I commend the Tánaiste on the exceptional diligence with which he has handled the energy question. I hope, in relation to the operation of An Bord Gáis, that he will be forthcoming on the general strategy which he proposes to operate in this area. There are a number of entirely unsatisfactory problems facing members of the Houses of the Oireachtas in dealing with this question. I do not know, and I am not able to comment on the precise agreement between An Bord Gáis, the State and Marathon. Unless one has, in relation to the Kinsale Gas field, the precise basis of the agreement, it is quite impossible for any Deputy to talk about raising the moneys and supporting the raising of the moneys contained in the proposal for the amendment of the Gas Act, 1976. We do know that there is a substantial field. It has been stated that the Cork gas field produces 125 million cubic feet per day. We do not know how much will be taken each day. Can the Minister say what exactly is being taken out of this field each day? What exactly is being paid per 1,000 cubic feet? At what rate of extraction is this production agreed? Whether it be the United Kingdom, France or any of the other countries with an interest in this area I would submit that members of their national Legislatures have all this information fully available in public. It is absolutely in the public interest that all the information be placed before this House.
I want to ask some critical and necessary questions in regard to the situation. So far we have a transmission system from the off-take point at Inch to the ESB generating station at Marina. I should like to know what exactly the ESB are paying as of now for their product. Perhaps the information is public knowledge—perhaps the ESB are willing to make it public knowledge—but we are entitled to know. Otherwise it is quite impossible for Members of this House to make an economic assessment of the effective utillisation of this gas.
The Minister said that a spurline to supply Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta at Marino Point was also completed in 1977. I put the question directly to the Minister: What ate NET paying per 1,000 cubic feet as of now to An Bord Gáis Éireann for the gas feedstock which they are using at present? Unless the answer to that simple question is public knowledge I would submit it is not possible at all for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas to assess the overall viability and role of Bord Gáis Éireann vis-à-vis NET or Marathon. Unless that information is publicly available it is out of the question for anybody to comment coherently on this problem.
In an article in the Irish Independent of Thursday, 26 June, 1980 it was stated by Colm Rapple:
NET is getting its supplies of natural gas this year at little more than 64p per 1,000 cubic feet. That is the price being paid by Bord Gáis to Marathon and it is about eight times below the energy related price of natural gas.
He went on to say:
In other words, to buy oil of an equivalent amount would cost eight times as much.
I put it to the Minister: is Colm Rapple right or wrong? The public and these Houses are entitled to know.
The Minister further said in the course of his remarks:
Spur pipelines were constructed to the ESB generating station at Aghada in 1979 and to the IDA industrial estates at Little Island and the Mahon Peninsula.
What is being paid by the ESB in relation to their production facility at Aghada? What is being paid for the gas from this spur pipeline? From public statements made by the board we know what they pay for oil; they do not particularly hide the cost per ton of oil into their conventional oil-fired generating stations. There is no way in which I would give an unqualified endorsement of the Bill before the House without having that information. The Minister said also that a further extension of the natural gas pipeline to Ringaskiddy was recently completed. He said that this will supply Irish Steel and the IDA industrial estate at Ringaskiddy. What is the precise agreement between Irish Steel Limited and An Bord Gáis? It is impossible — and will be impossible in the years ahead — for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas to talk about NET, about the ESB, about Irish Steel Limited, to deal with them even in the context of the public capital programme, unless we have the basic information on their present energy inputs. Indeed, the feedstock inputs in relation to NET are of such magnitude and of such critical importance that, without that information, this House simply is not in a position to comment effectively. Naturally the extensions of the natural gas pipeline are going into the IDA industrial estate at Ringaskiddy and into their industrial estates at Little Island and the Mahon Peninsula. The House is entitled to know what An Bord Gáis, the Department of Energy, the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism and the IDA are offering prospective industrialists at any of those industrial estates. What price is it being suggested those industrialists will be obliged to pay for the use of natural gas? These questions are of fundamental importance.
We are dealing with such a finite resource that I might draw one scenario at present in relation to one of its major users, NET. It is conceivable that natural gas is extracted under agreement with An Bord Gáis who, in turn, have an agreement with Marathon. It is conceivable that at present Irish people are using natural gas, from a finite natural resource, to make fertiliser at a massive loss, portion of which apparently is being exported to some European and Asian markets at a loss. Therefore, it is conceivable that the people in those countries are benefiting from that finite resource because, by all accounts, NET are getting a very cheap feedstock. Therefore, although NET are making a substantial loss those countries are benefiting. Therefore, it could even be argued that from natural gas off the Irish coast at Kinsale some farmers in Europe are spreading natural gas fertiliser on their fields with the help of a massive subsidy from the Irish people.
