Why Labour’s proposals won’t work
Published:
January 11, 2013 at 12:29am
55 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Featured Posts
-
Paltry €50,000 fine for illegal Siggiewi zoo lifted in exchange for state school visits...more
-
Owner of illegal Siggiewi zoo parties with Environment Minister one day before Planning Authority sanctions it...more
-
World Economic Forum index/Malta: public trust in politicians plummets 17 places in one year...more
-
When freeloading Clyde Puli spent 16 days at the Olympic Games in China and made us pay for it...more
-
The leader of the Nationalist Party and Miss Rebecca Dimech...more
-
Well, the Kap tal-Kattolici u l-Latini certainly has a roving eye...more
Issa qed nitkelmu. My kind of riposte.
Why Labour’s proposals won’t work?
Labour never worked.
Can we have this on a billboard please.
Here.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/common/images/uploadnewstorm/toronto_fire2.jpg
And here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster
https://www.mychoice.pn/MyFuture/ElectoralManifesto/Overview
Brilliant, thank you.
Any chance of a link to the PL English version?
[Daphne – I don’t know whether it exists. Maybe readers can help.]
They don’t have one. They use Manglish, not English, to attract tal-pepe.
It is in English.
Time for the morons to reload. Unfortunately, they shot their wad and missed. Useless, scary idiots.
@ admin, thanks.
Anyone noted how only three days into the electoral campaign and the main Labour protagonists (including Joseph the well-beloved) are starting to look like something the cat dragged in from the sea, after they’ve washed up from a wreck.
Konrad Mizzi’s shirt collar is starting to look a size too big and the Coconut is starting to disintegrate into apple crumble.
Najs ent slikk: http://i.imgur.com/PSsEr.jpg
Two questions about joey’s proposals:
1. If Labour cannot publish the reports regarding the new power plant because they are so afraid that they will loose their bargaining power with the potential operator, can they at least say how much out of the €110 savings (apart from the €77m they said they will distribute to consumers) they intend keeping for Enemalta? Enemalta is a public company and the electorate deserves to know the amount that it will make per year from this deal. Could it be that instead of ‘commercial sensitivity’ Labour are refuting to provide the costings because they know that a big chunk of those savings will be going to cover the private operator instead of Enemalta?
2. Curiously, Labour said that they prefer to ship the gas by sea. Bateman is an Israeli company and Israel just found huge oil reserves. Could it be that the deal here is that Bateman or another Israeli company builds the power plant and we buy gas from Israel? Can our journalists please ask the PL to tell us where they intend shipping gas from?
Regarding Key issue # 5, there is one more consequence – significant cuts in expenditure deemed unecessary by the MLP, namely health and education expenditure (in particular the latter).
These cuts will be Edward Scicluna’s responsibility (one of the reasons he’s not in the limelight at the moment since he is busy calculating the degree of expenditure cuts).
10 year gas purchasing agreements with a FIXED PRICE no longer exist.
They were commonplace when Konrad Mizzi worked in the UK but disappeared after the price of oil (and gas) started to move significantly.
The maximum term you can negotiate now is a three-year term.
THAT (and the impossible timelines) changes EVERYTHING.
Thank you QM.
When I came to the 10 year gas price guarantee bit I said to myself “manana, this is a pseudo scientific hoax”.
It cannot be anything but.
No wonder this Mizzi guy ended up a PL candidate as a climax to his brilliant international career.
I believe that if elected to power Muscat and his circus will do as planned, i.e. ask a company to build this new power station without the proper paperwork/procedures being done.
When the EU starts fining Malta for this, Labour will just say, “Heqq, you see what sort of mess PN has driven us into by joining EU?”
Even I remember the referendum debacle when Labour ignored the result and said the general election would determine whether we join or not.
This reduced the 2003 election into a re-run of the referendum.
I know a good few Labour voters who had to abstain or vote PN to get us into the EU. Defeat was woven into the fabric of the PL campaign ten years ago. I am sensing the same this time.
I was amazed when Sant, having resigned, came back as leader because the PL executive ‘demanded’ he not resign.
