I remind the House that the supplementary questions on the answers to these questions are limited to one minute.
Other Questions.
Prospecting Licences.
Jerry Cowley
Question:90 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the exploration licences to oil and gas companies that have been awarded in the recent past; the licences he is awarding at present; the licences he intends to award in the future; the number and location of these licences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34532/05]
Details of current licences, including those recently awarded, are contained in two reports published by my Department. The first of these is the six monthly report on licensing presented to the Dáil under section 57 of the Petroleum and other Minerals Development Act 1960. The second is the acreage report, which is published on the Department's website approximately three times each year. Details of the licences and authorisations that have been awarded in the recent past are as follows.
|
Option No. |
Option Period |
Block Nos. |
Area (km2) |
Participants (* = Operator) |
% Interest |
|
1/05 Frontier |
20 January 2005-19 January 2020 |
13/7, 13/11 (p) & 13/12 (p) |
408.29 |
*Lundin Exploration BV |
35 |
|
Island Donegal Limited |
26 |
||||
|
Ramco Donegal Limited |
19.25 |
||||
|
Petroceltic Erris Limited |
16.25 |
||||
|
Sunningdale Donegal Basin Limited |
3.5 |
||||
|
2/05 Frontier |
1 July 2005-30 June 2021 |
12/6, 11/10, 11/15 & 12/1 |
932.18 |
*Shell E&P Ireland Limited |
50 |
|
Eni Ireland BV. |
40 |
||||
|
OMV (IRELAND) Exploration GmbH |
10 |
||||
|
3/05 Frontier |
1 July 2005-30 June 2021 |
18/10, 19/1 & 19/6 |
715.58 |
*Island Oil and Gas plc |
100 |
P — part block.
Other authorisations, other than exploration licences, issued during the period include:
|
Option No. |
Option Period |
Block Nos. |
Area (km2) |
Participants (* = Operator) |
% Interest |
|
05/1 |
1 January 2005-31 December 2006 |
49/13 (p) |
115.67 |
*Milesian Oil & Gas Limited |
100 |
|
05/2 |
1 January 2005-31 December 2006 |
48/21 (p) & 48/22 (p) |
142.69 |
*Milesian Oil & Gas Limited |
100 |
|
05/3 |
1 April 2005-30 September 2006 |
41/29 (p), 41/30 (p), 50/3 (p), 50/4, 50/5 & 51/1 (p) |
841.56 |
*Providence Resources plc |
100 |
P — part block.
|
Licence No. |
No. of Years |
Licence From |
Licensee |
|
1/05 |
3 |
1 January 2005 |
Milesian Oil & Gas Limited |
|
2/05 |
3 |
14 June 2005 |
Trans-International Oil Exploration Limited |
Petroleum prospecting licence 3/00 — ShellE&P Ireland Limited — expired on 7 June2005.
Currently, my Department has received two applications to convert licensing options to exploration licences, one onshore and one offshore in the Celtic Sea. Details will be published if and when the licences have been issued and signed. As regards licensing in the future, a licensing round has been announced over the Slyne-Erris-Donegal area with a closing date of 15 March 2006. It is not possible at this stage to say how many applications will be received or licences issued.
Is the Minister also answering Question No. 310?
No, just No. 90.
They are related.
It has been submitted for written answer and cannot be answered now.
We have heard the pantomime story of Jack and the Beanstalk, which is occurring here. For a handful of beans the Government gave away our natural resources, including those we do not even have. Like foolish Jack, it took the beans and did not expect to get anything from the deal. Unfortunately, this is not a fairy tale. We are the ones who are suffering. People are lying on hospital trolleys and there are no ambulances based within 20 miles of three areas in the Health Service Executive western area. There are only two ambulances to cover the entire county of Mayo which has 120,000 people. We are suffering. Going back to Mr. Ray Burke in 1987 and the Taoiseach later——
Is the Deputy putting a question to the Minister?
We can surely do something. There is no need to tie the hands of the Dáil for 15 years. If the companies are cute, this is exactly what they will get. They may even get 19 years. We are giving them something for which they need not do anything except promise to drill. Even after this, they do not need to drill. Why not give them licences for only five years as, at present, they do not need to decide to do anything with them? Why tie up all our resources for so much time? Can something not be done? People are suffering.
