§ 3. Mr. Smithersasked the Minister of Power on what date a report by Mr. Peter Burnett, of Ball Associates, Denver, which describes in detail a proposal to store gas underground at Chilcomb, near Winchester, and in outline a proposal to store gas at Sparsholt, near Winchester, entitled, "The Winchester Underground Gas Storage Project", and dated April, 1961, was submitted to him; and whether the document bears the signature of its author.
§ The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood)The report referred to by my hon. Friend was not formally submitted to me, but a copy was sent to my Department on 15th February, 1962. This bears the printed name of the author and his firm of consultants.
§ Mr. SmithersDoes that mean that my right hon. Friend has never seen the report, a copy of which I have in my hand?
§ Mr. WoodI have seen the April report, but the report on which I based my decision to consent to the Bill—and 911 I should like to take this opportunity of clearing up a misapprehension of which I think I was guilty last week—is the October report, and this report, unlike the April report, did not mention storage west of Winchester, in which my hon. Friend is interested, and did not mention it because it was not the subject of the Bill.
§ Mr. SmithersWould my right hon. Friend answer the first part of the question with regard to the signature? I do not think that he touched on that.
§ Mr. WoodI have said that this bears the printed name of the author and his firm. It is not actually signed on the copy that I have.
§ 5. Mr. Smithersasked the Minister of Power whether he will state the derivative origins, whether from coal, or liquid methane, or by-products of oil from the Fawley refinery, of the gas which it is proposed to store underground near and beneath the city of Winchester in terms of the Gas (Underground Storage) (Chilcomb) Bill, to the introduction of which he has given his assent.
§ 7. Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power whether he will state the relationship between his programme for importing liquid methane and projected underground gas storage at Winchester.
§ Mr. WoodThe Gas Council has not yet decided on the type of gas to be stored. Underground storage and the importation of liquid methane are not dependent on one another, but it might be possible to arrange a marriage.
§ Mr. SmithersWas not this scheme conceived and widely publicised as a means of facilitating the bulk importation and storage of liquid methane? Is it not rather late, now that the Bill is awaiting its Second Reading, for the Gas Council to be still trying to make up its mind what sort of gas it wishes to store?
§ Mr. WoodI think the two proposals were roughly simultaneous in time, but they were never necessarily connected with one another. I understand that the Gas Council has not yet decided. It may be convenient to store liquid methane underground. It might also be convenient to store other gases underground. It do not think the consideration 912 of the scheme should be determined by the kind of gas to be stored.
§ Mr. NabarroMay I profoundly disagree with my right hon. Friend? Is it not a fact that the House of Commons is being asked, in this instance, to adjudge economic considerations, and, having regard to the fact that there are three alternatives—coal from the Midlands or the North to be gasified in Southampton and stored underground, gas from the Fawley refinery as a byproduct, and gas from liquid methane—how can my hon. Friend and I adjudge the economic considerations to which I have referred unless we are given detailed information as to the future intentions of the Gas Council?
§ Mr. WoodI think my hon. Friend will be given those intentions. All I am suggesting is that the relationship between the importation of liquid methane and the projected underground storage of gas at Winchester is not necessarily a fixed and certain one. It may be stored there, or it may not, but certainly my hon. Friend is entitled to the fullest information about this scheme, if it is proposed to store liquid methane underground there.