Dear Mr. Mujovic,
I am addressing you in my personal name, but also in your name an extremely large number of citizens who contacted me to represent them, regarding your views that you expressed regarding the opposition of the citizens of Bar and the local administration, to the plans for the construction of an LNG terminal and a gas thermal power plant in Bar.
Before I present it to you important arguments, which are not fully presented to you at the session of the Board of the Assembly of Montenegro where the control hearing was held, I would ask you to, when you continue to present and represent your views to be you are absolutely in favor of building an LNG terminal, first ask yourself whether you would choose to live with your family just a few hundred meters from of such a plant, which is according to the criteria of the EU directive on avoiding major industrial accidents assigned to the plant the first category of danger from explosions. With that in mind, could you watch in peace? that your children they walk and play on the city's main promenade, which is near such a facility, worrying whether today or tomorrow fly into the air, in explosions which are at such plants quite frequent and that on quite regular occasions and in very developed countries? The question of the safety of people's lives, with the problem of impact on global climate change, stated, among other things, US President Biden, to stop the approval for the construction of the largest LNG terminal in America, as well as the export of LNG to Europe. On the White House website, you will find over 22 pages of statements of support and enthusiasm from very influential figures in America regarding this decision by President Biden.
At that, exactly on the 45th anniversary of the catastrophic earthquake, you completely ignored the fact that such plants highly explosive gas heaters absolutely do not work in areas where there is an increased risk of earthquakes. The city of Bar, according to all documents, as well as according to what we experienced, belongs to the most earthquake-vulnerable area.
As experts explain, toys pipelines that go from the LNG terminal to the mainland, do not suffer ground movements caused by strong earthquakes. In that case, those pipeline connections break, the gas begins to "hiss" without the possibility of controlling its release and without the possibility of preventing an explosion at the slightest spark, which are inevitable in earthquakes.
The EU directive says that when spatial planning of such facilities and the choice of location, must be foreseen worst possible scenario, where the configuration of the terrain must also be taken into account, as well as the facilities that can further increase the risk, and it is also prescribed that such facilities cannot be close to settlements, traffic roads or public areas. In any case, the EU directive implies that it is calculated blast range in the worst possible scenario, number of victims, which such an event would cause, as well as to list every object that would be threatened.
When it comes to possible – even much milder scenarios, should there be a leak only a fraction of one percent liquid gas, e.g. quantities of 100 m3, she by changing to a gaseous state, it gains an increased volume, and further mixes with air, which creates it explosive cloud with dimensions reaching 1.000 m in length, 200 m in width and 10 m in height. Assuming there's no wind at all, he's already on his own comes to residential buildings near the Port and part of the promenade. Of course, it includes a marina with yachts and boats and port infrastructure with ships. It covers and a series of existing tanks with oil, gasoline, fuel oil, vinegar, as well as the existing storage of toxic substances. This kind of cloud explodes at the slightest spark, but also at static electricity. To these dimensions of the explosive cloud, we should add the radius of the explosion, the range of which should be calculated by experts, as well as the amplifying effect of the chain explosion of flammable warehouses in the vicinity and the effects of bouncing the impact from the Volujice hill. Of course, under the influence of the wind, the aforementioned explosive cloud changes its shape and moves to other positions, until the moment of explosion.
Mr. Mujović, perhaps you are not informed, back in the late 60s, when a plan was drawn up for an explosive materials facility, which was supposed to be practical in the same place where the LNG terminal is now being planned, expert pyrotechnicians from abroad were hired, who calculated that in the event of an explosion, the hill of Volujica would have an amplifying effect on the explosive impact towards the city (as a kind of "mirror" from which the impacts would be reflected and returned towards the city ), so that would a significant part of the city was destroyed. The city of Bar was lucky that there were experts who warned about it in time, and it did responsible local and state government, who had the ear to hear the warnings.
We hope that you will act with the same amount of responsibility, as the planners and the government did at the end of the 60s. Your responsibility, today, is many times greater. You are one of the authors of the draft spatial plan for the sector where these dangerous facilities are planned, and now you are also the line minister responsible for this project and a key actor in making the Government's decision on this matter. Therefore, your responsibility is not only moral and professional, but also criminal. The lives of our fellow citizens are literally at stake.
