Reference is made to the interview with Mr Tarciscio Mifsud featured on the MaltaToday of the 25 April.
Contrary to Mr Mifsud’s opinion, it is clear that the report by the Auditor General states that there was no evidence of corruption or irregularities in the procurement process.
The Corporation categorically rejects the criticism that Enemalta officials have ‘stooped so low’ and categorically denies that any Enemalta officials have misled MEPA. The information submitted to the MEPA Board at the public hearing was factual and referred specifically to contracts that Enemalta has for the disposal of flyash from Marsa and bottom ash from both Delimara and Marsa. That these contracts exist is a state of fact. The statement to the MEPA Board was made to draw the attention of all present at the meeting that contrary to repeated unsupported allegations, this type of waste is already being exported and that it is similar in nature to the waste to be produced from the plant to be constructed at Delimara with the exception that it does not contain the by-product of the reaction of sodium carbonate with SO2. This is clear from the following transcript of a recording made by NAO officials attending the meetin.
During the MEPA ODP hearing of 28 January, quoting verbatim:
‘Wastage: Rigward il-kwestjoni tal-esportazzjoni tas-solid waste. Il-bord ghandu jkun infurmat li minn Ottubru li ghadda l-Enemalta dahlet f’kuntratt ma’ kumpannija ghall-esportazzjoni tal-fly ash mill-Marsa u bottom ash mill-Marsa u Delimara. Dan il-wastage hu simili hafna ghall-wastage ggenerat minn gol-plant bhala kwalita’, bhala tip ta’ materjal – id-differenza hi li m’hemmx il-by products of sodium bicarbonate meta urea reacts ma’ SO2’.
‘Dwar wastage hrigna kuntratt wara sejha ghal tenders u kien hemm tlieta jew erbgha offerti. Kien hemm tliet siti li gew indentifikati fl-Ewropa li kienu lesti jaccettaw dan il-waste. Tnejn minnhom il-Germanja u wahda l-Italja. Il-kuntrattur li ghazilna ghazlu sit il-Germanja u ma jidhirx li hemm problemi’.
Mr Mifsud’s stated opinion that MEPA was maliciously misled and was purposely lied to is nothing more than a subjective comment.
The statement that Enemalta changed its declared policy to go for gas is also unfounded – there was no declared policy for Enemalta to go for gas. The possibility was being studied together with the possibility of an electricity interconnector. Without going into the merits of these and other options, Enemalta has decided, with the agreement of the government, to proceed with the electricity interconnector although the possibility of going for gas has not been excluded.
The tender for the new generating plant was technology neutral and was designed to obtain a plant meeting all the legislative requirements and producing electricity at the least cost to the consumer. It is true that going for gas turbines or plant operating on diesel instead of heavy fuel oil (as are most of the existing plants) was a possibility, but the cost is prohibitive with costs of generation per kWh about 30% higher than with HFO even when all costs of exhaust gas abatement and waste disposal are accounted for as the NAO report clearly confirmed that they were.
The amendment of the legislation was not a change in policy. The policy has always been to comply with EU directives and the amendment simply brought the local legislation exactly in line with the EU Directive. Once the Legal Notice was amended, all bidders were informed and given extra time to prepare their bids – it was not done overnight and unannounced – another figment of Mr Mifsud’s imagination.
The footprint of the new plant is well known and has been publically announced several times – if Mr Mifsud is still under the impression that this is not yet known, he is gravely mistaken.
Enemalta engaged Lahmeyer to advise on the plausibility of the exhaust gas abatement technologies proposed. This study was of short duration and limited only to the abatement technology. Since Lahmeyer were at the time already working for MRA on a large consultancy on the energy strategy for Malta it made sense for Enemalta to make use of their consultancy as they were familiar with the constraints. It is totally false to claim that the Auditor General confirmed that Lahmeyer were biased – he did not conclude this and there is no evidence produced in his report that they were. The advice by Lahmeyer can by no stretch of the imagination be described as ‘instrumental’ to Enemalta’s evaluation of the bids. It was merely an independent confirmation that the exhaust gas abatement equipment proposed was plausible. The tender requirement was clearly for a generating unit composed of plant of proven design. All the plant comprising the proposed new generating unit are well tried and proven and it is false to claim that they are not and that Lahmeyer report was somehow required to substitute for this.
As to the recent total shut down experienced by the country – these have been explained and there is no ‘hidden hand’ at play. As to Boiler No. 7, this was commissioned in 1984 – 26 years ago and whilst it is true that it tripped on 22 March causing a total shutdown – it cannot be said that it is constantly tripping.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
