That’s right, Jozef. Both parties agree on the use of gas.

Labour has committed itself to continue seeking EU funds for the gas pipeline. They just don’t want to wait, or at least that’s the impression they want to give us.

They want to build a new power station and a gas depot with all the attendant infrastructure for 370m euro (their estimate) and they’re saying (they’re convinced) it will be forked out by/with the private sector.

Permits and EIAs and reports apart, what will happen if they don’t find the company to fund their plan? They can always say they performed what they promised “as far as they are concerned”. After all they’re already saying EneMalta is bankrupt, no?

So it all depends on “the private sector” (not them). The mind boggles.

To make safe the present installation that will be next to the proposed tanks. i.e. a re-assessment of the present installation and making it a minimum ULEX install.

Now there is another hidden expense. It will also mean that the present installation has to be partially stopped from working. The PN did not take it easy with gas for nothing.

A gas pipeline is similar to a water supply line.

If you open the tap water flows but the reservoir may be tens or hundreds of miles away.

The pipeline would be underwater and in case of rupture the flow at the receiving end would drop sharply and alarms will go off.

Alarms at the ‘receiving end’ would trigger alarms at the supply point and automatically shut down the pipeline.

Not so if a gas tank leaks/raptures. Any alarms would become almost useless due to the proximity to the PS itself. If a resultant gas cloud ignites it could spell disaster and the consequences would be dire to nearby residents.

I think that the Nationalist Party’s response is about right and its counter arguments are backed by credible reports.

Now Konrad Mizzi is saying that the KPMG report is incorrect as they had factored in the ‘investor’s’ profit twice. Shortly after he stated that, he contradicted himself by saying that the 9.6c/unit did not include profit or the repayment of the capital investment.

They are going in circles and they are self-destructing.

Another thing one should keep in mind is that these kinds of debates are held among people with a certain degree of knowledge regarding these matters but the general public is arguing from purely a political affiliation stance.

@ Futur Imcajpar
PN are engaging the proposal piecemeal. Tonio is factual, and tough, but he still can’t pin Konrad down. Everybody is aware that Konrad can’t produce the necessary documents, experts and what have you to support his argument.

So challenge Konrad to a discussion. He can’t refuse, it is his proposal after all. But if he won’t turn up, it’s his funeral.

Get the following speakers on call:

safety specialist.
geologist,
EU expert/procurement law and safety regulations
Anne Fenech
civil engineer
surveyor
coastal/harbour/marine expert
KPMG or other consultancy
cancer/asthma specialists

All these specialists must have all supporting documents (and able to cite chapter and verse).

Copies of all relevant EU legislation with regard to procurement, medical data, and all other documents must be availabe to be laid in front of Konrad as each argument is tackled.

Unfortunately Tonio comes across as unable to suffer Konrad, so ideally he will be supported.

Then start blowing Konrad’s arguments to bits, slowly and methodically.

At the moment PN are having the terms of engagement dictated by the opposition. It’s time to change tactics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLxmzS46jNM&feature=player_embedded

And also this link about the Cleveland disaster. A leak in an LNG storage tank resulted in a great expolsion and fires. 130 people were killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_East_Ohio_Gas_explosion

This last link shows another LNG expolsion in Algeria which killed at least 72 people.

http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/13093

This isn’t whether to go for gas or not. This is about Konrad Mizzi’s flippant attitude to any standards.

If you have any idea what we’re talking about here.