Total serendipity: a video with a graphic, real description of what Labour is talking about
In the frigging mess that surrounds the Labour Party’s imposition on the country of a power station on which a deal has clearly been brokered already (with somebody – let’s hope not actually in the party – taking a cut, which is why journalists should be poking about), we’ve missed the point that Labour is actually talking about two things.
There is the power station (sold already, so they are very definite about this one; Swiss bank account in the process of being sorted).
And there is the LNG terminal (lots of confusion with Labour on this one, probably because nobody’s yet brokered a deal so they haven’t got the proper facts yet).
The LNG terminal is a separate project to the power station that is going to make a few Maltese people rich (which seems to be the primary reason why we’re getting it). It requires separate planning, separate planning permission, separate security risk assessments, separate design, separate tendering and separate approval and the rest.
Labour’s power station – sold to a country which doesn’t need it and in defiance of proper governance, to make a couple of influential people rich, in the grand tradition of third world states – cannot function with a source of gas. Malta has no direct source of gas. The pipeline which the Nationalist Party has planned, for which EU funding is being sourced, will take years to plan, develop, construct and commission.
So Labour will need a source of gas. This means shipping it in. There are three issues here: 1. who and where they plan to buy their gas; 2. which tankers they plan to use given that none are available on the international market; 3. the LNG tanker terminal.
Let’s stick with the third for now. This is what an LNG tanker terminal looks like in real life and how it is built. Note that this video is about the actual construction of the terminal, and as a date-line, starts from that point. There will have been a very long and complicated planning and approvals process before that.
Note this, too (common sense, of course): the LNG terminal has to be ready to go when the power station comes on stream, because otherwise, how is the power station going to operate?
70 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
A must-see for the Marsaxlokk mayor.
But someone must put Maltese subtitles first.
[Daphne – I have deleted your comment because you are not entering into these exchanges in good faith. Your very different writing styles and levels of linguistic competence show that you are two or more people, possibly at Elve Central, pretending to be one individual. Kindly do not bother sending in any more comments. I do not wish this space to turn into the kind of manipulated mess that other comments boards have become. The comments are a big part of this site, and one of the reasons why people read it. So stay out and go elsewhere, to some place less discriminating – which doesn’t, incidentally, mean the same thing as ‘discriminatory’.]
Spoilsport.
Their project started in 2007, it says in the video.
The first tankers came with LNG gas in late June 2011.
That’s a lapse of three and a half – four years. And Labour wants to make us believe that it’ll be all done by 2015 latest.
U hallina. If the Americans can’t do it in a shorter timeframe than 4 years, then we most certainly can’t do it either.
Knowing Maltese standards, it would take around 8 years to complete and be fully operational, i.e. 2021. Which would subsequently mean that Labour’s ‘hedging agreement’ of having fixed prices for 10 years would already be 7-8 years old. Which in reality would mean that theoretically, we would expect to start ‘saving’ in 2021, not 2015.
If ever, insomma.
L-aqwa l-Ministru tal-Energija – lanqas li ahna l-Qatar.
U l-Ministru tas-Sawt. Ghal-Labour, ahna Qatra.
I found this Facebook. Very interesting. I wonder why MaltaToday are so keen to support the PL proposal?
http://www.picvalley.net/v.php?p=u/2697/44363417518831732171358430353vhPFOk6biFtfeKD615bL.JPG
My computer indicated this post was a virus or a worm…
Dear Tennat
I confirm that I have written this Facebook post earlier today. I am sorry to be the one to break this bad news to you, but I think it’s high time you get your computer cleaned from viruses and worms.
Excellent stuff. As Minister Fenech said, the Italians are not putting up difficulties.
However, this list of approvals further underlines the current administration’s credibility, as opposed to the clichés presented by Labour.
And yet I wonder, why do we need to go through the pains of another Labour administration to actually convince ourselves of their, quite frightening, incompetence and amateurishness?
