tithe an oireachtais an comhchoiste um chumarsáid, · pdf filetithe an oireachtais an...

Tithe an Oireachtais

An Comhchoiste um Chumarsáid,

Gníomhú ar son na hAeráide agus Comhshaol

Tuarascáil ón gComhchoiste

maidir leis

an nGrinnscrúdú Mionsonraithe ar

an mBille um Thoirmeasc ar Pheitriliam i dTír Mór a Thaiscéaladh

agus a Astarraingt, 2016

A leagadh faoi bhráid dhá Theach an Oireachtais 12 Aibreán 2017

Houses of the Oireachtas

Joint Committee on Communications,

Climate Action and Environment

Report of the Joint Committee

on the

Detailed Scrutiny of the

Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction

of

Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016

Laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas 12 April 2017

32CCAE001

Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016

Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Brollach ................................................................................................................................................................. 11

Preface .................................................................................................................................................................. 13

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 15

1.1. Joint Research Programme on Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration and

Extraction ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

1.1.1. Groundwater, Surface Water and Associated Eco-systems............................................................ 19

1.1.2. Seismicity ........................................................................................................................................ 19

1.1.3. Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 19

1.1.4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 20

1.1.5. Impact Areas where Data/Experience is Inadequate ..................................................................... 21

2. Policy and legislative Scrutiny framework .................................................................................................... 23

A. Policy and Legislative Framework ........................................................................................................... 23

The Policy Issue ................................................................................................................................................ 23

Exploitation of Shale Gas .............................................................................................................................. 23

Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 24

Transport Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................... 28

Rail and Road Transport ............................................................................................................................... 28

Gas Pipeline .................................................................................................................................................. 31

Gas Pipelines and Disused, Dismantled or Abandoned Railway Lines .......................................................... 32

2.1. The Policy and Legislative Context ...................................................................................................... 33

2.1.1. Prohibition in Certain European Union states ................................................................................ 34

2.1.2. England and the Shale Wealth Fund ............................................................................................... 34

2.1.3. Scotland .......................................................................................................................................... 35

2.1.4. Northern Ireland ............................................................................................................................. 35

2.1.5. Wales .............................................................................................................................................. 35

2.1.6. European Union .............................................................................................................................. 35

2.2. Is the Policy Issue Addressed?............................................................................................................. 36

2.3. Non Legislative Approach.................................................................................................................... 37



2.4. Government Bills ................................................................................................................................. 38

2.5. Unintended policy consequences ....................................................................................................... 39

2.6. Performance Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 39

B. Financial Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 41

2.7. Financial Implications .......................................................................................................................... 41

2.7.1. Charge on the People ..................................................................................................................... 42

2.7.2. Charge on the Revenue................................................................................................................... 42

2.7.3. Opportunity Costs ........................................................................................................................... 43

2.8. Compliance Costs ................................................................................................................................ 44

C. Legal Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 45

2.9. Is the Bill constitutional? ..................................................................................................................... 45

2.10. Compatibility with EU legislation and Human Rights Legislation ........................................................ 47

(ECHR) .............................................................................................................................................................. 47

2.11. Ambiguity in Drafting .......................................................................................................................... 51

2.12. Drafting Deficiencies ........................................................................................................................... 51

2.13. Unintended Legal Consequences ........................................................................................................ 52

2.14. Administrative and Legal Arrangements ............................................................................................. 53

3. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 55

3.1. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 55

3.2. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix 1: Orders of Reference – Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment.... 59

A: Functions of the Committee – derived from Standing Orders [DSO 84A; SSO 70A] .................................... 59

B: Scope and Context of Activities of Committees (as derived from Standing Orders) [DSO 84; SSO 70] ....... 62

C: Establishment of Select Committees: Dáil Éireann Motion Thursday, 16 June 2016 .................................. 63

Committee Terms of Reference: Motion – Dáil Éireann 7 September 2016 ................................................ 64

D: Establishment of Select Committees: Seanad Éireann Motion Thursday, 21 July 2016 .............................. 65

Committee Terms of Reference: Motion – Seanad Éireann 29 September 2016 ........................................ 65



E: Functions of the Joint Committee ................................................................................................................ 66

Oversight of the Department ....................................................................................................................... 66

Public Service Management Act, 1997 ......................................................................................................... 67

Engagement with Chairmen Designate of State Bodies under the Aegis of the Department ...................... 67

Oversight of Bodies under the Aegis of the Department - Communications, Broadcasting, Postal ............ 68

Oversight of Bodies under the Aegis of the Department - Climate Action and Energy ................................ 69

Oversight of Bodies under the Aegis of the Department - Environment and Natural Resources ................ 70

Appendix 2: Statutory Functions - Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment ..... 71

Broadcasting Act 2009 ..................................................................................................................................... 71

Broadcasting Authority of Ireland – Accountability to the Joint Committee ............................................... 71

Proposing Members of the boards of BAI, RTÉ, and TG4 ............................................................................. 72

Chairman and Director General of RTÉ and TG4 accountable to the Joint Committee................................ 72

Media Mergers ............................................................................................................................................. 73

Inland Fisheries Act 2010 ................................................................................................................................. 74

Proposing members of the board ................................................................................................................. 74

Chairman and Chief Executive Accountable to the Joint Committee ........................................................... 74

Electricity Regulation Act 1999 ........................................................................................................................ 74

CER (Commission for Energy Regulation) ..................................................................................................... 74

Accountability of Commission to the Joint Committee ................................................................................ 74

Communications Regulation Act 2002 ............................................................................................................. 75

ComReg (Commission for Communications Regulation) .............................................................................. 75

Laying of orders and regulations before Houses of Oireachtas.................................................................... 75

Accountability of the Commission to the Joint Committee .......................................................................... 75

National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007............................................................................................................ 75

Accountability of the Chief Executive to the Joint Committee ..................................................................... 75



Appendix 3: Membership of The Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment ....... 77

Dáil Select Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment .............................................. 78

Seanad Select Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment ......................................... 79

Committee Contact Details .............................................................................................................................. 80

Appendix 4: Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 .............................. 81

Appendix 5: Explanatory Memorandum - Prohibition of Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill

2016 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 87

Appendix 6: Opening Statement by the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment .... 91

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 91

Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 91

Steering Committee ......................................................................................................................................... 93

Project .............................................................................................................................................................. 94

Consortium Partners ........................................................................................................................................ 94

Costs ................................................................................................................................................................. 95

Integrated Synthesis Report ............................................................................................................................. 95

Conclusions of Report ...................................................................................................................................... 95

Prohibition ........................................................................................................................................................ 96

Thanks and welcome questions ....................................................................................................................... 96

Appendix 7: Opening Statement by the Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................ 97

Opening Statement .......................................................................................................................................... 97

Establishing the UGEE Joint Research Programme – Some Context ................................................................ 99

Purpose and Content of the UGEE Joint Research Programme ..................................................................... 100

Closing Remarks ............................................................................................................................................. 102

EPA Appendix ................................................................................................................................................. 104

EPA Research Programme .......................................................................................................................... 104

Key Findings from the Aberdeen Report .................................................................................................... 105

Further Details about the Contract Award ................................................................................................. 105

Project Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 107

Project Governance and Stewardship ........................................................................................................ 107



Review Process of the Reports ................................................................................................................... 108

Appendix 8: Opening Statement CDM Smith ............................................................................................... 109

Statement of Mr. A. G. Hooper, Research Consortium Project Manager ...................................................... 109

Personal Statement ........................................................................................................................................ 109

Summary of the Joint Research Programme .................................................................................................. 110

Water ............................................................................................................................................................. 111

Monitoring Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 113

Seismicity........................................................................................................................................................ 113

Baseline Characterisation of Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 116

Operations and Mitigation ............................................................................................................................. 117

Regulatory Regime ......................................................................................................................................... 120

Programme Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 122

Appendix 9: CDM Smith / Hooper Presentation ................................................................................................. 125

Appendix 10: EPA led Joint Research Programme on the Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on the Environment

and Human Health .............................................................................................................................................. 141

Appendix 11: Commitee Meeting 31 January 2017 ........................................................................................... 143

Appendix 12: Second Stage Motion ................................................................................................................... 145

Appendix 13: Committee Debate Tuesday, 31 January 2017 ............................................................................. 147

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals ............................................................................................................... 147

Policy Issues arising from the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 and the EPA report

on Hydraulic Fracturing: Discussion ............................................................................................................... 148

Appendix 14: Estimated Valuation of the NW Carboniferous and Clare basins ................................................. 169

Value of Recoverable Gas ............................................................................................................................... 169

Gas Price ......................................................................................................................................................... 169

Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................... 170

Appendix 15: Public Consultation on UGEE ........................................................................................................ 171



BROLLACH

Tharchuir an Dáil an Bille um Thoirmeasc ar Pheitriliam i dTír Mór a Thaiscéaladh agus a

Astarraingt, 2016 chuig an gcoiste an 27 Deireadh Fómhair 2016.

Tharchuir an tAire Cumarsáide, Gníomhaithe ar son na hAeráide agus Comhshaoil an Clár

Comhthaighde maidir le Tionchar an Scoilte Hiodrálaigh ar an gComhshaol agus ar Shláinte an

Duine faoi threoir na Gníomhaireachta um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil (GCC) chuig an gcoiste an 13

Nollaig 2016.

Thionóil an Comhchoiste éisteachtaí maidir leis an mBille le saineolaithe ón Roinn Cumarsáide,

Gníomhaithe ar son na hAeráide agus Comhshaoil, ón nGníomhaireacht um Chaomhnú Comhshaoil

agus óna sainchomhairleoirí – an cuibhreannas faoi threoir CDM Smith, agus thug an Comhchoiste

cuireadh do dhaoine den phobal a gcuid tuairimí a chur faoina bhráid.

Ar scór phléití an Chomhchoiste, tá roinnt conclúidí agus moltaí déanta aige a bhféadfar iad a

léamh ag deireadh na Tuarascála seo.

Tar éis breithniú a dhéanamh ar an bhfianaise go léir a cuireadh faoi bhráid an choiste, agus cé go

nglacann an coiste leis go bhféadfadh buntáistí eacnamaíocha agus méadú ar áirithiú fuinnimh

d’Éirinn teacht as cead a thabhairt do thaiscéaladh neamhghnách ola agus gáis, is é tuairim an

choiste gur tábhachtaí ná na sochair seo an priacal a bhainfeadh don chomhshaol agus do shláinte

an duine as teicneolaíocht nár baineadh mórán trialach aisti go fóill.

Braitheann an coiste anuas air sin gur dócha go mbeadh de thoradh ar infheistíocht bhreise i

saothrú breosla iontaise go laghdófaí ar infheistíocht i bhfoinsí inmharthana fuinnimh, ag féachaint

do ghealltanais na hÉireann i ndáil le maolú ar athrú aeráide.

Dá thoradh sin, tacaíonn an coiste leis an mBille, faoi réir aon leasuithe teicniúla is gá chun go

mbeidh an Bille éifeachtach.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Antoine Mac Lochlainn agus é a mholadh as an

Bille a thionscnamh, agus níl aon amhras orm ach go mbeidh dea-éifeacht ag an mBille, tar éis a

achtaithe, ar dhul chun cinn na hÉireann i dtreo an dhícharbónaithe, fad a chinnteofar nach

bhfulaingeoidh an pobal éifeacht dhochrach a d’fhéadfadh teacht as scoilteadh hiodrálach.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na daoine agus na grúpaí go léir a ghlac páirt sa

bhreithniú a rinneamar ar an ábhar seo, lena n-áirítear iad siúd a chuir aighneachtaí faoinár

mbráid mar aon leo siúd a tháinig os comhair an Chomhchoiste.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil freisin le Comhaltaí an Chomhchoiste as a gcuid oibre fad a bhí

an Tuarascáil seo á hullmhú, agus le foireann Rúnaíocht na gCoistí agus foireann Oifig an

Chomhairleora Dlí Parlaiminte as an gcomhairle a chuireadar ar fáil don Chomhchoiste.

_____________________________

Hildegarde Naughton

Cathaoirleach (Chairman)

12 Aibreán 2017



PREFACE

The Dáil referred the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016

to the committee on 27 October 2016.

The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment referred the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) led Joint Research Programme on the Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on

the Environment and Human Health to the committee on 13 December 2016.

The Joint Committee held hearings on the Bill with experts from the Department of

Communications, Climate Action and Envirornment, the Environmental Protection Agency and their

consultants - the consortium led by CDM Smith, and invited members of the public to submit their

views.

On foot of its deliberations, the Joint Committee has arrived at a number of conclusions and

recommendations which can be read at the end of this Report.

Having considered all the evidence offered, while the committee accepts that while there may be

economic advantages and enhanced energy security for Ireland in allowing unconventional oil and

gas exploration, the committee is of the view that these benefits are outweighed by the risks to

the environment and human health from an as yet relatively untried technology.

The committee also feels that further investment in exploitation of fossil fuels would in all

likelihood reduce investment in sustainable sources of energy, mindful of Ireland’s commitments in

relation to climate change mitigation.

Consequently, the committee supports the Bill, subject to any necessary technical amendments to

make the Bill effective.

I would like to thank and commend Deputy Tony McLoughlin for sponsoring the Bill, and I have no

doubt that the Bill, when enacted, will have positive effects on Ireland’s progress towards a

decarbonised society, while also ensuring that the public are not subjected to the potentially

harmful effects that may be associated with hydraulic fracturing.

I would like to thank all the individuals and groups who contributed to our consideration of this

subject, including those who made submissions as well as those who appeared before the Joint

Committee.

I wish to also thank the Members of the Joint Committee for their work in preparing this Report,

and the respective staffs of the Committee Secretariat and the Office of the Parliamentary Legal

Advisor for their advice to the Joint Committee.

_____________________________ Hildegarde Naughton

Cathaoirleach (Chairman)

12 April 2017



1. INTRODUCTION

On 27 October 2016 the Dáil referred the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of

Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 to the Select Committee on Communications, Climate

Action and Environment.

The Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment subsequently

decided to carry out a detailed scrutiny of the Bill in accordance with Standing Orders,

before the Select Committee proceeds to Committee Stage.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for a clear and unequivocal position in

relation to the exploration and extraction of petroleum from shale rock, tight sands and

coal seams in the Irish onshore and Ireland’s internal waters.

One method of unconventional gas exploration and extraction involves

… hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of low permeability rock to permit the extraction

of natural gas on a commercial scale from unconventional sources, such as shale

gas deposits, coal seams and tight sandstone.1

An illustration of this method can be found in figure 1 on page 16.

The Northwest Carboniferous Basin, an area which is believed to have potential for shale

gas exploration, spans across the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. It spans

an area that includes counties Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Mayo, Monaghan, Roscommon

and Sligo in Ireland2 and county Fermanagh in Northern Ireland.3

The other relevant area which is believed to have potential for shale gas exploration is

mainly situated in county Clare, along with parts of counties Cork, Kerry and Limerick

and “extends offshore as the Clare Basin”4. A map of both basins can be found in figure

2 on page 17.

During the second stage debate in Dáil Éireann on 27 October 2016 on the Prohibition of

the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016, the Minister for

Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Denis Naughten TD indicated his

strong view that the work of the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Climate

Action and Environment in respect of the Bill would be considerably aided and advanced

by being able to consider the outcome of the Environmental Protection Agency led Joint

1 Hooper, A., Keating, D., and Olsen, R., (2016) UGEE Joint Research Programme Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) (2014-W-UGEE-1) Integrated Synthesis Report, Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency p. ix. 2 Past Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Mr. Conor Lenihan, Minister Lenihan invites applications for Onshore Petroleum Licensing Options over the Northwest Carboniferous Basin and Clare Basin. 3 EPA, (2013) Proposed Terms of Reference for EPA/DCENR/NIEA Research Programme on Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration & Extraction (UGEE), 2013, p.1. 4 Croker, P.F., (1995) The Clare Basin: a geological and geophysical outline. Geological Society. London. Spec. Publ. 93: 327–339

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/ugeejointresearchprogramme/EPA%20-%20UGEE%20Integrated%20Synthesis_web.pdf

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/natural-resources/en-ie/Oil-Gas-Exploration-Production/Pages/Onshore-Licensing.aspx

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/natural-resources/en-ie/Oil-Gas-Exploration-Production/Pages/Onshore-Licensing.aspx

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/ugeejointresearchprogramme/UGEEStudy_ProposedTechDesc.pdf



Research Programme on the Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on the Environment and

Human Health.

The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment subsequently

forwarded this report to the Joint Committee on 12 December 2016, and this report was

scrutinised by the Joint Committee at its meeting on 31 January 2017.

Figure 1: Illustration of how the fracking procedure works

Source: bbc.com (2015) What is fracking and why is it controversial? Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401



Figure 2: Map illustrating the Northwest Carboniferous Basin and

the Clare Basin

Source: swanireland.ie (2016) Sustainable Water Network, Hydraulic Fracturing ─ Interactions with the Water

Framework Directive & Groundwater Directive and Implications for the Status of Ireland’s Waters, p. 116.

Availble at: http://www.swanireland.ie/wpfb-file/hydraulic-fracturing-water-report-for-swan-pdf

http://www.swanireland.ie/wpfb-file/hydraulic-fracturing-water-report-for-swan-pdf



1.1. JOINT RESEARCH PROGRAMME ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF UNCONVENTIONAL GAS EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a contract to a consortium headed

by CDM Smith Ireland Limited in August 2014 to carry out a 24-month research

programme looking at the potential impacts on the environment and human health from

Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) projects and operations.

In November 2016, the EPA published an Integrated Synthesis Report and a series of

related reports (eleven in total) arising from the Joint Research Programme on

Environmental Impacts of UGEE.5

The scope of the Joint Research Programme was developed to address two key

questions, namely:

can UGEE projects/operations be carried out in the island of Ireland while also

protecting the environment and human health; and

what is best environmental practice in relation to UGEE projects/operations?6

In light of the questions above, the authors of the Integrated Synthesis Report concluded

that:

… many of the activities associated with UGEE projects/operations could

proceed on the island of Ireland, while protecting the environment and human

health. This should be done using the best practices identified in Final and

Summary Reports 4: Impacts and Mitigation Measures and applying the

current regulations, together with a small number of additions and

modifications that should be complemented by adequate implementation and

enforcement.7

On foot of this general conclusion, the authors of the Integrated Synthesis Report then

proceed to make several observations on some of the potential negative effects that have

been raised in relation to Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction activities. These

are discussed further below.

