Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 23 Feb 1993

Vol. 426 No. 5

Gas (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

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

Deputies will be aware that Bord Gáis Éireann is now undertaking a project, approved by Government in December 1991, to interconnect the Irish natural gas grid with the high pressure network in the UK by way of a subsea pipeline from north County Dublin to Brighouse Bay in south west Scotland. This project is being undertaken in the interests of the future development of the natural gas industry in Ireland, in order to provide for secure long term supplies of gas and to afford additional supply security during the remaining life of our two existing indigenous gas fields.

The interconnector project is a major undertaking which will cost almost £290 million. Progress to date has been very impressive. Expenditure on the project up to the end of 1992 was approximately £85 million. While the cost of the project may appear huge, it pales into insignificance when one considers that, over the lifetime of the pipeline, the value of the gas shipped through it will be many times that figure.

The project consists of four main elements. These are; a 30-inch pipeline which will run from Moffat in Scotland for 79 kilometres to Brighouse Bay on the Scottish coast; a compressor station to be located on the Scottish coast which will compress the gas for onward transmission to Ireland; a 24-inch subsea pipeline, 200 kilometres in length, which will run from the Scottish coast, across the Irish Sea to the landfall at Loughshinny, near Skerries in County Dublin; and a shore station which will be constructed at Loughshinny from where a 30-inch pipeline will run to Ballough on the Dublin-Dundalk pipeline to connect with the existing Irish grid.

A number of possible routes were examined at the feasibility study stage and sea surveys were carried out during 1990 and 1991. The criteria for route selection were technical and economic feasibility. The route from Loughshinny to Moffat proved to be the best option on both these criteria.

The compressor can deliver sufficient gas for our needs after Kinsale Head and Ballycotton are depleted. It is expected that our import requirements will have risen to about 5 billion cubic metres over the next 20 years, if market projections are realised, and through additions to compression, the pipeline will have capacity to meet these requirements. The current market for gas is about 2 billion cubic metres per year. The main growth sector we anticipate will be electricity generation. Gas is an ideal fuel for electricity generation and, with new combined cycle technologies, conversion efficiencies of over 50 per cent are possible.

Extensive planning and preparatory work has been necessary in advance of the construction phase of the pipeline project which is now ready to commence. All the work of surveying and engineering design has been carried out. Included in this work, going back to 1990, were feasibility studies in relation to both the technical and economic aspects of the project. There were negotiations with the local and central authorities involved on both sides of the Irish Sea. This work was co-ordinated by a small task force comprising officials of my Department together with people from BGE and its project management office.

Contracts have been awarded for the manufacture and coating of the pipe, for the laying of the subsea-section and for the onshore Scotland section. Contracts are about to be awarded for the construction of the compressor station and the onshore Ireland leg.

An agreement with the UK Government on the delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the area through which the pipeline will pass was concluded in 1992, extending further northwards the existing delimitation line, agreed in 1988 between the two jurisdictions. The necessary designation orders will be made shortly. This delimitation was a necessary first step to the conclusion of a more detailed pipeline treaty with the UK Government concerning all aspects of the laying and operation of the pipeline between the two countries. This agreement was negotiated by officials of my Department during 1992. I hope to obtain Government approval for the text in the near future. It will then be laid before the Dáil for its approval. The agreement deals with the routing of the line through Irish and UK waters, including the Isle of Man, construction standards, the issue of authorisations to the operators, joint inspections, safety and pollution control, emergencies, abandonment procedures and consultations between the two Governments. There will be a commission comprising representatives of each Government to oversee the smooth operation of the pipeline. The agreement also deals with the status of the Isle of Man, through whose territorial waters the line passes.

The on-shore leg of the pipeline in Scotland has been designed following consultation with the Northern Ireland authorities to cater for the transmission of gas from the British high pressure system to the offtake for the proposed Northern Ireland pipeline from Scotland to Islandmagee in County Antrim.