Plant with liquid gas is a dangerous explosive device in the heart of our city. That's not what we say, but the quoted European directive.
You indicated that it would risk study from major accidents to do investor. We ask the question: how can the STATE, which according to the Constitution must guarantee safety to its citizens above all, rely on the fact that an investor, who is interested in building for his own interest (and the interests of the community are more than debatable), will submit any study that will show that it is risky?
You also stated that will INVESTOR, do a cost-benefit analysis. We would add - of course: cost-benefit analysis, but only from the aspect of investors' interests. Certainly the INVESTOR will not analyze or deal with the issue effects (negative) on the tourist economy of the city of Bar, on other branches of the economy in Bar, on the price of real estate in Bar and on the overall attractiveness of Bar as a destination, after the construction of these facilities eventually takes place.
Experiences are clear: we contacted people from Krk, where an LNG terminal was built in Omišlj last year, amid large protests from the local population. We are clearly told: the auto-camp in Omišlj on Krk generates 4 times more income than the LNG terminal. Only a few Croatian citizens work in the entire terminal.
All the experts we consulted claim that it is LNG pure loss, both for the Port itself, and for the accompanying agency-forwarding activities. A regasifier ship, over 300 meters long and over 40 meters wide, must be permanently attached, along the coast. Along with the regasifier ship, ships supplying methane, of the same dimensions, are arriving, and that space must also be free. They permanently occupy a significant space 300 m long and almost 100 m wide, from the otherwise very limited space of the Port and prevent normal servicing and income from other ships. A recent statement by the captain of an American cruise ship, similar in size to a regasifier, who, upon arriving in Bar, stated that the Port of Bar a very narrow port - speaks eloquently about these problems.
Experts from the field of port business, who worked on the development of the plan, made remarks regarding such an idea, which was clearly presented at the public hearing. The planners explicitly stated that they are against such projects, but for the executive to exert pressure to include such facilities in the plan.
In spite of all this, there are already capacities of LNG terminals in Europe and globally oversized and are not used to their full capacity, and thus appears i a big problem of the profitability of their business.
In Italy, out of a total of 3 LNG terminals, only one is operating with a capacity of around 90%, and the remaining two below 50%. Two terminals are positioned on the open sea, 10 miles away from the coast, and for the third, after protests by the citizens, the Italian Government undertook to move it from the port to the open sea. In Greece, the only existing terminal so far, was operating at only 12% capacity. The new (private) terminal, which is mainly financed by EU funds, should be completed and started working soon, and it is located in the open sea, 17 km away from the coast, and it remains to be seen how it will operate. Both mentioned countries have gas pipelines to which these terminals are connected by pipelines.
The question arises, therefore, to whom will the liquefied gas from the eventual LNG terminal in Bar be sold? How will it be transported to the end consumers - if the thermal power plant is not built? How will the transport of gas to other destinations by road tankers or railways affect people's safety?
Why mr. of the Minister, a gas-fired thermal power plant should be built in Montenegro, at a time when in Europe not a single new gas thermal power plant is planned to be built, and not even in the USA itself - in the next 3 years, not a single new gas thermal power plant is planned to be built? With the RePower 2030 plan, the European Union committed to reduce gas consumption by 50% by that year, and a significant reduction has already occurred.. In addition to climate-environmental reasons, this decision was influenced by economic reasons, as it involves significantly higher construction prices and the highest prices for electricity obtained from gas power plants compared to other sources.
Why doesn't Montenegro emulate Croatia, which is replacing its thermal power plant in Plomin with a hydrogen-powered thermal power plant and a solar power plant? In doing so, you provided information that the LNG terminal and thermal power plant can be used for future hydrogen plants. Scientists claim that it is very questionable.
Gas-fired power plants in America, after a decade of successful business, now have major problems with profitability. Some are also bankrupt, and some are struggling with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. Local communities are faced with the problems of what to do with the structures that remain on their territories and are no longer functional.