5 http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/ugeejointresearchprogramme/ 6 Hooper A., Keating D. and Roger Olson, Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) Joint Research Programme, Integrated Synthesis Report, EPA, 2016, p. 42. 7 Ibid, p.42.

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/ugeejointresearchprogramme/




1.1.1. GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER AND ASSOCIATED ECO-SYSTEMS

The EPA notes that in a regulatory context identifying and documenting volumetric

impact is relevant. They state that the ecological impact of UGEE-related abstractions

will ultimately determine whether or not an abstraction authorisation should be granted.8

The EPA state that the bedrock aquifers in both study areas (the Northwest

Carboniferous Basin and the Clare Basin) are viable sources of water to meet demands,

at least in part. It is stated that the potential future UGEE-related abstractions would

have to be evaluated at both local and catchment levels.9

The Report acknowledges that the characterisation and knowledge of deep geological

and hydrogeological conditions represent the principal data gaps associated with both

case study areas.10

1.1.2. SEISMICITY

It is suggested that if best practice is applied it is unlikely that there will be any seismic

consequences to normal receptors.11 However, the EPA Report has identified the need for

detailed baseline monitoring as an essential requirement for any future unconventional

gas exploration and extraction.12

1.1.3. AIR QUALITY

The EPA recommends that further research into the potential cause-effect relationship of

UGEE activities and actual health outcomes in hazard analyses requires further

research.13 As the Report notes:

A review of seven jurisdictions where commercial UGEE operations are ongoing

found that, in all cases, a full baseline characterisation of air quality had not been

carried out prior to the commencement of operations. This has been highlighted as

an important information gap and recommendations for baseline studies and

extensive investigations into potential air quality impacts have been made in many

studies.14

8 Hooper A., Keating D. and Roger Olson, Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) Joint Research Programme, Integrated Synthesis Report, EPA, 2016, p. 12. 9 Ibid, pp. x-xi. 10 Ibid, p. xi. 11 Ibid, p. xi. 12 Ibid, p. xiv. 13 Ibid, p. xvi. 14 Ibid, p. xvi.





1.1.4. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The Report notes that surface chemical spills and leaks would be likely to occur and

operators must be prepared with appropriate responses and mitigation measures.15

In addition the Report also notes that fluids associated with drilling and hydraulic

fracturing operations, together with natural gas constituents that are present or

released, represent potential sources of groundwater contamination if these migrate to

the near-surface environment via natural, induced or artificial pathways.16

The EPA Report highlights the following issue: accidental spills of flowback and produced

water can be expected from UGEE-related activities and, although the overall risk of

impact from transport-related spills of flowback17 and produced water is considered to be

low, these could result in an environmental impact.18

The Report notes that “one of the main areas where uncertainties are liable to remain

relates to the quantification of long-term greenhouse gas emissions”.19

15 Hooper A., Keating D. and Roger Olson, Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) Joint Research Programme, Integrated Synthesis Report, EPA, 2016, p. xvii. 16 Ibid, p. xvii. 17 Flowback is a water based solution that flows back to the surface during and after the completion of hydraulic fracturing. 18 Ibid, p. xvii. 19 Ibid, p. xvii.





1.1.5. IMPACT AREAS WHERE DATA/EXPERIENCE IS INADEQUATE

In the conclusion of the Integrated Synthesis Report, the authors note the following:

However, there are three main impacts where the data and/or experience do

not permit a reliable assessment of their consequences and these would

require clarification before environmental protection and human health can be

ensured. The three potential impacts that cannot be discounted by regulatory

control and good practice are as follows:

1. Groundwater aquifers could be polluted as a result of the failure or deterioration

of well integrity. The drilling and construction of wells is a routine activity in the

water and oil and gas sector and standards for their design and construction are

well established. However, experience shows that there are examples of wells

that have failed or have deteriorated well integrity. It is believed that a rigorous

process of design, design review, construction supervision and operational

monitoring (with remedial works if necessary) could mitigate this impact, but this

cannot be demonstrated without further evidence. Such a process should be a

requirement of any UGEE operations in the island of Ireland. There is incomplete

knowledge of the aquifer systems in the two study areas, with specific data gaps

related to the deep hydrogeological characterisation and how the deeper

groundwater flow systems may be hydraulically connected to shallow aquifers and

receptors. As a consequence, the impacts cannot be reliably addressed in the

absence of baseline monitoring data.

2. The fracking process intentionally generates cracks in the rocks that typically

extend to 100–200 m; however statistical analysis suggests that they can extend

by up to 300 m and, in extreme circumstances, by up to 500 m. If the separation

between the fracking activity and the base of the aquifer is less than these

distances, then there will be a risk of pollutant and gas migration to the aquifer,

although this could be reduced if impermeable rock layers separate the two. This

risk is compounded by the possibility of pollutant and gas migration in the newly

fractured (after fracking) shale rocks towards pre-existing permeable faults that

could also provide a pollutant and gas pathway to the aquifer. The seismic

elements of this programme have developed a new approach to evaluate fracture

propagation and length, which requires site-specific data on seismic activity, rock

characteristics and existing fracture networks to refine these estimates for the

two study areas. These data would come both from the baseline monitoring

(originally anticipated to be within the scope of work for the programme) and

from detailed monitoring during UGEE operations.



3. Gas emissions have been cited by the public to be of concern from a human

health viewpoint. During active operations, these can be adequately managed by

mitigation measures that address the health and safety of the workforce, who

would be at a much higher level of exposure than the general public. Following

closure of a well, it is sealed and capped to prevent egress of gas. However, there

is evidence from conventional oil and gas wells that this closure process is not

always successful or can deteriorate with time and that stray gas leakage has

occurred. Neither the reasons for this, nor the scale of the emissions is

quantitatively known and so their impact cannot be reliably assessed until further

data are available. Methane is an important GHG and therefore this is an issue of

concern, although it should be noted that approximately 90% of GHG emissions

are likely to occur during the generation of electricity rather than at the

production stage.20

At its meeting on 31 January 2017, the Joint Committee met with:

Officials from the Department of Communications, Climate Action and

Environment;

Officials from the Geological Survey of Ireland;

Representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency; and

Representatives of the consortium led by CDM Smith Ireland Limited.

The Joint Committee has been guided by, inter alia, the findings of the Joint Research

Programme on Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Exploration and Extraction, the

information contained within the submissions received by the Joint Committee as part of

the public consultation which it hosted in early 2017, and the information supplied by

witnesses at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 31 January 2017 in drafting this

report.

20 Hooper A., Keating D. and Roger Olson, Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) Joint Research Programme, Integrated

Synthesis Report, EPA, 2016, pp. 42-43.





2. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY FRAMEWORK

This scrutiny framework was developed by the Working Group of Committee Chairmen

for the scrutiny of private members bills by Joint Committees of the Houses of the

Oireachtas.

A. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

THE POLICY ISSUE

EXPLOITATION OF SHALE GAS

Internationally, there has been a surge in the exploitation of shale gas by fracking.21 In

Ireland, while the extraction of shale gas on a commercial scale is not likely to occur in

the near future, a number of exploratory licenses were granted in the past. The

Geological Survey of Ireland had the following to say on the matter:

At present there is no shale gas or unconventional gas exploration and extraction

(UGEE) project/operation underway that has reached either the exploratory or

commercial drilling stage.

In Ireland, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

(DCENR)22 announced in February 2011 that it was offering Onshore Petroleum

Licensing Options to:

(i) Tamboran Resources PTY Ltd over 986 km² in the Northwest

Carboniferous Basin;

(ii) Lough Allen Natural Gas Company Ltd over 467 km² in the Northwest

Carboniferous Basin; and

(iii) Enegi Oil Plc over 495 km² in the Clare Basin.

These ‘options’ were valid for a period of up to a maximum of 24 months and

gave the holder the first right, exercisable at any time during the period of the

Option, to an Exploration Licence over all or part of the area covered by the

Option. The licensing options awarded were preliminary authorisations and were

designed to allow the companies assess the shale gas potential of the acreage

largely based on desktop studies of existing data. Exploration drilling, including

drilling that would involve hydraulic fracturing, was not allowed under these

21 Healy, D (2012) Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts A Small Scale Study for the Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland) under the Science, Technology, Research & Innovation for the Environment (STRIVE) Programme 2007 – 2013, Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA, 22 As of 23rd of July 2016, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is known as the Department of Communications, Climate Action and the Environment.



Licensing Options. Two of the three companies, which had been granted on-shore

licensing options in February 2011, have submitted applications for a follow-on

exploration licence. DCENR initially evaluated these applications, focussing on the

technical rationale underpinning the applications, along with the corporate

information provided. Where the outcome of this stage of the evaluation is

positive, further consideration of the application will then be put on hold until

after the findings of the EPA/DCENR/NIEA Research Programme have been

published. It is not proposed to consider applications for exploration

authorisations in respect of other onshore areas until this Research Programme

has concluded.23

The Committee notes that the nature of the "options" granted to two exploration

companies appears to demonstrate that no undertaking was given to them that an

exploration licence would be forthcoming. Quite the contrary, they were aware that a

moratorium was in place.

Therefore, the Committee does not believe they would have a claim that legislation that

barred the grant of a licence would contravene their legitimate expectation.

This is also relevant to CETA, which is discussed below.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Concerns raised relate to potential environmental impacts from fracking.24 Submissions

made by the public to the Joint Committee raised a number of concerns regarding

fracking. These include:

Increased risk of seismic activity;

Threats to air quality;

Threats to water quality;

Threats to public health;

Pressure on local infrastructure.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for a clear an unequivocal prohibition on the

exploration and extraction of petroleum from shale rock, tight sands and coal seams in

the Irish onshore and Ireland’s internal waters. The Bill ensures the prohibition of any

exploration or extraction of petroleum from rock that requires additional processes to

23 Geological Survey Ireland (2017) Shale Gas in Ireland , Ireland: Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Available: http://www.gsi.ie/Shale+Gas.htm 24 Healy, D (2012) Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts A Small Scale Study for the Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland) under the Science, Technology, Research & Innovation for the Environment (STRIVE) Programme 2007 – 2013, Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

http://www.gsi.ie/Shale+Gas.htm



increase the permeability of the rock and aid in the extraction of petroleum from

lithologies, shale rock, tight sands and coal seams.25

The Joint Committee notes that there is no public policy on the activities covered by the

Bill, while there is also significant public and industry interest in the issue.

The Joint Committee also notes that Government and state agencies such as the

Petroleum Affairs Division in the Department of Communications, Climate Action and

Environment and the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) may need policy direction

from the Houses of the Oireachtas on how they will assess likely applications for

exploration.

The Joint Committee also notes that, at present, the Environmental Protection Agency

has the responsibility for the issuing of licences for the “extraction, other than offshore

extraction, of petroleum, natural gas, coal or bituminous shale”26. However, as shale

gas may not come under this definition, it appears that legislation is required to provide

guidance in the area.

Two considerations arise here:

1) whether the extraction of shale gas falls within the term "bituminous shale" as

referred to in the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960 or "bitumens"

or "oil shales" in the Minerals Development Act 1940 as amended. That would be a

matter for relevant geological experts.

2) It appears that the EPA is responsible for issuing integrated pollution licences.

Among matters in respect of which it may issue those licences are "The extraction,

other than offshore extraction, of petroleum, natural gas, coal or bituminous shale".

These relate to the emissions caused by the extraction. So, for example, if

exploration is successful, the State might grant a petroleum lease to an oil company

under s. 13 of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960, but before

the company could work the oil under the lease, it would require an integrated

pollution licence from the EPA.

Alternatively, presuming that shale oil is covered by the 1960 Act (which it may well not

be), the Minister would grant a lease for its exploitation, but the oil company would also

require an integrated pollution licence from the EPA.

25 McLoughlin., T (2016) Prohibition of Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 Explanatory Memorandum, Ireland: Houses of the Oireachtas 26 Class 9.1, First Schedule, Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992.



If it is not covered, exploitation probably requires a licence both from the Minister under

the Minerals Development Act 1940 as amended and an integrated pollution licence from

the EPA.

The Joint Committee notes that the natural resources specified in the Bill, while focused

in the 12 counties of the Northwest Carboniferous and Clare Basins, are present

throughout the island of Ireland. The exploitation of this resource could have global

consequences, from a climate change point of view in particular, but the effects will be

most immediately and directly borne by the local communities where exploration may

take place.

The Concerned Health Professionals of New York maintain and update a compendium of

publications relating to “fracking”, with the most recent version being published in

November 2016,27 and the co-founder of the organisation, Ms. Sandra Steingraber, PhD

had the following to say in relation to health concerns:

The available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that fracking is incredibly

harmful. Scientific studies have demonstrated that drilling and fracking can

increase risk of cancer, respiratory conditions, and migraines in communities

surrounding fracking sites.28

The 4th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that the

warming of the climate is unequivocal,29 very likely due to human activities,30 and will

very likely exceed the ability of many ecosystems to adapt.31

The Environmental Protection Agency, in its recent study, also highlighted the following

in relation to groundwater pollution:

The process of hydraulic fracturing creates cracks in the rock through which gases

can move towards the well for collection. The length of these cracks is difficult to

predict, but the assumption of a length of 300 m, with a very low probability of

500 m, is thought to be a conservative approach. If these ruptures extend into an

aquifer, then there is a possibility of gas migration and pollution of the aquifer.

This same risk is higher if the rock mass has pre-existing permeable fault zones

that are intersected by the fracked cracks, allowing more extensive pollutant

27 Concerned Health Professionals of New York & Physicians for Social Responsibility. (2016, November 17). Compendium of scientific, medical, and media findings demonstrating risks and harms of fracking (unconventional gas and oil extraction) (4th Ed.) 28 Filson, D., (2016) Doctors Release New Comprehensive Fracking Impacts Report & Deliver Over 100 Recent Studies to Governor Wolf, New York: Concerned Health Professionals of NY Available: http://concernedhealthny.org/doctors-release-new-comprehensive-fracking-impacts-report-deliver-over-100-recent-studies-to-governor-wolf/ 29 Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. eds., (2007) Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Switzerland: IPCC P.30 30 Ibid p. 37 31 Ibid p. 65

http://concernedhealthny.org/doctors-release-new-comprehensive-fracking-impacts-report-deliver-over-100-recent-studies-to-governor-wolf/

http://concernedhealthny.org/doctors-release-new-comprehensive-fracking-impacts-report-deliver-over-100-recent-studies-to-governor-wolf/



migration. The evaluation of the risk of this occurring would necessitate detailed

geological structural definition of the hydraulic fracturing site and real-time

seismic monitoring of fracturing operations.32

The Environmental Protection Agency, also in its recent study, identified a number of

data gaps which would need further investigation if Unconventional Gas Exploration and

Extraction activities were to be permitted in Ireland, and the study noted the following in

that regard:

The characterisation and knowledge of deep geological and hydrogeological

conditions represent the principal data gaps associated with both case study

areas. Specific gaps in the hydrogeological knowledge of the two study areas

relate to potential deep groundwater flow, deep water quality and hydraulic

connectivity between unconventional gas target formations and shallow

receptors. In the context of prospective UGEE activity, structural geological

characterisation would have to undergo further and more detailed geological

investigation, including deep drilling and borehole geophysical logging.

Identification of faulting would benefit from detailed surface geophysical

survey work. Deep hydrogeological characterisation would equally benefit

from investigative work involving drilling, hydraulic testing, sampling and

monitoring of new wells to depths of several hundred metres.33

Consequently, the Joint Committee believes that there is a sufficient evidence base that

warrants the introduction of a prohibition of this nature.

32 Hooper, A., Keating, D., and Olsen, R., (2016) UGEE Joint Research Programme Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) (2014-W-UGEE-1) Integrated Synthesis Report, Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency, p. 41 33 Hooper A., Keating D. and Roger Olson, Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) Joint Research Programme, Integrated Synthesis Report, EPA, 2016, p. 11.




TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

If parties partaking in Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction activities, if it is

permitted, are successful in extracting gas from, in particular, the Northwest

Carboniferous Basin, this resource will need to be transported from the area.

The Joint Committee also notes that the output of such operations, i.e. oil or gas, could

create safety issues while they are being transported, while also placing extra pressures

on the transportation infrastrucure in the region.

Oil and gas may be transported by either:

pipeline

rail

road

sea

Sea transportation would not appear to be feasible in this case, the other options are

examined below.

RAIL AND ROAD TRANSPORT

It appears to the Joint Committee that rail or road would be the only viable options in

this instance.

However, the use of road transportation would greatly increase the number of heavy

vehicles on existing roads, which would lead to increased carbon emissions, and traffic

conjestion on the limited road infrastructure in the region.

Alternatively, long tank trains, of which the largest in Ireland are 27 containers in

length,34 which would need to travel around the country in order for their contents to be

refined and distributed.

Neither of these options are desirable as, on the one hand carbon emissions may

increase35, but on the other hand there are risks in relation to the transportation of

fracked resources by tank trains.

For instance, a train that was “transporting crude oil from a large shale deposit in North

Dakota known as the Bakken field”,36 derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic in Quebec,

34 Journal of the Irish Railway Record Society, October 2016, Vol. 26, No. 191, p. 190. 35 Rail freight, particularly for bulky goods, could remove considerable numbers of trucks from the road network which would reduce congestion, in turn leading to environmental benefits such as reductions in noise and air pollution. Road is estimated to be around 30% more expensive than rail per tonne km in the transportation of biomass over 100km and around 45% more expensive over 200km given the economies of scale associated with rail. Furthermore, rail freight has less impact on the environment than road freight: rail is estimated to emit 22.8 grams CO2 per tonne km vs. 123.1 grams CO2 per tonne km for road. Rail Review 2016 REPORT, August 2016, Page 19 National Transport Authority https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/151116_2016_Rail_Review_Report_Complete_Online.pdf

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/151116_2016_Rail_Review_Report_Complete_Online.pdf



Canada on 06 July 2013 and resulted in the deaths of 47 people. It is worth noting that

the crude oil that was being transported was the product of a fracking operation in North

Dakota.