I should mention that Bord Gáis Éireann has been careful to comply fully with EC rules on public procurements by advertising contracts Community-wide. Deputies will understand that in many instances no Irish firm would have been in a position to tender. This is because of the highly specialised nature of the work which is carried on worldwide by a small number of firms. A good example would be the pipelaying offshore which requires very large pipelaying vessels. Nevertheless, a number of Irish firms have been successful in tendering for the less specialised areas and it is expected that in the region of £20 million will be spent in 1993 on Irish goods and services. The project is on target to meet its completion deadline of October this year and is within budget.

This Bill is necessary to ensure that the interconnector pipeline is completed on schedule. The pipeline must be financed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that helps to sustain and develop the role of natural gas in Ireland and the provisions of this Bill will ensure that this can be done. Accordingly, it provides for Bord Gáis Éireann's borrowing requirement and for the application of conditions to be laid down by me relating to the construction and operation of the pipeline during its lifetime. It is essential that these provisions are put in place as soon as possible.

The discovery of natural gas in the Kinsale Head field in the early 1970s, at a time of great volatility in the energy market, was very timely for Ireland as it helped to reduce our exposure to the uncertainties of that market. From the moment gas came on stream in 1978, successive Governments have striven to ensure that the best use has been made of this indigenous resources.

Thanks to the efforts of Bord Gáis Éireann we now have a safe, efficient and profitable transmission system, which has made gas available to domestic consumers in many of the urban population centres, to industrial and commercial customers from Cork to Cavan and, of course, to the ESB for electricity generation. The 1992 annual report and accounts of the board are not yet available but I understand that it has been another profitable and successful year. In 1991, the board declared a profit of £54.9 million on a turnover of £165.6 million and surrendered £31 million in dividends to the Exchequer. Sixteen million pounds of Bord Gáis Éireann's turnover in 1991 was accounted for by sales to NET, and while concern has been expressed at the use of indigenous gas for fertiliser production, notably in the Culliton report, a major consideration in any decision on the future of such sales must be whether there is a better alternative. When the recommendations of the task force on the implementation of the Culliton report have been fully considered, the Government will decide on the issue. It should be noted that sales to NET are the subject of commercial contracts dating from 1976 to 1987. Apart from the cost of voiding these contracts, there is a question of employment in the fertiliser industry.

The level of development of the transmission and distribution infrastructure achieved by Bord Gáis Éireann in such a relatively short time is no mean achievement. Bord Gáis has managed to build up a sizeable customer base. There are now over 195,000 gas customers, and natural gas currently represents about 17 per cent of our primary energy demand. Natural gas is the dominant fuel for industry within the gas supply area. In the domestic sector, gas central heating is the first choice for new housing within reach of the network. Volume sales in that sector increased by some 16 per cent in 1992 and almost 22,500 new central heating customers were connected in that year. In addition, Bord Gáis Éireann is now well into its major programme to connect non-gas housing estates to the grid, where this is economically viable.

It is clear, therefore, that natural gas has greatly expanded its role since the days when the only customers were NET and the ESB. The reasons for this are clear. It has proved to be a clean, versatile and competitive fuel, transported by pipeline, available on tap and requiring no storage arrangements. Modern gas-fired plant is very efficient and technology is improving all the time in gas turbine-powered electricity generation and combined heat and power units in industry.

Government policy is to ensure that we are not overly dependent on any one energy source or on any one fuel. An even balance of fuels achieves this and enables us to respond better in times of emergency and crisis. Most countries have about five primary energy sources— oil, coal, gas, hydro and nuclear. We, of course, do not have nuclear but we do have peat. We import about two thirds of our energy supplies and in turn about two thirds of the imports are oil, either as crude or product. Because of our development of gas use, our dependence on oil has been greatly reduced, but it still supplies nearly half of our energy needs. Naturally we wish to use these fuels as efficiently as possible—hence the emphasis in the Programme for Government on energy efficiency, and also of course on alternatives and renewables. Our indigenous fuels, gas and peat, are produced in about equal amounts. The bulk of both of these fuels is used for electricity generation. We have taken great care over the last number of years to have as wide a range of fuels as possible for this purpose.

