117 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will conduct a review of the sale and resolution of all outstanding issues relating to the sale of the Whitegate refinery; the sums of money Irish National Petroleum Company received after the Whitegate sale (details supplied); the amount transferred to the Exchequer; the amounts spent by the company each year from 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5323/07]

The business and commercial assets of the Irish National Petroleum Corporation (INPC) were sold on 16th July, 2001. The INPC received payment in full for these assets from the purchaser at the time of sale. A legal undertaking, by the purchaser, and its successors, to operate the Whitegate facilities on a fully commercial basis for at least 15 years, was a critical element of the sale from the State's perspective.

The headline payment figure was $100 million equivalent to €17 million for the 2001 transaction. The net cash return arising from the transaction was considerably less than this as the INPC was obliged to utilise most of the proceeds to discharge the company's significant debt of €88 million. After meeting all the company's matured liabilities the balance of funds remaining with the INPC was in the region of €30 million.

The INPC paid €20 million to the Exchequer in 2002. Under Company Law, the INPC must retain sufficient assets to meet potential liabilities, and therefore the payment of the remaining balance to the Exchequer does not arise. The INPC retains rights and obligations under the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement relating to the 2001 transaction. It is the INPC's responsibility to enforce any INPC rights and to defend or negotiate any claims made as and when they arise.

With regard to Company expenditure I would refer the Deputy to the Annual Reports and Accounts of the INPC, laid before the Oireachtas, for the years 2001 to 2005 inclusive. I do not propose to conduct a review of the 2001 transaction. I am satisfied that the transaction represented a favourable outcome for the State.