In publishing the findings of its investigation into the incident, the Transportation Safety

Board of Canada noted that “an accident is never caused by just one factor. This report

identifies 18 distinct causes and contributing factors, many of them influencing one

another.”37 These 18 causes can be found in figure 3 on page 31.

The Joint Committee believes that this disaster, and the subsequent investigation,

illustrates the complexities involved in the regulation of Unconventional Gas Exploration

and Extraction operations.

The Joint Committee believes that if the parties partaking in Unconventional Gas

Exploration and Extraction activities, if it is to be permitted, are succesful in extracting oil

in either the Northwest Carboniferous Basin or the Clare Basin, then this resource will

need to be transported to Ireland’s only oil refinery in Whitegate in County Cork. If gas is

found, a gas refining plant would be required.

The Joint Committee notes that the nearest railway, Dublin – Sligo, is single track from

Maynooth to Sligo, ( Dublin – Longford was originally double track but changed to single

track from Clonsilla, Dublin to Longford in the 1920s). The alternative Colloney –

Claremorris – Athenry line is disused and in poor condition, other lines are abandoned

and dismantled. See the map overleaf: Railway lines in County Leitrim (including

abandoned lines).38

The Joint Committee does not feel that Ireland’s rail and road infrastructure is currently

in a position to support transportation of this nature.39

36 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-was-lac-megantic-crude-oil-so-flammable-authorities-want-closer-look-at-cargo-from-train-disaster 37 http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054-r-es.pdf 38 Source: Johnson’s Atlas & Gazetter of the Railways of Ireland, Stephen M Johnson, Midland Publishing Limited, 1997 39 For instance, the train that was transporting crude oil through the town of Lac Mégantic had 72 carriages, altogether carrying 7.7 million of petroleum crude oil.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-was-lac-megantic-crude-oil-so-flammable-authorities-want-closer-look-at-cargo-from-train-disaster

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-was-lac-megantic-crude-oil-so-flammable-authorities-want-closer-look-at-cargo-from-train-disaster

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054-r-es.pdf



Figure 3: 18 distinct causes and contributing factors to the

Lac-Mégantic accident

Source: Transportation Safety Board of Canada; Lac-Mégantic runaway train and derailment investigation summary, 2014 available at : http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapportsreports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054-r-es.pdf

GAS PIPELINE

Gas Networks Ireland confirmed that there are currently no plans to expand the gas

network into the Northwest area of the country40 and, as a consequence, any gas would

need to be transported by either rail or road. Again, the Joint Committee does not feel

that this would be a desirable arrangement due to the issues mentioned above. A map of

the current gas pipeline network can be found in figure 4 below.

40 Information supplied to Committee Secretariat by Gas Networks Ireland in a phone call on 23 March 2017.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapportsreports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054-r-es.pdf



Figure 4: Gas Pipeline map of Ireland41

GAS PIPELINES AND DISUSED, DISMANTLED OR ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES

The Committee notes that some parties were proposing42 to lay gas pipelines in disused

or dismantled railway lines in the north west region, the Committee is adverse to using

disused or dismantled old railway lines to carry gas pipelines as this would make it

impossible to restore rail services at a future date, or alternative uses e.g. “greenways”

for example the former Waterford – Dungarvan railway was recently opened as the Deise

Greenway43. The railway lines around County Leitrim (including disused and dismantled

lines) are shown in Map on page 30.44

41 Source: Gas Networks Ireland http://www.gasnetworks.ie/en-IE/About-Us/Our-network/Pipeline-Map/ 42 Plan envisages reusing old rail routes for gas pipeline The Irish Times, Friday 8 December 2000. 43 Waterford’s 46km greenway opens for cyclists and walkers - Off-road track, along an old railway, includes coast, viaducts, tunnel and spectacular gorge, The Irish Times, Saturday 15 March 2017 44 Johnson’s Atlas & Gazetter of the Railways of Ireland, Stephen M Johnson, Midland Publishing Limited, 1997.

http://www.gasnetworks.ie/en-IE/About-Us/Our-network/Pipeline-Map/

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/plan-envisages-reusing-old-rail-routes-for-gas-pipeline-1.1119998

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/travel/ireland/waterford-s-46km-greenway-opens-for-cyclists-and-walkers-1.3022201



2.1. THE POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

Oil prospecting and recovery in Ireland is governed in principle by the Petroleum and

Other Minerals Development Act 1960, as amended. This defines “petroleum” as:

… any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas and other liquid or

gaseous hydrocarbons and their derivatives or constituent substances existing in

its natural condition in strata (including, without limitation, distillate, condensate,

casinghead gasoline and such other substances as are ordinarily produced from

oil and gas wells) and includes any other mineral substance contained in oil and

natural gas brought to the surface with them in the normal process of extraction,

but does not include coal and bituminous shales and other stratified deposits from

which oil can be extracted by distillation.

The Minerals Development Bill 2015, which is currently before the Committee, invokes a

similar definition. As can be seen, “bituminous shales” are excluded, but “bitumens” and

“oil shales” are specifically included as minerals within the meaning of the Minerals

Development Act 1940 as amended and the 2015 Bill.

A Bill designed to ban certain exploration and extraction technologies was moved in the

Dáil in 2015 by Deputy Richard Boyd-Barrett.45 The Joint Committee notes that this Bill

was introduced on 17 December 2015 and that the Bill was restored to the order paper

following a motion in the Dáil on 01 June 2016, but has since been withdrawn.46

The Joint Committee also notes that that a similar Bill was introduced by Deputy Richard

Boyd-Barrett on 08 November 2016, but that the Bill has not progressed any further

since that date.

The Committee notes the Government White Paper on Energy, Ireland’s transition to a

low carbon energy future (December 2015) which commits Ireland to radically reducing

our dependence on fossil fuels and also our greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

45 McGee, H., (2015) Richard Boyd Barrett to present Bill to prohibit fracking, Ireland: The Irish Times Online, Available: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/richard-boyd-barrett-to-present-bill-to-prohibit-fracking-1.2469901 46 Boyd Barrett., R (2015) Prohibition of Hydraulic Fracturing Bill 2015: Leave to Withdraw Dáil Éireann, 08 November 2016. Available: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016110800016?opendocument#P02400

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/richard-boyd-barrett-to-present-bill-to-prohibit-fracking-1.2469901

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016110800016?opendocument#P02400



2.1.1. PROHIBITION IN CERTAIN EUROPEAN UNION STATES

At the start of the decade, many European countries experienced “a shale gas boom”. It

was hoped that shale gas would increase energy security particularly for Eastern

European countries.47 However, concerns led environmentalists and citizens in many

European countries to take action.48 For example, despite it being suggested that France

has the highest potential for shale gas deposits, 49 the French Government banned

fracking in May 2011 in response to pressure from environmental groups. Other

European countries such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Germany have also banned

fracking.

In the UK, where the technique is not banned, the decision has been taken to allow each

jurisdiction in the UK to decide whether fracking should be permitted.

2.1.2. ENGLAND AND THE SHALE WEALTH FUND

In England, fracking is not banned, but s. 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 inserted new

ss. 4a and 4b into the Petroleum Act 1998. The effect of the amendment is that fracking

may not be undertaken at a depth of less than 1 km, a special fracking licence has to be

obtained, and that licence must have specified conditions contained therein.

Furthermore, Her Majesty’s Treasury in the UK are currently hosting a consultation on

the merits of a “Shale Wealth Fund” and the consultation document had the following to

say on the matter:

Exploring and developing the UK’s shale gas resources could bring substantial

benefits and the government’s view is that there is a national need to develop

these resources in a safe, sustainable and timely way. The Shale Wealth Fund,

which could deliver up to £1 billion of funding, a proportion of which could be paid

out to each community over 25 years, will ensure that the benefits of shale

developments are shared by communities and regions in which the resource is

developed.50

47 Osterath., B (2015) What ever happened with Europe's fracking boom? DW Available: http://www.dw.com/en/what-ever-happened-with-europes-fracking-boom/a-18589660 48 Ibid 49 Osterath., B (2015) What ever happened with Europe's fracking boom? DW Available: http://www.dw.com/en/what-ever-happened-with-europes-fracking-boom/a-18589660 50 HM Treasury, Shale Wealth Fund: Consultation, p.3. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/544241/shale_wealth_fund_final_pdf-a.pdf

http://www.dw.com/en/what-ever-happened-with-europes-fracking-boom/a-18589660




https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/544241/shale_wealth_fund_final_pdf-a.pdf



2.1.3. SCOTLAND

In Scotland, there is a moratorium in place on the issuing of fracking licences, with a

determination on whether to allow the practice to proceed to be made in the second half

of 2017.51

2.1.4. NORTHERN IRELAND

In Northern Ireland, the “ban” on fracking was implemented by publishing it as part of a

Strategic Planning Policy Statement, to which planning authorities must have regard: see

Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, ss. 1 and 8(5)(b).

2.1.5. WALES

The Joint Committee also notes that, at an informal meeting with members of the

Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee of the National Assembly for

Wales on 26 January 2017, Members of that Committee suggested that fracking would

be prohibited in Wales once the appropriate powers are devolved to the National

Assembly for Wales.

2.1.6. EUROPEAN UNION

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union enshrines Ireland’s right to

determine its own energy mix, 52 and this legislative approach supports the wider

European Objective to decarbonise our energy system in a manner which allows us meet

our commitments under the Paris Agreement.53

51BBC News, ‘Scottish government to make fracking decision in 2017’, 08 November 2016. Available: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37898602 52 Article 194 (2), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 53 United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement, Available: http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37898602

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37898602

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf



2.2. IS THE POLICY ISSUE ADDRESSED?

The Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 aims to

prevent mineral exploration or exploitation permits, and related planning permissions

being granted for what is known as “fracking” and, apparently, some related

technologies.

The Joint Committee notes that an alternative approach would be to amend one of the

Minerals Acts, particularly the Petroleum and Other Minerals Act 1960, rather than to

enact a stand-alone measure.

However, at second stage in the Dáil, the Bill had broad support from all sides of the

House.

The Joint Committee’s view is that it is important that this Bill be enacted as a stand

alone measure.



2.3. NON LEGISLATIVE APPROACH

There is “a moratorium on the licensing of hydraulic fracturing” and this “has been in

place since 2013”.54 In reference to the report of the EPA led Joint Research Programme

on the Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on the Environment and Human Health, Minister

for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten said that

… the Report's findings justify the continuing prohibition on the licensing of

hydraulic fracturing… 55 in Ireland.

On this point, it is possible that maintaining the moratorium on the licensing of hydraulic

fracturing could present a non-legislative alternative to an outright prohibition of fracking

in Ireland, however, the Joint Committee was adamant that an enforceable prohibition

be upheld at its meeting on 31 January 2017. For instance, Deputy Bríd Smith had the

following to say:

I hope my suspicions that the industry wants to leave a chink open on the basis

that this will not get through or that it could be revisited in the future are utterly

and totally misguided and wrong, but I would like to hear that is the case. We

need to deal with climate change and protect the environment. Any idea of shale

gas becoming part of an industry in this country flies in the face of that need.56

In this respect, the Joint Committee does not feel that there is a viable non-legislative

approach to the current policy issue.

54 Minister Naughten's statement on the Publication of the EPA led Joint Research Programme on the Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on the Environment and Human Health: http://www.dccae.gov.ie/news-and-media/en-ie/Pages/PressRelease/Minister-Naughten's-statement-on-the-Publication-of-the-EPA-led-Joint-Research-Programme-on-the-Impacts-of-Hydraulic-Fractu.aspx 55 ibid 56 Meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment on 31 January 2017.

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/news-and-media/en-ie/Pages/PressRelease/Minister-Naughten's-statement-on-the-Publication-of-the-EPA-led-Joint-Research-Programme-on-the-Impacts-of-Hydraulic-Fractu.aspx

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/news-and-media/en-ie/Pages/PressRelease/Minister-Naughten's-statement-on-the-Publication-of-the-EPA-led-Joint-Research-Programme-on-the-Impacts-of-Hydraulic-Fractu.aspx



2.4. GOVERNMENT BILLS

The Joint Committee notes that Oil prospecting and recovery in Ireland is governed in

principle by the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960, as amended. This

defines “petroleum” so that it:

…includes any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas and other liquid

or gaseous hydrocarbons and their derivatives or constituent substances existing

in its natural condition in strata (including, without limitation, distillate,

condensate, casinghead gasoline and such other substances as are ordinarily

produced from oil and gas wells) and includes any other mineral substance

contained in oil and natural gas brought to the surface with them in the normal

process of extraction, but does not include coal and bituminous shales and other

stratified deposits from which oil can be extracted by distillation.

A similar definition is included in the Minerals Development Bill 2015 currently before the

Committee. As can be seen, “bituminous shales” are excluded, but “bitumens” and “oil

shales” are specifically included as minerals within the meaning of the Minerals

Development Act 1940 as amended and the 2015 Bill. Article 10 of the Constitution

envisages extensive State management of mineral deposits, and this is reflected in the

legislation. All petroleum automatically vests in the State pursuant to s. 5(1) of the 1960

Act. Other mineral deposits may be compulsorily acquired by the State if in the opinion

of the Minister they are not being worked satisfactorily, as per Minerals Development Act

1940, Part III.

The Joint Committee also notes that an alternative approach would be to amend one of

the minerals Acts, especially the Petroleum and Other Minerals Act 1960, rather to enact

a stand-alone measure. Many of the definitions could then be revised; for example,

“Irish onshore and Ireland’s internal waters” would not be needed, because the same

matter is addressed in the definition in s. 2(1) whereby “‘land’ includes foreshore and

land covered with water”.

The Joint Committee considered combining the current Private Member’s Bill with the

Government-sponsored Minerals Development Bill 2015. However, Deputy Seán Kyne,

Minister of State for Natural Resources, had the following to say during the second stage

debate of the 2015 Bill in the Dáil:

…the Bill does not cover oil and gas, as the exploration and development of

petroleum are regulated under separate legislation. Therefore, issues such as

hydraulic fracturing or fracking are outside the scope of this Bill.



On this basis, the Joint Committee does not believe that there is any merit in combining

the current Bill with any Government-sponsored Bills.57

2.5. UNINTENDED POLICY CONSEQUENCES

The Bill has a number of policy objectives according to the Bill’s explanatory

memorandum. The Bill aims to prohibit:

The issue of any undertaking, consent, licence or permit for the exploration,

prospecting or leases or other permissions to facilitate the extraction of

petroleum from within the State from shale rock, tight sands and coal seams;

The use of any processes to increase the permeability of shale rock, tight sands

and coal seams for the purpose of extracting petroleum;

Any Minister, Agency of the State or Body acting on behalf of the State to engage

in prospecting or exploration of petroleum from shale rock, tight sands and coal

seams;

The development of any infrastructure or facilities required for such extraction

within the State; and

The processing and/or disposal of any fluid or waste used in extraction processes

within the State.58

The Joint Committee believes that some of the terminology of the Bill should be revised

(for example, the “State” is invariably referred to as such in legislation and not as the

“Republic of Ireland”).

The only potential unintended policy consequences that the Joint Committee is aware of,

at this point, are those that may arise from terminology issues such as the one

mentioned in the example above.

2.6. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

As this Bill relates to a prohibition, the Joint Committee does not believe that there will

be any issues in relation to implementation, particularly as there has been a de facto

prohibition in the form of a moratorium in place for the past number of years.

The Joint Committee does not feel that performance indicators are necessary in the

current instance.

57Minerals Development Bill 2015 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Continued): http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2017022200051?opendocument 58 Explanatory Memorandum, Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2017022200051?opendocument



B. FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT

2.7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Joint Committee considered whether the Bill involved a charge on the people, a

charge on the Revenue, or had other costs including opportunity costs.

The committee considered financial provisions of the Constitution of Ireland:

ARTICLE 17

1 1° As soon as possible after the presentation to Dáil Éireann under Article 28 of

this Constitution of the Estimates of receipts and the Estimates of expenditure of

the State for any financial year, Dáil Éireann shall consider such Estimates.

2° Save in so far as may be provided by specific enactment in each case, the

legislation required to give effect to the Financial Resolutions of each year shall

be enacted within that year.

2 Dáil Éireann shall not pass any vote or resolution, and no law shall be enacted,

for the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys unless the purpose of the

appropriation shall have been recommended to Dáil Éireann by a message from

the Government signed by the Taoiseach.

These provisions are given effect by standing orders.

Private Members Bills which have financial implications (ie. which propose charges on the

people or on the public purse) are only in order for introduction if these implications are

“incidental” to the purposes of the Bill (SO 178(1) and 179(1)).

At that, these private members bills may only be taken at Committee Stage if a Financial

Resolution has been passed (in the case of charges on the people – 178(2)) or a Money

Message has been received from Government (for appropriation of revenue or public

monies – 179(2)).

The Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016, while it

may cause a loss of potential revenue being acquired by the State in terms of licenses,

taxation etc. in the event of fracking being prohibited, it does not involve a charge on

the people or the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys, therefore neither a

Financial Resolution nor a Money message are required, and therefore there is no

financial procedure impediment to the Bill proceeding to Committee stage.

The detailed reasons are outlined in the following pages.



2.7.1. CHARGE ON THE PEOPLE

The relevant standing order is as follows:

Bills involving the imposition of charges upon the people.

178. (1) A Bill which involves the imposition of a charge upon the people, other

than an incidental charge, shall not be initiated by any member, save a member

of the Government.

(2) The Committee Stage of a Bill which involves a charge upon the people,

including an incidental charge, shall not be taken unless a motion approving of

the charge has been passed by the Dáil. No such motion as aforesaid nor any

amendment thereto proposing to increase the amount stated in any such motion

may be made by any member, save a member of the Government.

(3) An amendment to a Bill which could have the effect of imposing or increasing

a charge upon the people may not be moved by any member, save a member of

the Government or Minister of State.

The Joint Committee is of the view that the Bill does not involve a charge on the people.

In this regard, a Financial Resolution is not required, and therefore there are no financial

implications under standing order 178 that will prevent the Bill from proceeding to

Committee stage.

2.7.2. CHARGE ON THE REVENUE

The relevant standing order is as follows:

Bills involving the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys.

179. (1) A Bill which involves the appropriation of revenue or other public

moneys, other than incidental expenses, shall not be initiated by any member,

save a member of the Government.

