Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

97. To ask the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment if he will advocate against the proposal for a floating LNG in the energy security review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3396/24]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The programme for Government says it does not make sense to develop LNG import terminals importing fracked gas. However, the energy security review is proposing a floating LNG terminal, and we all know it is not possible to verify whether LNG is fracked. Activist groups like Not Here Not Anywhere and Safety Before LNG are vehemently opposed to this and are determined to fight against it. Whether an LNG terminal is on land or sea, it is still an LNG terminal. If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, or in this case an LNG terminal. Why is the Minister going along with this?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government approved and published the Energy Security in Ireland to 2030 report late last year. Its supporting annexes and work programmes of 28 actions are included. The comprehensive report concludes that Ireland’s future energy will be secure by moving from a fossil fuel-based energy system to an electricity-led system, maximising our renewable energy potential, flexibility and, as I said earlier, integration into Europe’s energy systems. With regard to gas, the report determines that Ireland’s natural gas supplies and infrastructure are adequate to meet our demand projections, but Ireland does not have adequate resilience in case of a major disruption to our gas imports. As a transitional temporary measure, we will introduce a strategic gas emergency reserve to address security needs in the short to medium term, to be used only if a disruption to gas supplies occurs. Based on preliminary analysis by my Department, it is anticipated that in terms of delivery options, a strategic gas emergency reserve provided through a storage and importation facility in the form of floating storage and regasification units is one of the technologies that could be appropriate. As a final part of the review of Ireland's energy security, my Department, in consultation with Gas Networks Ireland, will complete a detailed examination of the optimal approach to deliver the emergency gas reserve, and I will return to the Government for a final decision on this later this year.

What we are doing is different from what other countries have done. A number of other countries among our colleagues in Europe have introduced LNG terminals to increase supply. We are not doing that, and that is exceptional, because we cannot increase our gas supply because of the climate limits we have just discussed in answer to the previous question. What we are doing is being explicit and saying this is not to import new gas. It is to respond to international events where we see a heightened risk of energy security disruption to our people, and which threatens our people.

To protect our people, we need a short-term facility while we be build up the safe and secure alternative supplies in renewables, efficiency and interconnection.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister, the leader of the Green Party, is saying he is in favour of this. An LNG terminal is an LNG terminal. Okay, it is a floating LNG terminal rather than an LNG terminal on land. The Minister may say this will not lead to any more reliance on fossil fuels and so on, but I do not understand why that would be that the case. The energy security review explicitly states that this can have private involvement or even be a public-private partnership. How is this different from a commercial LNG terminal like Shannon LNG rejected by An Bord Pleanála only a few months before the energy security review was published? Safety Before LNG wrote to me to say, "We move from the moratorium on LNG terminals and a policy against fracked gas imports which helped get the Greens into power to a non-commercial LNG terminal which would be state owned, diluted down even more to an LNG terminal that would be state controlled to the now vague state-led LNG terminal which the energy strategy defines as commissioned by the state." It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. The Minister is talking about an LNG terminal and it goes against the previous programme he stood for.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, we need security for people. I hope the Deputy would agree that what has happened in recent years, including the Nord Stream gas pipelines being blown up and the Baltic gas interconnector into Finland being broken by an anchor being deliberately dragged across it, presents a risk, low risk as it may be. If it were to arise, the risk to our people is immense because while we would have backup power for a while in the distillate we store close to our power generation stations, in a number of days that would come to an end and we would not be able to turn on the lights in our hospitals, homes and businesses. Our people's lives would be at risk. Sometimes we cannot ignore such security risks and we have to respond to that. That is our duty as a Government.

There are various options to provide for that security issue. We could have a fixed terminal onshore. However, that would potentially be building natural gas assets - fossil fuel assets - that would leave us stranded. We will not need them in the fossil fuel-free future we have. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to look at other measures.

The Deputy asked what the difference is here. The difference is this would not be commercial. This would not be to sell gas. This would not be pumping gas into our system to make a commercial return. It would be purely security strategic. Do other parties and others in this House believe we should ignore that security issue or should we try to protect our people for that eventuality, even though it is a cost and it is a short-term issue because we will have alternatives? An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach more than anyone else knows that a country ignores its own security interests at its own cost potentially, and we cannot do that.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The security argument is being used by the fossil fuel industry to keep western Europe linked to fossil fuel, to keep us addicted to fossil fuels. The biggest security danger is climate change and that is what we need to keep in mind. The answer is to reduce energy usage where possible, which the Minister is not interested in at all given that he has allowed the data centres to keep expanding, and to shift rapidly to renewable energy, bringing increasing amounts of renewable energy onto the grid. Instead, the Minister is locking us into high consumption of dirty natural gas - he cannot give me a guarantee that it will not be fracked gas - for decades to come, hindering State investment in renewables and delaying the transition to a zero-carbon economy. The Minister now says it is all about security, but he told the Dáil that this will also be used for periods when the wind is not blowing. That is not about security.

Not Here Not Anywhere researched this and has not identified any floating LNG terminals which are currently used for the purpose the Minister is talking about. It identified a technical problem with keeping it liquefied. Keeping the gas liquefied requires the use of a lot of energy. Is the plan to keep it liquefied so that it can be brought on stream very quickly or does it go back to gas and therefore need to use a bunch of energy to get it back into liquid form?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to correct what the Deputy said. It is untrue. It will not be used to provide backup when the wind is not blowing. He is right that there is not an example, as Not Here Not Anywhere has said, because all the other energy terminals built in Europe were built to increase supply and that is not the case here. It is exceptional. We are different. We do not offer oil and gas licences. We do not invest in fossil fuel companies. We are part of international alliances recognising the climate is the greatest security risk we face, but we also need to protect our people in the short term. We do that by having a storage facility we can turn to in the event of a disruption.

Yes, there is boil-off and, yes, we keep gas running. Gas Networks Ireland can and will manage that. It will come back with the technical specifications on how to do that. That is the process that is ongoing at the moment. However, there is a fundamental difference between a commercial entity selling gas with more gas being used and a strategic store to respond to international events in Ukraine and elsewhere where there are real-life examples of a risk that our people could be threatened. We will not tolerate that. We need to bring our people through a transition that is just but is also secure. This is only one element - not the key one, but one we cannot ignore - to provide for our security as we transition away from fossil fuel.