Pax Silica plan draws calls for deeper scientific, environmental review
Pax Silica, envisioned as a semiconductor and artificial intelligence hub in New Clark City, would require 3 gigawatts of power and 39 billion liters of water annually. Current plans rely on a mix of solar power and liquefied natural gas (LNG) for energy and reservoirs combined with advanced zero liquid discharge (ZLD) recycling systems for water.
Updated calculations, including land acquisition costs, put upfront investments at ₱301 billion to ₱424 billion ($4.9 billion to $6.8 billion), rising to ₱325 billion to ₱484 billion ($5.2 billion to $7.8 billion) over 50 years. Land requirements exceed 20,000 hectares for solar farms and 390 to 780 hectares for reservoirs, far beyond Pax Silica’s current 1,600-hectare lease and potentially displacing agricultural and community land.
The diversion of this land would have significant food security implications. If planted with rice, corn or sweet potato, the affected land could otherwise feed an estimated 250,000 to 600,000 Filipinos annually — equivalent to 20% to 25% of Tarlac’s population or 10% to 15% of Pampanga’s population. The trade-off between industrial expansion and food production could increase dependence on imports and vulnerability to global price shocks (FAO, 2011; Ofreneo, 2014).
Article continues after this advertisement
The project’s water footprint also presents substantial risks. Reservoirs alone cannot meet demand, especially during El Niño years when rainfall declines by 40% to 60%. Without ZLD recycling, Pax Silica would face chronic water deficits, forcing reliance on groundwater and community water systems.
Such reliance could lead to aquifer depletion, reduced access to potable water and contamination risks from untreated semiconductor wastewater containing heavy metals and toxic chemicals. Once aquifers are contaminated, recovery can be extremely difficult, posing long-term risks to community health and ecosystems (TSMC, 2025; World Bank, 2023).
These figures highlight significant economic, environmental and social trade-offs, including the displacement of farmland, risks to aquifer integrity and long-term dependence on imported LNG. Given these concerns, the signing of the Pax Silica agreement should be postponed until competent scientists conduct comprehensive feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments. Policymakers must ensure that industrial development does not undermine food security, access to potable water and climate resilience.
Energy requirements
Pax Silica’s demand for 3 gigawatts of embedded generation is planned to be met through a hybrid mix of solar power and LNG.
The 2-gigawatt solar component would require approximately 20,000 hectares of land, mostly off-site in Central Luzon. Factoring in land purchases at ₱20 billion ($322 million) and capital expenditures of ₱124 billion ($2 billion), the solar subtotal reaches ₱144 billion ($2.32 billion).
Article continues after this advertisement
A 1-gigawatt LNG baseload plant within New Clark City would have capital costs ranging from ₱62 billion to ₱93 billion ($1 billion to $1.5 billion). Transmission lines averaging 50 kilometers to connect off-site solar farms would add another ₱8.1 billion to ₱11.2 billion ($131 million to $181 million).
Altogether, the energy infrastructure would require ₱214 billion to ₱248 billion ($3.45 billion to $4 billion), underscoring the substantial upfront investment needed to secure reliable power (IRENA, 2022; Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities, 2026).
Article continues after this advertisement
Water requirements and risks
The project’s water demand is estimated at 39 billion liters annually. To help meet this requirement, reservoirs covering 390 to 780 hectares would have to be constructed.
Land acquisition alone would cost ₱390 million to ₱780 million ($6 million to $13 million), while construction and lining expenses would range from ₱60 billion to ₱115 billion ($968 million to $1.85 billion).
Wastewater recycling through ZLD systems would add ₱10 billion to ₱20 billion ($161 million to $322 million) in capital expenditures and ₱800 million to ₱2 billion annually in operating expenses.
Over 20 years, recycling operating expenses would total ₱16 billion to ₱40 billion ($258 million to $645 million), rising to ₱40 billion to ₱100 billion ($645 million to $1.61 billion) over 50 years.
Water infrastructure would therefore require ₱87 billion to ₱176 billion ($1.4 billion to $2.8 billion) over 20 years and ₱111 billion to ₱236 billion ($1.8 billion to $3.8 billion) over 50 years, highlighting the long-term fiscal burden of sustaining industrial water needs (TSMC, 2025).