(2) The Committee Stage of a Bill which involves the appropriation of revenue or

other public moneys, including incidental expenses, shall not be taken unless the

purpose of the appropriation has been recommended to the Dáil by a Message

from the Government. The text of any Message shall be printed on the Order

Paper.

(3) An amendment to a Bill which could have the effect of imposing or increasing

a charge upon the revenue may not be moved by any member, save a member of

the Government or Minister of State.



The Joint Committee is of the view that the Bill does not involve the appropriation of

revenue or other public moneys. In this regard, a Money message is not required, and

therefore there are no financial implications under standing order 179 that will prevent

the Bill from proceeding to Committee stage.

2.7.3. OPPORTUNITY COSTS

The Joint Committee also notes that there are potential financial revenues to be gained

for the State if extraction of petroleum was permitted to be undertaken in this way.

Firstly, the Joint Committee acknowledges that the State may lose out on a potential

revenue stream, in that it will not benefit from potential revenues accruing from the

granting of licences to successful parties.

Secondly, the Joint Committee acknowledges that an opportunity to create jobs in the

areas at issue may be lost, should the Bill be enacted.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Joint Committee acknowledges that the State

may be missing out on an opportunity to provide a steady stream of energy, enhancing

Ireland’s energy security, particularly in the context of the withdrawl of the United

Kingdom from the European Union (Brexit). At present, Ireland is very heavily reliant on

energy from the UK. To illustrate this point, the National Treasury Management Agency

recently noted that:

The Irish energy market is heavily reliant on its connection to the UK market.

Ireland imported €6.5bn worth of energy products in 2014 (3.6% of real

GDP), more than 90% of which came from the UK.59

However, at its meeting on 28 February 2017 on the effect of Brexit on the Irish Energy

market, Mr. Fintan Slye, chief executive officer, EirGrid said in relation to the proposed

electricity interconnector with France:

The Celtic interconnector is a joint project with Réseau de Transport d’Électricité,

RTE, the French transmission system operator. We have been working on it

together for approximately three years. We have completed the initial pre-

feasibility phase in the middle of last year which showed this is viable. It

estimated the cost at approximately €1 billion, which would be split between the

two countries and companies. We are now in the preliminary design and pre-

consultation phase.

59 Purdue, D. and Huang, H., Report - Brexit and its Impact on the Irish Economy, NTMA Economics, 2015, p. 10.



We have a memorandum of understanding in place with the French and have

received European funding through the Connecting Europe facility for the phase

we are in. That phase will run for probably another 12 to 18 months. It involves

all the very detailed economic assessment and the finalisation of the cost

assessment to work out the benefits at European level but also the benefits to

Irish and French consumers. We will then consider the next phases and whether

to proceed with it and whether it qualifies for any European funding. If the project

continues to pass through the various stage gates and proves to be viable we

would seek commissioning of the interconnector in or around 2025. That is a ball

park timeline.

This project, if it proceeds, will lessen Ireland’s energy dependence on the UK.

Estimates of the quantity of recoverable gas vary, for example60:

Tamboran Energy have presented estimates of gas recovery for the target layers

within the NW Carboniferous basin … and range from 2.6tcf to 5.2tcf. Estimates

from the Lough Allen Natural Gas Company are no longer available as it is

understood that the company was dissolved on 09 Apr 2014.

In 2012, Enegi Oil plc preliminary resource estimates for their licence option in

the Clare Basin consisted of between 1.55tcf and 3.62tcf of free gas initially in

place. They also suggested potential recoverable gas reserves of between 1.49tcf

and 3.86tcf for the Clare Basin as a whole.

The Committee notes that the valuation of the recoverable gas in the NW Carboniferous

Basin and the Clare Basin would appear to the between $14.3B and $31.7B. See

Appendix 14 for more information.

Ultimately, the Joint Committee acknowledges that while there may be economic

benefits in allowing fracking to proceed, it is in the interest of the public, as evidenced by

the submissions received by it, and in the interest of the State, especially given Ireland’s

commitments to international environmental agreements, that legislation in the area be

enacted tp prohibit hydraulic fracturing.

2.8. COMPLIANCE COSTS

The Joint Committee is satisfied that enforcement and compliance costs will be minimal,

in that they will only be incurred through monitoring and enforcement of planning and

enforcement notices.

60 Research Project on Hydraulic Fracturing ─ Interactions with the Water Framework Directive & Groundwater Directive and Implications for the Status of Ireland’s Waters, Kieran Craven, B.Sc. (Geology and Biology), Ph.D. (Geology), Dr Paul Johnston, John Kenny, LLB, LLM, Barrister-at-Law, et al, May 2016 p121, 129



C. LEGAL ANALYSIS

2.9. IS THE BILL CONSTITUTIONAL?

The relevant provisions of the Constitution are as follows:

Article 10:

1 All natural resources, including the air and all forms of potential energy, within

the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution

and all royalties and franchises within that jurisdiction belong to the State subject

to all estates and interests therein for the time being lawfully vested in any

person or body…

3 Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which

belongs to the State by virtue of this Article and for the control of the alienation,

whether temporary or permanent, of that property.

4 Provision may also be made by law for the management of land, mines,

minerals and waters acquired by the State after the coming into operation of this

Constitution and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or

permanent, of the land, mines, minerals and waters so acquired.

Article 40.3.2:

The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack

and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the…property rights of every citizen.

Article 43:

1 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the

natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external

goods.

2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the

right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit

property.

2 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in

the foregoing provisions of this article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by

the principles of social justice.

2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of

the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the

common good.



The Joint Committee believes that the Bill in question is compatible with the

Constitution, in that all natural resources, including those that are “forms of potential

energy”, which would encompass “petroleum from shale rock, tight sands and coal

seams”,61 belong to the State, as per Article 10.

Citizens enjoy property rights by virtue of Articles 40.3.2 and 43.1 of the Constitution.

The State may in accordance with Article 43.2.2 delimit the exercise of those rights in

order to reconcile their exercise with the exigencies of the common good; once it strikes

the appropriate balance, that delimitation is not an 'unjust attack' on those rights

contrary to Article 40.3.2.

The proposal in the Bill does not seek to deprive a citizen of what is currently his or her

property, but rather seeks to regulate, in the interests of the common good, what he or

she may do with the property. This form of regulation is generally regarded as

consistent with the constitutional provisions in question.

The Joint Committee has not identified any potential issues with the “principles and

policies” test in relation to the Bill in question.

61 Explanatory Memorandum, Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016.



2.10. COMPATIBILITY WITH EU LEGISLATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION

(ECHR)

Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution provides:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or

measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the

Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of

the European Union referred to in subsection 5° of this section or of the

European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or

measures adopted by—

(i) the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy Community, or

institutions thereof,

(ii) the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before

the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or institutions thereof, or

(iii) bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section,

from having the force of law in the State.

Given that the principle of the primacy of European Union law is enshrined in the

Constitution, the Joint Committee notes that the Bill, if enacted, could potentially be

incompatible with EU law.

The Joint Committee would be concerned to ensure that no question of the Bill's

incompatibility with EU law would arise, although no such incompatibility is immediately

apparent.

The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) contains provisions

which relate to the resolution of investment disputes between investors and Member

states. Article 8.18 of CETA states that:

1. Without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the Parties under Chapter

Twenty- Nine (Dispute Settlement), an investor of a Party may submit to the

Tribunal constituted under this Section a claim that the other Party has

breached an obligation under:

(i) Section C, with respect to the expansion, conduct, operation, management,

maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or disposal of its covered investment;

or

(ii) Section D: where the investor claims to have suffered loss or damage as a

result of the alleged breach.



2. Claims under subparagraph 1(a) with respect to the expansion of a covered

investment may be submitted only to the extent the measure relates to the existing

business operations of a covered investment and the investor has, as a result,

incurred loss or damage with respect to the covered investment.

An investing party, which has suffered a loss due to the actions of a State, may be

entitled to sue the relevant State to recover damages for those losses. With the current

Bill in mind, it is possible that a case of that nature might have arisen if the State had

encouraged investment in fracking, and this Bill, if enacted, subsequently outlawed

fracking.

For instance, a US company is suing the Canadian government over the Quebec

government’s decision to revoke oil and gas exploration licences located beneath the St.

Lawrence River.62 While this case is not specifically related to CETA, both CETA and the

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) contain similar Investor-State dispute

settlement mechanisms.

However, at a meeting of the Joint Committee on 31 January 2017, Mr. Matthew Collins,

Assistant Secretary, Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment

confirmed that “the moratorium declared by Ministers on any fracking activities in Ireland

has been in place since 2011 and continues. No applications have been approved.”63 It

would appear that the State has not encouraged any investment in this regard.

In any event, Article 8.9.1 of CETA provides “For the purpose of this Chapter, the Parties

reaffirm their right to regulate within their territories to achieve legitimate policy

objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, the environment or public

morals, social or consumer protection or the promotion and protection of cultural

diversity.” As this prohibition is being sought on, inter alia, environmental grounds, it

would appear that Ireland is entitled to regulate the area/activity in question, without

contravening CETA.

Moreover, it appears that CETA, while in principle it could give rise to a money claim

against a State, could not invalidate the law passage of which gave rise to the claim.

62 https://canadians.org/blog/nafta-challenge-against-fracking-moratorium-fast-tracked 63http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/CC22017013100002?opendocument#P00300

https://canadians.org/blog/nafta-challenge-against-fracking-moratorium-fast-tracked

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/CC22017013100002?opendocument#P00300

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/CC22017013100002?opendocument#P00300



The European Convention on Human Rights, to which Ireland is a signatory, is governed

by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. The relevant sections are as

follows:

2.—(1) In interpreting and applying any statutory provision or rule of law, a

court shall, in so far as is possible, subject to the rules of law relating to such

interpretation and application, do so in a manner compatible with the State's

obligations under the Convention provisions.

(2) This section applies to any statutory provision or rule of law in force

immediately before the passing of this Act or any such provision coming into

force thereafter.

5.—(1) In any proceedings, the High Court, or the Supreme Court when

exercising its appellate jurisdiction, may, having regard to the provisions of

section 2 , on application to it in that behalf by a party, or of its own motion,

and where no other legal remedy is adequate and available, make a

declaration (referred to in this Act as “a declaration of incompatibility”) that a

statutory provision or rule of law is incompatible with the State's obligations

under the Convention provisions.

(2) A declaration of incompatibility—

(a) shall not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the

statutory provision or rule of law in respect of which it is made, and

(b) shall not prevent a party to the proceedings concerned from making

submissions or representations in relation to matters to which the

declaration relates in any proceedings before the European Court of Human

Rights.

(3) The Taoiseach shall cause a copy of any order containing a declaration of

incompatibility to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within the next

21 days on which that House has sat after the making of the order

(4) Where—

(a) a declaration of incompatibility is made,

(b) a party to the proceedings concerned makes an application in writing to

the Attorney General for compensation in respect of an injury or loss or

damage suffered by him or her as a result of the incompatibility concerned,

and



(c) the Government, in their discretion, consider that it may be appropriate

to make an ex gratia payment of compensation to that party (“a payment”),

the Government may request an adviser appointed by them to advise them

as to the amount of such compensation (if any) and may, in their discretion,

make a payment of the amount aforesaid or of such other amount as they

consider appropriate in the circumstances.

(5) In advising the Government on the amount of compensation for the

purposes of subsection (4), an adviser shall take appropriate account of the

principles and practice applied by the European Court of Human Rights in

relation to affording just satisfaction to an injured party under Article 41 of

the Convention.

The European Convention on Human Rights has quasi-legal standing in Ireland, in that a

declaration of incompatibility may be made in relation to Irish legislation, and

compensation may subsequently be paid, but such a declaration will not affect the

validity of the provision in question.

The provision of the Convention that notionally might have most relevance in this regard

is Article 1 of Protocol 1.

This provides:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his

possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public

interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general

principles of international law.

'The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a

State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in

accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other

contributions or penalties.

As can be seen, the principles of the Protocol are not noticeably different from those

expressed in Articles 40.3.2 and 43 of the Constitution of Ireland, and breach of the first

paragraph is unlikely to be found where no infringement of the principles of those Articles

would arise as a matter of Irish constitutional jurisprudence.



2.11. AMBIGUITY IN DRAFTING

As mentioned previously, the Joint Committee’s main concern in this regard is that some

of the terminology in the Bill, the use of “Republic of Ireland” as opposed to “State” for

example, needs to be addressed so as to avoid unintended consequences. Apart from

this, the Joint Committee believes that the draft Bill is adequately unambiguous so as to

achieve its objectives.

2.12. DRAFTING DEFICIENCIE S

On 27 October 2016, during the Second Stage debate on this Bill in the Dáil, Minister for

Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten had the

following to say:

…if the current wording of the Bill were to become law, the spirit and intention of

the Deputy’s objective may not in fact be definitively reflected in law. The debate

for me as Minister was never whether to ban or not to ban fracking but to ensure

we legislate in order that the law does what we want it to do. As such, it is my

strong view that the work of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate

Action and Environment would be considerably aided and advanced by being able

to consider the outcome of the shortly to be published integrated synthesis report

on the environmental impacts of fracking.

…

Today, along with the Minister of State, Deputy Kyne, I am accepting this Bill as

another step towards protecting the environment and our future, thus showing

that our deeds are our actions.64

At its meeting on 31 January 2017, the Joint Committee undertook a scrutiny of the Bill

and during this discussion the Committee noted that there were a number of comments

made in relation to the Minister’s comments made during the Second Stage debate on

this Bill.

In relation to the Minister’s comments, Deputy Bríd Smith said:

In the Dáil, he said that the Bill was tight and needed to be legally checked. This

is not a legal check.65

64

Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016: Second Stage [Private Members], 27 October 2016. 65

Deputy Bríd Smith, Meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment on 31 January 2017.



Deputy Eamon Ryan said:

It is a strange situation because there is consensus. In the Second Stage debate,

we reached an important decision so it is strange that we are stepping back a bit.

However, it is not a permanent step back. In fact, we have respect for this

process and for the submissions that various people with an interest in this

matter have been asked to present and the work they have done on them.66

Deputy Tony McLoughlin said:

I was very pleasantly surprised by the unanimous decision in the Dáil in October

on Second Stage. To be quite honest, I am a little concerned. I know the

Chairman was trying to clarify the process of going from Second Stage to

Committee Stage and the fact that we are now listening to comments being

made. I was of the opinion that perhaps on Committee Stage, more advice and

more detail should be sought.67

On this basis, the Joint Committee believes that any potential drafting deficiencies in the

Bill would be best addressed at the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Joint Committee

suggests that the Minister, with the assistance of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to

the Government, could propose amendments to rectify any such problems by proposing

suitable amendments at Committee stage.

2.13. UNINTENDED LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

There are activities, such as geothermal energy technologies, that may be able to access

geological formations where these activities are not prohibited under the legislation.

However, the Bill does not prohibit access to these formations categorically, only

accessing these formations for a specific purpose (exploration and extraction of

petroleum). Therefore, boring into shale, tight sands, and coal seams would be

permitted so long as the objective of the activity did not fall under the scope of the Bill.

It is possible that people may access the relevant geological formations for reasons other

than the extraction of petroleum: the Joint Committee is slightly concerned that an

unintended legal consequence could arise in this regard.

66

Deputy Eamon Ryan, Meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment on 31 January 2017. 67

Deputy Tony McLoughlin, Meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment on 31 January 2017.



2.14. ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS

The Joint Committee notes that there are no enforcement measures contained within the

draft Bill. In the absence of such measures, it is possible that the Bill, if enacted in its

current drafting, will not achieve its objective. For instance, the Bill would not be

achieving its objective if a person was to attempt to extract petroleum from shale rock in

contravention of the proposed legislation, and the legislation did not provide for an

offence or an appropriate penalty in relation to same.

The Committee believes that some enforcement provision is desirable.

The Committee notes that while it is not minded to incorporate the Bill as an amendment

to existing law, it will have that practical effect.

For example, s. 6(2) and (3) of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960

make it an offence for a person to extract petroleum without a petroleum lease.

The Committee notes that if the Minister is precluded by law from granting a lease then

s. 6(2) and (3) provide one means of enforcement. It is improbable to the point of

irrelevance that shale oil extraction falls outside the regulatory system altogether. The

Bill precludes the grant of any necessary permission or authorization, and the exploiter

will be liable to whatever remedies the underlying Act imposes or allows for conducting

with works without that permission or authorization.



3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1. CONCLUSIONS

The Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment is broadly in

favour of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill

2016.

The Joint Committee is not convinced that the findings of the Joint Research Programme

on the Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction

sufficiently demonstrate that UGEE projects/operations could proceed in Ireland without

having a harmful effect on the environment and on human health. To illustrate this

point, the Joint Committee makes the following observations.

The findings of the Joint Research Programme demonstrate that, in the two case study

areas, there is a lack of knowledge in relation to deep geological and hydrogeological

conditions. The Joint Committee feels that it would be irresponsible to allow UGEE

projects/operations to proceed in Ireland, especially when there appears to be

substantial gap in the data. Consequently, it is not possible to predict what geological

effect these projects/operations may have on the areas in questions. This is evidenced

by Mr. Alan Hooper’s comments at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 31 January

2017 to the effect that:

One of the big problems, which brings us back to Deputy Eamon Ryan's point

about water pollution, is that it depends on the underground geology,

hydrogeology and fracturing. Those data are not available. It is not possible to

say if there are or are not many fractures. That piece of information is vital in

the assessment of the risk.68

In relation to air quality, the EPA recommends that further research into the potential

cause-effect relationship of UGEE activities and actual health outcomes in hazard

analyses requires further research. These concerns were echoed by Mr. Matthew Collins,

Assistant Secretary, of the Department of Communications, Climate Action and

Environment at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 31 January 2017 to the effect

that:

The reasons for maintaining the moratorium are quite simple. There are a

number of unresolved issues in the risks that have been identified. They

relate to groundwater and air quality. Those risks mean that the frameworks

68 Mr. Alan Hooper, Principal Investigator, CDM Smith Ltd., Meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment on 31 January 2017.



are unresolved at the moment. That is the justification for the Department

maintaining the moratorium, particularly in light of the Oireachtas examining

a legislative basis for preventing fracking. It seems clear to us that, in the

interim, we are satisfied that those risks exist. It is in line with the policy goal

of the Oireachtas in terms of the legislation. The Minister has already said that

he accepts the Bill. He is supportive. He flagged quite a long time ago his

specific concerns about groundwater and air quality. It is important that the

research that was carried out flagged that as well.69

The Joint Committee notes that, according to the the research conducted by the EPA,

there is reason for concern in relation to potential impacts and mitigation measures. In

this regard, the findings demonstrate that there is potential:

for surface chemical spills and leaks during UGEE operations;

that fluids associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations, together

with natural gas constituents that are present or released, represent potential

sources of groundwater contamination;

that accidental spills of flowback and produced water can be expected from

UGEE-related activities and, although the overall risk of impact from transport-

related spills of flowback and produced water is considered to be low, these could

result in an environmental impact; and

that uncertainties are liable to remain in relation to the quantification of long-

term greenhouse gas emissions.

