Skip to main content

The National Electricity Sector Policy of Bermuda image

The National Electricity Sector Policy

The Ministry of Home Affairs has updated the National Electricity Sector Policy (NESP), the first comprehensive revision since 2015. The renewal of our National Electricity Sector Policy is one of the most consequential undertakings now shaping Bermuda’s future. This policy is pivotal to the reform of our electricity sector and is intended to serve as a clear beacon, illuminating the pathway toward an energy future that is affordable, secure, resilient, environmentally responsible, and firmly aligned with the needs and aspirations of Bermuda’s residents and ratepayers.

This renewed policy sets out the Government’s strategic direction for the electricity sector and is expressly designed to be fully integrated into the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Both policies will be meaningful guides to the decisions that will shape Bermuda’s energy future. While the essentials of life were once listed as food, water, and shelter, today, electricity, telecommunications, and access to information are also essential.

In an increasingly digital world, electricity is no longer a luxury but rather a necessity. It powers our homes, businesses, schools, and hospitals. It fuels opportunity, underpins our social and economic well-being, and touches the lives of every Bermudian. A modern, forward-looking electricity sector policy is therefore also essential. It recognizes that energy is both technical and human, and that the way we generate, regulate and pay for electricity must reflect a national commitment to fairness, stability and security of our island. The updated National Electricity Sector Policy represents a major step forward in ensuring that Bermuda’s energy future is guided by thoughtful, strategic policy grounded in affordability, resilience, and responsible governance. This work builds support upon the Electricity Act 2016, which establishes the overarching framework for the electricity sector and defines the roles of the Regulatory Authority, the utility, independent producers, and the Government.

The Government has acted to modernize the national policy, ensuring it reflects the realities, opportunities, and priorities facing Bermuda today. We welcome the public to review the Draft NESP and we encourage feedback from all residents, businesses and industry stakeholders. We believe this policy ensures that Bermuda’s residents and ratepayers are protected, empowered, and positioned to benefit from the opportunities of a modern energy future.

The National Electricity Sector Policy April 2026.pdf

(6.1 MB)

