Filenews 26 May 2024 - by Chrysanthos Manoli
That's something, too. A party leader – the general secretary of AKEL – made a written statement about the quagmire in which the gas terminal got stuck. The other leaders disdain. Or avoid. Unless they are indifferent.
Stephanou said that "the Christodoulides government bears no responsibility for the bad agreement – which reeks of scandal – regarding the terminal in Vasilikos."
But he was not fully understood when he said that "the Christodoulides government bears responsibility for its erratic handling and for its inability to resolve the problem."
Reference should be made to 'erratic handling'. To quote them. The column does not detect such manipulations.
A great effort was made by the Minister of Energy to save the project. The Chinese company should return to the construction site. The attempt was not successful. It is quite clear that the responsibility for this lies with the contractor.
Neither DEFA, ETYFA, nor their legal advisers, nor the Auditor General consider that the state owes CPP even one cent more. But even if it owes, this must be decided by a court. Not to be "agreed" in an out-of-court procedure, with the dagger around our neck.
In any case, the Republic participates in the arbitration requested by the Chinese. Taking the risk that some of the contractor's claims will be vindicated and that the state will be asked to pay millions of euros more. It is the CPP itself that is now pulling the rug out from under arbitration, calling for another form of consultation, the end of which will at best be the division of the dispute: They ask for €200 million, give them €100-120 to go away.
Would the parties agree to that? Let's go... in Dubai with "some mediator" and abandon arbitration? Yes or no?
Mr. Stefanou said that "the Government is called upon to find solutions to complete the project as soon as possible. Without the completion of the Vasilikos terminal, we will not be able to have natural gas for electricity production purposes and we will continue to pay hundreds of millions of euros in pollutants as a society and as an economy."
The dear expert Charles Ellinas has been saying something similar in recent days. Whom we heard say that no matter how much we pay for the terminal, the benefit of the arrival of gas will be much greater and we will cover the costs very soon. And we will make a profit.
Should we assume that AKEL agrees with Mr. Ellinas? Should we give what the Chinese are asking for in the hope that the overall benefit to the country will be greater in the long run? Should we succumb to blackmail?
"The government has to find solutions," says Stefanou. Every government is called upon every day to find solutions. But does a party of AKEL's displacement and weight (regardless of percentages) have no proposals? Concrete suggestions. Should we give them what they want us to finish? Shall we tell them it doesn't have a cent and where do you want you go?
And something else: It is contradictory to accuse the Anastasiades government of awarding this complex and important project to a company that was left alone in the tender, with no previous experience in building LNG terminals, and at the same time to pressure the current government to "deal with the Chinese" in order to finish the terminal.
But are you sure that if we give them the money they ask for (close to €200 million) they will complete the projects? Do they know, can and want?
The information of the last few days says that they do not want to. What they want is to get a cart of money that they think the state owes them for the work they have done so far and sign a contract termination by mutual consent.
And the ship? We have already paid some €200 million. They will hand it over to us, say the bad tongues, when the economic differences are resolved. All the financial differences? And those concerning the ship (a few tens of millions now requested by CPP) and those concerning the pier (almost two hundred million)? No one knows for sure.
The impression given in recent days by the government side is that it has lost the last hopes of an understanding with the CPP. And with China's ambassador. The project seems unlikely to be completed by this company. Someone else has to take over. And he will be paid to take over. Do some people mean to pay the Chinese to leave (and give us the ship) and pay others to come and continue?
And those who take it for granted that with natural gas "we will save €300 million from pollutants" where did they find it written? In the best case scenario, the use of natural gas will reduce pollutant emissions by 20, 25 or 30%. That's it. That's what the technocrats say. It should be noted that we already more or less have this reduction (in the cost of pollutants) in 2024, compared to 2023 and 2022. Because the cost of purchasing greenhouse gas emission allowances has been greatly reduced. Although it started in recent days to rise again (€105 per tonne in February '23, €99 in June '23, €54 in March '24 and €76 in May this year). Did anyone feel the difference?
Yes, but we will burn natural gas, which is cheaper than oil. Yes, it is. Today. Will it always be at today's prices? Did anyone predict a price boom in 2022? Can he predict another boom next? Is it out of the question that experts will fall from the clouds again at some point in the near future?
And how can we calculate and say we will earn €200, 300, 400 million? a year from natural gas, since we have not even signed contracts for purchase and we do not know either what prices they will give us or what prices we will accept.
The terminal is necessary, technocrats say. But not regardless of the cost. Because we will pay for the terminal (at ETYFA) through the electricity bills. Like cable.
