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

Question 320: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the initiative by a group (details supplied) on 6 November 2006 that an independent public commission of inquiry be established in order that investigations can be held into optimum development concept for the Corrib gas project and that community consent be the critical criterion in the development concept; his views on whether this proposal outlines a transparent and democratic method for determining the way the Corrib gas project can be developed; when the Government will respond to this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37408/06]

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

There is effectively nothing new in this idea. The Deputy will be aware that I have been endeavouring at every opportunity to create the conditions that would allow the difficulties associated with the project to be resolved with the assistance of independent bodies and individuals.

I would like to emphasise that in the case of the Corrib gas field, all of the required statutory approvals are in place. These approvals were only given after intense scrutiny of the various applications made to my Department. It was only after my predecessor was fully satisfied both in relation to the technical, safety and environmental aspects of the proposals that approval was given.

Authorisations were granted for the Corrib gas field under a number of provisions. Under the Continental Shelf Act 1968, authorisation was given for the construction of the sub-sea facilities. Consent was also given for the Plan of Development of the field under the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960. Under the Gas Act 1976, as amended, consent was given for the construction of a gas pipeline from the gas field through the offshore up to the terminal building. A foreshore licence was also granted under the Foreshore Acts. In accordance with EU directives, an environmental impact assessment statement was submitted with each application for consent or approval. In addition, planning permission was granted by An Bord Pleanála for the gas terminal.

Arising from local concerns about safety, I had a further comprehensive safety review of the onshore upstream gas pipeline carried out by Advantica consultants last year. Advantica is a world leader in the development and application of advanced hazard and risk assessment technologies for gas pipelines.

It has been my priority that people who have views relating to the safety of the pipeline should have the opportunity to have those views considered by Advantica. During the period of the review, views were invited from local residents, communities and any interested party. A two-day public hearing was also held in the locality.

The draft safety review was presented to the community and further comments were invited before the report was published. The Advantica report found that proper consideration to safety had been given. Moreover, the review found that so long as a number of measures were implemented, the project would carry a substantial safety margin and that both the pipeline and route should be accepted as meeting or exceeding international best practice.

A separate Technical Advisory Group, which supervised the safety review, made a series of further recommendations, covering, among other things, issues of design code, the drawing up of a Pipeline Integrity Management Plan and a range of measures on which the developer would have to gain approval to ensure that the actual construction and installation of the pipeline would be to highest international standards.

I published the full details of all of these recommendations in May of this year. The developer, Shell, has accepted the recommendations made by both Advantica and the Technical Advisory Group and has committed itself to meeting all of these requirements fully. Shell has notified my Department that they are well advanced with the additional work necessary to comply with these requirements.

I also appointed Mr. Peter Cassells as mediator in the dispute. Mr. Cassells was appointed following consultation with the protestors and Shell. Both sides agreed to this appointment. Mr. Cassells reported in July 2006. Shell has accepted the recommendations made by the mediator. Shell has indicated publicly that, in line with Mr. Cassells' recommendations, it is considering alternative pipeline routes and will consult widely when it has come to a conclusion in relation to options.

In conclusion, I think that any reasonable person will agree that the Advantica, the Technical Advisory Group and the Cassells reports have now dealt with the local concerns relating to this project. It is unfortunate that a number of the protestors have rejected the clearly independent and highly respected assistance which has been harnessed in the efforts to resolve the matter.