asked the Minister for Energy the size of the choke used in the test well 50/6-1, which gave a flow rate of 2,074 barrels per day; the reason he has not yet made this information available, despite his statement in the Dáil on 5 February that he would do so; if he agrees that the announcement of flow rates is largely meaningless without the choke size; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Oil Exploration.
6.
A one inch choke was used when test flow rates of 2,074 barrels of oil per day were recorded as announced by the operator in respect of the 50/6-1 well. In fact, I conveyed this information to the Deputy by letter on 5 March 1986. Before giving this information I secured the agreement of the operator of the licence under which the well was drilled, on behalf of all the licensees concerned, to the release of this information. The primary purpose of a flow test is, in fact, to measure how reservoir pressure varies with time as flow takes place. Together with geological and geophysical data this enables petroleum engineers to determine the properties of the reservoir and to estimate the volume of reserves-in-place. Flow rates, per se, have no impact on this assessment of reserves-in-place. Their significance in this regard do not depend on the size of choke used.
Consequently, it is not true that the announcement of a flow rate without the choke size is largely meaningless. It gives the basic information that the particular well has flowed hydrocarbons on test.
I must emphasise, to avoid any misunderstanding, that this information is supplied to me with other data by the operator in all instances where flow tests are carried out. All this information is, under the provisions of the licence, furnished to me on a confidential basis, and cannot be released without the consent of the operator acting on behalf of the licensees.
Do I understand from the Minister's reply that that information was available to him on 5 February last when I asked him a question in regard to the choke size?
That would be correct, yes.
Could the Minister then say why he said on 5 February that the information was not available on his file?
I did not have the information on file.
The Minister did not say that the information was confidential. Rather he said that he did not have the information.
I was not asked for the information in the question. I looked through my file when the Deputy raised that point and I told him correctly that it was not on the file I had in my hand.
Does the Minister recall that, in his reply of 5 February, he said he did not have the information available but that he would let me know? Am I correct in saying that on 25 February he sent me a letter—referring to the Dáil debate of 5 February—saying that as the information requested by the Deputy was regarded as confidential information by Gulf Oil, he regretted that he was not at liberty to release that information?
I presume the Deputy still has that letter and he will have had another letter from me more recently on 5 March. I should remind the Deputy of section 46 of the licensing terms which says that an integral part of the legal contract between the Minister and the licensees, by virtue of the fact that licensing terms are incorporated in the licence, section 46 provides, inter alia, that information which the licensee is or may be from time to time required to furnish under the provisions of the licence, will be supplied at the expense of the licensee and will not, except with the consent in writing of the licensees — which will not be unreasonably withheld — be disclosed to any person not in the service or employment of the State until six years have elapsed after being furnished or four years after revocation, surrender or expiry of the licence, whichever is the earlier.
I am endeavouring to elicit two things: the information which was available to the Minister — Deputy Reynolds may have some other questions to ask because he posed some very relevant ones on that date also and did not receive the necessary information. The Minister will recall that the question on the Order Paper on 5 February asked if he would make a statement on the information available to the Government on the reported discovery of oil in block 50/6 in the Celtic Sea. On that date the Minister said that the information in regard to choke size was not available to the Government and he did not have it. He also indicated to Deputy Reynolds——
I said that the information was not on the file which I had in the House.
Precisely, and that is why I am asking the Minister why, when replying to a question to him about the information available to the Government, he did not have that information on his file? He did not say on that date that he would not give it to me because it was confidential. He said that he did not have the information.
This is becoming a conundrum. I said on that occasion that I did not have the information on the file and I offered to get it for the Deputy. In the course of getting that information for the Deputy, as I quoted from the licence terms, the consent of the operator had to be obtained. When I communicated with the Deputy on the date of the first letter, 25 February, that consent had not been received. Subsequently, I received the necessary consent from the operator who had received the consent of the other parties in the consortium. Having received that information I gave it to the Deputy and what he intends doing with it I do not have any idea in the world.
What I am trying to establish is very important for the credibility——
We are going around in circles and we will have to get on with the other questions.
—— of the Minister in dealing with the oil companies and the information he receives from them.
Not for the first time.
It appears from the questioning on 5 February that the Minister did not have the relevant information.
I will have to correct the Deputy if he persists in making incorrect statements. I told the Deputy that I did not have the information — it was not asked for — and at that time, even if I had it on the file, I could not have given it to him. I probably would have given him the information because I tend to give all the information I have at my disposal. Certain pieces of information between the oil companies and my Department are not divulged to the public because they are of value to my Department and the oil company concerned. The oil company have invested a lot of resources in ascertaining that information which is of commercial value to them. Obviously, my Department will not divulge the information because of the relationship we have with all the oil companies.
That is precisely the point I was making. That was not stated on 5 February. In reply to my question about the information available to the Government on the discovery the Minister did not say anything about confidentiality. He said he did not have the information on his file. I am asking him when the information became available to him and what happened between 25 February and 6 March. I put down my question following the letter of 25 February and I received a letter on 6 March saying everything was OK, it was a one inch choke.
To be factual I should like to tell the Deputy that when I got out of my sick bed the day after he received that letter I made contact with Gulf. The company had discussions with their other partners and came back to me and said that the partners were quite happy that the information be given to a person who is not in the employment or service of either the State or the oil companies.
The Minister did have that information on 5 February.
I did not have it on the file when answering the question.
I do not propose to get into the roundabout play game that is going on but I should like to suggest to the Minister, in view of his reply, that this information about the type of oil shows in the testing is not relevant, that it is very important information for the oil company and that if such information is important to the oil company it is equally important to the shareholders of that company and those who may buy or sell shares on the stock market. That is the point I was getting at on the last occasion, that the maximum amount of information should be made available——
This was a private row between Deputy Mac Giolla and the Minister.
I am not getting in to divide them.
But the Deputy is starting a separate row.
That is the only line I followed on the last occasion. I did not follow the row between Deputy Mac Giolla and the Minister.
The Deputy may not be starting a row but he is raising a separate hare.
I have not time for that because I have many more questions to get through. The information is relevant to the shareholders, to those who buy and sell shares. Will the Minister accept that the maximum amount of information should be available to shareholders?
Looking back over announcements down the years I could not see a consistent pattern. Some of the operators announced the information but others did not do so. I do not have any fixed views on this. Despite what Deputy Mac Giolla thinks about my bona fides, I have attempted to make all the relevant information in this area available and I will continue to do so.
The information makes a difference to people buying and selling shares.
Not having bought or sold a share in my life I would not know.