The Minister said that the number of hits is small. In fact, the number is quite high. When one considers what can be done in Norway, which owns 25% of the Corrib gas field, why can we not do the same? Some people say the Minister should not have given those licences as the companies were doing nothing for them.
I remind the Deputy of the time limit.
Why did the Minister not give five-year licences, which would have been rational?
We can talk about all the fairytales we like but there is no point in being "Alice in Wonderland" on this matter. We can barely give the licences away at present, of which the Deputy should be well aware.
The companies are holding on to them.
A few months ago the Minister said there were no licences.
Were I in this House at Estimates time with a different licensing regime or a State exploration company looking for €100 million to drill five wells where we had a hit rate of one in 30 over the past 30 years, I could imagine what the Opposition would say. We would be hearing from Deputy Cowley——
When they come back in for another licence.
——again and hearing about the hospitals and the ambulances. He would remind us it was a waste of money with no return for it and no likelihood of any return. The Deputy cannot have it both ways. Since 1971 we have had 121 exploration wells. Just four of those wells have been successful: Kinsale in 1971, Ballycotton in 1989, Corrib in 2001 — with which the Deputy will be very familiar — and Seven Heads in 2002. There has been one commercial discovery for every 30 exploration wells drilled. This means 30 exploration wells at a minimum cost of €20 million each. The Deputy can do his own sums.
What about the Kinsale profits?
I can imagine what he would be saying to me on that matter if the Government was spending its money in that way.
I remind the Minister that is the story they give him when the beggars come looking for another licence. That is the line they give him when he and the Department know well there is much more out there which they are not saying anything about. That is the reality.
The oil companies are playing ducks and drakes with the Department and the Minister. They welded together 1.5 km of pipe without the Minister's permission. That is what they think of him. They undervalued Corrib when they said it was worth €2 billion. The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon stated recently it was worth £2 billion. Its actual worth is €16 billion.
A question, Deputy.
They are playing ducks and drakes with the Minister. How can he trust them? I suggest he give them the licence for five years. Some might ask why give it to them at all. Technology is advancing all the time. Why should the Minister tie his hands for more than 19 years? I ask him to be rational.
May I add a tiny addendum?
I did not hear a question yet.
I hope it is a tiny addendum. A question, please.
I welcome the Minister's answer to Deputy Cowley which is very informative. He told The Sunday Tribune a few weeks ago that——
A brief question, please.
The Minister said he would re-examine the regime but he seems to have changed his mind. Has he changed his mind on the matters raised by Deputy Cowley? Does the Minister agree it is valuable to report regularly on licensing terms and licences to this House? I remind the Minister that is another Labour Party Bill.
Will the Minister indicate to the House whether he has reviewed the conditions of the exploration leases? Has he identified any areas where he might revise and review the position with a view to giving greater benefit to the economy?
Deputy Cowley made a statement rather than asking a question about me being real about this issue.
The Minister should limit it to five years.
The Deputy is suggesting we leave the gas and oil out there and I do not agree with him.
Will the Minister agree to limit it to five years?
It would do nothing to help the economy to leave that oil and gas off the west coast or anywhere else.
Why should the assets be tied up by giving companies 19 years? There is no rationale for that.
Order, please.
The Deputy should not be talking about helping hospitals and ambulances and everything else by making a silly suggestion to leave natural resources and not exploit them.
Why not just give it to them for five years and take it back if they do nothing with it?
In answer to Deputy Broughan's question, the information which the Deputy requires is published every six months. A licensing report is available and published every six months under section 57 of the Petroleum and other Minerals Development Act. Another report is published approximately three times a year which refers to the specific acreage. Both reports are available on the Department's website.
With regard to a review of the licensing terms, I have indicated in the past that if we were in a position where we had a higher hit rate than at present, I would then agree to a change in the terms and conditions of licences rather than the State setting up its own exploration company.
In response to Deputy Durkan's question and part of Deputy Broughan's question, I am reviewing one area. Depending on receipt of further information, I will consider changing the terms and conditions of the licences. If there is sufficient evidence that it may be a viable well, I will consider changing the terms.
We are well over time. We must proceed with QuestionNo. 91.
Why should the Minister give them a licence for 19 years?
Nobody will take it even for 15 years.
