I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this matter, which has seen significant developments in recent days. I am delighted with these developments and I believe they offer an opportunity for both sides to move forward.
Over the past three months, I have been endeavouring at every opportunity I could to create the conditions that would allow this matter to be resolved. During that time, and following contact through an intermediary with the five men, I ordered a full safety review of the Corrib onshore upstream pipeline. Subsequent to this, I increased the monitoring and supervision of the project. On 25th August last I appointed Advantica Consultants to conduct this safety review and more recently I announced a public consultation process as part of the safety review including a two day public hearing in the locality to take place on 12th and 13th October.
Deputies will recall that the Corrib issue was discussed in the House on a number of occasions last week. The Taoiseach commented on the matter during Leader's Questions and my colleague Minister of State Gallagher also addressed the House on the issue. Prior to that I myself dealt with this matter in some detail at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
All participants in these debates sought movement on the issue. Following the debates I contacted both sides in an effort to break the impasse and indicated to them that the Government would appoint a mediator if both sides were willing to participate in a mediation process. I then called on both parties to create the conditions which would allow such a process to commence immediately. I’m glad to report to the House that both sides responded positively to my initiative.
It is my hope that the progress made to date, along with the appointment of a mediator, will allow all those concerned to participate fully in the public consultation process of the safety review and to work together to resolve the difficulties that have arisen.
The safety review of the onshore upstream gas pipeline will be thorough and comprehensive and will be carried out by independent internationally recognised experts. Advantica, the successful bidder, is a world leader in the development and application of advanced hazard and risk assessment technologies for gas pipelines.
This safety review will critically examine all relevant documentation relating to the design, construction and operation of the pipeline and associated facilities. Advantica has been asked to identify deficiencies, if any in relation to the safety and to make recommendations as to how these can be remedied.
I have been conscious that people who have views relating to the safety of the pipeline should have the opportunity to have those views considered by Advantica. Views are now being invited from local residents, communities and any interested party. Advantica have visited the Corrib Site as part of their work and, as I have stated, a two-day public hearing will be held in Mayo next week. The hearing will be chaired by John Gallagher S.C. This hearing is an opportunity for everyone locally who has concerns to clearly express those concerns and to ensure that all safety issues are brought to the attention of Advantica for full consideration.
Some comments have been made that the Safety Review will not deal with the issue of proximity. This is untrue.
No Safety Review could take place without full consideration of the issue of proximity. It is the issue which has been at the centre of genuine local concerns about the project. Advantica know that it is an issue which has to be dealt with fully and explicitly in their work and it will be.
Another area of concern for local people is the ongoing safety of the pipeline if it was in place. It has been commented, incorrectly that there is no State agency with specific responsibility for onshore upstream pipeline safety. This is quite simply untrue.
I have specific powers in relation to the safety of the gas pipelines and I will use all legislative mechanisms available to me to ensure that safety in installation and operation, of such pipelines, is being addressed and policed properly.
I accept that in order to allay fears, there is a necessity to spell out more clearly the safety regime which will be in place before the first gas flows through the pipelines from the Corrib Field. It is my intention, as outlined in the House last July that a clear regime for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline will be in place. This will be an open and transparent system and will ensure that the highest standards of safety will apply.
Back to Top
Obviously, if Advantica put forward any recommendations on these issues in their final report I will take them fully into account in the preparation of the final consents.
As the House is aware, both sides responded positively to my indication on Thursday last that the Government would appoint a mediator provided both sides were willing to respond positively. The response was positive, the injunction was lifted and the men released.
I am now moving, in consultation with both sides, to identify a person or body who might be willing to undertake that work. It is my intention that by this weekend a list of possible mediators will be provided to both sides to establish their acceptability and to see if we can come up with an agreed name. As soon as that process is complete, the mediator will then commence the work.
Despite comments reported in the media from sources in the local community I am satisfied that both sides are now adopting a very positive approach to resolving the issues between them. For example, both sides co-operated fully in a visit to the site this morning, two local people were given access to see the work and inspection being carried out by the developers at the request of the local people. This is a very helpful development and I would like to thank both sides for their co-operation. I hope that we can continue in this constructive manner into the future.
I would also like to take this opportunity to deal with the issue of the Corrib gas field in a more general manner.
It is important I believe to clearly state the factual and legal basis regarding the gas field.
My Department is responsible for the regulatory aspects of petroleum exploration and development. Authorisations were granted for the Corrib gas field under a number of provisions. Under the Continental Shelf Act 1968, authorisation was given for the construction of the sub-sea facilities within the continental shelf designated areas. My predecessor also gave consent for the plan for the development of the field under the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960. Under the Gas Act 1976, as amended, consents were given for the construction of a gas pipeline from the gas field through the offshore up to the terminal building. A foreshore licence was also granted under the Foreshore Acts.
In accordance with EU directives, an environmental impact assessment was carried out and an Environmental Impact Statement was submitted with each application for consent or approval.
It has been suggested over the course of the debate that the terminal be sited offshore. I can only deal with the reality – which is that the proposal made by the developer to my Department was for an on-shore terminal only. This on-shore terminal was considered by the developer to be the most appropriate. I understand that it is now becoming common practice to place terminals on-shore rather than at sea. After consideration of a number of sites of entry for the pipeline the developers proposed to bring it ashore at Dooncarton in Broadhaven Bay. This proposal, which has since been approved, was to run the pipeline for 9kms to the terminal site.
That is the formal and legal position. I would be delighted to have a debate with the Opposition on our natural resources policy. I have previously outlined the three different options available to us to exploit our natural resources. Firstly, we can leave the resources untouched; secondly, we can choose to spend taxpayers’ money on offshore exploration; or, thirdly, we can licence the private sector to do so.
I would like to know if anyone is seriously suggesting that we would leave our natural resources in the ground and untouched? This would leave us 80 per cent dependent on imports. Or is anyone saying that the State should gamble as much as €20 million per well of taxpayers money, at odds of over thirty to one?
The remaining option left to the State is licensing the private sector to undertake this risk and accrue the associated reward, after a 25 per cent tax take. The rationale behind the current terms is to encourage exploration in Irish waters. Despite the allegation that they are overly generous, there have been very low levels of exploration over the past 30 years. For example, this year no well will be drilled.
I have stated previously, and will continue to state that if the situation changes and Ireland emerges as a potentially productive area, the Government will not hesitate to introduce terms which secure a higher take for the Irish people.
I understand that Deputies will now have an opportunity to make statements on the Corrib issue and I look forward to a constructive debate. I think it is clear that, while the matter is by no means resolved, significant progress has been made which can be built on through the mediation process as well as the safety review and public hearing.
I look forward to this process taking place in the coming weeks.