The use of natural gas has resulted in savings to date of over £2 billion in our bill for imported fuels. Those who do not benefit directly from availability of natural gas have indirectly shared in the economic rent represented by dividends paid by Bord Gáis Éireann to the Exchequer. To date Bord Gáis Éireann has contributed over £300 million in this way. Therefore, gas has become a vital part of our energy and industrial policy and the Government is determined that it will continue as such.

The environmental benefits of gas are well known. As the cleanest fossil fuel, increased use of natural gas figures prominently in Ireland's startegy to minimise emissions of harmful gases such as sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide in line with our international commitments in that regard. Gas use in urban areas has also contributed significantly to improved air quality. It is hoped that over the next 20 years, natural gas will have increased its share of primary energy demand to about 30 per cent.

It was against the background of a growing natural gas industry, international environmental commitments, yet finite indigenous resources, that the decision to build the Ireland-UK gas interconnector was taken. This does not imply that the Kinsale Head and Ballycotton gas fields are all that the Irish offshore has to offer in terms of gas supply. We are still hopeful of further commercial finds. Indeed, much has been and continues to be done to encourage further exploration for oil and gas in the Irish offshore area.

In 1991 my predecessor signed an agreement with Marathon Petroleum under which that company agreed to drill seven exploration wells over a five-year period commencing last year. While the first of those wells was disappointing, I am hopeful of positive results from the rest of the drilling programme.

At the same time Bord Gáis entered into an agreement with Marathon under which the latter company has installed additional compression on the production platforms which will enable the parties to recover and bring forward in time an additional four billion cubic metres of gas. This gas, which might not otherwise have been recovered and is equivalent to two years' supply under the existing Kinsale Head contract, will be used in the period to end 1996. One result of this has been that Bord Gáis will not now require imports of large quantities of gas before 1996.

The 1992 Finance Act included provisions for the enactment of special petroleum taxation legislation which, for the first time, clarified the tax "take" from a field development and set it at a level designed to attract exploration investment to Ireland, while ensuring that Ireland would share in the benefits which would arise in the event of another find.

Another necessary condition to encourage further exploration is the application of modern and progressive licensing terms for exploration and production activities. A review of the existing licensing terms, first drawn up in 1975 and amended from time to time, was undertaken by my Department last year. The result of that review was that new licensing terms appropriate for the conditions of today and of the coming years were drawn up and recently launched. This package of measures is designed to bring about further activity in the Irish offshore by making Ireland a worthwhile location for international exploration investment. I am hopeful that an increased level of exploration activity, as a result of this package, will lead to further commercial finds.

Nevertheless, we must be realistic. We cannot assume that further indigenous reserves will be identified and brought on stream in time to cater for increased demand and to replace our current supplies as they begin to taper off. An alternative source is needed to assure supplies long into the future.

In the event of reserves of gas in excess of our needs being discovered, gas could be exported via the interconnector. This possibility should encourage further exploration and development in our offshore as it opens up a large market to potential developers.

The existence of the interconnector will see the end of Ireland's isolation as a stand-alone grid, dependent on a single supply pipeline and a single source. Irish participation in the UK and European gas markets will enable us to enjoy the benefits of greater competition and greater security of supply which the Community's single energy market offers. The pipeline will earn its keep from day one by providing security against any interruption of supply. An agreement, completed last year between BGE and National Power in the UK, will give BGE access to supplies at short notice in the event of any interruption in our indigenous supplies. The agreement is for a five-year period from November this year, by which time it is intended that a longer term supply agreement should have been finalised. Bord Gáis has already started work in this area.

The ESB will require additional volumes of gas during the remainder of the decade. As things stand, these volumes will have to be imported, and the ESB will need access to the pipeline for that purpose.