Of course not, they get to tap into their EU funding. Italy’s southern regions are net receivers.
From the people that took 22 months to build a pavement in Bugibba (that had to be redone all over again) we will now get two massive projects in 24 months. Of course.
Labour give the impression that they are in somebody’s pocket, and have no choice but to push the project forward, irrespective of whether or not it is beneficial to the country or feasible.
Seems like we’re going to spend the rest of this electoral campaign wasting time over Labour’s proposal then.
Will the PN just unleash their planned coup de grâce earlier so we can get it over and done with?
Yours,
Amused to Death
[Daphne – What coup de grace? This isn’t a war of promises, but an electoral campaign.]
I’m up to the back teeth with the energy debate too, ten days and counting.
However, there is so much left in the Labour shadows that they simply refuse to bring out into the open (quite disgusting), that I think keeping up pressure and forcing the questions upon Mizzi and Muscat is paramount.
We (all of Malta) NEED to know what and/or who is behind this hare-brained yet gargantuan proposal because, quite frankly, it stinks. Something is extremely wrong.
This tough but rotten, filthy nut MUST be cracked, for everyone’s sake.
OK then, we need to make this viral. Facebook, billboards, whatever.
Joseph, is it Algeria?
And for the love of sanity, are we expected to get a 25% reduction on bills? Obviously not, but that’s the general impression.
Nobody is asking these buffoons if they are going to increase the service charge. And we all know how they like to sneak in hidden charges and taxes, and think they are oh so clever for it . CET, etc etc.
We are being promised 25% (or maybe 20% – who know who will get what?) increase on just the electricity bit. A mere 5% on the water part.
No mention of the service charges.
Dying to save around a €100 a year or so. Will make all the difference, while our country goes up in flames.
I need to ask a question. Let us say that there are hitches and the project is delayed and takes more than two years to complete (a very reasonable assumption).
What happens to our bills? Will we still get the lower rates promised for consecutive years?
No we won’t, see my comment to Mole.
The idea of Joseph resigning becomes another shallow and worthless statement, because how can we prove that ON AVERAGE the bills did not decrease
Mole, the decrease is an AVERAGE (note to Privitera, I am not shouting but highlighting) decrease of 25%. This means that the bills for some people will increase, whilst those of others (I wonder whose) will decrease.
The chances are therefore that the bills of people in the salary bracket in excess of Euro25,000 to Euro 35,000 will increase (because they can afford it), and those in the lower brackets will decrease.
That’s how he will create the new mittleclass.
Labour is going to up the ante and they are going to soon announce their plan for a nuclear powered electricity generating station to be built by the Chinese in Pembroke.
Some big shots with more money than sense must have formed a consortium to sell a very expensive power station to a group of politicians who are desperate to get into power.
These people do not care about the future of Malta and its population; they can easily transfer themselves and their money to some place very, very far away from this island.
These people may be the same ones who are funding the MLP election campaign.
Ah, but you’re jealous, as Marsaxlokk will be so much attractive and tourists will be going there to see the power station and LNG terminal instead of going to Valletta to see the Renzo Piano project.
Perhaps like they did in Mintoff’s time the Socialist Party will be organising motorcycle events on top of the roof of their LNG terminal and power station, possibly with Mary Spiteri singing choice excerpts from Gensna.
Hopefully nothing will split or crack like the Tritons fountain outside Valletta did.
And the Minister of the Sawt can organise coffee mornings beneath both, with the added thrill of a little trip on any passing gas tankers, with free pairs of socks for the men and earrings for the ladies.
Yes, harsu madwarkom – mitna ghal-barrani.
U x-xlukkajri lesti biex imutu ghal Joseph Muscat? He’s putting all their lives in danger – imbasta jsir prim ministru.
We always knew he was a dangerous man, but this is ridiculous.
As things stand, I’d be happier if he said he was subsidising the tariffs by simply increasing income tax than by this project. At least it would have been easier to rectify later when more sane people take over.