While the Joint Committee acknowledges that the impacts above may never occur, to

mitigate the possibe impacts occuring would require a vigorous regulatory regime, and

even then this may not prevent some of the above from occuring. Ultimately, the fact

that there may always be uncertainty with regard to the quantification of long-term

greenhouse gas emissions as a result of UGEE activities is adequate in itself, in the Joint

Committee’s opinion, to justify a prohibition of this nature.

69 Mr. Matthew Collins, Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment on 31 January 2017.



3.2. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Joint Committee is concerned that the Bill may not achieve its objective with its

current drafting, if enacted, and makes the recommendations below in this regard.

1. In certain sections, the terminology of the Bill should be revised so as to

ensure that the objectives of the Bill are achieved.

2. An enforcement mechanism should be included in the Bill. This would include

the penalties/offences associated with the contravention of this Bill, if

enacted. It should also include a provision granting responsibility for the

enforcement of the prohibition to a specified body.

3. Any potential drafting deficiencies in the Bill may be best addressed during

the Committee Stage debate of the Bill. The Joint Committee also believes

that the Minister, with the assistance of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to

the Government, could propose amendments to rectify any drafting problems

by drafting a suitable amendment at either Committee or Report stages of the

Bill.

4. The scope of the Bill should be expanded to take account of other activities,

such as those that use geothermal technologies, which may be used to access

shale gas through other means.



APPENDIX 1: ORDERS OF REFERENCE – JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS,

CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT

A: FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE – DERIVED FROM STANDING ORDERS [DSO 84A; SSO 70A]

1) The Select Committee shall consider and report to the Dáil on—

a) such aspects of the expenditure, administration and policy of a Government

Department or Departments and associated public bodies as the Committee

may select, and

b) European Union matters within the remit of the relevant Department or

Departments.

2) The Select Committee appointed pursuant to this Standing Order may be joined with

a Select Committee appointed by Seanad Éireann for the purposes of the functions

set out in this Standing Order, other than at paragraph (3), and to report thereon to

both Houses of the Oireachtas.

3) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Select Committee appointed

pursuant to this Standing Order shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department

or Departments, such—

a) Bills,

b) proposals contained in any motion, including any motion within the meaning of

Standing Order 187,

c) Estimates for Public Services, and

d) other matters as shall be referred to the Select Committee by the Dáil, and

e) Annual Output Statements including performance, efficiency and effectiveness in

the use of public monies, and

f) such Value for Money and Policy Reviews as the Select Committee may select.

4) The Joint Committee may consider the following matters in respect of the relevant

Department or Departments and associated public bodies:

a) matters of policy and governance for which the Minister is officially responsible,

b) public affairs administered by the Department,

c) policy issues arising from Value for Money and Policy Reviews conducted or

commissioned by the Department,

d) Government policy and governance in respect of bodies under the aegis of the

Department,



e) policy and governance issues concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded

by the State or which are established or appointed by a member of the

Government or the Oireachtas,

f) the general scheme or draft heads of any Bill,

g) any post-enactment report laid before either House or both Houses by a member

of the Government or Minister of State on any Bill enacted by the Houses of the

Oireachtas,

h) statutory instruments, including those laid or laid in draft before either House or

both Houses and those made under the European Communities Acts 1972 to

2009,

i) strategy statements laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas pursuant

to the Public Service Management Act 1997,

j) annual reports or annual reports and accounts, required by law, and laid before

either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of the Department or bodies referred to

in subparagraphs (d) and (e) and the overall performance and operational results,

statements of strategy and corporate plans of such bodies, and

k) such other matters as may be referred to it by the Dáil from time to time.

5) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Joint Committee appointed

pursuant to this Standing Order shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department

or Departments—

a) EU draft legislative acts standing referred to the Select Committee under

Standing Order 114, including the compliance of such acts with the principle of

subsidiarity,

b) other proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues, including programmes

and guidelines prepared by the European Commission as a basis of possible

legislative action,

c) non-legislative documents published by any EU institution in relation to EU policy

matters, and

d) matters listed for consideration on the agenda for meetings of the relevant EU

Council of Ministers and the outcome of such meetings.

6) The Chairman of the Joint Committee appointed pursuant to this Standing Order,

who shall be a member of Dáil Éireann, shall also be the Chairman of the Select

Committee.



7) The following may attend meetings of the Select or Joint Committee appointed

pursuant to this Standing Order, for the purposes of the functions set out in

paragraph (5) and may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to

move motions and amendments:

a) Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland,

including Northern Ireland,

b) Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of

Europe, and

c) at the invitation of the Committee, other Members of the European Parliament.



B: SCOPE AND CONTEXT OF ACTIVITIES OF COMMITTEES (AS DERIVED FROM STANDING ORDERS) [DSO 84; SSO 70]

1) The Joint Committee may only consider such matters, engage in such activities,

exercise such powers and discharge such functions as are specifically authorised

under its orders of reference and under Standing Orders.

2) Such matters, activities, powers and functions shall be relevant to, and shall arise

only in the context of, the preparation of a report to the Dáil and/or Seanad.

3) The Joint Committee shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of

which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee of Public

Accounts pursuant to Standing Order 186 and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General

(Amendment) Act 1993.

4) The Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session or publishing

confidential information regarding any matter if so requested, for stated reasons

given in writing, by—

a) a member of the Government or a Minister of State, or

b) the principal office-holder of a body under the aegis of a Department or which is

partly or wholly funded by the State or established or appointed by a member of

the Government or by the Oireachtas:

Provided that the Chairman may appeal any such request made to the Ceann

Comhairle / Cathaoirleach whose decision shall be final.

5) It shall be an instruction to all Select Committees to which Bills are referred that they

shall ensure that not more than two Select Committees shall meet to consider a Bill

on any given day, unless the Dáil, after due notice given by the Chairman of the

Select Committee, waives this instruction on motion made by the Taoiseach pursuant

to Dáil Standing Order 28. The Chairmen of Select Committees shall have

responsibility for compliance with this instruction.



C: ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEES: DÁIL ÉIREANN MOTION THURSDAY, 16 JUNE 2016

Dáil Éireann Debate, Vol. 913 No. 3

(1) That Select Committees as set out in column (1) of the Schedule hereto are hereby

appointed pursuant to Standing Order 84A.

(2) Each Select Committee shall perform the functions set out in Standing Order 84A in

respect of the Government Department or Departments listed in column (2) opposite

each Committee (in anticipation of the coming into effect of the necessary Government

Orders in relation to names of Departments and titles of Ministers and transfer of

Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions).

(3) The number of members appointed to each Select Committee shall be seven.

(4) Each Select Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 85 (1), (2)

and (3).

(5) Each Select Committee shall be joined with a Select Committee appointed by Seanad

Éireann to form a Joint Committee to carry out the functions set out in Standing Order

84A, other than at paragraph (3) thereof.

(6) Each Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Orders 85 (other

than paragraph (2A) thereof), 114 and 116.

(7) The Select Committee on Justice and Equality shall have the powers defined in

Standing Order 115(1)(b).

(8) The Order of the Dáil of 10th March, 2016 in relation to the Standing Order 112

Select Committee is hereby rescinded and the Committee is accordingly dissolved.

Schedule (extract):

Committee: Select Committee on Communications, Climate Change and

Natural Resources

Department: Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources



COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE: MOTION – DÁIL ÉIREANN 7 SEPTEMBER 2016

That, following Orders made by Government on 5 July, 2016, and 19 July, 2016,

respectively, altering the names of Departments and titles of Ministers, the names of the

Select Committees in column (1) of the Schedule below, which were established by

Order of the Dáil of 16 June, 2016, are hereby amended as set out in column (2) of the

Schedule and each such Committee shall perform the functions set out in Standing Order

84A in respect of the Government Department or Departments listed in column (3)

opposite each Committee.

Select Committee established on 16 June 2016: Communications, Climate Change

and Natural Resources

New name of Select Committee: Communications, Climate Action and

Environment

Government Department: Communications, Climate Action and Environment



D: ESTABLISHMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEES: SEANAD ÉIREANN MOTION THURSDAY, 21 JULY 2016

Seanad Éireann Debate, Vol. 247 No. 5

(1) That Select Committees as set out in column (1) of the Schedule hereto are

hereby appointed pursuant to Standing Order 70A.

(2) Each Select Committee shall perform the functions set out in Standing Order

70A in respect of the Government Departments listed in column (2) opposite

each Committee (in anticipation of the coming into effect of the necessary

Government Orders in relation to names of Departments and titles of Ministers

and transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions).

(3) The number of members appointed to each Select Committee shall be four.

(4) Each Select Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 71 (1),

(2) and (3).

(5) Each Select Committee shall be joined with a Select Committee appointed by

Dáil Éireann to form a Joint Committee to carry out the functions set out in

Standing Order 70A.

(6) Each Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Orders 71

(other than paragraph (2A) thereof), 107 and 109.

(7) The Select Committee on Justice and Equality shall have the powers defined in

Standing Order 108(1)(b). Schedule (extract):

Committee: Select Committee on Communications, Climate Change and

Natural Resources

Department: Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources

COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE: MOTION – SEANAD ÉIREANN 29 SEPTEMBER 2016

That, following Orders made by Government on 5th July, 2016, and 19th July, 2016,

respectively, altering the names of Departments and titles of Ministers, the names of the

Select Committees in column (1) of the Schedule below, which were established by

Order of the Seanad of 21st July, 2016, are hereby amended as set out in column (2) of

the Schedule and each such Committee shall perform the functions set out in Standing

Order 70A in respect of the Government Department or Departments listed in column (3)

opposite each Committee.

Select Committee established on 16 June 2016: Communications, Climate Change

and Natural Resources

Government Department: Communications, Climate Action and Environment

New name of Select Committee: Communications, Climate Action and

Environment



E: FUNCTIONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT

The joint committee shadows the Department of Communications, Climate Action and

Environment, bodies under its aegis, and associated bodies.

The joint committee will also carry out ex ante, current year, and ex post scrutiny of the

performance of the department, including output measures and financial indicators.

There are many bodies under the aegis of the department and they may be required to

appear before the joint committee. The bodies under the remit of the department are

listed below.

Policy

The committee may also on its own initiative, initiate a review of policy of any area

within its remit, or may also carry out a policy review combined with one or more other

joint committees.

The functions of the department, and consequently the remit of this committee, can be

broadly categorised into the following areas:

Communications, Broadcasting and Postal;

Climate Action and Energy;

Environment and Natural Resources.

Pre Legislative Scrutiny

The committee may carry out prelegislative scrutiny of any legislative proposals from the

Minister, including a public consultation exercise.

EU Scrutiny

The Committee also plays a role in the consideration of legislative proposals from the

European Union. When the Committee is unsatisfied with a legislative proposal, it can

make its observations known to the European Commission through either a reasoned

opinion or a political contribution.

Further information on European Union legislative proposals can be found on the

following Web sites:

European Commission

IPEX (EU Interparliamentary Exchange).

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/Pages/home.aspx

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/Pages/home.aspx

http://ec.europa.eu/about/ds_en.htm

http://www.ipex.eu/IPEXL-WEB/search.do



Proposals under consideration by the Committee will be published on the committee's

Web site.

Select Committee

The Dáil Select Committee mainly deals with bills and estimates referred by the Dáil.

PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1997

Appearance before committees of Houses of Oireachtas.

10.—The Secretary General of a Department or Head of a Scheduled Office or any

other officer of the Department or Scheduled Office who is designated for the

purposes of this section by the aforesaid Secretary General or Head and to whom

the relevant responsibility for the performance of functions has been assigned,

shall, when requested to do so in writing by a committee of either or both of the

Houses of the Oireachtas authorised in that behalf to make the request in

connection with the subject-matter before the committee, appear before the

committee in relation to any strategy statement that has been laid before each

House of the Oireachtas under section 5 (2) in respect of the Department or

Scheduled Office.

ENGAGEMENT WITH CHAIRMEN DESIGNATE OF STATE BODIES UNDER THE AEGIS OF

THE DEPARTMENT

The Government decision of May 2011 put new arrangements in place for the

appointment of persons to State Boards and bodies.

Reference to this arrangement is also made in the Department of Public Expenditure and

Reform Guidelines on Appointments to State Boards of November 2014.

The 2016 Programme for Government suggests that nominees for Chairs of State Boards

will be required to have their nominations ratified by the relevant Oireachtas Committee

prior to their appointment.

This is also covered by Dáil Standing orders:

Powers of Select Committees.

85. Without prejudice to the generality of Standing Order 84, the Dáil may confer

any or all of the following powers on a Select Committee: …

(6B) power to require that the Chairperson designate of a body or agency under

the aegis of a Department shall, prior to his or her appointment, attend before

the Select Committee to discuss his or her strategic priorities for the role; …

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjlms6ut5fTAhWlAMAKHVUwByAQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fper.gov.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FGuidelines-on-Appointments-to-State-Boards.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGA9w28NZtGVEp50dCoTvSw8Q6DLg

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjlms6ut5fTAhWlAMAKHVUwByAQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fper.gov.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FGuidelines-on-Appointments-to-State-Boards.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGA9w28NZtGVEp50dCoTvSw8Q6DLg



OVERSIGHT OF BODIES UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE DEPARTMENT - COMMUNICATIONS,

BROADCASTING, POSTAL

An Post

An Post is Ireland's national postal service provider. It provides postal, communication,

retail and money transmission services. As one of Ireland's largest commercial

companies, An Post employs over 9,600 people in retail, processing and delivery points.

www.anpost.ie

Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg)

ComReg is the statutory body responsible for the regulation of the electronic

communications sector. This includes the telecommunications, radio

communications, broadcasting transmission and the postal sector. www.comreg.ie

Digital Hub Development Agency (DHDA)

The Digital Hub Development Agency was established under the Digital Hub

Development Act 2003. It oversees the development of the Digital Hub, Ireland's

flagship in the digital media sector. www.thedigitalhub.ie

Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ)

RTÉ is the national public service broadcaster. It is required to provide a comprehensive

range of programmes on its radio and television services. www.rte.ie

Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI)

The BAI was established on 1st October 2009, and is the regulator of broadcasting in

Ireland. It BAI has assumed the roles previously held by the Broadcasting Commission of

Ireland (BCI) and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (BCC). www.bai.ie

Teilifís na Gaeilge (TG4)

TG4 is an Irish Language television station based at Baile na hAbhann, Co. Galway. TG4

was established as an independent statutory body in 2007 under the Broadcasting Act,

2001. www.tg4.ie

http://www.anpost.ie/

http://www.comreg.ie/

http://www.thedigitalhub.ie/

http://www.rte.ie/

http://www.bai.ie/

http://www.tg4.ie/



OVERSIGHT OF BODIES UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE DEPARTMENT - CLIMATE ACTION AND

ENERGY

Electricity Supply Board (ESB)

ESB was established in accordance with the Electricity Supply Board Acts 1927 – 2001. It

is a corporate body which controls and develops Ireland's electricity network. ESB is

involved in the generation and supply of electricity to both domestic and commercial

users. Employing over 7,000 people, it is the largest Electricity Utility in the state. ESB

is actively diversifying their portfolio to include renewable energy and communication

networks. www.esb.ie

EirGrid

EirGrid PLC was established to act as the independent Transmission System Operator

(TSO), in line with the requirements of the EU Electricity Directive. EirGrid became

operational as the TSO on 1 July 2006 www.eirgrid.com

Commission for Energy Regulation (CER)

Established in 1999, CER is Ireland's independent energy regulator. It has a wide range

of economic, customer protection and safety responsibilities in energy sector. In

addition, the CER is Ireland's economic regulator of the Irish public water and

wastewater sector. Policy for this area is the responsibility of the Minister for

Environment, Community and Local Government. www.cer.ie

Note: in accordance with the Energy Act 2016, CER will be renamed CRU (Commission

for Regulation of Utilities).

Bord na Móna

Bord na Móna is the supplier of products and services based principally on peat. The

company is also providing products and services in the environmental, renewable

energy, electricity generation and waste management business sectors. www.bnm.ie

National Oil Reserves Agency (NORA)

NORA was established as a stand-alone agency under the NORA Act 2007. Its main

function is to maintain Ireland’s 90 days of strategic oil reserves for use in an oil supply

disruption. www.nora.ie

Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI)

The SEAI, formerly SEI, was established in 2002 to promote and assist the development

of sustainable energy. www.seai.ie

http://www.esb.ie/

http://www.eirgrid.com/

http://www.cer.ie/

http://www.bnm.ie/

http://www.nora.ie/

http://www.seai.ie/



Irish National Petroleum Corporation (INPC)

INPC is a state company which owned the Whitegate refinery and Bantry Bay Terminal

on Whiddy Island. These were sold by the state in 2001, and since then the INPC has

had no staff. It is currently overseen by a 3 person technical board. The board’s

functions relate to upholding the Minister's rights and obligations under the 2001 Sale

and Purchase Agreement. This principally involves managing environmental claims.

