Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 2015

Vol. 887 No. 2

Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2015 [Seanad]: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Tá an reachtaíocht seo a bhaineann le coinníollacha sábháilteacha iontach caol agus gairid. Chomh maith leis sin, tá brú ar achan tír san Aontas Eorpach cloí leis an spriocdháta den 9 Iúil. Déanaim comhghairdeas le mo chuid oifigigh as ucht an obair a rinne siad ar an reachtaíocht thábhachtach seo san am gairid a bhí acu.

I am pleased to introduce the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Bill 2015 for the consideration of the House. The purpose of the Bill is to transpose Directive 2013/30/EU, the offshore safety directive, which is focused on the safety of offshore oil and gas operations. Transposition of the directive will further strengthen the safety regulation of offshore oil and gas exploration and production in Ireland’s offshore area.

The offshore safety directive is the European Union's response to minimise the risk of offshore accidents throughout the Union following its review of offshore oil and gas operations in Europe prompted by the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. The directive seeks to ensure a consistent implementation of best regulatory practices in all European jurisdictions with offshore oil and gas activities, as well as strengthening the European Union's preparedness and response capacity to deal with an emergency that would potentially affect its citizens or the environment.

This is an exciting time for the petroleum exploration sector in Ireland. In the past four years we have witnessed strong momentum in exploration interest with the number of exploration licences in place at its highest level ever. We now need to see this effort translated into increased drilling levels, as it is only through exploration drilling that the true potential of Ireland's offshore area can be proved. I would welcome an opportunity in the future to outline in greater detail to the House some recent and ongoing initiatives aimed at ensuring continued positive momentum. However, having regard to the time available, I will confine my comments to the Bill and the directive it will transpose.

The offshore safety directive specifically provides for the institutional separation of regulatory functions relating to offshore safety and the environment from those functions focused on the economic development of offshore resources such as licensing and revenue management. It also provides for a goal-setting approach in major accident prevention based on thorough risk assessment and reliable management systems; clarity on environmental liability in the event of a major accident; and emergency preparedness and response arrangements. The deadline for the transposition of the directive is 19 July 2015.

The approach to transposition involves integrating the directive requirements with the safety regulatory system for oil and gas exploration and production activities in Ireland introduced under the Petroleum (Exploration and Extraction) Safety Act 2010. That Act conferred on the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, the responsibility for the safety regulation of petroleum exploration and extraction activities in Ireland, including a requirement to establish and implement a petroleum safety framework. The petroleum safety framework is the system the CER uses to regulate the safety of petroleum activities carried out by licensed petroleum undertakings. These activities extend from exploration through to decommissioning of infrastructure at the end of the lifecycle of a development.

It should be noted with regard to decommissioning that, in accordance with their petroleum lease conditions, all parties to a lease are required to post a decommissioning security once the decommissioning process is triggered. This ensures the costs of decommissioning are met by developers, not by the State.

The petroleum safety framework was designed in line with best international practice, with petroleum undertakings required to reduce all safety risks to the internationally accepted level that is as low as is reasonably practicable, ALARP. A guidance document was published in 2013 by the CER setting out how developers needed to demonstrate ALARP in their safety case applications and how the CER would assess such applications. While the Bill provides for fines of up to €3 million on developers for failure to ensure all petroleum activities are carried out in accordance with their safety management system and safety permit, it also provides that petroleum undertakings are financially liable for the prevention and remediation of environmental damage. It does not propose a limit on such liability. The key requirements of the directive are broadly analogous with the provisions of the 2010 Act. While a significant element of the transposition of the directive involves the introduction of consistent terminology and language, the main regulatory implications of the directive required to be addressed in the Bill are the establishment of a national competent authority; provision for the assessment of potential major environmental hazards offshore within the scope of the safety case regime; clarity on industry liability in the event of a major accident; and specific obligations to be placed on both operators and owners of petroleum infrastructure.

Section 1 is a standard provision concerning definitions.

Section 2 replaces section 13A of Part IIA of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 with a new interpretation section that is consistent with the terminology and language of the directive. Key new definitions include those for "operator" and "owner". These definitions enable the obligations under the directive to be placed on the relevant entity and integrated with the existing safety regulatory framework for petroleum safety.

Section 3 inserts a new section 13GA and establishes the CER as the independent competent authority under the directive. The principal objective of the CER as competent authority is the effective safety regulatory oversight of operator and owner compliance in reducing the risk and potential consequences of major accidents offshore to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable.