The memorandum, which envisages the construction of an LNG terminal and a thermal power plant, requires that the Government "consider" participating in this project by allocating land, creating a free road and water supply corridor and prioritizing connection to them, connection to the existing power grid, simplified and accelerated obtaining of permits with state aid, by choosing a precisely defined equipment manufacturer, etc. Part of the memorandum was declared secret. In addition, you stated that electricity obtained from gas power plants is very expensive. Will we, the citizens, have to pay for the most expensive electricity in the world and how? What is even more astonishing is that the Memorandum envisages the possibility of building a thermal power plant in the Port of Bar itself, if so chosen by the Investor.
For your part, you have stated that you don't even problematize the construction of the thermal power plant, if the same is financed by the investor from his own funds. And in the draft of the Spatial Plan, the possibility of building even 2 thermal power plants in Bar is mentioned: one in the sea and the other on land.
Related to the impact on ecology, you stated that the INVESTOR would be the one to provide the study. This is contrary to our regulations which provide that state strategic assessment study it must be declared. In it, however, contrary to the claims presented at the hearing at the Committee for Tourism and Spatial Planning, there is not even a word about the impact of these facilities on the ecology as a whole, on the risk to the safety of life and health of people, as well as on the climate impact. The authors of the strategic study on environmental impact assessment of the draft spatial plan state that it represents ONLY THE WORKING VERSION, and no not even a draft strategic studies, because they are in all chapters and all areas had insufficient and contradictory data, so they claim that they could not perform an impact assessment at all.
Our regulations, ministers, foresee the obligation to plan improves, not degrades and endangers environment and human safety. Such projects are directly contrary to those legal obligations.
It is widely known that the impact of these plants on climate change is fatal. This year, records of temperature rise have already been recorded. Forecasts are alarming and say that summer temperatures will reach 55o C, and that, as a result, the evaporation of large water surfaces caused by this will lead to disasters in the fall that have not been recorded so far.
In addition to the American president, Canada's energy minister, these days announced that Canada will no longer build new LNG terminals, due to critical climate change. It is likely that, in addition, Canada took into consideration the problem of profitability of operating such capacities in the future.
Also, these days, more big banks (Credit Agricol, Barclays, HSBC, BNP Paribas) decided to SUSPENSION of lending of American companies for the construction of LNG terminals around the world. Moreover, although initially supportive, the banks have now withdrawn from lending to the construction LNG terminals in Africa, PAPAUIA NEW GUINEA LNG TERMINAL and LNG Terminal in Mozambique. These are the two largest terminals in Africa, the projects of which are now being called into question.
What, Minister, it can no longer pass in Africa either, You say it should, as fast as possible to be realized here. Why? Why should we run and get trapped for the next four or five decades with projects and technologies that are already being slowly abandoned everywhere in the developed world?
In addition to climate change, regular and so-called hidden CO2 emissions from these plants, according to the latest research overcome CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The impact of CO2 and other gas emissions from the LNG terminal is not negligible at all. It is an indisputable fact that the regasifier ship uses only natural gas for its propulsion and regasification. To maintain a low temperature in its tanks, and to regasify LNG, it consumes about 12 MW/h (depending on the quality of the insulation and assuming that it exclusively uses the sea as a medium for regasification). When the supply ship arrives, an additional 10 MW/h is emitted. The released gases go directly into the air from the ship's chimneys. It is as if you placed a 20 MW gas thermal power plant whose the exhaust gases go directly into the city, because that "thermal power plant", i.e. the LNG terminal, does not have high chimneys as is usual for thermal power plants.
About influence the discharge of several hundred liters of variquina per day into the sea, for the purpose of cleaning pipelines from algae, and its harmfulness to plant and animal life in the sea - needless to say.
Minister,
Italy has 8.000 km of coastline and only 3 terminals, two of which are in the open sea, and the last one, done last year, already in 2026. has to move due to the fierce opposition of the citizens, who are in column as long as 15 kilometers protested about it at the end of last year.
Croatia, which has 6.000 km long coastline, has only one terminal and with it a gas pipeline, but the citizens of Omišalj na Krk, with their mayor, do not reconcile with, as they state, the violence that was perpetrated against them.
Greece, which has 13.600 km of coastline, until now it had only 1 LNG terminal, and another terminal, financed by EU funds and located in the open sea, 17 km away from the coast, should be completed soon.