OVERSIGHT OF BODIES UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE DEPARTMENT - ENVIRONMENT AND

NATURAL RESOURCES

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is at the front line of environmental

protection and policing. We ensure that Ireland's environment is protected, and we

monitor changes in environmental trends to detect early warning signs of neglect or

deterioration. www.epa.ie

Inland Fisheries Ireland

Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) was established under the Inland Fisheries Act 2010. IFI is

the agency responsible for the protection, management and conservation of Ireland's

inland fisheries and sea angling resources. www.fisheriesireland.ie

Loughs Agency

The Loughs Agency was established under the British Irish Agreement Act 1999. It is a

North South body under the co-sponsorship of the department. The Agency aims to

provide effective conservation, management, promotion and development of the

fisheries and marine resources of the Foyle and Carlingford areas. It is also responsible

for the development and licensing of aquaculture, as well as the development of marine

tourism www.loughs-agency.org

Mining Board

The Mining Board is a Statutory Body established under Section 33 of the Minerals

Development Act 1940. The Board is an appellate body principally involved in

consideration as to whether minerals are excepted from provisions of the Minerals

Development Act 1979 which vested in the Minister the exclusive right of working

minerals in the State save for “excepted minerals”.

http://www.epa.ie/

http://www.epa.ie/

http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/

http://www.loughs-agency.org/



APPENDIX 2: STATUTORY FUNCTIONS - JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS,


BROADCASTING ACT 2009

BROADCASTING AUTHORITY OF IRELAND – ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE

Accountability of chief executive and chairpersons of Authority and statutory committees

to other Oireachtas Committees.

20.—

(1) In this section “Committee” means a Committee appointed by either

House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses of the Oireachtas (other than

the Committee on Members’ Interests of Dáil Éireann or the Committee on

Members’ Interests of Seanad Éireann) or a subcommittee of such a Committee.

(2) Subject to subsection (4), the chief executive shall, at the request in

writing of a Committee, attend before it to give account for the general

administration of the Authority and a statutory committee.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the chairperson of the Authority or a statutory

committee shall at the request in writing of a Committee, attend before it to

represent the views of the Authority or a statutory committee.

(4) The chief executive or chairperson shall not be required to give account

before, or represent the views of the Authority or a statutory committee to, a

Committee for any matter which is or has been or may at a future time be the

subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State.

(5) Where the chief executive or chairperson is of the opinion that a matter in

respect of which the chief executive or chairperson is requested to give an

account before, or represent the views of the Authority or a statutory committee

to, a Committee is a matter to which subsection (4) applies, he or she shall

inform the Committee of that opinion and the reasons for the opinion and, unless

the information is conveyed to the Committee at a time when the chief executive

or chairperson is before it, the information shall be so conveyed in writing.

(6) Where the chief executive or chairperson has informed a Committee of his

or her opinion in accordance with subsection (5) and the Committee does not

withdraw the request referred to in subsection (2) or subsection (3) in so far as it

relates to a matter the subject of that opinion—



( a) the chief executive or chairperson may, not later than 21 days after

being informed by the Committee of its decision not to do so, apply to the

High Court in a summary manner for determination of the question

whether the matter is one to which subsection (4) applies, or

(b) the chairperson of the Committee may, on behalf of the Committee,

make such an application,

and the High Court may determine the matter.

(7) Pending the determination of an application under subsection (6), the chief

executive or chairperson shall not attend before the Committee to give account

for or represent the views of the Authority or a statutory committee in respect of

the matter the subject of the application.

(8) If the High Court determines that the matter concerned is one to which

subsection (4) applies, the Committee shall withdraw the request referred to in

subsection (2) or subsection (3), but if the High Court determines that subsection

(4) does not apply, the chief executive or chairperson shall attend before the

Committee to give account for or represent the views of the Authority or a

statutory committee in respect of the matter.

PROPOSING MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF BAI, RTÉ, AND TG4

The Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment has a role in

proposing members of the boards of certain bodies for nomination by the Minister for

Communications, Climate Action and Environment for appointment by the Government in

accordance with the Broadcasting Act 2009.

The Broadcasting Act 2009 requires the committee to nominate members of the board

(including a panel) of the following broadcasting bodies:

BAI (Broadcasting Authority of Ireland) (4 of 9 members);

RTÉ (Raidió Teilifís Éireann) (4 of 12 members);

TG4 (Teilifís na Gaeilge) (4 of 12 members).

CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RTÉ AND TG4 ACCOUNTABLE TO THE JOINT

COMMITTEE

The Act also provides that the director general shall attend a meeting of the committee

to give an account of the general administration of their corporation, and the chairman

shall attend a meeting of the committee to represent the board of their corporation.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a1809.pdf

http://www.bai.ie/en/

http://www.rte.ie/

http://www.tg4.ie/ga/



MEDIA MERGERS

The following is an extract from the Department of Communications, Climate Action and

Environment's Guidelines on Media Mergers May 2015 based on the Broadcasting Act

2009 (as amended).

4.4.3 Submissions

The BAI must invite public submissions and forward a copy of the

request to the relevant Oireachtas Committee inviting them to make a

submission.

All submissions must be made within 20 working days from the date of

publication of the request.

Submissions should clearly indicate any information which should be treated as

confidential.

4.4.8 Basis of the BAI’s recommendation

The BAI when making it report shall form a view as to whether the result of the

media merger is likely to be contrary to public interest in protecting the

plurality of the media in the State. The BAI shall have regard to – ...

(c) All submissions made and information provided

i. to the Minister by the undertakings involved in the media merger

ii. to the BAI by the undertakings involved in the media merger, by any

other person in response to an invitation for submissions under section

28E (2)(b) of the Act or by the Joint Oireachtas Committee in

response to an invitation for submissions under section 28E(2)(c) of

the Act, ...

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/communications/Lists/Publications%20Documents/Finalised%20Guidelines%20on%20Media%20Mergers.pdf



INLAND FISHERIES ACT 2010

PROPOSING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

The Inland Fisheries Act 2010 requires the committee to nominate members of the board

(including a panel) of Inland Fisheries Ireland (3 of 9 members)

CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE

The Act also provides that the chief executive (or chairperson or an employee) shall

attend a meeting of the committee.

ELECTRICITY REGULATION ACT 1999

CER (COMMISSION FOR ENERGY REGULATION)

Note: in accordance with the Energy Act 2016, CER will be renamed CRU (Commission

for Regulation of Utilities).

Policy directions to Commission.

7. — (3) Before giving a direction under subsection (1), the Minister shall—

(a) provide a draft of the proposed direction

to—

(i) the Commission,

(ii) the Joint Committee referred to in paragraph 26 of Schedule 1 of this

Act, and …

ACCOUNTABILITY OF COMMISSION TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

The Commission for Electricity Regulation

26. From time to time, and whenever so requested, the Commission shall account

for the performance of its functions to a Joint Committee of the Oireachtas and

shall have regard to any recommendations of such Joint Committee relevant to its

functions.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2010/a1010.pdf



COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION ACT 2002

COMREG (COMMISSION FOR COMMUNICATIONS REGULATION)

Communications Regulation Act 2002

LAYING OF ORDERS AND REGULATIONS BEFORE HOUSES OF OIREACHTAS.

3.—

(1) Other than an order under section 4 , every order or regulation made under

this Act by the Minister or the Minister for the Environment and Local Government

shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable

after it is made.

(2) Either House of the Oireachtas may, by resolution passed within 21 sitting

days after the day on which an order or a regulation was laid before it in

accordance with subsection (1), annul the order or regulation.

(3) The annulment of an order or regulation under this section takes effect

immediately on the passing of the resolution concerned, but does not affect

anything that was [done under the order or regulation] before the passing of the

resolution.

ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE

34.—

(2) From time to time, and whenever so requested, the Commission shall account

for the performance of its functions to a Committee of one or both Houses of the

Oireachtas.

NATIONAL OIL RESERVES AGENCY ACT 2007

NATIONAL OIL RESERVES AGENCY

National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007

ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE

Information to Oireachtas on performance of functions.

31.— (2) Whenever requested to do so by a committee (other than the

Committee referred to in subsection (1)) of one or both Houses of the Oireachtas,

the chief executive shall account to such committee for the performance of the

functions of the Agency and any of its subsidiaries.



APPENDIX 3: MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS,


Member Party

Deputies:

Timmy Dooley Fianna Fáil

James Lawless [Vice Chairman] Fianna Fáil

Michael Lowry Rural Independent Group

Hildegarde Naughton [Chairman] Fine Gael

Eamon Ryan Social Democrats - Green Party Group

Bríd Smith Solidarity - People Before Profit

Brian Stanley Sinn Féin

Senators:

Terry Leyden Fianna Fáil

Tim Lombard Fine Gael

Michael McDowell Independent Group

Senator Joe O’Reilly Fine Gael

The Dáil Committee of Selection nominated the members of the Dáil Select

committee on 15 June 2016 and the report nominating Deputy Hildegarde

Naughton to be chairman of the committee was agreed by the Dáil on Thursday

16 June 2016.

The Seanad Committee of Selection report on membership of the Seanad select

committee was agreed by the Seanad on 21 July 2016.

This committee's name was changed from the Joint Committee on

Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources on Thursday 29

September 2016.

Deputy James Lawless was elected vice chairman of the joint committee on

Tuesday 28 February 2017.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=32&MemberID=2015&ConstID=245







http://www.oireachtas.ie/members/default.asp?MemberName=Leyden&disp=src&housetype=1&HouseNum=25&ConstID=205&ac=0

http://www.oireachtas.ie/members/default.asp?housetype=1&HouseNum=25&MemberID=2466&ConstID=205





DÁIL SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Fianna Fáil

Deputy James Lawless

Fianna Fáil

[Vice Chairman]

Deputy Michael Lowry

Rural Independent

Group

Deputy Hildegarde

Naughton

Fine Gael

[Chairman]

Deputy Eamon Ryan Social Democrats

- Green Party Group

Deputy Bríd Smith

Solidarity

- People Before Profit

Deputy Brian Stanley

Sinn Féin











SEANAD SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT

Senator Terry Leydon

Fianna Fáil

Senator Tim Lombard

Fine Gael

Senator Michael McDowell

Independent Group

Senator Joe O’Reilly

Fine Gael

http://www.oireachtas.ie/members/default.asp?MemberName=Leyden&disp=src&housetype=1&HouseNum=25&ConstID=205&ac=0






COMMITTEE CONTACT DETAILS

Clerk to the Committee,

Joint Committee on Communications,

Climate Action and Environment,

Houses of the Oireachtas,

Leinster House,

Kildare Street,

Dublin 2,

D02 XR20

Ireland

Cléireach don Choiste,

An Comhchoiste um Chumarsáid,

Gníomhú ar son na hAeráide agus Comhshaol,

Tithe an Oireachtais,

Teach Laighean,

Sráid Chill Dara,

Baile Átha Cliath 2,

D02 XR20

Éire

Email: [email protected]

Web site: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/committees_list/ccae/

Telephone: 076 100 1745 or + 353 (0)1 618 3575

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/committees_list/ccae/

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/committees_list/ccae/



APPENDIX 4: PROHIBITION OF THE EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION OF ONSHORE

PETROLEUM BILL 2016

AN BILLE UM THOIRMEASC AR PHEITRILIAM I DTÍR MÓR A THAISCÉALADH

AGUS A ASTARRAINGT, 2016

PROHIBITION OF THE EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION OF ONSHORE

PETROLEUM BILL 2016

Mar a tionscnaíodh

As initiated

[No. 37 of 2016]






PETROLEUM BILL 2016

Mar a tionscnaíodh

As initiated

CONTENTS

Section

1. Interpretation

2. Prohibition

3. Short title

[No. 37 of 2016]






PETROLEUM BILL 2016

Bill

Entitled

An Act to provide for the prohibition of the exploration and extraction of petroleum from shale rock,

tight sands and coal seams in the Irish onshore and Ireland’s internal waters.

Be it enacted by the Oireachtas as follows:

Interpretation

1. In this Act—

“coal seams” means a layer or stratum of mineral coal;

“Irish onshore and Ireland’s internal waters” means all the land comprising the Republic of

Ireland and its onshore lakes, rivers and streams;

“petroleum” includes any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas and other liquid

or gaseous hydrocarbons and their derivatives or constituent substances existing in its natural

condition in strata which can be extracted and refined to produce fuels including petrol,

paraffin, oil, diesel, liquid natural gas or natural gas;

“shale rock” means a fine-grained sedimentary rock that forms from the compaction of silt

and clay-size mineral particles which readily splits into thin pieces along its laminations and

which contains organic material that sometimes breaks down to form natural gas or oil;

“tight sands” are low permeability sandstone reservoirs that produce primarily dry natural gas.

A tight gas reservoir is one that cannot be produced without assistance from stimulation

treatments to increase permeability to aid extraction.

Prohibition

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act of the Oireachtas, no Minister, Agency,

Planning Authority or Body acting on behalf of the State shall grant an authorisation and/or

grant of any consent, licence, permit, lease or undertaking for the exploration or extraction of

petroleum from shale rock, tight sands or coal seams in the Irish onshore and Ireland’s

internal waters.



Short title

3. This Act may be cited as the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore

Petroleum Act 2016.



An Bille um Thoirmeasc ar Pheitriliam i dTír

Mór a Thaiscéaladh agus a Astarraingt, 2016

BILLE

(mar a tionscnaíodh)

dá ngairtear

Acht do dhéanamh socrú maidir le toirmeasc ar

pheitriliam a thaiscéaladh agus a astarraingt as leaca

scealla, gaineamhchlocha teanna agus síoga guail i dtír

mór na hÉireann agus in uiscí inmheánacha na

hÉireann.

An Teachta Antoine Mac Lochlainn a thug isteach,

8 Meitheamh, 2016

Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of

Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016

BILL

(as initiated)

Entitled

An Act to provide for the prohibition of the

exploration and extraction of petroleum from shale

rock, tight sands and coal seams in the Irish onshore

and Ireland’s internal waters.

Introduced by Deputy Tony McLoughlin,

8th June, 2016

BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

ARNA FHOILSIÚ AG OIFIG AN tSOLÁTHAIR

Le ceannach díreach ó

FOILSEACHÁIN RIALTAIS,

52 FAICHE STIABHNA, BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2.

(Teil: 01 - 6476834 nó 1890 213434; Fax: 01 - 6476843)

nó trí aon díoltóir leabhar.

——————

DUBLIN

PUBLISHED BY THE STATIONERY OFFICE

To be purchased from

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS,

52 ST. STEPHEN’S GREEN, DUBLIN 2.

(Tel: 01 - 6476834 or 1890 213434; Fax: 01 - 6476843)

or through any bookseller.

€1.27

Wt. 77109. 614. 6/16. Essentra. (59435). Gr.30-15.

__________



APPENDIX 5: EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM - PROHIBITION OF EXPLORATION AND

EXTRACTION OF ONSHORE PETROLEUM BILL 2016



PROHIBITION OF EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION OF ONSHORE PETROLEUM

BILL 2016

___________

Meabhrán Mínitheach

Explanatory Memorandum

___________



____________



PROHIBITION OF EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION OF ONSHORE PETROLEUM

BILL 2016

____________

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

____________

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for a clear an unequivocal position in relation to the exploration

and extraction of petroleum from shale rock, tight sands and coal seams in the Irish onshore and

Ireland’s internal waters.

The Bill ensures the prohibition of any exploration or extraction of petroleum from rock that requires

additional processes to increase the permeability of the rock and aid in the extraction of petroleum

from lithologies, shale rock, tight sands and coal seams.

This Bill therefore prohibits:

The issue of any undertaking, consent, licence or permit for the exploration, prospecting or

leases or other permissions to facilitate the extraction of petroleum from within the state from

shale rock, tight sands and coal seams;

The use of any processes to increase the permeability of shale rock, tight sands and coal

seams for the purpose of extracting petroleum;

Any Minister, Agency of the State or Body acting on behalf of the State to engage in

prospecting or exploration of petroleum from shale rock, tight sands and coal seams;

The development of any infrastructure or facilities required for such extraction within the

State; and

The processing and/or disposal of any fluid or waste used in extraction processes within the

State.

The act of extraction of petroleum from shale rock, tight sands and coal seams requires a process

commonly referred to as ‘unconventional petroleum extraction’ or ‘unconventional oil and gas

extraction’. This method includes drilling a well to reach the targeted geological deposit and requires

the use of additional processes to increase the permeability of the rock for the purpose of stimulating

natural gas or oil well production.



This can include, but is not limited to the process of fracturing rock by man-made high pressure fluid-

driven fracturing techniques, including hydraulic fracturing. Fluids used in these processes may

include water or afluid combined with chemicals and/or sand that are pumped into the well.

A percentage of the fluid, and any petroleum is then drawn out of the well through the overlying

geological deposits and groundwater.

Context for introduction of this Bill

1. Pollution risk to water

This Bill is proposed in the context of Ireland’s ongoing and significant failures in respect of the

European Union’s Water Framework Directive.

The Water Framework Directive (Article 4.1) requires that: “Member States shall implement the

necessary measures to prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water and

groundwater” and that they “shall protect, enhance and restore” all bodies of surface water and

groundwater “with the aim of achieving good surface water and groundwater status at the latest 15

years after the date of entry into force of this Directive”. With 47 per cent of Irish rivers and 57 per

cent of Irish lakes failing to meet good ecological status, Ireland failed to comply with this by the

deadline of 22nd

December 2015.

The process of extraction of petroleum from shale rock, tight sands and coal seams risks

contaminating ground water with polluting fluids which when pumped into shale rock, tight sands or

coal seams is uncontained and free to flow into overlying geological layers or groundwater reserves,

and risks contaminating overlying ground water with petroleum which once released may travel

unconstrained to overlying geological layers or groundwater aquifers. Further contamination of water,

and land can occur through leaks or accidents associated with the well or the storage and disposal of

waste fluids. There are also additional chemical contamination risks posed by transportation of

chemicals to drilling sites and the storage of high volumes of fluids (millions of litres) that are

produced through the drilling process.

2. Pollution risk to atmosphere, contributing to climate change

This Bill is proposed in the context of the December 2015, Conference of the Parties to the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCC which established an ambition to reduce

global warming “Holding the increase in the global average temperatures to well below 2°C above

pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-

industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risk and impacts of climate

change”.



It is also proposed in the context of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2016, the

National transition objective of which is “to achieve a low carbon climate resilient and

environmentally sustainable economy”.