Section 4 replaces the existing section 13H with a new section which integrates the competent authority functions under section 5 and the directive requirements in the context of the CER's general petroleum safety functions. The matters to be considered by the CER in carrying out its functions are also set out and include minimising the potential for overlap or duplication of effort.

Section 5 further strengthens the existing emergency preparedness and response arrangements through inserting a new section 13HA, providing the CER with the power to direct industry to conduct emergency exercises and tests and to direct industry to take adequate measures to ensure the continuing safety of designated petroleum activities.

Section 6 amends section 13I to align with the terminology and language of the directive. Section 13I requires the CER to establish and implement a risk-based petroleum safety framework through which it shall exercise its petroleum safety functions. The CER has successfully operated the petroleum safety framework established under the 2010 legislation since December 2013.

Section 7 which deals with obligations on petroleum undertakings, operators and owners inserts three new sections - 13KA, 13KB and 13KC - to reflect the general and specific obligations of each of the three related regulated entities under the directive, namely, the licensee, described in the 2010 Act as the petroleum undertaking; the operator who is appointed by the licensee to carry out oil and gas operations; and the owner who is the legal entity with operational control of a non-production installation.

Section 8 which deals with safety case guidelines replaces section 13L with a new section which requires that the contents of the safety case guidelines published by the CER be consistent with the specific information requirements of the directive.

Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, replace the existing sections 13M, 13N and I3O with new sections, placing the obligation to submit a safety case on operators and owners.

Section 12 which deals with notifications sets out the regulatory process for the submission, assessment and acceptance or refusal of design notifications and combined operation notifications by operators to the CER in accordance with the offshore safety directive.

Sections 13 and 14 which deal with safety permits and the refusal or revocation of a safety permit amend the existing sections 13P and 13Q to reflect the CER's assessment of safety cases submitted by operators and, where relevant, owners to reflect the capacity of the operator or owner, as appropriate, to carry out a designated petroleum activity.

Sections 15 to 18, inclusive, amend existing sections 13S, 13T, 13U and 13V. These sections relate to the notification to the CER by operators or owners of petroleum incidents or potential incidents; the further investigation and-or the taking of enforcement action by the CER regarding the notified petroleum incident; and the issuance of a report by the CER to the Minister with respect to each petroleum incident that results in the loss of human life, serious personal injury, damage to third party property or a major accident. The Bill provides that any petroleum incident must be notified to the CER immediately and potential incidents within 24 hours.

Section 19 which deals with the improvement plan and notice amends the existing sections 13Y and 13Z to extend the existing power of the CER to issue a direction requiring the submission of an improvement plan or the serving of an improvement notice on petroleum undertakings to also apply to operators and owners.

Section 20 which deals with access to safety case information amends the existing section 13AC to put the obligation on the relevant operator to provide a mechanism by which a copy of the accepted safety case can be made available to any member of the public who requests it.

Section 21 which deals with miscellaneous amendments makes a number of consequential amendments to the 1999 Act to, among other measures, extend the CER's enforcement powers to apply to operators and owners, in addition to petroleum undertakings, and enable the CER to charge operators and owners a safety case fee.

Section 22 amends the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960 to require the assessment by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources of the technical and financial capability of applicants for an offshore petroleum authorisation in line with the offshore safety directive. The section also makes provision for ministerial approval of an appointment of an operator proposed by a petroleum undertaking.

Section 23, an amendment to section 6 of the Continental Shelf Act 1968, amends the definition of "designated area" under the Act to align with Article 6(7) of the directive which requires the establishment of a safety zone in the vicinity of an offshore installation.

Section 24 makes the usual provision for the Short Title and citation.

The Bill is an important measure in the continued strengthening of the overarching regulatory framework governing offshore exploration for and the production of oil and gas in Ireland. It comprehensively transposes the directive in a manner that will enhance the safety of the offshore oil and gas sector, build on the regulatory model successfully implemented in December 2013 under the 2010 Act and incur the least cost on the industry and the public service.

I hope the outline I have provided of the Bill's provisions has been of assistance. I look forward to listening to the views of Deputies on this important legislation and their help in progressing the Bill into law prior to the directive's transposition deadline of 19 July.