The interconnector project is not only of significance to Ireland but also to the European Community, which sees it as a vital link in the completion of the internal market in energy. As a result, the European Commission has agreed to grant aid the project at a rate of 35 per cent of approved cost from its REGEN initiative. Among the key objectives for the completion of the internal market in gas were the introduction of a price transparency, rights of transit for large utility companies, and third party access.

Directives relating to the first two of these are now in place. Proposals for third party access were not as successful, but it would be my intention that, subject to security of supply, access to available capacity should be afforded to large users such as the ESB and to producers.

It was open to the ESB to take an equity share in the pipeline. In the event, however, BGE and the ESB were unable to agree terms for such participation and Bord Gáis is now undertaking the financing of the project itself. There is, of course, nothing to prevent such a third party from becoming a partner. For the moment, however, the rest of the cost must be found by BGE and, in the absence of a suitable equity partner, this means from its own resources and from borrowing. No Exchequer funding is involved. This brings us to the matter in hand, the Gas (Amendment) Bill, 1993.

The statutory limit on BGE's borrowing for capital purposes was last amended in the Gas (Amendment) Act, 1987, when it was increased to £170 million. Expenditure in 1993 on the interconnector project, when added to the board's existing debt and the cost of capital expenditure which it must undertake in the course of its other activities, means that the limit must be raised substantially. I propose to increase it to £350 million.

The Gas (Amendment) Act, 1982, increased the limit on State guarantees on the borrowings of the board to £80 million. At the end of 1992, £55 million of BGE's borrowings were guaranteed. One element of the financial package which BGE has developed for the project involves borrowings from the European Investment Bank. These borrowings will require a State guarantee. In order to cater for this, I propose in this Bill to increase the limit on the amount of the Board's borrowings, which may be guaranteed by the State to £190 million.

In addition to the borrowing requirements, the question of BGE's statutory power is addressed in the Bill. Under section 8(7) of the Gas Act, 1976, as amended, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications has the power, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to give or withhold consent to the construction of pipelines by BGE, and to attach conditions to any consent. These conditions may relate, among other things, to ownership, operation and inspection. Doubts have been expressed that section 8(7) of the Act as it stands applies outside the State. The proposed amendment to section 8 of the Gas Act, 1976, contained in section 2 of this Bill, will remove that doubt, thus ensuring that BGE will have the statutory authority to proceed with the interconnector pipeline. It will also introduce the power to revoke a consent given under section 8.

References to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in section 8 of the Gas Act, 1976, are being deleted from this Bill. This is a technical amendment to tidy up the text of the Act, as the powers which were vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the 1976 Act were transferred to the Minister with responsibility for Energy in 1980 by means of a transfer of powers order which was approved at the time. These functions now reside in me as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications.

The design life of the interconnector pipeline is fifty years. The possibility exists that during the lifetime of the pipeline, interests in all or part of the pipeline could pass to other parties. Due to the vital nature of this pipeline, in its role as an energy link to Ireland, the Government will wish to retain control over its operation. I propose in this Bill to amend section 8(8) of the Gas Act, 1976, to allow me to impose a condition on Bord Gáis that any transfer of an interest in this or any other pipeline would be subject to my approval, and that any conditions which have been laid down for BGE in regard to construction, operation, maintenance and transfer of an interest in a pipeline would also apply to the transferee and to any subsequent transferee.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome this Bill in principle. As the Minister pointed out, it is a necessary piece of legislation to provide for the supply of natural gas to an interconnector pipeline from Moffat in Scotland across the Irish Sea to Loughshinny in County Dublin. The interconnector currently under construction extends approximately 147 miles and costs in the region of £290 million. It is one of the most important engineering feats to be undertaken by this country.

The Minister said the project has been undertaken for a number of reasons. It will secure the supply of gas following the depletion of the Kinsale Head field by providing a link into the existing system north of Dublin. It will meet additional gas needs that might arise before the year 2000 and allow Ireland to benefit from the integrated European natural gas network. In the long term the interconnector will provide an opportunity for exporting any surplus supplies of gas to the United Kingdom and mainland Europe should further reserves be discovered off the Irish coast.

