The plan of development approval given for the Corrib gas field in April 2002 by the then Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources was for a sub-sea development with an onshore terminal. Moreover, the developers have planning permission for an onshore terminal. Offshore processing for the Corrib gas field was not the preferred development option, as it would mean that production would be weather-sensitive, a serious drawback in the hostile environment at Corrib, and there would be greater capital and operational expenditure compared with a sub-sea development. The Deputy will accept the increased capital and operational expenditure that would be needed for an offshore terminal could have made the development uneconomic and there would also be increased safety concerns, as the offshore facilities would have to be manned.
In January 2001, the developers submitted to my Department a plan of development for the Corrib gas field. That states that, regarding facilities engineering, the area in which Corrib is located is characterised by a harsh marine environment, being directly exposed to the Atlantic fetch, a lack of existing hydrocarbon production infrastructure and the presence of active fishery industry interests.
Section 4 of the plan of development sets out the proposed concept — onshore terminal — and the alternative offshore concepts that were considered.
The offshore alternative concepts were eliminated in the plan of development due to a number of considerations, including the following. The water depth and hostile nature of the environment at Corrib do not favour the use of a fixed steel jacket or guyed tower; the latter has not been used outside the benign environment of the Gulf of Mexico. The floating production concepts are similarly not ideally suited to extended field life in the prevailing harsh environment, with large-bore, high-pressure gas export risers being a particular design issue. Remote control buoy technology has not been developed for the extreme environmental conditions experienced at Corrib. Development of an acceptable, reliable system could not be guaranteed within the proposed project time scale. All the proposed manned facilities options incur high operational expenditure and have increased adverse safety implications, particularly with respect to offshore transfer of personnel. High capital cost of all the floating or fixed platform options combined with the requirement for extensive gas transport infrastructure rendered the options sub-economic with predicted Corrib reserves and envisaged gas sale price. The relatively dry nature of the Corrib gas, eliminating the need for offshore processing, and high reservoir productivity, reducing the number of wells, allow the use of much simplified production facilities with high reliability. That permits the practical adoption of sub-sea production technology for Corrib.
In December 2000, my Department requested from the developers the results of its alternative concept studies. Those were examined and reviewed in January 2001 by the consultant petroleum engineer advising my Department. He advised the Department that the developers of the Corrib gas field should not be required to change or consider changing the Corrib development scheme.
Prior to the making of any decision on the consent to install and commission the onshore pipeline, a number of steps have been taken to allay the fears of residents, and especially those who live near the pipeline. First, I have commissioned an independent review of the design standard for the onshore pipeline. That report was widely distributed. Second, I have published the quantified risk assessment, QRA, version F, for the onshore pipeline. Third, I have commissioned an independent review of the QRA. I expect to receive that report shortly, and I will also publish it. I believe that all necessary steps are being taken to ensure that the issue of public safety of the residents of Rossport is being addressed and evaluated.