I welcome the Bill. Although we will support it, my colleague, Deputy Michael Moynihan, will table a couple of amendments that the Minister of State might consider taking on board. We question why it has taken so long for the legislation to be brought before the House. This is last minute dot com, despite the fact that the Government talked about openness, transparency and giving the House every opportunity to have wide-ranging discussions on Bills. The Minister of State mentioned that the Bill needed to be implemented by 19 July, which is not that far away. That does not give us much of an opportunity to debate the Bill fully and table amendments to it.

The offshore safety directive is the European Union's response to offshore accidents. The Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico happened in April 2010. To date, dealing with it has cost $14 billion. The Minister of State mentioned that, under the Bill, the fine would be €3 million. Given how much has been required to deal with the Deepwater Horizon incident, I am not sure about the amount that has been included in the Bill. Deputy Michael Moynihan will table an amendment on this issue.

It is good that a great deal of petroleum exploration is under way along the coastline. It has taken a number of years to bring the Corrib gas field to fruition. If there is successful exploration, I hope the country will benefit in terms of taxes and employment. However, that is a discussion for another day.

The offshore safety directive provides for the institutional separation of regulatory functions relating to offshore safety and the environment. It is important that the Minister of State clarify one point. The CER is the independent regulatory authority, but how many Departments would be involved in the event that there was a major spillage or accident offshore? There have been incidents. I remember one in County Wexford some time ago. The then Department of the Environment claimed that it was the local authority's problem, while the local authority claimed that it was the Department's. This went on for some time while the seas were being debased with oil. What funding and equipment will be available in the event that there is a major accident? Would we have the resources to deal with it? The Minister of State referred to the European Union coming together to deal with the issue. Will other countries help if there is a major problem in Ireland, England or close to the Irish coastline?

The Bill confers on the CER responsibility for the safety regulation of petroleum exploration and extraction activities, including a requirement for the CER to establish and implement a petroleum safety framework. This framework will be important in dealing with incidents. It should be broadly based and involve as many of the relevant organisations and institutions as possible so as to ensure incidents, of which I hope there will be none, will be dealt with successfully and co-operatively.

The CER is an important body in this field. The Minister of State mentioned that the framework had been designed using best international practice, "with petroleum undertakings required to reduce all safety risks to the internationally accepted level that is as low as is reasonably practicable." Previously, exploration, oil and gas companies took chances and their equipment might not have met the required standards. With the CER, the Minister of State must ensure top standards will be met by those companies operating off the coastline. How often are inspections of their equipment conducted?

A €3 million fine will apply to developers that fail to ensure all petroleum activities are carried out in accordance with their safety management systems and safety permits. That amount is too low. The incident I mentioned by way of example was large, but we do not know what might occur. A €3 million fine might not be a deterrent to the oil exploration companies operating off the coastline. It is a small amount to them in the light of the value of an oil find or their financial wherewithal. The Minister of State should consider whether it can be increased. Will there be further liabilities if costs increase above €3 million? If the cost was €10 million, €15 million or €20 million, would the Government of the day, the CER or the Department carry the can? It is important that the Minister of State clarify this point.

On the establishment of a national competent authority, the Minister of State might outline how the Minister will appoint people to it. It is important that there be people on it with expertise in this field, for example, engineers and scientists, instead of it just being a case of jobs for the boys. The Minister of State might have a few political hacks in County Donegal or the Taoiseach's constituency whom he might want to have in the authority.

It is a very serious issue and this very serious legislation. We have to be serious about the competent authority that will be set up to deal with it.

I welcome the Bill. As I said, Deputy Michael Moynihan will table a couple of amendments which he believes would improve the Bill and the Minister of State might take them on board. Generally, however, we support the Bill.

Before I came into the House many years ago, I worked in the oil industry. A discussion about the cost of diesel and oil is for another day, but the way the oil companies operate leaves a lot to be desired. The price seems to fluctuate and, despite the current position in which the spot price on world markets is low, prices at the pumps for motorists and transport operators have shot up alarmingly in recent months. Some of the price increases are not justified.

The Bill is better late than never, but the Minister of State might explain why it has taken so long to be brought before the House. However, we will support it, notwithstanding the fact that we will be tabling a couple of amendments to it.