U kwazi mitna tal-Barrani.
May I suggest a survey asking just one question: Do you think Malta needs another power station?
The biggest project they might have is selling their house of glass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FN-XqSEte0
Note the spacing of the tanks in the french plants, those would be the single wall type, surrounded by deep pits capable of holding 110% the capacity of the respective tanks for safety purposes.
Delimara would most certainly dictate building the double walled tanks shown in the Gulf plant, going by their render.
Which is what Miles Seaman said.
And Konrad thinks he can just move tanks all over the place to contradict Tonio Fenech.
I sincerely hope the extent of Mizzi’s attitude is made clear.
The Labour Party plans to use the electoral campaign and the vote as a substitute for the planning process: by the people for the people, reduced to its most barbaric level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoR5NgxDx-E&NR=1
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130117/local/old-floriana-power-station-to-be-restored-linked-to-cruise-terminal.453544
Am I the only one who thought, upon reading the title to this article, that we would be having a third power station at Floriana?
[Daphne – Maybe. Some of us live in a world where power stations are restored and turned into destinations or museums.]
Two observations to make for discussion, if I may be allowed:-
1. Each of the two tanks in the video has a capacity of 160,000 cubic metres. The ones proposed by PL have a capacity of 30,000.
2. The height of the US tanks is 120 feet. PN has been saying that those at M’Xlokk will be 80 metres high.
I think some clarifications are needed.
Did you have a look at the diameter of those tanks? Labour proposes a mere 26m diameter for the Dellimara tanks.
Allowing 3m wall thickness due to double wall construction and insulation will leave an internal diameter of 20m.
This give an area of 314 square meters. For a 30 000 cbm tank the height is given by 30 000 / 314 = 96m.
Just saw this comment. 96 metres is the height of the Porto Maso tower so imagine two thermos flasks of that size dominating the skyline and visible from half the country.
Simple mathematics give a diameter of around 24m each if tanks are 80m high – but totally irrelevant to the argument. A 30,000 cubic metre bomb is big enough, thank you
Tank construction sequence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vhkPz5oEa9M
Which explains why average tank capacity used worldwide is three times what they’re saying, 100,000 cbm per tank against their stated 32,000.
The cost to build that thing per cubic meter must be spectacular
Now, when surface area decreases exponentially the larger the volume, temperature differentiation, thus insulation, is offset to a minimum.
Whereas reducing the size of the inner tank implies a greater nominal size, per volume, of insulating jackets.
Oh dear, how do we explain this to our self employed iz-zghar?
The best example would be an espresso cup and a mug; both have the same material thickness.
Labour took more than four years to study and prepare the proposal and I wonder how these can accomplish this 4 years’ preparation in two years.
Jien nahseb li kif nghidu bil-Malti, b’din tar-rohs tad-dawl u l-ilma Joseph bela’ kanna. U kanna nobis, ukoll.
Jien nahseb li AHNA ha nibilghuha l-ewwel.
Kanna minn hawn u Sqallija.
I’m baffled.
If by building one additional power station we are supposedly going to get cheaper tariffs, then why not build two, or three, or ten new power stations?
By Labour’s (crazy) logic the greater the generation capacity, the cheaper the generation cost. So why not call off the EOI process and have everyone build a power station. It would save us a further six months.
On another note, here’s news from one of the potential supply sources for our proposed LNG tanks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/16/terrorist-militants-algerian-gas-plant
So much for security of supply.
Beats a bunch of Sicilian tree-huggers.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130117/elections-news/hunters-deny-hijacking-electoral-campaign.453662
I suppose it would be too much to hope that all three parties sit down and sign an agreement binding themselves on showing the Hunter Lobby a collective middle finger?
No wonder a young environmental officer from down under on a short visit to the island had commented that it is ‘kind of weird’ upon hearing about the LNG plant proposal.
Whether you’re Labour or not, I think this is a matter of seeing sense.