I am delighted all the engineering and design work for this project has been undertaken in Ireland and that approximately 60 per cent of the design team are Irish. The total employment created by this project during the construction stage will be almost 800 jobs at any one time. An additional 200 to 300 will be employed indirectly through engineering and port and docks services as well as in the transport and servicing of the lay-barges. Considering these numbers I am extremely disappointed that BGE awarded a major contract to a consortium to carry out the work in Scotland. The consortium, Wood Bredero, submitted two tenders to BGE for the coating or wrapping of pipes. Under one tender, the work could have been carried out in Cork and under the other in Scotland. When accepting the Scottish tender, the chairman of Bord Gáis stated the decision was based on a difference of millions of pounds in expenditure. I accept Bord Gáis was subject to EC tendering and value for money regulations. Nevertheless, one must ask why an Irish company could not have been grant-aided to allow it to develop and carry out this work. The Minister said no Irish company had the expertise to do the work, but why were decisions not made and steps not taken to ensure that they could? This might have resulted in almost 300 jobs in the Cork area. In these times of unprecedented unemployment it is unthinkable that an opportunity such as this could have been allowed to slip from our shores for the want of foresight and determination. It is extremely regrettable that a project of this size did not result in a greater input of Irish manpower.

The interconnector is a vital link into the European gas grid. Bord Gáis has been concerned for a number of years about its security of supply especially as it has signed up for many major Irish industries to guarantee supply contracts. The Kinsale Head field will run out in the year 2000 at current depletion rates, with the small and nearby Ballycotton field extending its life by just under one year. Unless there are other natural gas finds in the Celtic Sea, Bord Gáis could face a major supply problem. The solution is an interconnector to the British grid. As the Minister stated, the five-year agreement between Bord Gáis Éireann and the United Kingdom Power Generating Company will enable BGE to ensure security of gas supply which will cater for domestic, commercial and industrial sectors should an unexpected shortfall occur in any of these areas from October 1993.

We must ask whether the decision to proceed with the interconnector is the right one. The decision by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to build this gas interconnector between the United Kingdom and Ireland is a major and irreversible one. It will have a substantial influence on the direction of all future energy policy in this country. Though funded from the EC to the tune of approximately £85 million, its total estimated cost will be in the region of £290 million. That will undoubtedly have an immense influence on future energy prices in this country. In view of the size of the investment, it is important to be confident the decision to proceed with the project is the correct one.

I regret that the results of the cost benefit study of the interconnector have not been released for study and public scrutiny. It is vital that an investment such as this be subjected to the most serious and rigorous economic analysis by all interested parties. The case for investing in an interconnector pipeline has to be based on the standards of costs and profitability. Searching questions must be asked in this regard. Does the construction of an interconnector provide primary energy at a lower cost than any other source? What are the economic consequences of building it? Does the development of the resource to serve the Irish market maximise the return on the investment? Is it appropriate to vest ownership of the pipeline only in the existing monopoly suppliers of gas, Bord Gáis Éireann?

It is wise to ensure a continued supply of gas after domestic resources have been exhausted. When the Kinsale grid is exhausted, it would be unacceptable and unwise to replace gas with other primary resources such as oil, coal or even peat. It is clearly in our interests to secure a gas supply, but all avenues and ways should have been explored as to how this interconnector could be paid for. They were not. We must ask whether the provision of the interconnector would have been a viable investment project for a private consortium. The Government never seemed willing to contemplate putting the pipeline up for private sector tenders. Why was the market not tested?