Government party spokespersons sometimes claim Sinn Féin opposes only for the sake of opposition. That statement is inaccurate and unfair because it is the duty of an Opposition Deputy, or a Senator in the Seanad, to oppose legislation where it will be damaging to the people of Ireland, to propose amendments where he or she believes they would improve legislation and to support Government legislation where he or she considers it to be good. This morning I attended the launch by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Alex White, of Ireland's broadband intervention strategy. I described it as a good day. I also gave some opinions on options the Minister and his officials might consider to help to ensure there will be a smooth and effective roll-out of broadband, which is very necessary throughout the country. That is good, constructive politics. The Minister of State will be glad to hear that this theme will continue tonight.

The Bill seeks to transpose EU Directive 2013/30/EU into legislation in this jurisdiction. I am aware that the directive was published two years ago and that it has only now been brought before the House. I know that the Department has a tight timeframe to get it through and the implications of not transposing it in this jurisdiction within the prescribed timescale. It is not an ideal way to pass legislation, but we are willing to work with the Minister of State to ensure the legislation is allowed to move as necessary. I would have liked more time to properly scrutinise and evaluate the outworkings of the legislation, but we will not obstruct its passage. I will, however, mention some of our concerns.

The subject matter of the legislation is oil and gas safety, a very pertinent subject in Ireland today. I do not think it can be argued that the State has a good record in dealing with offshore oil and gas safety operations. Most of what we have in legislation was designed at a time when there was no thought of oil or gas exploration or extraction, either off the coast or onshore. I considered the crossover between this legislation and planning legislation and reflected on the situation at Rossport. An example of where engagement with the community seriously failed was the Corrib gas project which had a damaging effect on the community of Rossport and caused reputational damage to Ireland throughout the industry and the world.

What happened at Rossport was important because it was a dispute about ownership and the use of natural resources. The local community regarded it as a threat to their well-being by a powerful coalition of State and capital, which raises questions about scalar politics and power. I do not know how that fits into planning legislation and the legislation we have in front of us, but locals opposed to the development at Rossport framed their opposition in terms of safety and health. They claimed that the pressure of unprocessed gas in the pipeline would be too high, that the pipeline would be too close to people's homes and that the environmental effects of gas transportation and processing would be devastating on the place, people and wildlife. They wanted the gas to be processed offshore. In that context, the statement that the risk was to be as low as was reasonable would have been very worrying to people alongside whose houses the pipeline was to be built. Some might see it as a statement that “This is the best we can do. Maybe your house should not be there in the first place.”

Local opposition in Rossport sparked major controversy about the manner in which the main company involved in the development, Shell, had behaved towards local host communities. Landowners who took issue with a high pressure pipeline running through their land protested against what they believed to be an infringement of their rights. As a result, in March 2005 Shell applied to the High Court for an order restraining landowners from interfering with the laying of the pipeline. An injunction was given and, as a result, five local people were imprisoned for interfering with the work of Shell. They became known as the Rossport Five and were applauded throughout many parts of the country. They certainly had my full support and that of my party. I looked to see if there was anything within this legislation to ensure what had happened at Rossport would not happen again and I did not see it. It was and is, clearly, a safety issue for people in Rossport. Many maintain that the Government was complicit in the failure to engage with the local community. They believe their concerns were ignored by the Government and State agencies and that private business was allowed a free hand in developing energy infrastructure as it wished. If I had had more time to consider this legislation, I would have looked for an impact of the TTIP and the ISDS in the event that they were agreed, but I did not have the time to pursue the matter in any detail.

Ireland's offshore oil and gas reserves have the long-term potential to be a significant source of revenue for the economy. According to a 2006 report carried out by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources but from which the Government sometimes backs away, there is the equivalent of approximately 10 billion barrels of oil off the western coast, composed of 6.5 billion barrels of oil and 20 trillion cu. ft. of gas. At current oil prices, this equates to a value of approximately €540 billion. While It is true to say the amount of oil and gas brought ashore has been small, there are these reserves. There is very little gas and no oil being extracted from Irish waters, but we need to keep in mind that there is this potential, which highlights the importance of this legislation. At some stage, that potential will be tapped.

We also need to keep in mind always that companies that discover oil and gas in Irish territory are not obliged to supply these resources to the Irish market. Not only that, our licensing terms are so weighted in the industry's favour, they do not require the companies to bring a single drop of our oil or gas ashore in Ireland. They can make that call. The State's licensing terms do not reward the country with fuel security. Companies can sell these resources on the open market. It is therefore wrong for any Government Minister, and it would be wrong for any Opposition spokesperson, to say if we do this it will help secure our energy future. We can make no such claims as long as the companies have the right to sell it off on the world market.