“Labour” and “sense” should never be used together, unless “non” is inserted.
The MLP proposal is very complicated, very costly, Maltese taxpayers would have to pay for it all.
Two huge gas tanks in Marsaxlokk would be a major eye soar and it would damage the beauty of Marsaxlokk royally which undoubtedly would devalue all the homes in that area including Birzebbuga.
Absolutely not fair for the hardworking residents in those areas. Finally, having a company building two or three tankers that would be used solely to deliver liquid natural gas would cost Malta millions of euros. Not taking into account the millions of euros required to service these tanks periodically.
On the other hand, under the PN’s proposal which is already in its works, the EU is prepared to finance the gas pipeline from Sicily. The pipeline would be built underwater, under the EU supervision and only a small terminal would be needed to store the gas in Marsasxlokk.
For me the choice is simple. I don’t know why the residents in the Marsaxlokk and Birzebbuga areas have not raised hell yet?
Mintoff got a million euros and kept his house in Delimara because a power station was built in the vicinity.
His daughters, who inherited the million and the house, would be in a favourable position to ask for another huge sum from the Maltese taxpayers for the inconvenience that the new power station would cause to their enjoyment of their property.
But Daphne, just remember, they’re ambitious.
http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/71855_393767977380478_551643366_n.jpg
http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/546956_393768760713733_1629060278_n.jpg
I think this PL proposal is sheer madness.
Those who are planning to vote PL for ‘change’ and going to land us with a disaster we’re all going to have to pay for, whether we want to or not.
Labour has spelt disaster for our country since 1955.
The majority of Maltese voters, according to all the polls, seem to want more of the same.
What’s the problem?.
Let them have it.
Edward Scicluna was on Super One TV today. He claimed that Spain, yes, Spain has a higher percentage of people who are employed than Malta does, so that means Malta has a higher percentage of unemployment than Spain does. Unbelievable.
[Daphne – Yes, the way his friend Alfred Sant worked out that Partnership won the referendum.]
Where’s Astrid Vella when you need her?
On TVHemm this evening, Labour MP Carmelo Abela announced that the New Labour Goverment will turn back the clock on ministerial emoluments.
When asked repeatedly what they would amount to, he said that they would revert back to how they were at the begining of this legislature.
He finally admitted he does not know the figure, but it is freely available (© Konrad).
Be Prepared: this man can’t have been a scout.
In my years working in industry, usually when something starts going wrong, we’d usually try gradual changes before using the big guns.
I think Enemalta has two problems: a high incidence of pilferage and a bad debt collection coupled with very expensive processes.
First thing to be done before investing all these millions is to examine the processes and re-engineer. Surely Enemalta could shave off through better process management.
Either Labour leaders have no clue about managing or the new power plant is really a done deal.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/Quillen.pdf
The Facts
Why is everybody so surprised?
Muscat, Mizzi & Focused Group Associates have indeed analysed this video.
Of course it can be seen done in half that time. Just press FAST FORWARD.
Ah, but you’re overlooking the fact that such a humungous project will require lots of manpower – i.e. jobs ghal kulhadd. And I mean the low skilled, low paying ones obviously.
Fits nicely with Labour policy, doesn’t it?
So what if it takes more than 2 years to accomplish? We’ll have more jobs for longer.
The project will always be at the point of being finished “next year” – a bit like when you order something at a local shop and you’re told with all the confidence in the world: “Ejja l-gimgha d-diehla u tkun ghandi”.
A zigarella will be cut every now and then to show that the work is progressing at a magnificent pace and that the problems are simply a result of “bsaten fir-roti” by ____ (put in name of choice here e.g. EU, PN etc).
I am confident that water & electricity rates will be hammered down into submission until at least after the following election (if so many voters are willing to swallow this sorry excuse for a project now, they will still believe it in 5 years’ time).
Pass me another drydocks will you?