The use of hydrocarbons from shale rock, tight sands and coal seams for heating or electricity

purposes contributes greenhouse gases to the atmosphere which leads to increased global warming,

and will increase Ireland’s carbon emissions. Current analysis from the Environmental Protection

Agency suggests Ireland will not reach its EU 2020 emissions reductions targets. The use of

hydrocarbons sourced from shale rock, tight

sands or coal seams will make it even harder to reduce emissions in the energy sector and will result

in an overall increase in Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions. Globally to ensure runaway climate

change is prevented, it is understood that the majority, at least two-thirds of known reserves of oil and

gas must remain unburnt. Extracting gas or oil from Ireland’s onshore unconventional reserves is

directly in conflict with this position.

3. The Precautionary Principle and the rights of future generations to healthy and safe environments

This Bill is also motivated by the Precautionary Principle of the Treaty of the Functioning of the

European Union (Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union 2012/C 326/01) which provides for the Precautionary Principle in

Article 191(2) – and which underpins all EU Environmental legislation and consequently associated

Irish legislation, in stating:

“2. Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into

account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the

precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that

environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should

pay.”.

It is also proposed in the context of Ireland’s ratification of the Aarhus Convention, which establishes

the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or

her health and well-being.

Deputy Tony Mcloughlin,

June, 2016.

Wt. 77109. 614. 6/16. Essentra. (59435). Gr. 30-15.



APPENDIX 6: OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS,


Meeting of Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Climate Action and

Environment

Tuesday 31 January 2017

INTRODUCTION

First of all I would like to thank the Committee, for inviting the Department to participate

in today’s hearings on the report of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led Joint

Research Programme on Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE). I hope

today’s exchange will be of benefit to the Committee in its consideration of this

important issue.

I would also like confirm that the moratorium introduced in 2011 by former Ministers

Rabbitte and O’ Dowd on the use of unconventional gas exploration and extraction is still

in place, and continued by successive Ministers.

Additionally, I would like to acknowledge that while the EPA led Joint Research

Programme has taken longer than initially envisaged to report, the nature of research is

that it needs to be accurate and to appropriately inform the questions asked and the

report on the potential impacts of UGEE on the environment and human certainly

provides a good basis for coming to appropriate conclusions about the use of this

technology in Ireland.

BACKGROUND

During the latter half of 2009 a number of parties expressed interest in acreage in

respect of areas in the North West Carboniferous Basin. Two applications for Licensing

Options over the North West Carboniferous Basin were applied for. It was considered

unusual to have two or more simultaneous applications for the same acreage in an open

area. Normally single applications are received and assessed on the basis of quality of

work programme, technical competence, financial resources etc.

A number of options were open to the Department in these circumstances:

Proceed with a comparative assessment of the two Licensing Option applications

received to date.

Implement a competitive licensing application process over the two areas and

assess applications received on the basis of clearly defined selection criteria and

marking system.



The second option was considered to be the preferred option in the public interest, as it

was the option that was most likely to result in an effective exploration programme

being carried out. It was considered that it would also ensure that all of the parties that

had in the preceding months engaged with the Department in relation to the acreage

and who had invested resources in assessing its exploration potential, would be given a

reasonable chance to make an application for acreage.

In February, 2011 following an open competition, onshore petroleum licensing options

were awarded to:

Tamboran Resources PTY Ltd over parts of counties Cavan, Leitrim and Sligo;

Lough Allen Natural Gas Company Ltd over parts of counties Cavan, Leitrim,

Roscommon and Sligo;

Enegi Oil Plc over parts of County Clare.

It may be helpful for Members of the Committee to know that, separately, Tamboran

Resources Pty Ltd was also awarded a five-year exploration licence by the Northern

Ireland authorities over adjacent acreage in Country Fermanagh.

The Licensing Options, which we awarded in 2011, were for a two-year period from 1st

March 2011 to 28th February 2013 and specifically excluded exploration drilling.

It is important to note that this licensing round was not held in the interests of

promoting hydraulic fracking in Ireland but rather in the interests of exploiting the

hydrocarbon potential in the acreage.

As both international and domestic concerns with regard to the potential environmental

impacts of this technology grew, in October 2011 the former Minister for

Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Mr. Pat Rabbitte, requested such advice

from the EPA with respect to the potential environmental impacts from unconventional

gas exploration and exploitation.

As part of its statutory remit, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides, when

requested by a Minister of the Government, information or advice or makes

recommendations for the purposes of environmental protection to any Minister on any

matter relating to his functions or responsibilities..

In May 2012, the EPA published the outcome of a small-scale study commissioned from

the University of Aberdeen called “Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary

of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts” which recommended that

further research be undertaken.



STEERING COMMITTEE

The Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) Research Programme is a

jointly funded initiative between the then Department of Communications, Energy and

Natural Resources, now the Department of Communications, Climate Action and the

Environment, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the Environmental

Protection Agency. The Programme is managed by the EPA on behalf of the funders with

oversight from a Steering Group.

The EPA established the Steering Group to determine the scope of the research to be

undertaken. Membership of the Steering Committee included representatives from the

EPA, this Department (Petroleum Affairs Division and Geological Survey of Ireland); the

Commission for Energy Regulation; An Bord Pleanála; the Northern Ireland Environment

Agency, the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland and the Health Services Executive.

The draft terms of reference drawn up by this Committee for the research programme

were subsequently the subject of a public consultation process and the findings of this

consultation resulted in the impacts on human health being included in the scope of the

research programme.

The contract award procedure chosen for this competition was by open procedure. Six

tenders were received. The contract was awarded following a robust evaluation process

in compliance with procurement guidelines. The constitution of the evaluation panel was

approved by the project Steering Committee and included personnel with the capacity to

make informed decisions on the tenders received. The evaluation panel consisted of 26

existing and retired personnel from the following organisations:

An Bord Pleanála

Commission for Energy Regulation (CER)

Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources (DCENR)

Department of the Environment Community and Local Government (DECLG)

Department of the Environment – Northern Ireland (DOENI)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ETH Zürich, Switzerland

Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI)

Health Service Executive (HSE)

Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)

The former Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) (now part of EPA)

University of Ulster

University College Cork

University of Bergen, Norway



PROJECT

This research programme is a multi-agency transboundary programme of research on

the potential impacts on the environment and human health from Unconventional Gas

Exploration & Extraction (UGEE) projects/operations. The UGEE JRP is co-funded by the

EPA, the then DCENR and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA).

The key questions that this Joint Research Programme (JRP) was to address were:

Can unconventional gas exploration and extraction projects and operations be

carried out in the island of Ireland whilst also protecting the environment and

human health? and

What is ‘best environmental practice’ in relation to such projects and operations?

To this end this scientific research programme is based on the consideration of existing

baseline data with respect to groundwater, air and seismicity and the potential

implications and mitigations that are required to be considered in order to understand

the possible environmental impacts of using this technology and whether or not it can be

undertaken in an environmentally protective manner in accordance with the

requirements of environmental law. The programme of research will assist regulators,

both North and South, in making informed decisions about hydraulic fracking.

The JRP looked specifically at the geology of Roscommon, Leitrim, Clare and Fermanagh

which is very complex in terms of hydrogeology and geology. The EPA indicated that it

was very much focused on trying to get as much information as possible to capture the

complexity of the geology and hydrogeology, including seismicity or the potential for

earthquakes.

CONSORTIUM PARTNERS

The UGEE Joint Research Programme is broad in its scope, covering several

environmental parameters as well as operational practice and regulatory approaches

around the world. CDM Smith Ireland Ltd. is leading a consortium of organisations

which, together, can deliver the detailed and objective technical aspects of this work.

The consortium includes Queens University Belfast, British Geological Survey, University

College Dublin, University of Ulster, AMEC, and Philip Lee Solicitors. This consortium

includes commercial consultancies, academics, a geological research institution and a

legal firm, each offering a particular specialism required by the project scope.



COSTS

The costs of the first phase of the Framework Agreement for the study contract were

estimated at just over €1m. To cover these and other related costs, the three

commissioning bodies committed a total of €1.25m funding to the Research Project, with

the share-out as follows:

EPA €0.5m (40%)

DCENR €0.5m (40%)

NIEA c. €0.25m (20%)

€1.25m (100%)

INTEGRATED SYNTHESIS REPORT

The Steering Committee took the view at the beginning of 2016 that it was an

appropriate time to reflect on the overall timeline for the delivery of the research

programme. The original timeline for the research envisaged that the entire programme,

including work carried out under a supplementary tender, would conclude by late 2016.

While elements of the research were timed to conclude in late 2015, the Steering

Committee originally agreed that there would be a single point of reporting in late 2016.

Were the supplementary tender process, envisaged by the original Terms of Reference

for this programme of research to be commenced, it is estimated that the overall

research programme would not report until 2018 at the earliest.

Given this extended timeframe, and in the interests of making the finalised project

information available as early as possible, the UGEE Steering Committee approached the

consultancy consortium engaged to undertake the programme of research and agreed a

revised scope of work to combine all of the work carried out to date into a meaningful

synthesis report, which will be published once concluded.

CONCLUSIONS OF REPORT

The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment has noted the issues

raised in the report of the EPA led Joint Research Programme on the potential impacts of

hydraulic fracturing on ground water and air quality, together with the identified gaps in

legislative oversight surrounding the use of hydraulic fracturing in Ireland.

It is considered that the findings of the EPA led study justify the continuing prohibition

on the licensing of fracking. The EPA study found that fracking has the potential to



impact both human health and the environment. The impacts include the potential to

pollute groundwater aquifers if (1) wells failed, or if (2) there is inadequate separation

between fracking activity and the base of the aquifer, whereby fracking-generated cracks

potentially allowing pollutants and gas to find itself in the water. The report also says

there is evidence to suggest that the closing of wells is not always successful and that

gas can escape. The EPA report concludes that there is a lack of data or international

experience to permit a reliable assessment of the consequences of fracking, with specific

reference to the three main issues above.

The report provides the robust underpinning for decision making on this issue of public

concern. Minister Naughten referred the report to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on

Communications, Climate Action and the Environment for its consideration. This will

assist at the Committee Stage debate of the proposed hydraulic fracturing legislation

which is expected to be progressed by the Oireachtas this year.

PROHIBITION

There was cross-party support for legislation put forward by Deputy Tony McLoughlin to

outlaw drilling for shale gas from rocks, sands and coal seams across the country at

second stage of this Bill. The Minister took the view that the work of the Committee on

Communications, Climate Action and the Environment would be considerably aided and

advanced by being able to consider the outcome of the recently published, Integrated

Synthesis Report on the environmental impacts of fracking. This approach would allow

for an appropriate level of scrutiny and consultation to provide the fullest possible basis

and understanding for clear and effective legislative proposals.

THANKS AND WELCOME QUESTIONS

Given the complexity of the subject, the Minister especially welcomes the fact that the

Committee has commenced a public consultation on this topic. By engaging with all

stakeholders and interested parties it allows for a comprehensive review of the key

issues surrounding UGEE.

I would like to thank the Committee members, the Chair and the Clerk and his staff.

The Department looks forward to assisting the Committee in any way it can during the

course of its work, and of course to receiving its report and its findings in due course. If

you have any questions I am happy to answer them.



APPENDIX 7: OPENING STATEMENT BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPENING STATEMENT

Prepared for

JOINT OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT

Tuesday 31st January 2017

PRINTED COPIES AVAILABLE

Delegation Dr. Matt Crowe, Director, EPA Office of Evidence and Assessment

Dr. Alice Wemaere, Research Manager, EPA



First of all, I would like to thank you Madam Chairwoman for inviting the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to discuss the Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction

(UGEE) Joint Research Programme and to assist you with your deliberations in relation to

the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016. I am

joined here today by Dr Alice Wemaere, EPA Research Manager. At the end of this

opening statement, we would be happy to answer any questions that you might have in

relation to the Joint Research Programme and any related matters, and if we are unable

to provide answers today, I will arrange for the relevant information to be forwarded to

the Committee. We are also joined today by the Principal Investigator for the Joint

Research Programme, Mr. Alan Hooper of CDM Smith Ireland Ltd, who will answer any

questions that you might have in relation to the research, the work conducted, the main

findings and recommendations.

As you are aware, the EPA is an independent statutory body, established in 1993 with a

wide range of responsibilities including regulation of large scale industrial and waste

facilities, monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment, overseeing local

authorities’ environmental responsibilities, coordinating environmental research in

Ireland and radiological protection.

The main statutory role that the EPA could potentially have with regard to UGEE

projects, would be its regulatory role through the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC)

licensing process, provided by law by the Environmental Protection Agency Acts (1992-

2013), where an Integrated Pollution Control licence is required for the extraction, other

than offshore extraction, of petroleum, natural gas, coal or bituminous shale. The EPA

does not have a regulatory role at the exploration stage of these projects, but is a

statutory consultee with respect to any Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by

the Department of Communications, Climate Action and the Environment (DCCAE) in

assessing any applications received for exploration licences.

The EPA is also responsible by law for the promotion, co-ordination and management of

environmental research in Ireland, which is why the EPA was asked to commission and

coordinate this research programme on behalf of the State. I have provided some

additional details about our research programme as an appendix to this statement.

At the time that our most recent research strategy was developed, for the period 2014-

2020, and based on the level of public discourse and debate taking place at that time

and the absence of in-depth knowledge about the area, developing a better

understanding of the environmental impacts of UGEE was identified as a priority area for

research during the strategy period.



ESTABLISHING THE UGEE JOINT RESEARCH PROGRAMME – SOME CONTEXT

I want to provide the Committee with some context in relation to the establishment of

the Joint Research Programme. In 2011, in the Republic of Ireland, Onshore Petroleum

Licensing Options were awarded by the Department of Communications, Energy &

Natural Resources (DECNR), as preliminary authorisations, to three exploration

companies seeking to assess the unconventional gas potential within the Northwest

Carboniferous Basin (NCB) and the Clare Basin (CB). In Northern Ireland, one

exploration company secured a Petroleum Licence from the Department of Enterprise,

Trade and Investment (DETI) to explore the potential for unconventional gas reserves in

Co. Fermanagh, also within the Northwest Carboniferous Basin.

Also in 2011, in response to the growing level of interest in the topic and the absence of

any specific information, knowledge or policy direction about the subject in an Irish

context, the EPA commissioned a research desk study into hydraulic fracturing by the

University of Aberdeen and published the report “Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A

Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts” in May

2012. This short desk study provided an introduction to the environmental aspects of

UGEE projects and operations including a review of regulatory approaches used in other

countries and areas for further investigation and research. It also recommended that

further research was required to fully understand the potential impacts on the

environment and human health from UGEE projects and operations. The key findings are

attached in the appendix to this statement.

In late 2011, the EPA was requested by Mr. Pat Rabbitte, former Minister for

Communication, Energy and Natural Resources, to commission and coordinate the

management of research in relation to the environmental impacts of UGEE. This led to

the creation of the Joint Research Programme. The EPA was happy to facilitate this

request at the time as it has the administrative systems in place and necessary expertise

and experience to manage research projects at a variety of scales and was in a position

to provide the necessary structures to both commission and coordinate this independent

research on behalf of the State.

Following this request and the publication of the desk study report, the EPA established a

Steering Committee of relevant stakeholders to assist with the scoping out of the

Programme including representatives from:

Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources;

Department of the Environment Community and Local Government;

Northern Ireland Environment Agency;



Environmental Protection Agency;

An Bord Pleanála;

Commission for Energy Regulation;

Geological Survey of Ireland;

Geological Survey of Northern Ireland.

The information provided by the aforementioned desk study was used along with other

sources, such as European Commission reports, to develop the Terms of Reference for a

more comprehensive Research Programme. Between the 11th January and 8th March

2013, the EPA also ran and administered a Public Consultation in relation to the draft

Terms of Reference for this Research Programme. Over 1,300 submissions were

received, assessed and taken into account when finalising the Terms of Reference. On

foot of the public consultation, the Health Service Executive was also invited to join the

Steering Committee to further strengthen consideration of public health protection

issues.

Following a Tender Competition in late 2013, six tenders were received by the EPA. The

contract award procedure chosen for this competition was by open procedure. The

constitution of the evaluation panel was approved by the project Steering Committee

and included personnel with the capacity to make informed decisions on the tenders

received. In August 2014, the contract was awarded to the consortium led by CDM Smith

Ireland Ltd following a robust evaluation process in full compliance with procurement

guidelines. The contract was designed to be conducted in two overlapping phases, with

all field investigations to be conducted as part of Phase 2. I have included further

information about the award of the contract, the consortium and project governance as

an appendix to this statement.

PURPOSE AND CONTENT OF THE UGEE JOINT RESEARCH PROGRAMME

The UGEE Joint Research Programme, which commenced in August 2014, was composed

of five interlinked projects (see Appendix for details) designed to produce the scientific

basis of the programme that would assist regulators – in both the Republic of Ireland

and Northern Ireland – in making informed decisions about whether or not it is

environmentally safe to allow fracking. The projects covered a range of topics including

background monitoring of groundwater, surface water and associated ecosystems,

seismicity and air quality; UGEE projects/operations: impacts & mitigation measures;

and the regulatory framework for environmental protection. As well as conducting

research in the island of Ireland, the Joint Research Programme looked at and collated

evidence from other countries.



The overall aim of the programme was to further our understanding of the potential

impacts on the environment and human health from UGEE projects and operations. The

research was designed to produce outputs that would assist regulators – both North and

South - in fulfilling their statutory roles regarding impact assessment and regulation of

any potential UGEE operations in Ireland.

The two key questions addressed by the UGEE Joint Research Programme were:

Can UGEE projects/operations be carried out in the island of Ireland whilst also

protecting the environment and human health?

What is ‘best environmental practice’ in relation to UGEE projects/operations?

The research, originally intended to be completed in two overlapping phases, was to

involve extensive desk-based work (literature review and assessment) by technical

experts (Phase 1), as well as baseline-monitoring of seismicity and water resources

(Phase 2).

The work associated with Phase 1 has now concluded and the reports and associated

data, information and assessments provide a technical and evidence-based framework in

which to consider the potential impacts on the environment and human health from

UGEE projects and operations, including construction, operation and aftercare. The work

will also, as stated in the Government’s White Paper on Energy (Ireland’s Transition to a

Low Carbon Energy Future), help inform policy decisions in this area but ‘in the context

of the objective of achieving a low carbon energy system in which the use of oil and gas

is gradually curtailed and, in the longer term, is eliminated from our energy mix’.

