Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)

With the permission of the House, I will share time with Deputies Sandra McLellan, Michael Colreavy, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and Seán Crowe.

I have listened to the bluster about jobs and the economy. Nearly two years ago, Sinn Féin put forward job creation proposals. We are willing to discuss them with Members on the other side of the House. It is unfortunate that only one representative of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, remains in the Chamber. Labour Party Deputies have spoken like propagandists for Shell, instead of members of a political party that represents ordinary working people.

I wish to address some of the environmental concerns regarding the siting of the refinery at Bellanaboy. An Taisce has argued against the siting of the refinery at Bellanaboy because it locates a gas processing terminal within the catchment of a major water supply. It is very unfortunate that the Environmental Protection Agency inspector who carried out the investigation into this judged the Bellanaboy site acceptable, based on comparison with the St. Fergus terminal in Scotland. There are two key differences between the two sites. St. Fergus is less than 500 metres from the landing point adjacent to the coastline, whereas the Bellanaboy site is miles inland. Second, St. Fergus poses no threat to drinking water because it is not located in a place where it could pollute public drinking water. An e-mail from the Scottish EPA to An Taisce reads: "When consulted on the location of major industrial facilities, Scottish EPA would normally recommend against placing such facilities at locations which could affect public drinking water sources." Yet, as An Taisce points out, the Bellanaboy refinery is too close to the Carrowmore lake, which provides drinking water for more than 10,000 people.

During the process of constructing the site in 2006 and 2007 Mayo County Council's monitoring system discovered substantial increases in the amount of aluminium in the Carrowmore drinking supply, often substantially in excess of the World Health Organisation's recommended maximum level of 200 micrograms per litre. Even after Shell installed treatment equipment designed to deal with the problem, results dated 31 January 2007 showed aluminium levels at more than 200 times the maximum limit. This is unacceptable.

There is another reason to revisit this deal with Shell. Shell is a major polluter. Global warming is accepted by everyone in this House as a major threat to us all. One of the sources of global warming is increasingly being recognised as gas flaring, the practice where surplus combustible vapours are burned off from a well. It is the most significant source of air emissions from oil and gas installations.

In 2009 The World Bank estimated that around 150 billion cubic metres of natural gas is flared every year, the equivalent of 30% of the gas consumption of the entire European Union. Gas flaring has caused more greenhouse gas emissions than all other sources in sub-Saharan Africa combined, thereby worsening climate change, which has damaging consequences for us all. Nigeria, and in particular Shell's operations in Nigeria, are one of the worst offenders. This will continue until governments around the world, but especially those in the global north, put pressure on the big oil and gas firms.

We need oil and gas, and we need to deal with exploration companies to get it if we have not established our own State company, as Sinn Féin have called for. Why must we reward the big polluters? Why do we have to work with corporations whose brand name is a byword for environmental destruction and unethical practices? Why can we not, both in Corrib and in any future licensing system, say to certain companies that we will not work with them until they clean up their act, not just here in Ireland, but in the global south as well?

Shell argues that the EPA, which is the competent authority in terms of integrated pollution prevention control licensing in Ireland, has confirmed that emissions from the Corrib gas terminal "will not adversely affect human health or the environment and will meet all relevant national and EU standards, when operated in accordance with the conditions of the proposed licence". That is the key point. They are safe "when operated in accordance with the conditions of the proposed licence". As has been shown in the Mayo Courts, Shell has a habit of not acting in accordance with planning permission, building where it has no right to build and attempting to annex land. What gives us reason to believe it will act in accordance with the conditions of the proposed licence? Where exactly does Shell get off giving us a car salesman smile and saying "trust me"?

In Shell, we are dealing with a group of people whose approach to the environment has been to commission glossy advertising and hire PR firms around the world in the hope people will either not notice what they are doing elsewhere or will simply ignore it. There may be a new Government, but Shell is still calling the shots in Mayo, given what we are hearing today.

On this basis, I urge Members to vote in favour of our motion.

See this speech in context