Pax Silica’s annual demand of 39 billion liters is equivalent to the amount needed to irrigate thousands of hectares of rice land. Even with reservoirs, rainfall variability — particularly during El Niño years — means supply could fall short.
ZLD recycling technology is therefore considered essential. ZLD can recover 85% to 95% of wastewater, reducing net intake to 6 million to 20 million liters a day. However, it would add ₱10 billion to ₱20 billion in capital costs and ₱800 million to ₱2 billion annually in operating expenses.
Over 20 years, those operating expenses would total ₱16 billion to ₱40 billion. Over 50 years, they would reach ₱40 billion to ₱100 billion.
Without ZLD, Pax Silica could face chronic water deficits, forcing it to rely on groundwater or community water systems.
If ZLD is not implemented, reservoirs alone would not be sufficient to meet demand. Greater groundwater use could lower water tables and affect wells used by households and farmers. It could also reduce access to potable water for residents of Tarlac and Pampanga.
Untreated semiconductor wastewater can contain heavy metals, solvents and toxic chemicals. Without adequate recycling and treatment, contamination of water sources could threaten human health and ecosystems.
Taiwan, Korea and Intel Arizona have adopted recycling systems as part of their water management strategies. Without similar measures, Pax Silica would face water supply and reputational risks (TSMC, 2025; World Bank, 2023).
Failure to adopt ZLD or an equivalent recycling system would provide grounds to consider cancellation or postponement of the project because of the risks to potable water supplies and aquifers. Unlike energy, which can be imported or diversified, water has no substitute, and severely contaminated aquifers can be extremely difficult to restore.
Unless competent scientists confirm that water recycling and reservoir systems can sustainably meet demand without undermining community water supplies, proceeding with Pax Silica would pose substantial risks. Postponement until independent feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments are completed would allow those risks to be evaluated before commitments are made.
Land footprint
Pax Silica’s current lease covers 1,600 hectares, yet the project would require a combined 20,390 to 20,780 hectares for solar farms and reservoirs. This represents an excess of 18,790 to 19,180 hectares beyond the available site.
The implication is that large areas of land in Tarlac, Pampanga and Nueva Ecija could have to be converted to industrial energy use.
Within the 1,600-hectare lease, 550 to 940 hectares, or 34% to 59%, would be occupied by on-site solar facilities and reservoirs, leaving less space for industrial expansion and community use. The disparity highlights the incompatibility between the project’s projected land requirements and its existing land base (IRENA, 2022).
The diversion of 20,390 to 20,780 hectares from agriculture to industrial use would also have food security consequences.
If planted with rice, each hectare could feed 20 to 25 Filipinos annually, meaning the displaced land could feed 408,000 to 520,000 people a year. In corn equivalents, with each hectare feeding 24 to 29 people, the same land could sustain 490,000 to 603,000 people annually.
For sweet potato, a climate-resilient crop, each hectare could feed 12 to 14 people, meaning the diverted land could support 245,000 to 291,000 people a year.
These figures are equivalent to 20% to 25% of Tarlac’s population or 10% to 15% of Pampanga’s population. Diverting the land to industrial energy and water infrastructure could increase dependence on imported staples and vulnerability to global price shocks.
The projected land footprint could therefore displace food production sufficient for roughly a quarter-million to more than half a million Filipinos annually, creating a direct trade-off between industrial expansion and agricultural production (FAO, 2011; Ofreneo, 2014).
Integrated budgetary requirements
When energy and water costs are combined, the total upfront requirement over a 20-year horizon reaches ₱301 billion to ₱424 billion ($4.9 billion to $6.8 billion).
Over a 50-year horizon, the long-term requirement rises to ₱325 billion to ₱484 billion ($5.2 billion to $7.8 billion).
These figures include land acquisition costs for both solar farms and reservoirs, providing a fuller estimate of the project’s financial requirements. The scale of investment means Pax Silica’s viability depends not only on technological feasibility but also on the capacity of the Philippine government and private sector to absorb multibillion-peso infrastructure costs (Thunder Said Energy, 2025).