When the Government awards oil and gas companies with a licence, ownership and control of Irish oil and gas is transferred to that company. Under the current licensing terms, the Government cannot guarantee that the oil and gas will be sold to the Irish market, that the oil and gas will be landed in Ireland or even that the companies will use Irish workers. Irish consumers will continue to pay the full international price for oil and gas found off Ireland's coast. In a period when the world is nearing peak oil production, it is imperative that Ireland secures its fuel supplies. It is not part of this legislation but this is something we have spoken about before and something that needs badly to be addressed.

Under the 1992 and 2007 licensing terms, a 25% tax on the net profits of oil and gas is applicable. Against this, oil and gas companies can write off 100% of costs against tax, including costs incurred up to 25 years before field production begins and the cost of any unsuccessful wells the company has drilled anywhere in Irish waters in that 25 year period.

Under the 2007 licensing terms, a profit resource rent tax, PRRT, was introduced. PRRT is payable on a profit ratio calculated by the cumulative after tax profits on the specific field divided by the cumulative level of capital investment on the specific field. The profit resource rent tax has recently been adjusted so that larger finds will pay a 55% tax rate, which is good, but it falls far short of recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources, and Agriculture that PRRT should be on a rolling scale of 40%, 60% and 80%, depending on the size of the find.

This Bill concerns offshore exploration and extraction but there is also such a thing as offshore fracking and I know the Minister of State would be disappointed if I did not mention hydraulic fracturing in my few words.

I would say he would be shocked.

The use of fracking as a means of extracting unconventional gas has become more common in recent years yet it remains a highly controversial method of extracting gas. We believe it is totally unsuitable and unsafe on a small island with a dispersed population. The proposed legislation refers to reducing risk to a level that is "as low as is reasonably practicable", but what is reasonable? What is a reasonable risk of fatally damaging our agrifood and tourism industries or the health of our population or wildlife?

Shale gas production is technically complex, capitally intensive and financially expensive. It contributes to the risk of cost overruns for projects. As a result of that, the pressure is on people to get it done and in fast. This can lead to accidents and leakages and may make future developments contingent on certain technological breakthroughs in carbon capture and storage technology.

The fracking process involves pumping large volumes of water, chemicals and sand into the ground, and we do not know what chemicals they are using, in the hope of creating fractures in the earth to release the petroleum. Biocides and dyes are often used in the fracking process and these can have a major impact on the surrounding environment and host communities. The water that is pumped into the wells during fracking is significant. The companies aim to extract this water and dispose of it. Serious questions have been raised as to how much of this water is lost into the soil and the drinking water supply. The water mixed with chemicals is possibly already toxic when it is pumped into the ground and when the flowback is collected it will bring with it more toxins from the very ground from which it is taken.

Shale gas development can contribute to environmental degradation involving water and air, the social degradation of public health, climate change and the displacement of cleaner forms of energy. We are all aware of studies which are currently under way in this country. The Minister of State is on record as saying no licences will be granted until the EPA report has been received and studied. The Government is telling people not to worry about it but my view, and I will say it at every possible opportunity, is hydraulic fracturing should be banned outright on the island of Ireland.

I would have liked more time to look at this legislation and to think through the possible implications of it. However, I realise the legislation is necessary and needs to be implemented within a specified timeframe. We will therefore not be blocking its passage.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Like other speakers, I question the timing of the introduction of this legislation, which has come down to the wire. As I understand it, we have two years to transpose European directives into national law and I fail to see why it takes one year and 363 days to get it to the floor of this House. It does not make much sense and it does not allow for the proper scrutiny which should be envisaged for such legislation, particularly when it relates to something as important and as potentially damaging as a major oil and gas extraction incident. If there was a major incident, it could take 20 or 30 years for our shoreline to recover. The environmental damage could be huge. Legislation such as this should therefore be given the proper time to be scrutinised.

The legislation is fairly complicated. It provides for definitions of operators, owners and petroleum entities and there are layers of different responsibilities. All of these should be teased out. Ultimately, whether an operator, owner or petroleum entity, they should all have equal responsibility in respect of safety in the operation of wells. The directive provides that the operator should always be the entity with primary responsibility for the safety of operations and should be at all times competent in that regard. Surely the owner who is contracting the operator should be able to ensure the operator is competent also.

