asked the Minister for Energy the reasons he agreed to greatly ease terms for oil exploration companies operating in Irish waters; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Exploration in Irish Waters.
5.
The Deputy is no doubt aware of the detailed statements which I made in April 1985 and in September of this year concerning the Irish Offshore Exploration Licensing Terms of 1975. From these it will be clear what is my policy in regard to further oil and gas exploration in the Irish Offshore.
I presume Deputy Mac Giolla is referring to my recent statement of 19 September 1986.
As the Deputy is aware our terms have to be sufficiently attractive to induce people in to explore and develop, and sufficiently firm to ensure a fair share of any resulting revenues for the State. They have to be competitive with those of other nations, especially when there is less exploration money to go around, and they have to reflect the realities of the day. Given the radical change in circumstances today and in the light of my responsibility as Minister for Energy to encourage the ongoing exploration of our offshore with a view to bringing oil or gas ashore to meet national requirements, I decided that it was incumbent on me to bring forward the new adjustments. There can be no benefits to this country if activity in our offshore is not encouraged.
I believe the 1986 adjustments to the 1975 offshore licensing terms have struck the right balance between the interests of the State and concerns of the oil companies.
My policy in regard to further oil and gas exploration is already enunciated in these statements to which I have just referred.
My plans are to continue to consider all the avenues open to me for promoting exploration of the Irish offshore. More specifically at present my Department are carrying out analyses of technical data and are preparing technical reports on the offshore.
I was referring to the Minister's September statement and seeking some clarification of the changes that have been made. I should like to pose two specific questions to the Minister: first is the 50 per cent stake option we had now definitely gone — referring to the September statement? The Minister will understand how complicated this has become because, in less than two years, there have been three changes and it is very difficult to keep up-to-date. My second question is: does the definition of a marginal field — referring to the April 1985 statement — of 75 million barrels still stand when he refers to a marginal field in his September statement?
I appreciate the Deputy wanting clarification. I am rather surprised that he has not asked for detailed, written clarification if he has some technical problems with the terms as announced and adjusted over the last two years. I would have no hesitation in supplying him with any clarification in writing of any concerns he has in relation to the whole of the offshore area. The Deputy will understand — I have no difficulty in saying this to him — that the whole question of the offshore licensing terms is a highly complex one. If the Deputy so wishes, I will outline, in writing, all of the changes, or clarify any aspects of the statements with which he has difficulty.
I should be very glad to receive that. Perhaps the Minister would reply to the two simple questions I posed, that is if the 50 per cent stake option has now gone and if the marginal field is still a 75 million barrell field? I want to know, before asking another question, if that is a fact.
The answer is yes in relation to the 50 per cent option. That will no longer persist. The 75 million barrel field is considered to be a marginal field. A lot will depend on the options available which the companies decide to exercise. They may decide to remain within the clarifications offered in 1985 or they may wish to operate within the clarification of 1986. That is a matter for discussion between the company and the Department of Energy when discussing any proposals to develop a find.
Can I ask——
A short question.
I will make it as short as I can but you will understand——
If it is not short it most likely will not be a question.
Each time there is a statement from the Minister the whole position becomes more complicated. I wish to ask the Minister in regard to the 75 million barrel field if, as has been stated in some newspapers over the past year, the Gulf oil find and other exploration off the Waterford coast have disclosed that it is unlikely there will be one large well, that it is more likely there will be a series of relatively small wells close together? If this is so, would each of those not be regarded as a marginal field rather than the other type of field to which the Minister referred and where there are large profits? In other words, the State would only get a 25 per cent share in profits from each of these rather than a 50 per cent share overall.
I appreciate the Deputy's concern. It is a concern I share in relation to the exploitation of offshore resources. I assure the Deputy that it is the intention, as will be seen in the execution of these licensing terms, that the potential of the field is examined and considered in toto and not as individual finds.