Bord Gáis indicated the cost of the interconnector will absorb most of the board's profit for the next seven years, leaving little or nothing to the Exchequer. This means it is the taxpayer who is investing in the interconnector. Surely the taxpayer would prefer to see Bord Gáis continue to return dividends from its profits to the Exchequer, rather than have those dividends invested in a project which has not been subjected to market viability tests. They cannot be sure the funds are being well used. Doubt and uncertainty could be eased if Bord Gáis could finance the pipeline by a share issue in a subsidiary pipeline company. At least this would have proved that the project was commercially viable. As it stands, the taxpayer has no guarantee whatsoever that this investment will earn a reasonable return. The history of equity investment by the taxpayer in Irish semi-State companies has not been a happy one.

Section 5 of this Bill provides for an increase in the limit on State guarantees on Bord Gáis borrowings from an existing level of £80 million to an exorbitant £190 million. This does not inspire confidence in the project's capacity. However, some economists will argue that the profitability of Bord Gáis must be judged on its contribution to the ESB and NET and to employment in these sectors. While debating this Bill it is important to examine the costs to Bord Gáis Éireann of supplying NET and the ESB with gas and the effect of that on the viability of this project. At present the ESB uses 45 per cent of Bord Gáis's gas output but pays half the price paid by residential and commercial consumers. For example, the residential sector pays between 33p and 37p per therm and the commercial sector pays between 21p and 38p per therm while the ESB, on average, pays 17p per therm. When the interconnector is built the cost of gas will increase substantially but Bord Gáis Éireann will have to keep its prices competitive with oil or it will lose some of its market share. It will not be feasible or fair to expect the residential or commercial sector to subsidise Bord Gáis Éireann's supplies to the ESB or to NET.

When the interconnector is in place, Bord Gáis will not be able to sell at its current prices to the ESB or to NET. What will be the outcome? The ESB could possibly switch to oil but NET may have to close down since it is only kept operating at present by cheap gas supplies. If, as I predict, NET will have to cease operations when Bord Gáis Éireann becomes dependent on the interconnector for bulk supplies, we must ask ourselves whether we should be propping up NET at the moment. It is folly to process legislation in this House to prop up NET one week while the next week facilitating its demise by the introduction of this Bill.

NET pays less than 20 per cent of the price paid by industrial and residential consumers, while the ESB pays 34 per cent. We must also remember that NET's allocation of gas is almost as large as the total supply of gas sold to residential or industrial users. Therefore, NET is central to examining the justification of spending almost £300 million on the gas interconnector. At present, gas supplies to NET cost Bord Gáis Éireann 400 per cent of the price paid by NET. The economic implications of this are horrifying. Each year, Bord Gáis Éireann is foregoing 70 per cent of the financial returns it might have by selling the gas that it now sells to NET to residential and commercial users. NET is actually burning out our gas fields. The same applies to gas sold to the ESB but in this case the margin of waste is about half that in the case of NET.

Another effect of present energy policy is that Bord Gáis Éireann, by selling at the present rate to the ESB and to NET, is advancing the date at which existing reserves will run out and thereby bringing forward our dependence on the interconnector supplies. Without the ESB and NET the lifetime of the Kinsale and Ballycotton fields could be trebled. It is estimated that this interconnector would not be needed until 2010 if Bord Gáis were not supplying NET and the ESB at the present rate. If the interconnector were not needed until 2010, savings to the economy would be enormous. The savings can be estimated by comparing the cost of interest payments if the project is started now to the cost of interest payments if the project were not started until the year 2005. This would involve 12 years interest payments on a borrowing of £280 million estimated, according to economists, to cost about £165 million. One has to seriously question the decision to invest immediately in the interconnector. Considering that this early start could cost £165 million a serious question whether or not the project should have started immediately.

There are several other arguments for the interconnector apart from simply securing a supply of gas. There are environmental reasons which make it wise to continue to use gas. It is a cleaner and more environmentally friendly fuel than others. Emissions from gas-based energy production are less than those from burning coal or oil. In this era of immense interest in environmental protection it is wise and logical to encourage and ensure greater use of gas.