Phases

Phases overview

Phase 1: Feedback

Feedback

Feedback

April 15, 2026 3:00 AM - May 22, 2026 3:00 AM

61 ideas

Natalia Linkova3 weeks ago NESP 2026 — Public Consultation SubmissionSubmitted by: Allan PelvangDear Minister,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NESP 2026 consultation. I am a homeowner / resident in Bermuda. This policy will shape energy costs and energy independence on this island for a generation, and I believe it deserves to be tested against the evidence.I have lived on the island for 20 years and have seen electricity costs rise significantly over that time. I also believe Bermuda is a natural choice for solar / renewable energy and think this new focus on LNG (rejected twice before) is a deviation from that logical target, especially given Bermuda’s insular position and dependency on volatile sources.1. RISING BILLS HAVE A STRUCTURAL CAUSE THAT THE POLICY DOES NOT ADDRESSElectricity bills rise when fixed infrastructure costs are shared among fewer customers. Population changes, the prolonged closure of major commercial facilities, and island-wide efficiency improvements have all reduced total electricity consumption in recent years. Distributed solar generation (rooftop and ground-mounted) accounts for roughly 3% of Bermuda's total electricity supply. It is not, and cannot be, the primary cause of rising tariffs.The Fuel Adjustment Rate, the variable fuel cost component on every customer's bill, is the single largest driver of bill variability. It rises and falls with global energy prices. Switching from oil to LNG does not eliminate this exposure. It transfers it to a different imported fuel subject to the same global market forces.I urge the Ministry to commission a clear, public analysis of what is actually driving demand / decline before finalising policy.2. LNG HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED AND REJECTED, TWICE, FOR CLEAR REASONSBermuda conducted two rigorous, independently reviewed Integrated Resource Planning exercises in 2019 and 2024. Both pointed away from LNG.The 2019 RA-approved IRP selected the non-LNG path, warning that an LNG commitment "would influence energy policy and prices for up to 50 years." LNG was only approximately 6% cheaper under base case assumptions, and a 25% increase in costs would reverse that advantage entirely. BELCO's own 2024 Preferred Plan also rejected LNG, selecting solar, battery storage, and other renewables instead. BELCO's own generation cost data shows solar at $0.072/kWh, the cheapest available option by a wide margin.The history of the North Power Station makes the risks concrete. Documents released under the Public Access to Information Act confirm that BELCO optimised that station for LNG without Regulatory Authority approval. When LNG was rejected, the resulting soot problems required a $2.4 million retrofit. The courts ruled those costs could not be passed to electricity customers. Bermuda has already absorbed the cost of one rejected LNG plan.The 2026 Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz closure, characterised by the International Energy Agency as the largest energy supply disruption in global history, demonstrated precisely why small island nations cannot commit their energy future to any single imported fossil fuel.I ask the Ministry to explain what new evidence justifies reversing two carefully considered planning decisions.3. CAPITAL MUST BE INVESTED IN FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS, NOT LOCKED INTO FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTUREUnder Bermuda's regulatory framework, every dollar of approved capital investment in LNG infrastructure earns a guaranteed return recovered from electricity bills for the life of that asset, potentially 30 years or more. That same capital directed toward battery storage, smart grid technology, and demand management would create flexible, upgradeable assets whose costs are falling year on year.Capital committed to LNG cannot be redirected when better solutions emerge. Capital invested in flexible technologies retains that option. As Bermuda deploys more renewable generation, the volume of LNG required would decrease, driving per-unit LNG costs progressively higher. LNG becomes more expensive the more successful Bermuda's renewable programme becomes.I urge the Ministry to require any proposed LNG investment to be explicitly evaluated against equivalent capital invested in modern, flexible alternatives.4. RENEW THE COMMITMENT TO CLEAN ENERGY WITH THE TOOLS TO DELIVER ITBermuda's own analysis shows 59% renewable electricity is achievable. The tools exist: solar at $0.072/kWh, rapidly improving battery storage (now cheaper than new gas plants, per BloombergNEF, February 2026), island-wide smart meters already installed, and time-of-use pricing that incentivises demand shifting. What has been missing is the implementation framework: land-use planning, a storage roadmap, and tariff reform that shares costs fairly among all customers.I urge the Ministry to commit to these mechanisms with defined timelines rather than reopening a fuel pathway its own planning has twice set aside.5. THE EMISSIONS CASE FOR LNG DOES NOT HOLD UNDER PROPER MEASUREMENTPeer-reviewed research published in Energy Science & Engineering (Wiley, 2024) found that under a 20-year measurement timeframe, LNG's greenhouse gas footprint is 33% greater than coal. End-use combustion accounts for only 34% of LNG's total emissions; the remaining 66% comes from methane leakage during production, shipping, and regasification. Given Bermuda's vulnerability to near-term climate impacts, the 20-year measurement window is the appropriate lens. The NESP 2026 specifies no emissions framework for evaluating any LNG proposal.6. BERMUDA'S EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORTS SMARTER ALTERNATIVES TODAYBELCO's island-wide smart meter rollout is already complete. The data infrastructure for time-of-use pricing, demand response, and Virtual Power Plant coordination already exists. Bermuda's geography makes EV-based distributed storage uniquely viable: at 25% EV adoption, Bermuda's vehicle fleet holds an estimated 56 MWh of available distributed storage, already exceeding BELCO's planned 40 MWh grid battery investment. Hawaiian Electric, operating a comparable isolated island grid, demonstrated 40 MW of grid services from residential batteries, eliminating equivalent new generation investment. These options deserve full evaluation before any LNG commitment is made.Sincerely,Allan Pelvang20 May 2026

