Dáil debates

Tuesday, 8 February 2005

4:00 pm

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin (Kerry South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 69: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the recent comments from the director of a publication (details supplied) that the proposed gas field on the River Corrib should be built offshore; if he anticipates any re-evaluation of the development options for the gas field; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3589/05]

Photo of Noel DempseyNoel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not been made aware of the comments to which the Deputy refers in her question.

The development of the Corrib gas field, which is situated some 70 kilometres off the coast of County Mayo, has received the necessary statutory approvals, consents and licences for the development of the field and work on the project has commenced. The developers expect that first gas will flow in early 2007. I do not, therefore, envisage any change to the content of these approvals which have been granted on the basis of independent advice in all cases.

The Deputy will be aware that An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the terminal in its current location in October 2004. This decision is at present subject to two claims for judicial review.

In January 2001, the developers submitted to my Department a plan of development for the Corrib gas field. It states that, in terms of facilities engineering, the area in which Corrib is located is characterised by a harsh marine environment, being directly exposed to the Atlantic fetch, a lack of existing hydrocarbon production infrastructure and the presence of active fishery industry interests.

Section 4 of the plan of development sets out the proposed concept — an onshore terminal — and the alternative offshore concepts considered. The alternative offshore concepts were considered and eliminated in the plan of development due to a number of considerations, including the following: the water depth and hostile nature of the environment at Corrib do not favour the use of a fixed steel jacket or guyed tower — the latter has not been used outside the benign environment of the Gulf of Mexico; the floating production concepts are similarly not ideally suited to extended field life in the prevailing harsh environment, with large bore high pressure gas export risers being a particular design issue; and remote control buoy technology has not been developed for the extreme environmental conditions experienced at Corrib and development of an acceptable, reliable system could not be guaranteed within the proposed project timescale. These considerations also include that all the proposed manned facilities options incur high operational expenditure and have increased adverse safety implications, particularly with respect to offshore transfer of personnel; the high capital cost of all the floating or fixed platform options combined with the requirement for extensive gas transport infrastructure rendered the options sub-economic with predicted Corrib reserves and envisaged gas sale prices; and the relatively dry nature of the Corrib gas, eliminating the need for offshore processing, and high reservoir productivity, reducing the number of wells, allow the use of much simplified production facilities with high reliability. This permits the practical adoption of sub-sea production technology for Corrib.

In December 2000, my Department requested from the developers the results of its alternative concept studies. These were examined and reviewed in January 2001 by the consultant petroleum engineer advising my Department. He advised the Department that the developers of the Corrib gas field should not be required to change or consider changing the Corrib development scheme.

The House will appreciate that, given that the Corrib gas field development scheme has received all appropriate consents, I am not in a position, nor would it be appropriate, to initiate a process aimed at the fundamental change to the concept envisaged in the Deputy's question.

Photo of Tommy BroughanTommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some gremlins got into our question and it did not come out exactly as we submitted it. Does the Minister share the concerns about the fragile ecosystem of the north-west Mayo area around Erris? Does he believe that a proper evaluation should be considered by the Government? For the past 20 years, Shell has faced the least regulation of oil and gas companies in the world in this area. Could Shell and its partners be made to re-examine this?

The Minister expects gas flows from early 2007. What percentage of our gas usage will come from the Corrib field by 2010? What prospects are there for other significant finds in that coastal area?

Photo of Noel DempseyNoel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This has been the subject of exhaustive evaluation. Approvals were granted by the Department. Under the Petroleum and other Minerals Development Act, as amended, there was a lease demising the petroleum in the leasehold area. There was a plan of development under the Gas Act. Pipeline consent was given, with 32 compulsory acquisitions of rights over land and one compulsory acquisition of land later in 2002. Under the Continental Shelf Act, as amended, there was consent to construct a structure on the continental shelf. Under the Foreshore Act, a licence was issued in May 2002 and An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the terminal. The development concepts that I mentioned were looked at in great detail and the prevailing view, because of its location in the Atlantic Ocean, was to grant consent to those proposals that were accepted.

I have no information that anything more will be available in that area but have been told anecdotally that once there has been a find in a particular area, there may be something more.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree that in all the evaluations listed, nowhere has proof been presented that an on-shore pipeline for untreated gas is safe floating in a bog, which will be the position with the nine kilometre pipeline? Why does the Department allow a situation where houses are within 70 metres of that pipeline? That would be the standard if this was a refined gas pipeline but, given that barometric pressure can be four times that in a refined gas pipeline, the distance to any house from that potentially unsafe pipeline should be at least 250 metres. Can anyone show me proof that such a pipeline floating in a bog is safe?

Photo of Noel DempseyNoel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We established independent bodies to judge these matters from a planning point of view. The Deputy might know more about on-shore production of oil and gas but I presume that An Bord Pleanála employed all the experts needed to find out if this is safe and decided it is safe on that basis.