Sir, - During the June 30th Dáil debate on the Development (Strategic Gas Reserve) Bill – a Bill that would allow for the construction of a liquefield natural gas (LNG) import terminal in Cahiracon, Co Clare, – Government ministers made several unsubstantiated claims.
Minister Darragh O’Brien claimed the Bill “is consistent with our climate plan because that speaks to energy security and is a transitional measure, reducing the risk of stranded fossil-fuel assets. It is for emergency use only and does not support increased gas demand.”
Despite what the Minister says, this Bill will disapply the climate act to the project, has no timeline for decommissioning the terminal and does not define what “emergency use” means.
It also makes no provision to ensure that the additional gas supply introduced to the Irish gas mix will be cancelled out by a reduction in the current gas supply. The proposed terminal would need to be emptied and refilled at least six times per year due to LNG boil-off.
RM Block
All this completely disregards the clear recommendations of the Joint Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy (JCCEE).
O’Brien went on to claim that “this is not about building gas terminals all over the country – anything but”. He added: “This is a strategic reserve, State-owned and State-led.”
To ensure this would be the case, the JCCEE recommended the removal of parts of the Bill that would allow a commercial operator to apply for permission for the terminal. They also recommended that the Bill include safeguards preventing the terminal becoming commercial and preventing the development of any other commercial or State-led LNG terminals in Ireland. This was echoed in amendments tabled by opposition TDs.
Yet the Minister ignored the recommendations and did not accept the amendments and, as a result, the door has been left wide open to commercial LNG.
Later in the debate, Minister of State Timmy Dooley said the Bill “is really just about storage . . . it does not and will not add one extra element of carbon dioxide emissions”.
LNG is mostly produced by fracking. It then needs to be cooled to around -600 degrees Celsius, shipped and regasified. All these stages of the LNG process emit massive amounts of methane. As a result, LNG would produce roughly double the greenhouse gas emissions of the gas we currently use.
So, for Dooley’s statement to be true, not only would the Bill have to make provision for the reduction in our current supply to cancel out the new supply of LNG, it would also have to make provision for the reduction of our current gas-supply equivalent to roughly double that amount of LNG.
Of course, there is no such provision in the Bill. The question, then, is what is going on? - Yours, etc,
SAM MORAN,
Co Sligo