There is also a domestic reason for the continuation of a good gas supply. Bord Gáis Éireann has been outstandingly successful in capturing the domestic heating market. Many householders have converted to natural gas which in many cases involved substantial structural work, the cost of which was borne by the householder. If gas subsequently became unavailable it would be impossible for domestic gas users to turn to oil without incurring major costs. The consequences of this need not be spelled out and gives Bord Gáis Éireann a strong argument for maintaining itself and for building the interconnector regardless of the costs and benefits.

Another reason in favour of the interconnector is that it will ensure energy supply diversification. It is logical that the country's energy supply is less exposed to interruption if it has several rather than a few primary energy resources. It is envisaged in the Bill that Bord Gáis Éireann will finance and operate the interconnector. In other words, Bord Gáis will be a monopoly supplier for the interconnector. Giving Bord Gáis control over bulk supply from abroad removes the possibility of any competition with Bord Gáis and will enable BGE to act as a monopoly and engage in the cross-subsidisation involved in supplying NET and the ESB. Third party access, though not covered in this Bill, will have to be seriously considered and I am glad the Minister mentioned it in his speech. I hope that provision for this is being considered by the Department of Energy as it will be necessary and wise to allow the ESB third party access to the pipe.

Taking all aspects into account the arguments weigh in favour of the interconnector. However, the project should have been open to far more public economic scrutiny. Will the interconnector provide primary energy at a lower cost? The answer has to be in the negative. Who will carry the burden? Will some suppliers continue to be supplied with gas at uneconomic prices? When will the price of gas start to increase? Will it be in 1994 when the interconnector becomes operational or later? What effect will dearer gas have on industry and consequently on unemployment? It must be a primary aim of the Government to ensure that energy costs are kept at a minimum and, with 300,000 people unemployed, it is vitally important that we do not impose exorbitant energy costs on industry.

Does it make good economic sense to continue subsidising NET and the ESB with the resultant need for this expensive interconnector? It would not be needed until the year 2010 but for the commitment to those two bodies. Bord Gáis Éireann must make known the price per unit charged to all users. All pricing practices must be transparent even if it causes some embarrassment. A price publication system should be established immediately, reporting average prices paid by the various representative categories of industrial consumers. It is regrettable that in market terms no effort was made by Bord Gáis Éireann to obtain equity funds to finance the project and thereby get an indication whether the project is economically viable.

The decision to proceed with the interconnector has been made in an attempt to secure a supply of natural gas in the long term, given the projected outlook for the two operating fields at Kinsale and Ballycotton. Nevertheless, the construction of the interconnector has had an early start when one considers the projected depletion date of our present reserves. This will have implications for the project's viability in its crucial earlier years.

The Culliton report recommended that the option of private participation in the financing and operation of the pipeline be fully explored and that the operation of the pipeline should offer maximum economic benefit to natural gas consumers in industry and elsewhere. The report stated that private funding should be found so as to reduce the need for significant investment by the Exchequer.

The commencement of the interconnector provides an opportunity to consider alternative structures for the gas industry. The Culliton report suggests that customers should be entitled to buy gas directly from producers. In other words, the pipeline should operate an open access policy. Competition would be healthy in the gas industry and would result in the reawakening of exploration activities around Ireland. At present the level of exploration is disappointing. Is the Government committed to the recommendations of the Culliton report on energy? I hope the Minister will outline his attitude to the recommendations.

I welcome the Bill in principle. However, when investment of this magnitude is undertaken the repercussions for consumers and taxpayers must be examined and reported. I look forward to Committee Stage where issues can be teased out and debated. I regard this Bill as the initiator of the interconnector and I hope it will be followed by further legislation which will deal with other issues arising from the existence of the gas interconnector between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

In a debate on gas in Ireland the most important factor which should dominate our thinking is that natural gas is a finite resource. There has been no commercial discovery of gas since the discovery off Kinsale Head in 1973. That is a major disappointment. When dealing with these matters in the late 1970s, I believed that a discovery of gas and, perhaps, oil, would take place because of the rate of exploration at that time. However, the level of exploration has declined considerably and the number of wells being drilled offshore is now a fraction of what it was. That is a reflection of the fact that many companies have been unsuccessful in their attempts to discover gas.