I fear that there will be serious argument when there becomes available the full information about what is happening in respect of this complex matter. I know that the Minister has a great interest in this area and that he has no preconceptions in regard to it. I know also that he is a politician who is totally willing to clear the air on issues of such seriousness. Because of this I wish to put before him the following evidence which was taken before the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies on 2 July last. I quote from page 32 of the Minutes of Evidence:
Senator Cooney.— Yours is a 20year contract. What are the provisions in it for renewal?
Mr. Crumlish.—It is related to the life of the field and at the time of signing or drawing up the contract the life of the field was determined as 20 years from the start of production. Our contract runs for 20 years from commencement of production, from 1979.
As reported at page 31, there was the following exchange:
Senator Hillery.—What is the duration of the contract for the natural gas?
Mr. McSweeney.—Twenty years.
Senator Hillery.—But it is escalating?
Professor O'Donnell.—There is an escalation clause, I think I said 12 years earlier. The escalation clause is based on the average of the bulk price for 12 months and not 12 years.
Various other questions arose during that session because it had been suggested by a number of Deputies, including the Chairman of the Committee, that there was an element of subsidy. This is the kind of issue that must be cleared rapidly in the House.
The Minister tells us that as a result of the availability of Kinsale gas in the Cork area about 600 extra jobs have been created to date, but I should like to know what these jobs are. I presume that about 430 of them are NET jobs and that the remainder are at the Aghada power station and within the field itself. However, the question arises of whether we are producing jobs which have any rationality behind them or whether we are producing jobs based on a finite resource, the exploitation and determination of which could well result in a situation in which the jobs are produced at a high cost to the nation while the question of the strategy on the use of natural gas nationally has not been clarified. I am extremely concerned about the development and the progress in this matter in recent years.
I would make a point also in regard to the natural gas being used for routine or conventional town gas consumption. I do not regard this as being the predominant issue, though the Minister might be inclined to make major play of it. I presume that the total national town gas capacity is in the region of 12 million to 13 million cubic feet per day. It was suggested in 1976 that the figure was 11 million cubic feet. I should like to have a figure of confirmation from the Minister on that. The total national town gas capacity must be judged in the context of the Cork field which, at normal production, has a capacity of apparently ten times the figure I have mentioned. That would be about 125 million cubic feet per day. I should be pleased if the Minister would correct me in the event of any of my assumptions being wrong but, having regard to the lack of information concerning this matter, it is almost impossible to comment coherently on the situation. Perhaps Deputies have not been diligent enough in tabling questions in this regard. However, am I correct in assuming that, if all the national town gas requirements were to be catered for fully tomorrow morning, assuming that all the necessary pipelines had been installed, we would still be using only about 10 per cent of the Cork field? I ask this question because it is vital that we put the Kinsale field and its exploitation in a proper economic perspective. That is what I have been trying to do since I was appointed as spokesman for my party on energy matters. Deputy Pattison has now taken over that role.
One must ask also the question of what would be the economic price that might be charged to town gas consumers for the availability of this gas. I do not think that the Minister has a clear mind on this matter. Would it be the price which An Bord Gáis would negotiate with Marathon, for instance?
By way of final comment, I might add that my membership of the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies during the past two or three years has been a fascinating exercise in that we have had the opportunity of meeting representatives from the various bodies and discussing with them the various issues raised. One of the points that we have made consistently, whether we were talking about Bord na Móna supplying turf to the ESB or about anything else, was that an economic price should be paid by the consumers of finite natural resources and that we should be very careful in exploiting those resources, whether they be natural turf deposits or gas deposits off Kinsale Head or any other deposits. It is in that general context that I put these questions to the Minister. I regret that I shall not have the opportunity of remaining to hear his reply. I must attend a meeting of the committee to which I have been referring but I look forward to reading later in the Official Report what the Minister has to say. I wish the Minister well in what one might call vital economic strategy decisions in this area in the months ahead. These are decisions that should be taken rapidly. They should be put to the people without delay. Our prospects in terms of the economic situation, of the energy situation and of our future industrial development are such that firm decisions, irrespective of their electoral popularity or otherwise, should be taken and made known widely. I am confident that the Minister is capable of accomplishing the necessary strategy in that regard.