Feb 17 - “The Safety of Our Community is Paramount” Say GSD
The GSD says it has spent the last three months consulting with numerous subject matter experts in both the fields of energy generation and the environment to develop a full understanding of the pros and cons of the proposed development by Government of a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) power station at the North Mole. The GSD says it has explored in depth the various arguments and draws the following conclusions:
- The Opposition says that the environmental benefits of LNG “have been greatly exaggerated by Government.” Locally, argues the GSD, the differences between LNG and properly cleaned diesel emissions “are very small indeed”; furthermore, the party believes that there is powerful evidence to support the fact that, on a global scale, the production of LNG “is more damaging to the environment,” due to the escape of methane gas into the atmosphere, than the production of oil. Any new power station, says the Opposition, would have to be compliant with European legislation on emissions and the GSD says it would provide for the monitoring of air quality in the Northern part of town to ensure this was so. In this regard, the GSD says it has also been provided with information suggesting that the winning tender for the power station does not include the provision of selective catalytic reductions systems on their diesel engines to reduce harmful emissions if it ever needs to run on diesel.
- The party says that, although the economic arguments are compelling, the recent and considerable fall in oil prices demonstrates just how volatile the market is and how this argument cannot be made with any accuracy over a period of twenty years.
- Above all, the GSD says it has studied at great length the arguments on safety. It says it has also taken the time to weigh the threat which an LNG facility poses to our community against the chance of something going wrong. The party says it is “extremely unusual” for such a facility to be established in an urban environment and, in the event of an incident, the emergency services would seek to evacuate an area within a 1 mile radius of the installation (see image below). This area, says the GSD, would be at serious risk and, based on the sites being examined for the LNG storage facility at the detached and north mole would encompass a huge proportion of residences in Gibraltar as well as the hospital. For example, says the party, one of the sites being considered is barely 400 metres from Waterport Terraces. While accepting that the chance of a major incident is small, the consequences of such would be so calamitous to our community that the GSD has concluded that it is not a risk it would be willing to accept and rejects the proposal for the use of LNG at the power station. Indeed, says the Opposition, it will be recalled that during the Viewpoint debate between the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Minister made the point that the LNG installation may not cost the Government a penny because a private sector operator may build the facility in exchange for LNG bunkering rights. The GSD believes that a major incident at an LNG installation catering for bunkering volumes of LNG would be “absolutely catastrophic” for this community and could destroy large parts of the Western side of Gibraltar.
A spokesman said: “It is the responsibility of the political leadership of our community to always place its safety above all other considerations. The risks posed by placing LNG storage facilities in the currently proposed locations are not acceptable to the GSD. We are not willing to take any risks with the safety of the people of Gibraltar.”