There must be substantial reserves of gas. We have substantial reserves of oil in the Porcupine Bank which is located 110 miles off the west coast, but it would be economically viable to extract it only if the price increased substantially in real terms. I would like to see, as would Deputy Molloy, a considerable expansion in the exploration for gas in the Celtic Sea and Irish Sea, because it is feasible to land gas without great expense or difficulty from these areas.

The former Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, signed a contract with Marathon to drill seven wells over the five years in their holdings in the Celtic Sea. That was an achievement but it contrasts with the position 15 years ago when it was common to have seven, eight or nine wells drilled in one year by several companies and not over a five-year period. Now that new seismic knowledge is available, I hope that Marathon will be successful in one of the wells either this year or next year. It is important to have further reserves because existing reserves will expire in the year 2000. It is a pity to see something we thought we might have forever running out.

The need for the interconnector is vital. Deputy Ahearn questioned the economics of the interconnector. One could question the economics of it but for strategic reasons it is right to proceed with the interconnector. It will be valuable and important to this country. If further discoveries were made around the Kinsale Head and Ballycotton fields and we did not exhaust our gas supply, we would still be in a vulnerable position because we have only one pipeline coming ashore from our fields. If anything should happen to the pipeline all gas consumers would be without gas. If an accident were to happen at sea it might take months to repair and domestic and industrial consumers would be in an impossible position.

It is right that we should seek to become part of a European Community gas grid as soon as possible. One of the disadvantages from which we have suffered has been the lack of an electricity interconnector, which the Provisional IRA has deprived us of since 1974. This has been a considerable cost to the Exchequer, the ESB and the taxpayer in Northern Ireland. I hope they are proud of their achievement. I am glad that they can be circumvented by the laying of this interconnector and I welcome this.

Regarding the cost and the manner in which it is proposed to finance the interconnector, the Minister should examine the matter carefully. During my time in the Department of Energy in the late 1970s I proposed that we build a pipeline from Cork to Dublin. After much study by BGE I received an estimate of £130 million. As that was a lot of money I baulked and vacillated for some time. I asked companies from abroad to examine and estimate the proposed cost of such a pipeline. They said it need not cost £130 million. Arrangements were made with a partly formed consortium to build and design the pipeline. It was built between 1980 and 1982 at a cost of £30 million, as opposed to the 1978 estimate of £130 million. One must remember that inflation was approximately 19 or 20 per cent at the time.

It is fair to say that the Cork-Dublin pipeline was built for approximately one fifth to one sixth of the original BGE estimate. That is a horrendous reduction but it is marvellous that it happened. It was an error to have given the original estimate, it is fortunate that it was seriously questioned at the time and that I was not prepared to go ahead with the Cork-Dublin line unless a more reasonable estimate of the cost was given. I presume that everyone has learned a lot since the 1970s and that the Minister and the Department of Energy are satisfied that the £290 million cost of the proposed sub-sea line is the best and most competitive quote that can be obtained. I believe that is the case, but I hope it has been confirmed by independent sources as well, lest we have a repetition of what almost happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The Minister's speech was helpful because it contained considerable information. However, one vital piece of information which is necessary for an evaluation of what is being proposed in this Bill and which the Minister did not give, is the import cost of the gas. We know it will be more expensive than what Marathon are paid. It is not paid a high price by BGE. This cost could be several times greater than Marathon are paid, but it is important that we know the amount. Perhaps before this Second Stage debate is concluded the Minister could inform the House of the figure. He may say that the contracts have not been finalised, but he could give us an approximate figure. I have heard that the price could be three times higher than that BGE are paying as a base price to Marathon. It is important that we know the cost because although natural gas is inexpensive for the ESB and NET, it is not inexpensive for domestic, industrial and commercial consumers. As a consumer myself, I know that when three years are up——

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy O'Malley, but the Minister of State wishes to move a motion.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn