it were needed.
According to Joseph, a power station + an LNG terminal + at least two ships to transport the gas would cost around 360 million. (They say that PN’s more realistic estimate of 600 million is exaggerated). But a pipeline + an LNG terminal would cost 700 million.
So according to him, a power station and two ships would be less expensive than a pipeline.
U hallina Joseph.