Pollution from the Betelgeuse wreck
Quinn questioned how pollution could still be occurring after assurances that sinking the vessel posed no further risk. Faulkner clarified that the slight leakage came from the section still sunk at the jetty, not the section previously sunk; Quinn acknowledged the misunderstanding.
The Minister said that the current oil pollution on the shore is now caused almost entirely by the pollution that was there prior to the sinking of the Betelgeuse. Obviously, by implication, some of the current pollution must be coming from the Betelgeuse.
Comment on this
With all due respect, how could a decision have been taken to sink the Betelgeuse and how could an assurance be given to the public—by the Minister, if I recall the press reports rightly—that there would be no further risk from the sinking of the Betelgeuse, and yet we now have this additional pollution?
Comment on this
The Deputy is not referring to the same thing. The part of the Betelgeuse that was sunk was what I was referring to when I said that there would not be any further pollution from it. We are concerned now with the part of the ship which is sunk at the jetty.