I am concerned about the oil spill at Whitegate and the way information was disclosed. On Monday morning after the spill occurred we were told it was less than 300 gallons, the amount in a domestic heating tank. The impression was given that not much harm would be done to the inner harbour area of the port of Cork, one the best natural harbours in the world. Further confusion was created when no information was given about what was being done on the beaches. The impression was given that one only beach, Grauballe Bay in the Crosshaven area, and no other beach would be affected. I am familiar with the inner harbour area as I spent many holidays in the Fountainstown area. Subsequently, other areas in the inner harbour were mentioned and a massive clean up operation took place. The refinery used a helicopter to assess the damage.
Approximately eight days ago the refinery said a little more than 300 gallons was spilled. People in the area were aware that 300 gallons would not have caused the damage done to the inner harbour area. If 300 gallons could cause such damage, we should be particularly worried about a major oil spill. The spokesperson for the refinery, Mr. O'Carroll, the general manager, compared the spill to that at Milford Haven where 73,000 gallons of oil spilled from a ship and he spoke about upgrading at the refinery, which was long overdue. The refinery has always operated to its fullest capacity and has given excellent service to the State. I visited the refinery as Lord Mayor of Cork and as a Member of the Oireachtas and am aware that staff must use equipment which might not be up to present day standards.
Mr. O'Carroll spoke about the £40 million investment in the refinery, the rationalisation programme and the upgrading of the refinery. I would be annoyed if he said the oil was spilled while loading a ship during heavy weather because this happened in the inner harbour area which is sheltered and where much damage could be done. At first the spokesperson said that less than 300 gallons was spilled and then subsequently said that more was spilled but he could not say how much. The Minister may be sure that the amount spilled was not small.
If upgrading took place at the refinery, why did it not occur in the area where the oil was spilled? I ask for the truth in this regard. I do not carry a flag for an environmental organisation; I represent people in that region. In the future I would like to be able to say how well the harbour looks.
Has there been rationalisation in terms of staff numbers? Did upgrading take place in this part of the refinery? Did a reduced staff have to use equipment which was not upgraded? I am not saying rationalisation or upgrading should not take place but we should not put the cart before the horse, which I am afraid happened here. Were staff numbers cut before this part of the refinery was upgraded to save some money? We could have destroyed the harbour and the entire region. People have told me there is evidence of the oil spill in Ballycotton. I do not what to be an alarmist but I did not get answers. The impression was given that this section of piping was not upgraded. Why were staff numbers not maintained until the upgrading took place? I hope I am wrong in this regard as serious damage could have been done.
The impression should not have been given that less than 300 gallons. Such a spill could have been cleaned up very quickly. The county engineer, Mr. Devlin, said that a substantial bill would be sent from the county council to the Whitegate refinery and admitted that it would be a six figure sum. Such clean up operations are expensive. I hope this spill, which could have been extremely serious, will be cleaned up within a month and that it was not caused by a reduction in staff numbers so the refinery could save a few pounds before upgrading equipment was brought in. I would like a truthful answer in this regard.