The Minister should consider the facts. He is giving it to them for 19 years. We will be 19 years without resources.
They will not take them.
The rational thing to do would be to give them for five years. Why should the Minister give them for 19 years? They are so cute and they will have them for 19 years. Why not give them for just five years? If they do nothing with it then it should be taken back.
If the Deputy asks a question he should listen to the answer.
Order, please.
I have listened to the answer but it is not making sense.
The Deputy is not listening.
The Minister is just leaving it to them.
Fisheries Protection.
John Gormley
Question:91 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if his Department has received formal notice from the European Commission regarding the effects of drift netting on the conservation status of salmon; if such a letter is the first step in an infringement procedure against Ireland in respect of its failure to meet its obligations in respect of salmon, which enjoy a special status in certain designated special areas of conservation under the habitats directive; if he has responded to the Commission regarding same; and the nature of that response. [34548/05]
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has primary responsibility for the implementation in Ireland of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna. That Department received a letter of formal notice from the European Commission dated 5 July 2005 regarding a complaint made to the Commission that Ireland is not managing drift net fishing for salmon in accordance with the directive. As the complaint concerns drift net fishing in Irish waters, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has worked closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on drafting a reply to the European Commission's letter. This response has now been forwarded to the Commission. As the correspondence between the European Commission and the Irish authorities may be considered an initial step in possible infringement procedures against Ireland on this issue, I am advised that the matter remains sub judice and therefore I cannot comment on the exact details of our response at this time.
The Deputy will be aware that as Minister of State with responsibility for the marine, I rely on the advice of the National Salmon Commission, which is a statutory advisory body, in determining conservation and management measures for the wild Irish salmon fishery. The statutory terms of reference, which I have recently provided to the salmon commission, require, inter alia, that any practical recommendations made to me having regard to the conservation, management, protection and development of the national salmon resource must be considered in the context of national obligations under relevant legislation of the European Union. I am satisfied that these terms of reference will ensure that the advice provided to me by the National Salmon Commission for the 2006 salmon fishing season and beyond will take account of the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, otherwise known as the habitats directive, in so far as they apply to the wild salmon species.
I am slightly amazed that the Minister of State cannot tell me anything about the nature of the communication between his Department and the European Commission. During several referendum campaigns and during the Nice treaty referendum campaign in particular, I remember there was a commitment and an assurance that the European Union was opening up and that it was possible for national parliaments to be involved in some way in the process of interaction between the State and the Commission. The Minister of State has said he can tell me nothing about the nature of the correspondence and the nature of his response. This is a terrible indictment of the system, whether the problem stems from the Commission or from Ireland. It is not appropriate for this Parliament to be kept blind and ignorant of any such correspondence and developments. This goes against the principles of openness and transparency and good government both here and in the European Commission.
The Deputy must ask a question.
Who raised with the Commission the original concern regarding Ireland's possible breach of the habitats directive? Is the House to know nothing about these proceedings? Is the letter from the Commission the first step in a formal case being taken against Ireland regarding infringement of procedure or does this come later? If the Minister of State is unable to inform the House now, when at any stage will this Parliament have a role or possibility of discovering the circumstances of this issue? How do I, as an elected representative with an interest in this issue, find out information if I am unable to do so by asking questions in my national Parliament?
I will certainly not hide behind any directive but I am advised, because this is an initial step in possible infringement proceedings against us, that the matter remains sub judice and that I cannot therefore comment on the exact details of the response at this time. It may well be that the European Commission is prepared to give that information but, from my experience of it, I doubt that very much because it could prejudice any case that may be taken. In 2003, the EU Commission, that is, the Directorate General Environment which deals with the Habitats Directive, first notified the Irish authorities of complaints received from a UK source which contend that Ireland’s approval level of drift-net fishing for Atlantic salmon represented excessive exploitation which was affecting the number of salmon returning to the rivers.
The Commission has received a complaint but it will not take a decision until it has all of the information. The Commission asked the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to respond. We have worked closely on this. One of the officials in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was in Brussels recently and that official, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's section dealing with the Habitats Directive, responded. In both our response and in our discussions with the Commission to date, we clearly outlined the management regime in place and how our policies and strategies are in keeping with our obligations under all of the relevant EU legislation. I will not waste the time of the House because Deputy Ryan knows well the steps that have been taken and it is not necessary to elaborate on this. If there is any further information I can give the Deputy or the House without affecting the sub judice aspect of this, I will be glad to provide it.