Sensitivity analysis: Revenue achievement vs. costs
| Revenue achievement | Relative outcome | Fiscal impact vs. costs | Viability assessment |
| 30% | Severe shortfall | Recovers less than one-third of expected income; cannot cover more than ₱300 billion in upfront costs | Unsustainable — large deficits; project would require subsidies |
| 40% | Major deficit | Still insufficient to cover long-term operating expenses of ₱40 billion to ₱100 billion for water recycling, plus LNG imports | Unsustainable — heavy reliance on government subsidies |
| 50% | Break-even risk | Covers about half of projected revenues; infrastructure costs consume most income | Marginal — little fiscal space for reinvestment or community benefits |
| 60% | Partial coverage | Begins to cover operating expenses but leaves a limited margin | Fragile — vulnerable to climate shocks and LNG price volatility |
| 70% | Near viability | Approaches cost recovery; profitability remains narrow | Conditional — viable only if efficiency is maximized |
| 80% | Sustainable path | Revenues begin to match infrastructure costs; some fiscal space emerges | Potentially viable — assumes high efficiency and no major shocks |
The table shows that Pax Silica’s viability is highly sensitive to revenue performance. At 30% to 60% revenue achievement, the project would run deficits, requiring substantial subsidies and increasing debt risks.
Even at 70% achievement, profitability would remain vulnerable to El Niño droughts, LNG price spikes and the operating expenses of water recycling.
At 80% achievement, Pax Silica approaches sustainability, but this assumes high efficiency in its energy and water systems while the project continues to face the projected displacement of more than 20,000 hectares of farmland and the risk of potable water shortages if ZLD recycling is not adopted.
The sensitivity analysis supports postponement or cancellation until independent feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments confirm both revenue reliability and resource sustainability. Without such safeguards, Pax Silica could become a high-cost liability rather than a driver of national development.
Sensitivity analysis: Food security impact of land diversion
| Land diversion | Crop equivalent | People fed per hectare per year | Total people deprived of food supply | Social impact assessment |
| 20,390 to 20,780 hectares | Rice | 20 to 25 | 408,000 to 520,000 | Severe — equivalent to 20% to 25% of Tarlac’s population losing potential staple rice supply |
| 20,390 to 20,780 hectares | Corn | 24 to 29 | 490,000 to 603,000 | Severe — equivalent to 10% to 15% of Pampanga’s population losing potential staple corn supply |
| 20,390 to 20,780 hectares | Sweet potato | 12 to 14 | 245,000 to 291,000 | Major — loss of a climate-resilient staple could weaken drought resilience |
| 20,390 to 20,780 hectares | Bananas | 18 to 24 | 367,000 to 498,000 | Significant — loss of fruit production could reduce dietary diversity |
| 20,390 to 20,780 hectares | Leafy greens | 7 to 9 | 143,000 to 187,000 | Moderate — loss of vegetable production could worsen nutrition gaps |
The table shows that Pax Silica’s projected land footprint — 20,390 to 20,780 hectares diverted from agriculture — could displace food production sufficient for about 250,000 to 600,000 Filipinos annually, depending on the crop equivalent.
In rice terms, the amount is equivalent to the staple requirements of one-fifth to one-quarter of Tarlac’s population. In corn terms, it is equivalent to the needs of 10% to 15% of Pampanga’s population.
Even in sweet potato equivalents, about a quarter-million people could lose the potential supply of a climate-resilient staple.
The social costs compound the fiscal risks. While the financial sensitivity analysis shows that Pax Silica would face major viability problems below 70% to 80% revenue achievement, the food security analysis shows that the agricultural impact remains regardless of revenue performance.
Taken together, the analyses indicate that Pax Silica presents both fiscal and food security risks.
Integrated annex: Fiscal and food security sensitivity analysis
| Scenario | Revenue achievement vs. ₱301 billion to ₱424 billion upfront costs | Fiscal viability | Land diversion | Food security impact | Social viability |
| 30% revenue | Recovers less than one-third of expected income | Unsustainable — large deficits; project would require subsidies | Rice equivalent | 408,000 to 520,000 lose potential staple rice supply | Severe — equivalent to 20% to 25% of Tarlac’s population |
| 40% revenue | Still insufficient to cover operating expenses and LNG imports | Unsustainable — heavy reliance on subsidies | Corn equivalent | 490,000 to 603,000 lose potential staple corn supply | Severe — equivalent to 10% to 15% of Pampanga’s population |
| 50% revenue | Covers about half of projected revenues | Marginal — little fiscal space for reinvestment | Sweet potato equivalent | 245,000 to 291,000 lose potential climate-resilient staple supply | Major — weakens drought resilience |
| 60% revenue | Begins to cover operating expenses | Fragile — vulnerable to shocks | Banana equivalent | 367,000 to 498,000 lose potential fruit supply | Significant — could reduce dietary diversity |
| 70% revenue | Approaches cost recovery | Conditional — viable only if efficiency is maximized | Leafy greens equivalent | 143,000 to 187,000 lose potential vegetable supply | Moderate — could worsen nutrition gaps |
| 80% revenue | Revenues begin to match infrastructure costs | Potentially viable — assumes high efficiency | Mixed staples | 250,000 to 600,000 lose potential food supply, depending on crop | Persistent — food-energy conflict remains |
This integrated annex shows that Pax Silica’s viability is vulnerable on both fiscal and social grounds.
On the fiscal side, the project faces significant deficits below 70% to 80% revenue achievement, requiring subsidies and increasing debt risks. On the social side, the diversion of 20,390 to 20,780 hectares from agriculture could displace food production sufficient for 250,000 to 600,000 Filipinos annually, equivalent to 20% to 25% of Tarlac’s population or 10% to 15% of Pampanga’s population.
Even in the best-case fiscal scenario of 80% revenue achievement, the projected food security impact remains. The analysis therefore indicates that Pax Silica carries both financial and food security risks.
Implications: The need for policy interventions
Food security risks: Reservoirs and solar farms could displace farmland and reduce rice and vegetable production.
Aquifer integrity: Industrial water demand could increase pressure on community water sources and create contamination and depletion risks.
Climate vulnerability: El Niño droughts could worsen water shortages and leave reservoirs underfilled.
Governance concerns: Transparency, benefit-sharing and strict regulation would be needed to prevent industrial demand from taking precedence over household and agricultural needs.
1. Food security risks
The diversion of 20,390 to 20,780 hectares from agriculture to solar farms and reservoirs would directly reduce land available for staple food production.
If planted with rice, corn or sweet potato, this land could feed 250,000 to 600,000 Filipinos annually — equivalent to 20% to 25% of Tarlac’s population or 10% to 15% of Pampanga’s population.
Reservoir construction alone would consume 390 to 780 hectares, displacing agricultural land and reducing land available for vegetable and root crop production.
This land-use conflict could increase dependence on imported staples, increase vulnerability to global price shocks and undermine national food sovereignty (FAO, 2011; Ofreneo, 2014).
2. Aquifer integrity
The project’s annual water demand of 39 billion liters would place significant pressure on local aquifers.
Without ZLD recycling, reservoirs alone could not meet demand, potentially forcing greater reliance on groundwater extraction. This could contribute to aquifer depletion, land subsidence and contamination risks from untreated semiconductor wastewater containing heavy metals and solvents.
Severe aquifer contamination can be extremely difficult to reverse and could threaten potable water access for residents of Central Luzon (TSMC, 2025; World Bank, 2023).
3. Climate vulnerability
Reservoirs depend on rainfall, yet El Niño events can reduce precipitation by 40% to 60%, leaving reservoirs underfilled and industrial demand unmet.
During drought years, households and farmers could face rationing while Pax Silica operations continue to require large water allocations. This could create competition between industrial continuity and community water needs, weaken climate resilience and worsen agricultural losses (Mendoza, 2026).
4. Governance concerns
The scale of investment — ₱301 billion to ₱424 billion upfront, rising to ₱325 billion to ₱484 billion over 50 years — would require substantial transparency and regulation.
Without strong governance, industrial demand could take precedence over household and agricultural needs, leading to inequitable resource allocation.
Benefit-sharing mechanisms, cooperative land-use models and independent feasibility studies would be needed to safeguard public resources and community interests (Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities, 2026).
5. Economic burden
The fiscal requirements of Pax Silica are substantial. Water recycling alone would add ₱40 billion to ₱100 billion in operating expenses over 50 years, while LNG imports would expose the Philippines to volatile global fuel markets.
If projected revenues fall short, particularly below 70% to 80% achievement, the project could run deficits, requiring subsidies and increasing debt risks.
Such costs could divert public funds from services such as education, health and climate adaptation, potentially turning the project into a fiscal liability rather than a driver of national development (Thunder Said Energy, 2025).
Recommendations
1. Food security safeguards
Land-use zoning: Require solar farms and reservoirs to be located on idle, degraded or marginal lands rather than prime agricultural areas. This would protect Central Luzon’s role as a major rice- and corn-producing region.
Compensatory agriculture program: For every hectare diverted, require Pax Silica to fund equivalent food production elsewhere, such as irrigation upgrades in Nueva Ecija or Isabela.
2. Water security safeguards
Mandatory ZLD recycling: Make ZLD technology a nonnegotiable requirement. Without ZLD, the risks of aquifer depletion and contamination would be too high.
Community water allocation: Legally guarantee priority access to potable water for households and farmers before industrial use.
Independent hydrological studies: Require third-party hydrologists to model reservoir sustainability under El Niño drought scenarios before project approval.
3. Climate resilience measures
El Niño contingency planning: Establish buffer reservoirs and rainwater harvesting systems to supplement industrial demand during drought years.
Adaptive water pricing: Introduce tiered pricing that penalizes excessive industrial water use during periods of climate stress while protecting community access.
Regional benchmarking: Compare Pax Silica’s water footprint with those of ASEAN semiconductor hubs, including Singapore and Malaysia, to ensure Philippine resilience standards are not compromised.
4. Governance and transparency
Independent environmental impact assessment and feasibility studies: Require studies conducted by universities, hydrologists and agricultural economists, not solely by project proponents.
Public disclosure: Require annual publication and auditing of water and energy consumption data to ensure accountability.
Benefit-sharing mechanisms: Require Pax Silica to contribute to local cooperative funds for farmers displaced by land conversion.
5. Economic safeguards
Revenue performance clauses: Tie government support to revenue achievement thresholds. If revenues fall below 70% of projections established by the feasibility studies, the Pax Silica project should be canceled.
Debt risk assessment: Require the Department of Finance to model debt-servicing impacts before committing ₱300 billion to ₱484 billion in infrastructure costs.
Alternative investment pathways: Redirect funds to decentralized renewable energy and agro-industrial modernization if Pax Silica proves fiscally unsustainable.
Option to stop or cancel Pax Silica
If these safeguards cannot be implemented under Philippine conditions, cancellation or indefinite postponement should be considered.
The principal risks are:
- Food security:Up to 600,000 Filipinos annually could lose the potential staple food supply represented by the diverted agricultural land.
- Water security:Millions could face risks to potable water access or aquifer contamination if ZLD is not adopted.
- Fiscal risk:₱300 billion to ₱484 billion in infrastructure costs could become unsustainable if revenues fall short, increasing the burden on taxpayers.
Under such a scenario, Pax Silica could become a costly liability that weakens national resilience. Cancellation would avoid the projected risks to food security, community water supplies and fiscal stability.
Conclusion and call to action
The evidence presented indicates that Pax Silica’s current energy and water plans may be technically feasible but would carry substantial economic and environmental costs.
Policymakers should postpone the signing of the agreement until:
- Competent scientists conduct independent feasibility studies.
- Full environmental impact assessment studies are completed.
- Regional renewable energy cooperation and alternative water strategies are evaluated.
Premature commitments could lock the Philippines into a high-cost, high-risk trajectory that weakens national resilience. Postponement would allow the project’s fiscal, environmental and social risks to be evaluated before binding commitments are made. /dm
[Teodoro C. Mendoza, Ph.D., is a retired professor and scientist at the Institute of Crop Sciences, College of Agriculture and Food Science, University of the Philippines Los Baños.]