Heather Nova3 weeks ago

Frederico DeSouza3 weeks ago

Mike Cranfield3 weeks ago

Susannah Frith3 weeks ago

Janie Brown3 weeks ago NESP 2026, Public Consultation SubmissionSubmitted by: [Your Full Name], [Your Address]Dear Minister,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NESP 2026 consultation. I am a [homeowner /business owner / resident] in Bermuda. This policy will shape energy costs and energy independence onthis island for a generation, and I believe it deserves to be tested against the evidence.[Optional: add one sentence here about your personal connection, e.g. "I have lived in Bermuda for Xyears and have seen electricity bills rise significantly over that time."]---1. RISING BILLS HAVE A STRUCTURAL CAUSE THAT THE POLICY DOES NOT ADDRESSElectricity bills rise when fixed infrastructure costs are shared among fewer customers. Populationchanges, the prolonged closure of major commercial facilities, and island-wide efficiency improvementshave all reduced total electricity consumption in recent years. Distributed solar generation (rooftop andground-mounted) accounts for roughly 3% of Bermuda's total electricity supply. It is not, and cannot be,the primary cause of rising tariffs.The Fuel Adjustment Rate, the variable fuel cost component on every customer's bill, is the single largestdriver of bill variability. It rises and falls with global energy prices. The draft policy does not explain how atransition to LNG would reduce this exposure, given that LNG is subject to the same global market forcesas oil.I urge the Ministry to commission a clear, public analysis of what is actually driving demand declinebefore finalising policy.---2. LNG HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED AND REJECTED — TWICE — FOR CLEAR REASONSBermuda conducted two rigorous, independently reviewed Integrated Resource Planning exercises in2019 and 2024. Both pointed away from LNG. The 2019 RA-approved IRP selected the non-LNG path,warning that an LNG commitment "would influence energy policy and prices for up to 50 years." LNGwas only approximately 6% cheaper under base case assumptions, and a 25% increase in costs wouldreverse that advantage entirely.BELCO's own 2024 Preferred Plan also rejected LNG, selecting solar, battery storage, and otherrenewables instead. The history of the North Power Station is instructive: documents released under thePublic Access to Information Act confirm that BELCO optimised that station for LNG without RA approval.When LNG was rejected, the resulting soot problems required a $2.4 million retrofit that the courts ruledcould not be passed to electricity customers.The 2026 Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz closure, characterised by the International Energy Agency asthe largest energy supply disruption in global history, demonstrated precisely why isolated island nationscannot commit their energy future to any single imported fossil fuel.I ask the Ministry to explain what new evidence justifies reversing two carefully considered planningdecisions.---3. CAPITAL MUST BE INVESTED IN FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS, NOT LOCKED INTO FOSSIL FUELINFRASTRUCTUREUnder Bermuda's regulatory framework, every dollar of approved capital investment earns a guaranteedreturn recovered from electricity bills for the life of that asset, potentially 30 years or more. Capitalcommitted to LNG infrastructure will earn that return regardless of whether better and cheaperalternatives emerge.The same capital directed toward battery storage, smart grid technology, time-of-use pricing systems,and demand management would create flexible, upgradeable assets whose costs are falling year onyear. Capital committed to LNG cannot be redirected when better solutions become available. Capitalinvested in flexible technologies retains that option.Bermuda's policy should direct ratepayer investment toward the future, not lock it into a fossil fueldecision made in 2026. I urge the Ministry to require any proposed LNG investment to be explicitlyevaluated against equivalent capital invested in modern, flexible alternatives.---4. RENEW THE COMMITMENT TO CLEAN ENERGY WITH THE TOOLS TO DELIVER ITBermuda's own analysis shows 59% renewable electricity is achievable. The tools exist: solar at$0.072/kWh, rapidly improving battery storage (now cheaper than new gas plants, BloombergNEF,February 2026), island-wide smart meters already installed, and time-of-use pricing that incentivisesdemand shifting. What has been missing is the implementation framework: land-use planning, a storageroadmap, and tariff reform that shares costs fairly among all customers.I urge the Ministry to commit to these mechanisms with defined timelines rather than reopening a fuelpathway its own planning has twice set aside.---[OPTIONAL: include Point 5 if you wish to address emissions]5. THE EMISSIONS CASE FOR LNG DOES NOT HOLD UNDER PROPER MEASUREMENTPeer-reviewed research published in Energy Science & Engineering (Wiley, 2024) found that under a 20-year measurement timeframe, LNG's greenhouse gas footprint is 33% greater than coal. End-usecombustion accounts for only 34% of LNG's total emissions; the remaining 66% comes from methaneleakage during production, shipping, and regasification. Given Bermuda's vulnerability to near-termclimate impacts, the 20-year lens is the appropriate one. The NESP 2026 specifies no emissionsframework for evaluating any LNG proposal.---[OPTIONAL: include Point 6 if you wish to address smart grid technology]6. BERMUDA'S EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORTS SMARTER ALTERNATIVES TODAYBELCO's island-wide smart meter rollout is already complete. The data infrastructure for time-of-usepricing, demand response, and Virtual Power Plant coordination already exists. Bermuda's geographymakes EV-based distributed storage uniquely viable: at 25% EV adoption, the island's vehicle fleet holdsan estimated 56 MWh of available distributed storage, already exceeding BELCO's planned 40 MWh gridbattery investment. Hawaiian Electric, operating a comparable isolated island grid, demonstrated 40 MWof grid services from residential batteries, eliminating equivalent new generation investment.Sincerely,Dr. Janie Brown10 Chapel LanePaget, PG02May 22,2026