Can the Minister of State confirm that it was the UK Government that made the original complaint in 2003? Given that the complaint is two years old, if the Commission decides that there is a case to answer, whatever about the Minister of State's reassurance in that regard, and that it may be decided to be in breach of the Habitats Directive, how quickly could the Commission enforce an end to the current practice? Could this put an end to the current practice before next season is out or what is the typical time frame before a decision is implemented? Given that we have already responded with information from our side, could the Commission make an immediate decision and direct Ireland to change its practices accordingly?
On the infringement case, I am somewhat disappointed. I agree with Deputy Ryan. In light of the possible infringement of the Habitats Directive, why is this information not in the public domain? In light of the fact that the Minister of State ignored scientific recommendations on the number of salmon that could be caught and the number of licensees, is he adding to the infringement possibilities? Can he indicate how many salmon were caught in commercial nets this year?
Having read the instrument on the National Salmon Commission, is it the case that the new report contains a compensatory mechanism? Did I read it correctly? Could there be a compensatory mechanism, possibly mentioned here on budget day or whenever?
First, I do not know who it was, whether it was the UK Government, an individual, a group or a company.
Could the Minister of State make that information available?
If it is available. I will have to clear that with the Commission. I am sure Deputy Ryan, above all, would not want me to do anything which might prejudice the outcome.
We responded to that complaint in November 2003. We provided the detailed information on the management regime and no response was received from the Commission until July last. They have requested further information and now we have responded to that as expeditiously as possible.
In answer to Deputy Perry, this year I accepted the advice of the National Salmon Commission, as did all my predecessors since the establishment of that commission. I do not have the information on the number of fish. It is important to note that 94% of those catching salmon by way of drift, draft, snap or loop are compliant.
I do not know if these are Deputy Perry's views. Deputy McGinley referred to Deputy Perry, but I know Deputy Perry does not represent the views of my constituency colleague, Deputy McGinley when he suggests that we should lower the tack.
That concludes the questions for today.
On a point of order, I protest most vehemently. I had the third question of the ordinary questions for oral answer today and I have been sitting here since a 3.15 p.m. waiting for my turn. It is disgraceful that we only got as far as the second oral question. I make this protest in the strongest possible terms because it also happened a fortnight ago that I had a question tabled under similar circumstances — second or third on ordinary questions — and I did not get a reply. It is an infringement of the order of the House that the third question is not taken.
I had an important matter about my constituency to discuss, the critical economic situation and unemployment in an important town which the Minister of State knows well, Killybegs, and south-west Donegal. People wanted me to raise this and I waited and waited. I was confident that I would get to it today because the question was such a high priority on the Order Paper. I am very disappointed that the question has not been taken.
Something must be done. It is disgraceful that the third ordinary question cannot be taken. I do not know what redress I have. I must now wait another month before I can raise this in the Dáil.
I agree with the Deputy. For example, priority questions are supposed to be finished within 30 minutes. In spite of the Chair's best efforts, they took 54 minutes today. It is Members who are preventing other Members from having their questions taken. The Chair appealed numerous times today for Members to abide by the Standing Orders that have been set down by the Members and the appeal was totally ignored, time after time. It is unfair to Deputies like Deputy McGinley, who has been sitting here to have his question attended to, but it is due to the action of other Members who exceed their time and ignore the Chair. I hope, arising from what Deputy McGinley has said, some action will be taken to get Members to abide by the rules to which they have agreed. We cannot have a lengthy discussion on the matter. All I am saying is that Deputy McGinley's complaint is justified.
I appreciate your concern and understanding. I have been long enough in this House to remember that 20 ordinary oral questions used be taken on a regular basis and now we are not able to take even three. It is disgraceful. I hope it will be reformed. I hope it will never happen again. I hope it never happens to me anyway. I am sure I speak on behalf of many ordinary Members of this House who have been treated in a similar way.
Members should abide by the rules of the House and should abide by the Chair.
So should Ministers.
I appealed on numerous occasions during questions for Members to be brief and to stay within the time limits, but I was totally ignored on the issue.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.