Islanders need to know the consequences of energy project

'ARE looks forward to continued development of the Fab Project,' Mr Gaudion concludes, 'which will enable us to develop the biggest opportunity our island has – tidal energy projects.' Earlier, however, he states that: 'We will continue to work closely with local stakeholders and the States of Alderney to further develop our tidal generation proposals, including a proposed converter station in Mannez Quarry in due course, which are separate from the Fab Project.'

'Separate from the Fab project'? But Mr Gaudion has just claimed that the Fab Link will enable the island to develop its tidal energy projects. How is that separate?

He then goes on to say (about the converter station) that, 'This will provide an opportunity at the right time in the future for ARE to come forward with detailed proposals and assessments in order that local stakeholders will be better informed on the basis of facts and evidence, rather than speculation.'

At 'the right time' for who? Presumably he means at the right time for ARE/Fab, which will then have created a fait accompli – 'a sprat to catch mackerel', as someone so aptly described it – by laying the cable that will mean that the States will then find it very difficult to turn down the converter station, even if it is enormous, noisy, light-polluting and a security risk (as the vague plans issued so far seem to indicate).

And now to Mr Gaudion's response to my letter.

'The case for Fab is very compelling,' he writes.

'The existing UK link to France has been in place for nearly 30 years and is insufficient to meet the demand for power trading between these countries. Fab addresses extremely important issues such as energy security (France can provide power to Britain in an emergency – and vice versa) and reducing energy costs by increasing competition in energy markets. These are the drivers of Fab – the project is viable even if there is no tidal generation in Alderney.'

Point taken. So why not just lay a cable from France to England and save yourself the trouble and expense of burying it on Alderney? Or, better for all concerned, why not wait until you have clarity on the viability of the tidal turbines until you lay the cable? After all, as you say, the existing link has been there for nearly 30 years; surely it can wait a few more?

Sadly, the lack of logic does not end at that point.

'Based on the timescales of similar projects,' Mr Gaudion continues (referring to the Fab Link), 'we estimate that construction could start as early as 2018, with a three- to five-year build programme.' He then goes on to say that, 'If the tidal industry develops as planned, we anticipate being able to make a full planning submission for the Alderney converter station (not a power station) in late 2018.'

In other words, in the same year as it plans to starting laying the cable, ARE will have full plans for the converter station.

And in other words, Mr Gaudion and his Fab friends are, as I said in my first letter, engaging in a form of corporate trickery. Instead of presenting what is, in essence, one project for islanders and its government to judge, it is muddying the waters with doubletalk and vague promises.

Speaking of vague promises, the 16 August Fab document in which Mr Gaudion is quoted talks of 'immediate opportunities for fibre-optic broadband connection to the island' and Mr Gaudion talks, in his response to my letter, of the same fibre-optics as well as 'more-affordable energy prices'. None of this, however, is assured; instead it is dangled out there, like another 'sprat to catch mackerel', to entice islanders with what could well end as false hopes.

If there are indeed to be fibre-optics and cheaper electricity – both noble objectives, as is renewable energy – they need to be presented as part of a complete and cogent plan, not a series of nebulous notions that could result in an environmental disaster for the island.

All this also begs another set of questions: If, as Fab wants, the cable is laid across the island, what happens when/if the turbines are successfully installed? Are we then in for another round of digging as another cable (or cables) are brought ashore? Would it not be simpler (and presumably less expensive for Fab/ARE) to do a one-time dig?

In conclusion, a project of this enormity – and it is a single project, despite Mr Gaudion's protestations – needs to have clarity, logic and cohesion. It is this lack of transparency that is leading residents and property owners to question whether they are being hoodwinked.

It really is in Fab/ARE's best interests to be completely above-board and in a position to explain clearly the long-term consequences of this plan.

If we have nothing to fear, then so be it. Lack of clarity and logic, on the other hand, leads us in the opposite direction, perhaps with good reason.

MATTHEW DIEBEL,

139, East 94th Street, 6B,

New York,

NY 10128.