Most Labour electoral campaigns are peppered with words such as barunijiet, hbieb tal-hbieb, power of incumbency, korruzjoni etc. These are conspicuous by their absence this time round.
Which begs the pertinent question, Why?
[Daphne – No they are not. It is exactly the same this time round: il-klikka, il-ftit li qeghdin igawdu waqt il-hafna ibatu, & c & c.]
How big is this new power station going to be?
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2009/05/more-holiday-snaps-from-modica/
“Malta taghna lkoll” min jaf kemm Anglu u Joseph tkellmu fuq l-Interconnector dak iz-zmien?
Nahseb jekk intellghu lil Joseph malajr jirranga kollox fuq il-protesti ta-Ragusani ghal-interconnector.
So, lets imagine this scenario; the electorate swallows this 25% reduction promise bait, line, hook and sinker.
One year later, with Malta-taghna-lkoll-Muscat as Prime Minister, the man is still delusional and is still convinced that the following year he would be grinningly cutting the ‘zigarella’ of a shiny new power station, two massive LNG tanks and an LNG terminal.
And hey, presto! our bills are a 100Euro cheaper. Conrad says this will cost 77million each year out of savings he is estimating to make. Fascinating.
Fast forward to two years but, hey, this LNG business is slightly more complicated than a power point presentation and it is all taking much longer then expected. U iva, what’s another 77 million?
But what the heck? When all this crap hits the fan Muscat will make way but all this madness won’t. Malta will by now be in a point of return, we are nowhere there with this power station and that is when perhaps we will all become aware that we have been through all this before.
I wonder how many years and how many 77 millions will it take us until we come to realise that will have to pay for all this like we have with CET.
I would just like to explain one thing to Deborah Schembri regarding what she said on Bondi+.
Miles Seaman stated that the safety case for an installation of this type takes 9 to 12 months to compile BEFORE proceeding with a concept design to outline the main figures. These will then be used in the next stage, the detailed design and calculations.
In other words, safety case first, to produce the constraints against which, I would add, to select the plant. If the results of the safety case indicate that there’s no space for the tanks, it would be impossible to consider the proposed plant safe as it wouldn’t comply to the former. If there isn’t the physical space around the tanks to allow for the pits, and no money for the more expensive type of tank, there’s no safety.
The case would determine to go for a different type of plant, call it the pipeline.
The so called mitigating measures become money thrown at the installation to isolate or reduce risk to an acceptable level, which is never the proponent’s prerogative.
In the real world, commercial interests are deemed to carry no ulterior agenda.
There is no space for discussion whether the safety case should take less time or not, that would be determined by the Seveso directive, Mepa policies, and all other protocols that need to be followed.
No questions asked, in the real world, a politician who’d take it on himself to rush a project like this through would certainly bring his political career to an abrupt end.
As soon as finalsied, the detailed technical design is kicked off, which will include all aspects of active safety standards. ie safe running of the plant.
What can be termed passive safety, (what measures have been taken to attenuate any effect once an incident arises), would have been decided, outlined and made design criteria before proceeding with the technical design.
If the waters of Marsaxlokk harbour result too rough for most of the time is to operate, what mitigating measures can one apply?
I trust Dr.Schembri can make a comparison between this design philosophy with Konrad’s take on safety; build first, then include safety as an afterthought. His priority is an electoral promise. His electoral promise, party’s expert he may be. Indeed.
I let Dr.Schembri conclude what the reality will be like according to her party’s approach.
The absence of a real safety case.
Bullshit happens Dr.Schembri, especially if you plan it into the design process. It’s a bit like those men who die every other day, for some odd reason falling down lift shafts.
I can assure you most incidents are due one thing, the frenzy to finish. From planning to commissioning
The other day Konrad Mizzi said that Ann Fenech knows nothing about gas. I was thinking: does Konrad Mizzi know anything about ships and shipping?
After watching this video I also realised that his project would bring more ships in – don’t we have enough ships with Freeport? More ships more pollution in our water.