I know the Commission for Electricity Regulation, CER, has a role under this legislation in deciding whether operators are competent and it can ask the Minister to refuse the appointment of an operator. Section 7 of the legislation states an operator has to be approved by the Minister but it does not require this approval to be made in conjunction with CER or to be based on a consultation with CER. CER examines the safety records and reports. Could the Minister approve an operator without referring to CER? Could an operator be approved without having been subject to the proper scrutiny? Those things needs to be clarified a wee bit.

I agree with Deputy John Browne on the fines for non-compliance with the safety statements requirements. The exploration and development of a site might cost up to €1 billion but the maximum fine for failing to report an incident is €3 million.

That is peanuts in terms of the financial impact it would have on the operators. I do not see a deterrent in the level of the fine if an operator is caught out and sanctioned because of something carried out that was unsafe or that might lead to major incidents.

Under the legislation the Commission for Energy Regulation will review the safety plans of the operators and owners, consider how they might work and get them to simulate a response to any incidents or possible incidents. What is the role of the CER and the State and how would they respond in respect of a major incident? If there was a major oil spill offshore there would have to be a State response as well; the State would have to step up to the mark. While it is right that the operators should be responsible and should carry the liability, in any serious or major incident the State would have a role to play as well. Is there any role for CER in examining how prepared the State is for such an eventuality? It would be interesting to see how prepared the State is to deal with significant incidents or events that might take place offshore.

The legislation has to be transcribed into law. It will go through the House and will not be objected to. I realise it is not only the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources that runs these things down to the wire in transcribing legislation. However, when a Department has two years to do it, those responsible are aware it has to happen. It is something that should be introduced in a timely fashion.

I thank the Deputies. I appreciate their constructive commentary on the importance of getting this Bill signed into law before 19 July. I also appreciate the fact that it is important to discuss the legislation and go through it with a fine-tooth comb. The first question raised by Deputy John Browne was why this is taking so long. Discussions have been ongoing at Commission level in respect of guidance on financial arrangements. That is an important subject in terms of responsibility. Deputy Pringle asked who takes the responsibility and whether it falls on the operators. It has been difficult and it has taken time to tease that out. Obviously, that gives less time for a national parliament. However, I appreciate the points raised.

The three Deputies raised the question of the €3 million imposition. It is a fine. It is important to have a distinction between a fine if proper regulatory management systems are not adhered to or if they are not in accordance with the permit provided on the one hand and other costs on the other. There is a maximum fine of €3 million. Deputy Browne raised the question of environmental damage or repercussions as a result of an accident. The point is addressed in this legislation as well. There is no limit to the costs involved in that case. It is important to make that distinction.

The Commission for Energy Regulation is the national competent authority. In the case of this legislation the framework or infrastructure is based on the 2010 legislation. It is more a question of language change and fitting into the framework that was built in 2010.

The question of first response if an accident happens was raised. That is not a place where we want to be. Let us consider what happened in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The first responder is actually the Coast Guard. Deputy Browne asked who leads on a mitigation or intervention plan relating to an accident. It is the Coast Guard, which comes under a different Department. Obviously, there is cross-collaborative interaction between local authorities, the Coast Guard and my Department.

I welcome Deputy Colreavy's constructive intervention and the fact that he will not be obstructing the passage of the Bill. I welcome his constructive acknowledgement of what the Government is trying to do in respect of broadband and the associated announcement this morning. I wish to acknowledge his comments in that regard.

Deputy Colreavy remarked that it is not ideal. He raised a broad range of issues, including Corrib. He raised issues on behalf of people who had difficulties during that process. It is important to note that as a result of that process we have learned lessons. We have contingency plans and legislation in place now as a result of the many lessons learned in respect of Corrib. I take Deputy Colreavy's point, but like any good debate or strong and divisive debate, there is passion on both sides. In certain parts of Mayo people say there are parts of the county that never were hit by the recession because of what went on there. It is a divisive argument but numerous important lessons have been learned in terms of framing legislation in recent years.

Deputy Colreavy also mentioned potential. There is potential off the west coast. In geographical terms I always say that we are the fourth largest country in Europe in terms of landmass after Spain, Portugal and France. This gives us an idea of the magnitude of the land territory available to us. The Deputy mentioned a figure of 10 billion barrels of oil out there. However, to date we only have four finds so we have to consider the context of what has been found to date. There is momentum and, prior to the licensing round expiring in mid-September, there has been increased momentum in terms of companies looking for prospecting licences for gas and oil.

I will cover some of the other ground if I get a chance to do so on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share