Michael Noonan (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 156: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he proposes to examine again all aspects of the Corrib gas issues with particular reference to the need to utilise and make available this important natural resource at the earliest possible date; if he will make one final effort to resolve the outstanding matters which if allowed to continue will do considerable, if not irreparable, damage to the national image; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38770/06]

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 159: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will review his position in relation to the commission of inquiry proposal from the Shell to Sea campaign; his views on face to face talks between representatives of the Erris and north Mayo community and the management teams of companies (details supplied); the way the present stand off will be resolved for the wellbeing of the people of Mayo and Ireland; and the role he is prepared to pursue to find an urgent agreed resolution. [38833/06]

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 175: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the number and nature of the issues which lead to the ongoing Corrib gas field dispute; the extent to which all such issues have been examined; the areas on which resolution or agreement has been achieved; the number of issues outstanding and the best way these might be resolved with a view to enabling the development to proceed and the availability of product for the market here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38769/06]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 366: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources when he expects all the outstanding issues surrounding the development of the Corrib gas field, onshore and offshore, to be resolved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38884/06]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 367: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the number and nature of the issues which lead to the ongoing Corrib gas field dispute; the extent to which all such issues have been examined; the areas on which resolution or agreement has been achieved; the number of issues outstanding and the way these will be resolved with a view to enabling the development to proceed and the availability of product for the market here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38885/06]

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 368: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he proposes to examine again all aspects of the Corrib gas issues with particular reference to the need to utilise and make available this important natural resource at the earliest possible date; if he will make one final effort to resolve the outstanding matters which if allowed to continue will do considerable, if not irreparable, damage to the national image; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38886/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 156, 159, 175 and 366 to 368, inclusive, together.

In view of the strategic importance of the Corrib Gas project, I have, over the past eighteen months, been proactively engaged in efforts to create the conditions that would allow the difficulties associated with the project to be resolved.

My statutory responsibilities in this matter relate to the regulatory aspects of petroleum exploration and development and I would like to emphasise that in this regard 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 addition, An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the gas terminal.

Arising from local concerns about the safety of the onshore upstream gas pipeline, I had a further comprehensive safety review of the 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 was a priority for me that people who had 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 was given to safety issues in the selection process for the design option and route. 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.

Protestors have recently been focusing their concerns on the siting of the terminal at Bellanaboy. Although I do not have a function in relation to planning matters, I would point out that the terminal has undergone a rigorous planning process over a three and a half year period following which An Bord Pleanála granted permission for the terminal. The terminal has been the subject of two applications for planning permission to Mayo County Council, one of which was following an initial refusal by An Bord Pleanála.

I do not believe that there is a basis for a commission of enquiry as the various aspects of this project have been subject to rigorous scrutiny through a number of formal consent processes. The project has already been delayed to a very significant extent and a formal commission of enquiry would inevitably prolong the delay in getting a strategically important resource into production, without serving any useful purpose.

In conclusion, although the current situation at the terminal site is of course regrettable, I think any reasonable person will agree that the Advantica, the Technical Advisory Group and the Cassells reports moved a huge distance towards allaying the local concerns relating to this project. It has always been my priority to encourage dialogue and to enlist the help of independent bodies and individuals, as I have outlined.