You advocate that of only 100 km of the Montenegrin coast as the crow flies and only 5 coastal municipalities, sacrifices the entire city of Bar, for the sake of interests that are not the interests of our city, nor of our country.
Minister,
It is not difficult at all for the lobby of producers of liquefied gas, which officially had a profit in the past 16 months from over 100 billion dollars, to hatch any pernicious project that favors their - and not our - interests. Here, for now, it seems, they had fertile ground.
It was not only the previous Prime Minister Abazović who was enthusiastic about this project, so he made a scandalously illegal statement that "the investor will choose the location where he will build the thermal power plant and the terminal" - meaning that he will point his finger and say where he wants to build whatever he wants. And the government of former Prime Minister Krivokapić was very accommodating towards these projects. EPCG headed by Democratic Front officials, after visiting the USA in 2021, also concluded a memorandum of understanding for the construction of an LNG terminal and thermal power plant, but with another American partner - LNG ALLIANCE from America. Representatives of that American company boast of extraordinary connections with Mr. I'll go, Mr. Pješćić and many influential people from Montenegro.
Back in 2016, when not in any plan or design there was no mention of an LNG terminal or thermal power plant, the Belgrade company ESI, for the needs of the Hungarian consortium, did a business study for the construction of a gas thermal power plant and an LNG terminal in Bar. This consortium also includes the private Hungarian company "Communautrade Europa" from Budapest, which states on its official website that its partners are former and currently employed experts from the European Commission and the European Parliament, and in his portfolio is included the LNG terminal and thermal power plant project in Bar. On their website, they also claimed to be supported by the Government of Montenegro. It can hardly be said that it is a mere coincidence that the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Varhelji, who is a Hungarian and a close friend of the Hungarian president, goes so far as to tour together with you and the rest of the EU during a secret visit last month in the Port of Bar. and CG officials Bigovica cove in Bar, and marks the location for the thermal power plant in his laptop, stating that the EU has a grant ready for this investment, so if we don't, he will direct the grant to Albania - Valona, where the LNG terminal project is also in the phase stagnation.
Does all this mean that a good part of the already small Montenegrin coast and one of the most promising coastal cities should be sacrificed for the sake of supporting Mr. Varhelji at the end of his mandate? Should our citizens and our children pay for this support with their lives and live in uncertainty and fear of a major accident (a term from the EU directive) for the next few decades?
During a secret visit to the thermal power plant construction site, Mr. Varhelji took a photo in front of the walls of the old town of Bar. What ominous symbolism! That city, which was one of the key administrative and commercial centers of this part of the Mediterranean, was, after 13 centuries of existence, destroyed in an explosion 150 years ago and was never rebuilt, nor did life return to it.
All influential organizations and analysts claim that LNG terminals already in the next few years they won't be needed at all. They state that it may happen that more than half of the existing LNG terminals in Europe will be abandoned by 2030, i.e. in the next couple of years. Now, when even the banks will no longer finance these projects, the fight is to get this previously awarded "grant" with the appropriate one commissions, that is, consulting services - imposed on some of the countries that do not have enough strength to take care of their own interests, and not those of others.
We hope that you, together with other planners and decision-makers, will recognize in the right way the perniciousness of such ideas, and that in addition to civil protests, we will not be forced to, together with our European and American colleagues, lawyers and organizations, seek the initiation of criminal liability, both Montenegrin and of European participants in this business.
Bar, 16/4/2024.
With respect,
Vesna Čejović, lawyer
- My administration will not be self-sufficient," he said Mr. Biden. "We will not succumb to individual interests. We will heed the calls of young people and communities on the frontline who are using their voices to demand action from those who have the power to act.”
- Today, we have evolving knowledge about the needs of the market for LNG, long-term supply of LNG, but also dangerous effects of methane on our planet", she added The White House.
- We also need to protect ourselves adequately from risks to the health of our communities, especially frontline communities in the United States who disproportionately take over the burden of pollution from new export facilities." (White House)
- The largest customers from the new American LNG facilities are not European and Asian consumers at all," the institute reported. “Instead, they are large oil and gas traders who they speculate with their ability to resell LNG at a profit.” (Yale Climate Connections)
Bonus video:
