Written answers

Tuesday, 1 March 2005

Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

Offshore Exploration

9:00 pm

Photo of Michael RingMichael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 213: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his views on whether a quantified risk assessment on the Corrib gas field, north Mayo, commissioned by the developer, referenced by the developer, in the copyright of the developer and paid for by the developer as part of the design process of the pipeline is, or can be a sufficient objective appraisal of the safety of the pipeline. [6899/05]

Photo of Michael RingMichael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 214: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if, in regard to the Corrib gas field, north Mayo the quantified risk assessment referred to by him in replies to previous parliamentary questions as having been done by a company (details supplied) is the same as the assessment carried out by in 2002 as part of the design for the pipeline leading inshore from the gas field. [6900/05]

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 216: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will make available for public examination the quantified risk assessment report commissioned by Enterprise Energy Ireland Limited in 2001 on the Corrib gas pipeline; his views on whether this quantified risk assessment is acceptable as an independent quantified risk assessment given that it was commissioned by the industry promoters of the project; if he will consider commissioning a new and independent quantified risk assessment in view of the health and safety fears expressed by the Rossport residents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6902/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 213, 214 and 216 together.

For the information of the Deputy I wish to offer the following data in clarification of the questions raised by him. The quantified risk assessment, QRA, for the Corrib pipeline, which commenced in June 2001, followed by a number of revision details, was undertaken by a firm of consultants, JP Kenny on behalf of the developer. It addresses the risks present during the operational phase of the onshore pipeline only, that is, the section of the pipeline between the mean low water mark and the first isolation valve upstream of the pig trap in the onshore terminal. The purpose of the assessment was to identify and assess all risks associated with the operation of the onshore section of the pipeline. The QRA report made recommendations for risk reduction where appropriate and sought to demonstrate that the residual risk associated with the operation of the onshore pipeline would be reduced to tolerable levels.

Following receipt of the QRA as part of the developers' application for consent to construct a pipeline, my Department commissioned an independent evaluation of the pipeline design code. The report, Corrib Gas Pipeline Project: Report on Evaluation of Onshore Pipeline Design Code, undertaken by Mr. Andrew Johnston, an experienced petroleum pipeline consultant, was submitted to my Department in March 2002. Mr. Johnston used as a basis for his report the design documentation prepared by JP Kenny in conjunction with the developers and contractors.

Mr Johnston's conclusions were as follows. The pipeline design code has been selected in accordance with best public safety considerations and is appropriate for the pipeline operating conditions. The design of the onshore pipeline is generally in accordance with code selection and best national and international industry practice, provided that the actions recommended in section 2.2 are followed. The pipeline is considered to be adequately protected from third party interference by burial to 1.2 m and provision of marker tape above the pipeline. The pipeline is considered to meet public safety requirements as outlined in the selected design code, provided that the actions recommended in section 2.2 are followed.

The recommendations of section 2.2 have been incorporated in the statutory approvals issued for the Corrib pipeline development. I have the option of requesting Mr. Johnston to undertake additional work if deemed necessary as the pipeline development work progresses. Since the QRA report forms part of the deliberate process under which Shell has sought consent to install and commission the pipeline, it would not be appropriate to release the report at this stage.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.