asked the Minister for Energy the up-to-date position concerning a feasibility study on the potential of Ballingarry Mines, Thurles, County Tipperary; if he will make available the findings of such a study as a matter of urgency; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Drilling operations, initiated by a potential investor in the Slieveardagh Coalfield, which commenced in the coalfield in February 1986 as part of a feasibility study, are not yet completed. Accordingly, the findings of the study, the release of which would be a matter for the company concerned, are not available.

The drilling operations have been suspended for the time being pending resolution of issues arising between the company carrying out the feasibility study and the receiver of Flair Resources (Ireland) Ltd., holders of the State mining lease. My understanding is that, while considerable progress has been made on the matters at issue, they have not as yet been resolved.

In the absence of Deputy Seán Treacy I would like to ask a couple of supplementary questions on this. The Minister said that the feasibility study, commenced in February 1986, has not been completed and has been suspended. Will he agree that the reason the feasibility study was suspended was that the receiver, Mr. Somers, sought certain moneys from Kelvin Resources, who were doing the feasibility study, in the middle of the operation without giving them prior knowledge? Were his Department aware of this conflict between the receiver and Kelvin Resources?

Yes, that is, to a certain extent, correct. The receiver of Flair Resources (Ireland) Ltd, insisted on some condition being met by the potential investor who apparently started off his feasibility study in early February, but the receiver was not satisfied that the conditions he required were met and he demanded that the potential investor stop the feasibility study and laid down certain conditions. My Department were fully aware of the difficulty that had arisen and officials from my Department met with both parties on 6 March last and impressed on all sides my desire to have the difficulties resolved and a decision made on future involvement in the field. Negotiations are continuing between the receiver and the investor but as yet a conclusion has not been reached.

Will the Minister agree that the main condition sought by the receiver, Mr. Somers, from the potential investor, Kelvin Resources, was an allocation of moneys? I accept that the Minister's Department and the receiver have been in consultation about this. In effect has any contact been made by either the Department or the receiver with Kelvin Resources and has there been any response from Kelvin Resources since those representations were made to them by the Department and by the receiver?

Negotiations are going on between the receiver and Kelvin Resources. The conditions laid down by the receiver also involved matters other than money. He maintained that his consent should have been sought for Kelvin's drilling contractor to enter the leasehold area. He also required details of the proposed drilling programme and wished to be allowed to engage expert assistance to enable the receiver to assess adequately Kelvin's exploration programme and to monitor their operations if necessary. Because the receiver had inadequate funds, he also wished Kelvin to cover any expenses incurred by him in connection with the feasibility studies.

He also felt obliged to be provided with evidence that the consent of the relevant landowners had been received for drilling to be carried out on their land and to be provided with evidence that adequate public liability insurance was in place. These are matters solely for the receiver and he was acting as receiver. My Department continue to be made aware of the developments in the negotiations.

The Minister has been very fair in his replies. He stated that the Department of Energy held the lease of the mines but does he accept that there is a major dispute in this regard which has caused problems in relation to feasibility studies and future investment? The dispute is between the Department and Mr. Conneely who claims to own the head lease and, in view of the controversy regarding the true ownership, can the Minister say if there has been any report from the examiner as to determination of the true owner? If not, when is the report due?

There will be civil legal proceedings in this matter and they are not the responsibility of my Department. There is a dispute between Kelvin Energy Ltd. and Mr. Martin Conneely——

If this matter is the subject of legal proceedings it should not be discussed here.

It would be inappropriate to give any details in regard to this matter at present.