Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I understand the LNG terminal originally died a death because it did not make economic sense. The grid cost associated with the terminal made it uneconomic. I do not know whether this has been analysed. Perhaps Professor Howarth might have an analysis he can present in this respect. My understanding is that consideration is being given to the application of a new floating terminal, rather than a fixed LNG terminal. I read in the newspapers that it is possible that the grid cost may not now apply. I do not know how that could be the case. I do not know whether the economics of the project depend on the Moffat interconnector being revised to operate as a reverse-flow terminal. The Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators said that the reverse-flow proposal shows no economic sense.

A cost-benefit analysis has not been presented to support that reverse-flow facility. I am sorry if I am getting very technical but we should be careful in that regard. People on all sides may believe that this is a sure-fire economic project but all my analysis over the years would indicate that it is dead in the water and does not make sense economically unless the grid cost is removed or the Moffat interconnector is changed in some way to make it viable. Has the MaREI Centre carried out an analysis on that in its modelling of the interconnectors?