The wind is there and it is also in ‘viable’ speeds for the 18 to 20 wind turbines being proposed for Sikka l-Bajda, according to the government’s assessment made public this week.

And, although long-term average wind speeds recorded onshore at Ahrax Point, Mellieha – at 6.8 metres per second – are on the low end of the scale stated by the Project Description Statement, which had foreseen speeds at between 6.6 and 7.6 metres per second, experts believe speeds will be at least marginally higher further out at sea on the reef itself.

That the wind speed is there was more or less a foregone conclusion. But what is still very much up in the air is whether a private investor will deem the Maltese offshore wind-farm project a viable investment.

At the end of the day, since the project will be wholly private in nature, the assessment that really matters is that of the private sector, which will need to determine if such an investment would pay the appropriate dividends to its shareholders. It is, after all, money that will make the turbines go round.

Indeed, the government had warned in the past that investors will not necessarily be champing at the bit to invest in the project.

As the Malta Resources Authority had observed in its National (renewable energy) Forecast Document, any prospective wind-farm developer for Sikka l-Bajda “would prioritise larger projects and Malta’s project may be given less priority and consequently may be delayed”.

And, more than sheer wind speeds, there are other considerations to take into account in the planning stages of a large-scale wind farm project, which, according to the authority, “involve a number of risks which could lead to the failure of such a project… some risks may not materialise but others could lead to abandoning the project”.

One such remaining risk is that the presence of underwater sinkholes on the reef could impact the turbines’ stability or even limit the area on which they could be built, while others are being dealt with through an Environmental Impact Assessment currently under way.

The EIA is a sensitive one, given concerns over the proposed wind farm’s impact on the delicate marine environment in the area. Some have questioned whether the proposed project would fall foul of the EU’s birds directive insofar as the project’s effect on the nearby cliffs’ protected Yelkouan Shearwater breeding colony.

The EIA’s terms of reference call for several other issues to be addressed, amongst which are the potential effect on the marine ecology and environment, the effects on birds and bats, noise levels, characteristics of the sea and landscape and visual amenity, the area’s geology, geomorphology and palaeontology, impacts on the sea and land, and the impact on human populations.

The government is understood to be leaving no stone unturned in its assessment of the site, for the simple reason that once prospective investors and operators are identified, the more complete the government’s risk assessment, the less riskiness there is for the investor – and hence the electricity generated by the turbines and sold to the national grid will not carry such a high-risk premium.

The approach makes a good deal of sense – the government will hand a prospective investor all the information on a silver platter, and it will know full well what the real risks are when it sits down with interested investors at the negotiating table.

As an EU member state, Malta will undoubtedly need to meet the EU’s renewable energy target. But, quite apart from merely reaching European Union targets, the wind-farm development is becoming more pressing with every passing year.

This is about a lot more than simply falling in line with European norms. With both of the country’s power stations emitting over the national pollution limit, the country being 100 per cent dependent on imported fossil fuels for its energy needs, and with the price of oil so highly dependent on geopolitical stability, or lack thereof, and on fluctuations of OPEC’s mindset, the matter is a pressing one indeed.