duncan dawson3 weeks ago

Sonia Whayman3 weeks ago

Robbie Smith3 weeks ago I believe that the level of investment that LNG requires can be better applied to diverse solar generating systems that are coupled with decentralized battery systems. I think Belco can lead here, using the cleared footprint on Serpentine Roads with battery systems covered with solar panels and to look for other opportunities to work on brownfield sites (old quarries) across Bermuda, the airport, Warwick Camp, etc. Battery technologies are advancing and the costs over time should drop and allow us to build our capacity over time. This is how California will succeed in achieving net zero:https://www.netzerocalifornia.org/clean-powerIt is a reasonable proposition that if Belco invests in solar and storage capacity development, with attendant critical transmission infrastructure, then it will achieve sufficient income to satisfy the investment costs and possibly reduce their operational costs too. When that occurs we will have the option to use a cleaner fuel in the generating plants to minimize the emissions. I support paying a bit more for cleaner fuel to reduce these environmental impacts.I think it is worth the time and expense to do the modelling of my proposed system than re-examining the LNG option that we have rejected, twice.I wish I could feel more confident in wind turbine system but I can't find any that could survive Cat 5 storms. They will emerge in time and we can consider them in due course. However, the levelized costs for transmission from offshore systems will be a financial barrier. Thus, solar production and battery storage on the island make the best sense today!

Michelle Seymour Smith3 weeks ago

Tom Conyers3 weeks ago

Steven Dunkerley3 weeks ago

Peter Burger3 weeks ago Bermuda being reliant on fossil fuels is preposterous considering we have been gifted sun & wind- the 2 greatest sources of renewable energy on our planet. The fact our government leaders are putting this country back in the dark ages with this revised updated energy policy being 93% fossil fuels dependent shows how out of touch they are.This is not a revision embracing our strengths & desire to improve all Bermudians quality of life- this is a revision that cow tails to the status quo and current monopolies.I challenge our leaders to think forward and not backward and lead us into the future of renewable energy.Lastly, to show our commitment to renewable energy, our family just invested in the future by installing a solar system to our home that will cover 105% of our energy needs.Sun & Wind are the future to Bermuda being energy independent!!

Jens Juul3 weeks ago For years we have heard Government talk about renewable energy sources like solar, wind and wave. Please develop these instead of pursuing the incredibly costly and unintelligent LNG alternative. I have used solar panels for over 19 years and I am 45% self sufficient. Suggestions: Mandate that every new build has to install a minimum of 10 solar panels. Offer a 10% cost reduction of Land Tax for every 10 solar panels installed.