Even then in 2008, this serial loser was only 1800 votes short of being PM.
If Malta votes Labour into power in March then it deserves to suffer.
There a more fundamental reason which Tonio Fenech mentioned and which is not in the image here.
We do not need more generation, we already have suffiecient capacity and the interconnector will provide a further 225MW.
There is ABSOLUTELY no need of more generation in the near future.
The only reason I would have two sources of power is in the event of a major incident at the main generation site.
A terrorist attack or sabotage or even natural disaster taking out the main power supply.
Having a second source would ensure some kind of backup supply. Has anybody ever thought of the risks associated with having only one generator?
Do really you know what we are talking about?
We already have that – do you think that a power station is one big generator?
Delimara 1 is made up of 2 x 60 MW steam turbines; then we have 2 x 37 MWgas turbines and three combined cycle plants 2 of 37MW and one of 36 MW this already totals 304 MW.
The newly installed BWSC has eight engines each producing 17.4MW and a recovery steam turbine producing 14MW totalling 149MW.
All this makes up 453MW. Then there is the Marsa power station, with a gas turbine (commissioneed in 1990) capable of producing another 37MW.
The interconnector will provide further redundancy with another 225MW.
All this information is in the public domain so please inform yourself before writing stupidities.
I’ll take that as a yes then.
Does anyone know how many generating units there are in the proposed plant, and what capacity?
Again, the Labour Party fall victim to their inferiority complex.
They are afraid to compete along the lines that they will execute the same policies as the P.N., only faster, cheaper and better, so they invariably try to compete with something exotic and different (Parrtnerxipp).
Today it is relatively simple to come up with the most sensible policies, and yet Labour persist in choosing other paths in order to avoid competing on competence and falling drastically short.
Sadly, they are likely to win the election anyway.
I sometimes wonder if they are deliberately showing themselves to be clowns in order to lull us into a false sense of security.
Yesterday, watching Tonio Fenech’s presentation and Bondi+, I found myself thinking that the election was in the bag for the P.N., forgetting the huge advantage Labour have in the polls.
I hope the PN electoral machine doesn’t fall victim in the same way.
We don’t want to be governed by Peppone. At least Peppone sometimes listened to Don Camillo, but these guys listen to no-one, not even their own consultants, going way back to Dahrendorf and coming up to today, where they have ignored DNV Kema’s (their own consultants) recommendation for a pipeline, no doubt simply because it is PN policy.
A friend of mine wrote this on his Facebook wall ‘PL’ease, allow 15 years for delivery. Good one
Daphne,
This site is interesting:
http://www.timrileylaw.com/LNG.htm
This is terrifying, and another reason why Liquid Natural Gas should not be stored on land in the two massive tanks the PL proposes, and why the gas pipe-line is the only alternative.
Labour insists on ignoring this just because it is in the PN’s energy plan – what low-brow politics.
Another point which has not been mentioned is that when the government had made a contract lasting for a year or two, and the prices went down in the meantime Labour didn’t stop attacking this decision.
Now they want to make a 10-year contract blocking the price, which I’m sure will be heftier than what they are professing. Again this shows their greed for power.
The most crucial issue is that there are no more 10-year price guarantees for oil and gas. The most you can get is three years, if that.
Another big issue is that building a jetty larger than the Grand Harbour’s breakwater on Delimara’s side can be technically very difficult because of the geomorphological features of that area.
The construction of two enormous gas tanks, each one the size of Mosta Church in width and height, so close to the power station itself and to Marsaxlokk, is really dangerous.
Gas-fueled power stations exist, of course, but their tanks are located at some distance because of this security issue.
Where will Labour build these tanks then?
Benghisa? Kalafrana? Or will Konrad Mizzi and Joseph Muscat bypass MEPA and experts’ assessments and simply go ahead?
They did this kind of thing routinely in the 70s and 80s. North Korea still does it today. The Great Leader is an engineer and an architect as well and does not need expert advice.
I came across this very interesting video on LNG gas terminal/storage dangers. Even Al Gore embraced this campaign against it. You should watch it. Maybe NET TV can show it.
http://www.lngdanger.com/
[Daphne – There’s agreement on the use of gas. That’s not an issue. It’s the building of a new plant, rather than converting the existing one, and the method of bringing the gas to Malta (pipeline or seaborne tankers) that are the points in dispute.]
Well done, Daphne. You have succinctly summarised the issue. The whole point is: which is the better (long-term) option?
Worth reading:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oQVkcYgkfOEJ:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb79d97e-f7fd-11e0-8e7e-00144feab49a.html#axzz2HeQm29R3
Labour has forgotten to allow for maintenance and emergency situations for its proposed 200MW plant in view of the planned closure of Delimara Phase 1 (and toppling of the chimney, etc).
No power station is infallible working 24×7 for 10 whole years and delivering the full 200MW – it needs to be shut down from time to time for maintenance, and also to repair faults that happen from time to time (which would limit it from delivering full output).
Hahaha I can’t wait to see the headlines on the times the day you get murdered
“GEORGE ARRESTED”?
Dan bis-serjeta?
[Daphne – Yes. I get this sort of thing all the time. See my latest post. The Labour Party doesn’t understand – or maybe it does, only too well – that many of its supporters are by definition not of normal psychology or attitudes, and that by making individuals an object of hatred, they are really asking for trouble. But then maybe trouble is what they actually want.]
Malta Taghna Lkoll taf xi tfisser George?
“George” – prosit tassew. You’re a BRILLIANT advert for your party, sorry I mean movement of moderates and progressives.
I commend you for your efforts to persuade the other half of the nation just how much Labour has really changed under Muscat (and Sant before him).
No one seems to be talking about distribution costs.
Methinks PL/MLP’s electoral manifesto consists solely of their power station proposal, punto e basta.
They have been let down by Il-Guy’s lack of electoral-programme-writing prowess; and no help from daughter in-law Miriam Dalli.
I would say that the energy proposals are Labour’s trump card, not the sole ones. Unfortunately, and as a matter of fact, Labour is presenting very little else – at least to-date – for the intelligent elector to judge them by.
If we side step the tariff and power station issue aside for a moment, what are the other proposals being offered by the MLP?
How is MLP proposing to ride the economic downturn through the creation of jobs, private investment and renewal of our technological base?
How is MLP proposing to create an infrastructure that is conducive to industry becoming more competitive through innovation?
Is MLP following a purely protectionist policy in this respect?
What of other sectors: education, health, and so on?
Where’s the beef? Surely, the reduction of tariffs will not lead to an economic boom and to Malta becoming a Mediterranean tiger.
That’s the point aJS.
Why is it that we do not seem to be able to have an objective and rational debate? It seems that even PN does not dispute the technology being proposed by Labour.
[Daphne – On the contrary, it does. This is the technology that lost out in the tender process, remember. The finance minister explained that in his media briefing yesterday afternoon. This is all about disputing the technology: building another power station that’s not needed (why?), and building the infrastructure to cope with delivery of gas by sea, at the cost of millions, risk to the public and without security or environmental risk assessments (why?). Readers, some of whom seem to be quite involved in the field, have contributed other points to the discussion. They’re peppered throughout the comments-board on this site, beneath the various relevant posts. I’ve tried to highlight as many as I can, but can’t keep up.]
Points 2, 3 and 4 of the above chart refer to capital expenditure and time frames. Even if, for the sake of argument, Labour’s estimates are 200 million Euros off the mark, it would still be a worthwhile exercise IF the end result is a lowering of tariffs by 80 million Euros.
If this did come about it would be a massive relief to every household and could also help boost local consumer expenditure.
I am more concerned by the timeframes. I would think that a minimum of 3 years will be required for completion of the project so I cannot quite understand how tariffs could be reduced from 2014 unless, of course, there are other cost savings in the pipe line (excuse the pun!) that I am not aware of.
I’m sorry but I beg to differ. Let us put aside the financials for a minute. Yesterday Tonio Fenech made an excellent presentation highlighting the financial holes in the PL proposal and the PL reaction was simply to reiterate their position. If they were credible they would have published their assumptions and workings.
However, let us not get caught up int he highly technical and let us concentrate on the timeframes. No matter what the PL say the project cannot be completed in two years – it will be closer to four – simply because this is a massive project requiring it to go through all the checks and balances that are in place to protect you and me.
If this project materialises Malta will be tied to a single contractor – no competition – for 25 years. Great for the contractor – but seriously restricting for Malta. I do not want to be held to ransom by a single contractor who can cite all sorts of reasons to pass on increased costs to us.
No examine the planned PN initiative of the gas pipeline to be developed in conjunction with the EU – assume it takes say, 5 years, from now. At that point – a year or so later than the PL proposal, Malta will have a secure pipeline that is its own – firing a power station, that, by the PL’s own admission, will produce electricity at a lower rate than the private facility. The savings will be substantially greater as the production figure excludes the profit and increased cost of ROC if the capex is closer to the €600m cited by Tonio Fenech.
If we do not have to repay the €600m and the profit margin don’t you think we will be better off in the medium to long term?
No matter which way you look at the PL proposal, it can only at best, deliver very short term savings – but will penalise the whole population in later years because all it does is bring forward a reduction in energy production costs a year or so earlier than the gas pipeline – BUT the cost will be the spreading of the cost and the profit over subsequent years – as opposed to a more secure and sustainable/lower risk option to link to Europe – funded by the EU.
I believe you are in business so I can see you getting excited by the scheme to profit private enterprise but the cost will be borne by the taxpayer. The closest entity we have to a charity in our circumstances is the EU – and their funding the pipeline makes the most medium to long term sense!
Incidentally, what we are talking about is a short-term saving for families of some €100 pa.
Are you willing to sell out your power dependency to a single contractor for €100pa for a year or two? I’m not.
Regardless of financials, or technology, or timeframes, I’m damned if I’m going to hand over my country to ic-Caqnu.
@ Even if, for the sake of argument, Labour’s estimates are 200 million Euros off the mark, it would still be a worthwhile exercise IF the end result is a lowering of tariffs by 80 million Euros.>>
There is the catch. PN need to show that with the (gas) pipeline not only will the capital outlay be lower but even the tariff will be lower. IIRC this was the point Simon made yesterday on Bondi+ when showing one of the .ppt slides.
@TZC – That is exactly the point; Labour have been selling this idea that they WILL reduce the electricity bills as soon as they are in power that that they have painted themselves into a corner and the first academic (read ‘desk top) solution is adopted without any serious study.
Nobody is disputing that such gas power stations work – there are thousands of them all over, or that Private Public Partnerships do not work – it has worked very well in Malta with old peoples’ homes.
But the details of the PL proposal are so flawed as to be laughable, but still the PN needs to spell them out loud and clear because gullible people are not necessarily the uneducated or morons only; we have seen these in MHRA, MEA and MDA statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster
I think a couple of points are becoming clear now:
The reduction in tariffs and the project are not linked. Joseph will reduce rates immaterial of the completion or commencement, for that matter, of the project. Ergo taxes will increase.
Labour are not convinced about their own project. Toni Abela categorically said that if Sargas wanted to answer to the expression of interest they are free too, even though they operate primarily on coal. I would have thought that any expression of interest would include certain basic requirements, like the fuel to be used, but maybe I am wrong
We are going to see information coming through in dribs and drabs, they are clearly using the striptease tactic. My worry is that instead of ending up with Adonis we will end up with Gollum
It is clear to me that the MLP is not being advised correctly and coherently on the marketing of this project. Too many people are talking about it and defending it, except for Joseph himself.
Joseph who appears to have taken responsibility for it but has not taken on the responsibility of explaining it to us. I wonder if Joseph has the necessary funds to take on this reponsibility because I will be the first to send him my bill and demand 25% back.
Labour’s proposal is fit for purpose. It reassures the idiots who were always going to vote PL anyway.
Actually any half-baked plan scribbled on a table napkin would have achieved that objective, but the elves’ love affair with powerpoint presentations, forum lunches, billboards and teleprompters is not to be denied.
Totally agree. One must constantly keep in mind the IQ level of the ‘average’ Labour supporter.
Spot on.