Graham Collis3 weeks ago

Benedicte Cockell3 weeks ago NESP 2026, Public Consultation Submission Submitted by: Benedicte Cockell of 10 Glebe Hill, HS02.Dear Minister, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NESP 2026 consultation. I am a homeowner in Bermuda. This policy will shape energy costs and energy independence on this island for a generation, and I believe it deserves to be tested against the evidence. have lived in Bermuda for 30 years and have been an early adopter of solar power at my home. In spite of this, my electricity bill remains a significant cost every month, particularly since Belco changed the terms of the contract without any consultation. The solar array has been a steady provider of electricity and we have checked to ensure that we export clean energy back to the grid. It is not clear that all arrays produce clean energy and I believe that it is the responsibility of the homeowner to ensure that they are producing undistorted clean power.I do however feel that the case for solar and renewable energy is far stronger than a backward move to LNG. I acknowledge that LNG is cleaner than the the heavy fuels currently being burned with the terrible pollution problems in Pembroke but to focus on LNG over renewables would appear to be a move to reduce a problem created by the poor engineering of the new Belco stacks rather than a plan for the future of Bermuda. --- 1. RISING BILLS HAVE A STRUCTURAL CAUSE THAT THE POLICY DOES NOT ADDRESS Electricity bills rise when fixed infrastructure costs are shared among fewer customers. Population changes, the prolonged closure of major commercial facilities, and island-wide efficiency improvements have all reduced total electricity consumption in recent years. Distributed solar generation (rooftop and ground-mounted) accounts for roughly 3% of Bermuda's total electricity supply. It is not, and cannot be, the primary cause of rising tariffs. The Fuel Adjustment Rate, the variable fuel cost component on every customer's bill, is the single largest driver of bill variability. It rises and falls with global energy prices. The draft policy does not explain how a transition to LNG would reduce this exposure, given that LNG is subject to the same global market forces as oil. I urge the Ministry to commission a clear, public analysis of what is actually driving demand decline before finalising policy. --- 2. LNG HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED AND REJECTED — TWICE — FOR CLEAR REASONS Bermuda conducted two rigorous, independently reviewed Integrated Resource Planning exercises in 2019 and 2024. Both pointed away from LNG. The 2019 RA-approved IRP selected the non-LNG path, warning that an LNG commitment "would influence energy policy and prices for up to 50 years." LNG was only approximately 6% cheaper under base case assumptions, and a 25% increase in costs would reverse that advantage entirely. BELCO's own 2024 Preferred Plan also rejected LNG, selecting solar, battery storage, and other renewables instead. The history of the North Power Station is instructive: documents released under the Public Access to Information Act confirm that BELCO optimised that station for LNG without RA approval. When LNG was rejected, the resulting soot problems required a $2.4 million retrofit that the courts ruled could not be passed to electricity customers. The 2026 Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz closure, characterised by the International Energy Agency as the largest energy supply disruption in global history, demonstrated precisely why isolated island nations cannot commit their energy future to any single imported fossil fuel. I ask the Ministry to explain what new evidence justifies reversing two carefully considered planning decisions. --- 3. CAPITAL MUST BE INVESTED IN FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS, NOT LOCKED INTO FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE Under Bermuda's regulatory framework, every dollar of approved capital investment earns a guaranteed return recovered from electricity bills for the life of that asset, potentially 30 years or more. Capital committed to LNG infrastructure will earn that return regardless of whether better and cheaper alternatives emerge. The same capital directed toward battery storage, smart grid technology, time-of-use pricing systems, and demand management would create flexible, upgradeable assets whose costs are falling year on year. Capital committed to LNG cannot be redirected when better solutions become available. Capital invested in flexible technologies retains that option. Bermuda's policy should direct ratepayer investment toward the future, not lock it into a fossil fuel decision made in 2026. I urge the Ministry to require any proposed LNG investment to be explicitly evaluated against equivalent capital invested in modern, flexible alternatives. --- 4. RENEW THE COMMITMENT TO CLEAN ENERGY WITH THE TOOLS TO DELIVER IT Bermuda's own analysis shows 59% renewable electricity is achievable. The tools exist: solar at $0.072/kWh, rapidly improving battery storage (now cheaper than new gas plants, BloombergNEF, February 2026), island-wide smart meters already installed, and time-of-use pricing that incentivises demand shifting. What has been missing is the implementation framework: land-use planning, a storage roadmap, and tariff reform that shares costs fairly among all customers. I urge the Ministry to commit to these mechanisms with defined timelines rather than reopening a fuel pathway its own planning has twice set aside. --- [OPTIONAL: include Point 5 if you wish to address emissions] 5. THE EMISSIONS CASE FOR LNG DOES NOT HOLD UNDER PROPER MEASUREMENT Peer-reviewed research published in Energy Science & Engineering (Wiley, 2024) found that under a 20- year measurement timeframe, LNG's greenhouse gas footprint is 33% greater than coal. End-use combustion accounts for only 34% of LNG's total emissions; the remaining 66% comes from methane leakage during production, shipping, and regasification. Given Bermuda's vulnerability to near-term climate impacts, the 20-year lens is the appropriate one. The NESP 2026 specifies no emissions framework for evaluating any LNG proposal. --- [OPTIONAL: include Point 6 if you wish to address smart grid technology] 6. BERMUDA'S EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORTS SMARTER ALTERNATIVES TODAY BELCO's island-wide smart meter rollout is already complete. The data infrastructure for time-of-use pricing, demand response, and Virtual Power Plant coordination already exists. Bermuda's geography makes EV-based distributed storage uniquely viable: at 25% EV adoption, the island's vehicle fleet holds an estimated 56 MWh of available distributed storage, already exceeding BELCO's planned 40 MWh grid battery investment. Hawaiian Electric, operating a comparable isolated island grid, demonstrated 40 MW of grid services from residential batteries, eliminating equivalent new generation investment. Sincerely, [Your Full Name] [Your Address] [Date

Michael S;purling3 weeks ago

Gavin Davis3 weeks ago

Robin Stubbs3 weeks ago

A.David Frith3 weeks ago I fail to understand why LNG is AGAIN being considered as an alternative fuel to generate electricity.... LNG has already been denied TWICE in the last few years.If it was not considered appropriate before, why is it now? Just the cost to convert to an LNG system is prohibitive enough!Generating electricity via use of the cheapest resource....the sun..... seems to me to be a 'no-brainer'.... Even more so, since battery-storage capabilities are fast reducing in cost. Wind generating ability is also, I believe, cost-effective.And have we even considered the idea of a nuclear generating capability?The value of electricity that is generated by the sun should be HIGHER than the cost of BELCo's generation.... Solar generation should be ENCOURAGED, not penalised by an ever-decreasing FIT.

Satoshi Isback3 weeks ago People should be encouraged to go solar. There is so much sun in Bermuda, it's ridiculous and terrible for the environment that this entire island runs off imported fuel. And what is this fuzz about mandatory fixed cost even if you're disconnected from the grid? Government should be sued for this corruption. The fact of the matter is that Belco is doomed to die, they pollute and they're overpriced. The government shouldn't try to save them, they should subsidize solar panels and batteries for the average Bermudian instead so we can get rid of these disgusting chimneys that give people lung cancer.

Joe Zajac4 weeks ago Why is Government & the RA still even talking about offshore wind? Can anyone do the math for INTERMITTENT electricity generation? The growing cost of the dream is in the $250 MILLION to $400+ MILLION range. That cost will be passed on to consumers. Then add Return on Investment, guaranteed income flow, constraint payments, infrastructure upgrades by BELCO, etc. Now add in the cost of BELCO's fossil fuel generators to be on standby 24x7 when the intermittent wind power drops, or there is no wind! How will our electricity rates go down? Green UK has the highest electricity rate in the industrialized world. Consumers are getting hit with BILLIONS of Pounds in extra charges from wind farm owners who inflated the generation numbers big time. BILLIONS!!!! The former energy czar Miliband even admitted the models used by the vendors to estimate electricity generation were off - big time! OFF BIG TIME!!! Ed Miliband admits wind farms will generate less power than thought https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/other/ed-miliband-admits-wind-farms-will-generate-less-power-than-thought/ar-AA1Pqde3UK: Britons paying hundreds of millions to turn off wind turbines as network can't handle the power they make on the windiest days https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156British taxpayers to shoulder £3bn energy bill as turbines switched off in high winds https://www.gbnews.com/news/british-taxpayers-huge-bill-energy-turbines-switched-off-high-windsBrits Shell Out $1.26 Billion To Shut Off Wind Farms As Grid Struggles https://climatechangedispatch.com/brits-shell-out-1-26-billion-to-shut-off-wind-farms-as-grid-struggles/

Ian Campbell3 weeks ago

Rory Gorman 3 weeks ago That Belco went ahead and installed electricity-generation equipment capable of being converted to use LNG is on them. We the taxpayers should not be held hostage to that arrogant decision.The re-gasification process I believe involves mooring a tanker in the vicinity of the Oil Docks and discharging its cargo over a period of two weeks, it being then immediately replaced by another arriving tanker. The re-gasification will occur on a purpose-built barge. For safety reasons having to do with the explosive capability of a fully- loaded, high-pressure LNG tanker, that barge has to be at least a half-mile offshore and surrounded by an exclusion zone of 1 mile in diameter.In the event of an explosion, is a half-mile enough distance to insulate the existing petrol, diesel and other fuel storage tanks beside the Oil Docks from the impacts of such a catastrophe? I wouldn't want to be a nearby resident or a worker at those facilities testing that hypothesis.The gas will have to be piped to Belco. Further risk of leaks, ruptured pipes, etc. along the way. Again, I'd prefer not to be one of the guinea-pig residents along that pipeline.LNG is a stupid idea for Bermuda. Why are we still talking about it?

Filters

Total posts: 61

There are 61 projects available.

No values available.

Selected zero tag filters.