In total, 11 reports were published, consisting of just over 2,000 pages: an integrated

synthesis report which contains a summary of the work and recommendations and a

final (detailed) and summary report for each of the five projects. All of these reports are

publically available on the EPA website as is general information about the programme.

At this point in time, the EPA has no plans to commission further research in this area

and considers, in light of the decision of the Oireachtas in October 2016, that the work

has now concluded.



CLOSING REMARKS

As referenced above, the Joint Research Programme was designed to produce outputs

that would assist regulators – both North and South - in fulfilling their statutory roles

regarding impact assessment and regulation of any potential UGEE operations in Ireland.

Two key questions were also to be addressed by the work. Overall, the research has

gone a long way towards providing answers to these two questions although it is clear

from the report’s conclusions that a number of outstanding issues remain. In particular,

the conclusions point to three main impacts where the data and/or experience do not

permit a reliable assessment of their consequences and that these would require

clarification before environmental protection and human health can be ensured. The

report makes it clear that these issues should be resolved prior to any authorisation for

hydraulic fracturing. It is also important to note that the baseline monitoring originally

envisaged for phase 2 of the programme has not been carried out and that any future

consideration of UGEE operations on the island of Ireland should be contingent on

completion of this baseline monitoring.

The research programme has also, through its many outputs and reports, added

significantly to the national and international body of data, evidence and knowledge

about a wide range of technical, scientific and regulatory issues considered during the

course of the work. As with all research, this data, evidence and knowledge will find

wider use and application beyond satisfying the original purpose for the work. For

example, the approach taken to assessing the entire life cycle of UGEE projects and

operations will be of value in conducting similar life cycle analysis for the various energy

options that need to be considered in implementing the Energy White Paper. Also, the

research has added significantly to the knowledge base on how best to integrate health

impact assessment into the assessment of other complex projects and operations.

Overall, I am satisfied that the EPA and its JRP partners have provided very good value

for money to the State. Ireland is somewhat unique in having taken such a

precautionary approach to the issue of UGEE and this work may in time be seen as a

case study of the precautionary principle in practice and evidence-based policy making

supported by independent research. The work was also highly controversial and

generated a lot of public interest and engagement particularly in the two study areas and

we all in the public sector must continue to learn about how best to involve and engage

local communities about decisions that can have a very direct impact on their lives and

quality of life. This will be of great importance in working out how we deal with the very

significant challenges presented to us by climate change.



This work also involved the participation and engagement of many public servants

through the Steering Committee, the Evaluation Committee and the management of the

project. I would like to take the opportunity on behalf of the EPA to publicly acknowledge

their contribution to this work. I would also like to thank the many members of the

public that participated in the public consultation process on the Terms of Reference for

the work as this helped to strengthen the Terms of Reference and also led to the

addition of the Health Service Executive to the Steering Committee. Finally, I would also

like to thank all of the members of the consortium for their contributions to the research.

In closing, I would like to assure the Committee that the EPA will continue to provide the

necessary scientific and technical support through its research, monitoring, assessment

and reporting activities to facilitate the policy discussions and decisions about this and

the wider issues around the transition to a low carbon economy and society, identified by

the EPA in its recent State of the Environment Report as the over-arching challenge

facing Ireland at this time.



EPA APPENDIX

EPA RESEARCH PROGRAMME

The overall aims of the EPA Research Programme are to:

Identify pressures by providing assessments of current environmental status and

future trends to identify pressures on our environment;

Inform policy by generating evidence, reviewing practices and building models to

inform policy development and implementation; and

Develop solutions by using novel technologies and methods that address

environmental challenges and provide green economic opportunities.

The EPA Research Programme is organised around three pillars: climate, water and

environmental sustainability. The EPA Research Strategy 2014-2020 identified a number

of priority areas requiring national concerted actions that are of relevance to the wider

climate change issues under consideration by this Committee, including:

Informing Ireland’s transition to a low-carbon climate-resilient environment,

society and economy, and meeting national and international targets in this

process.

Understanding environment–health interactions, including risks from emerging

chemicals and novel materials, while highlighting the benefits to human health of

a clean and well managed environment.

Developing a better understanding of how individual and collective behaviour can

either help or hinder progress towards a low-carbon, resilient, resource-efficient

economy and society.

Furthering the knowledge base on the role of the natural environment, its

resources and ecological limits, and our understanding and protection of

ecosystems and their role in sustaining the economy and human wellbeing.

Developing integrated approaches and growth opportunities through

management of the challenges that arise from climate change, water quality and

other environmental issues.



KEY FINDINGS FROM THE ABERDEEN REPORT

Some of the key findings of the study were:

The importance of adequate knowledge of local geology in order to assess

potential impacts on groundwater quality and the possibility of induced

seismic activity;

The importance of well integrity for preventing groundwater contamination;

The uncertainty regarding the “carbon footprint” of shale gas in comparison to

conventional natural gas. This is an important climate change issue;

Baseline studies being needed before drilling begins (surface water;

groundwater; seismic); and

That this was a relatively new area of research (i.e. only a limited number of

published, peer-reviewed, scientific studies were available in this area).

FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT THE CONTRACT AWARD

The contract award procedure chosen for this competition was by open procedure. The

contract was awarded to the consortium led by CDM Smith Ireland Ltd following a robust

evaluation process in full compliance with procurement guidelines. The constitution of

the evaluation panel was approved by the project Steering Committee and included

personnel with the capacity to make informed decisions on the tenders received. The

evaluation panel consisted of 26 existing and retired personnel from the following

organisations:

An Bord Pleanála;

Commission for Energy Regulation;

Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources;

Department of the Environment Community and Local Government;

Department of the Environment – Northern Ireland;

Environmental Protection Agency;

ETH Zürich, Switzerland;

Geological Survey of Ireland;

Health Service Executive;

Northern Ireland Environment Agency;

Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland;

University College Cork;

University of Bergen, Norway;

University of Ulster.



The consortium led by CDM Smith Ireland Ltd included British Geological Survey,

University College Dublin, University of Ulster, AMEC Foster Wheeler, and Philip Lee

Solicitors.

Queens University Belfast was also part of the original consortium but, upon

appointment, informed CDM Smith Ireland Ltd that the three researchers assigned to the

project would not be able to fulfil their responsibilities on Project A1. They were replaced

internally with CDM Smith Ireland Ltd and British Geological Survey (BGS) staff taking

on additional tasks. However, the full time academic from QUB has undertaken his

review role in full on Project A1 as proposed in the tender, and our understanding is that

this was done with the knowledge of the University and not in any independent capacity.

The composition of the consortium comprised:

Organisations carrying out the research; and

Organisations and independent reviewers (i.e. acting in their personal capacity)

carrying out the internal review process (i.e. Quality Control) before the

submission of deliverables to the UGEE Joint Research Programme Steering

Committee.



PROJECT SCOPE

The five interlinked projects were:

Project A1 (Groundwater, Surface Water and Associated Ecosystems) involved

the characterisation of two case study areas to examine environmental risk

factors associated with hydraulic fracturing and to prepare specifications for

baseline monitoring of groundwater, surface water and associated ecosystems,

informed by conceptual hydrogeological models.

Project A2 (Seismicity) dealt with the baseline characterisation of seismicity,

which is required to enable potential impacts to be assessed.

Project A3 (Air Quality) dealt with the requirements and needs for additional

air baseline monitoring (frequency, location and types of pollutants to be

covered) in the context of environmental impact statements (EISs).

Project B (UGEE Projects/Operations: Impacts & Mitigation Measures) covered

the identification and a detailed examination of the potential impacts on the

environment and human health, as well as successful mitigation measures to

counteract these impacts, associated with UGEE projects/operations that have

come to the fore worldwide using published reports and other sources.

Project C (Regulatory Framework for Environmental Protection) was aimed at

identifying all regulatory requirements, including gaps in existing regulations

and best operational practices associated with the establishment and

operation of UGEE projects/ operations in the context of the island of Ireland.

PROJECT GOVERNANCE AND STEWARDSHIP

The research programme, which commenced in August 2014, was jointly funded by the

EPA, the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, DCCAE

(formerly the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources (DCENR))

and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). The total cost of Phase 1 of the

UGEE Joint Research Programme (including implementation costs) will be in the region of

€1 million (inclusive of VAT). The EPA has administered all matters in relation to

budgeting and expenditure and was responsible for the financial governance and

stewardship associated with the project. The Steering Committee, which included the

programme funders, was responsible for overall project management and oversight of all

technical aspects of the work.



REVIEW PROCESS OF THE REPORTS

In addition to the internal review process carried out by the Consortium as its internal

Quality Control process before submission of any interim/final deliverables of the UGEE

JRP, all outputs were reviewed by a Technical Review Group which included Steering

Committee members and other external experts. Each Steering Committee member and

reviewer was requested to sign a Confidentiality Statement & Declaration of Conflict of

Interest. This process was fully independent from the internal quality control process put

in place by the Consortium.



APPENDIX 8: OPENING STATEMENT CDM SMITH

Meeting of the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment

EPA/DCENR/NEIA Research Programme related to the Environmental Impacts of

Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE)

STATEMENT OF MR. A. G. HOOPER, RESEARCH CONSORTIUM PROJECT MANAGER

PERSONAL STATEMENT

I have acted as Project Manager for the Joint Research Programme since its inception in

the autumn of 2014.

My university education was in Geology and Oceanography and since graduation have

spent 40 years working in consultancy on water related projects for governments, local

governments, aid agencies, research institutes and industry. These projects principally

related to flooding, water quality, water resource management, planning and data

collection, management and interpretation.

I have resided in Ireland for over 10 years, and in addition to the UGEE joint research

programme, I acted as project manager for the first cycle of the implementation of the

Water Framework Directive on behalf of the 12 local authorities which comprised the

Eastern River Basin District. I have also led projects addressing a planning framework for

Dublin Bay, flood risks in the city of Dublin, conceptual design and plan for a new port in

eastern Ireland, abstractions and urban pressures on the waters of Ireland and acted as

project director for other CDM Smith projects, including the neutralisation of odours

emanating from the Ringsend wastewater treatment works.



SUMMARY OF THE JOINT RESEARCH PROGRAMME

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Communications, Energy

and Natural Resources (DCENR) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)

awarded a contract to a consortium led by CDM Smith Ireland Ltd to carry out a 24-

month research programme looking at the potential impacts on the environment and

human health from UGEE projects/operations (including construction, operation and

after-care).

The consortium comprised

CDM Smith,

British Geological Survey,

University College Dublin,

Ulster University,

AMEC Foster Wheeler,

and Philip Lee Solicitors.

The UGEE Joint Research Programme (JRP) is composed of five interlinked projects. As

well as conducting research in the island of Ireland, the UGEE JRP looked at and collated

evidence from other countries.

The UGEE JRP examined the processes, impacts and mitigation measures associated with

hydraulic fracturing internationally. International regulatory frameworks and the

suitability of legislation in Northern Ireland and Ireland were reviewed and potential gaps

were identified.



WATER

The two main components of this project were the characterisation of the two case study

areas and the development of a specification for a sub-regional baseline monitoring

programme in each study area.

There is a consensus in published research that baseline monitoring that produces

publicly available data is essential. In many water environments, the quantitative

aspects are as important to consider as the qualitative aspects.

Risk identification and mitigation in the water environment requires an understanding of

Source– Pathway– Receptor (S-P-R) relationships which are site specific and so would

have to be addressed individually once any such development plans are presented.

Both the EPA and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency already carry out

comprehensive environmental monitoring of aquatic environments to comply with the EU

Water Framework Directive (WFD). Existing environmental pressures on water resources

and aquatic ecosystems derive from land use and economic activities that take place

within the case study areas. They involve both diffuse and point sources of pollution, as

well as abstractions. Several rivers and lakes in both study areas currently fail to meet

the WFD “good status” objectives.

The groundwaters are currently classified as being of good quantitative status, although

some have poor chemical status.

In the Northwest Carboniferous Basin (the northern study area), groundwater from wells

and springs is extensively used for public and private water supplies. In the Clare Basin,

groundwater is sourced for private water supplies, notably from shallow wells that serve

single houses and farms, as well as commercial/ industrial facilities. The majority of

public and group water scheme supplies are sourced from Doo Lough.

Groundwater also has a supportive ecological function, by providing and maintaining

baseflow to surface waters and to groundwater-dependent habitats; this is more

significant in the Northwest Carboniferous Basin.

The water use requirements of hydraulic fracturing processes in the two case study

areas were assessed based on “probable commercial scenarios”, which were developed

from a review of international shale gas projects, describing how the industry may

develop over time. However, any future proposals for UGEE-related abstractions would

have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with detailed and specific information on

water demand in order to assess temporal and cumulative impacts, particularly on small

streams and lakes. It is the ecological impact that will ultimately determine whether, or

not, an abstraction authorisation should be granted.



In general, terms the bedrock aquifers in both study areas are viable sources of water to

meet demands, at least in part. For surface waters, potential abstractions would have to

be evaluated at both local and catchment levels. Environmental reference conditions

would have to be identified on a case-by-case basis, using site- and case-specific inputs

(e.g. flow data and ecological datasets).



MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Deep geological and hydrogeological conditions are key data gaps associated with both

case study areas. These gaps affect knowledge about:

the extent to which deeper groundwater flow systems are present and may be

hydraulically connected to shallow aquifers and receptors;

whether, or not, open natural fractures exist in deeper bedrock formations, and

the chemistry of deeper formation waters beneath the currently exploited shallow

aquifers.

Both study areas would benefit from deep hydrogeological characterisation.

A precautionary approach to sub-regional baseline monitoring that is comprehensive in

scope and extent and capable of describing general environmental pressures,

distinguishing the impacts of any UGEE-related activity from general environmental

pressures and addressing cumulative impacts across catchments should be adopted.

However, a sub-regional approach would not necessarily produce the answers that are

needed at the case- and location-specific scale.

The sub-regional baseline monitoring should be receptor focused and long term. The

recommended programme included groundwater sampling of existing public and private

supply wells, springs and potential new monitoring wells; groundwater level monitoring

in select, existing and any potential new monitoring wells; sampling of lakes and streams

in designated protected areas; and hydrometric monitoring of spring discharges and

stream flows where particular data gaps exist.

SEISMICITY

The process of hydraulic fracturing is generally accompanied by microseismicity

(earthquakes with magnitudes of 2 or less) that are too small to be felt. Two types of

induced events can be defined:

“fracked” events (the physical cracking of the rock, i.e. “fracking”), whose size

is dependent on, and constrained by, the energy of the injection process and

are too small to be felt; and

“triggered” events in pre-existing geological faults, whose size depends largely

on the amount of stored-up elastic strain energy already present in the rocks

and can rarely be felt at the surface.

Higher magnitude events have occurred which are associated with deep well injection of

water or wastewater from hydraulic fracturing and other industries, such as geothermal

energy projects; these can have significant surface effects.



Seismicity associated with international UGEE projects/ operations was reviewed and the

potential for induced earthquakes in the study areas assessed. Seismic activity in the

island of Ireland is low and it is much lower than in the neighbouring countries of Wales,

England and Scotland. This suggests that it is extremely unlikely that hydraulic

fracturing, using best practice, will have any potentially troublesome triggered seismic

consequences to normal receptors.

However, background seismicity is known to be spatially very variable and the lack of

monitoring in the two study areas means that the actual background levels there remain

unknown. Before any estimate can be made of the likely triggered seismicity, knowledge

of the background activity is required. Consequently, detailed baseline monitoring should

be an essential requirement of any future unconventional gas exploration and extraction.

Modelling of possible ground motions for realistic examples of earthquakes with

magnitudes in the range of those previously observed in Ireland suggests that ground

velocities are unlikely to exceed typical levels at which cosmetic damage might occur.

Proper regulation would not permit hydraulic fracturing where pre-existing shallow fault

zones exist.

Advanced modelling approaches were developed to forecast the triggered seismicity

surrounding a hydraulic fracturing operation for a series of scenarios given different

reference activity levels and baseline network qualities. Inadequate seismic catalogues

exist in the study areas for this work at present, but the modelling allowed an illustration

of the nature of the uncertainties that might be expected.

The low background rates of seismicity observed in current Irish catalogues have two

contrasting implications:

The absence of data means that robust forecasts of the main parameters are not

possible; and

Hydraulic fracturing projects in the island of Ireland are extremely unlikely to

have any potentially troublesome seismic consequences for normal receptors;

however, this conclusion will require confirmation by examination of good quality

base-line catalogues.

Seismic baseline monitoring is necessary to establish the rate of naturally occurring

seismicity, which can be compared with the seismicity recorded during any hydraulic

fracturing operations; it should provide a publicly available catalogue and would also

locate active faults and map seismic noise levels in detail.

Existing seismic networks in the island of Ireland are not sufficient to detect and locate

all low level local earthquakes) in the two study areas. Local networks for the two study



areas with inter-station spacings between 15 and 25km were designed; these could

reliably locate all events greater than ML0.5 (events with ML < 0.5 are unlikely to be felt

by humans or to cause any structural damage) during a baseline study, which should

operate for at least 2 years.

The process of hydraulically fracturing a well generates microseismic events, but, as

presently implemented for shale gas recovery, the general consensus among

seismologists is that this does not pose a high risk for inducing felt, damaging or

destructive earthquakes. To date, there are only five documented examples of

earthquakes with ML>2 that have been conclusively linked to hydraulic fracturing.

The enhanced geothermal systems industry has developed a series of measures to

address induced seismicity that may be considered as industry best practice and, as

such, may be considered appropriate for mitigating the risk of induced seismicity in

UGEE operations.

Triggered events can be initiated by very small stress perturbations; however, the

potential for such events depends very much on the geological context and, given the

low levels of background seismicity, the probability of large triggered events in the island

of Ireland can be considered low.

A model of induced seismicity, which adopted the distribution of microseismic event sizes

from other wells, was developed to allow modelling of the formation of fractures from

widely accepted empirical scaling relations. Because of the paucity of available data for

the two study areas, the parameters used for the model are for illustration; they should

be replaced by values determined initially from a baseline survey and then from updates

in near real time during any hydraulic fracturing operations; this should also include

details of the injection parameters.

There is clear evidence that vertical fractures can propagate into shallow depths and, if

the hydraulic fracturing is sufficiently shallow, there is a risk that these fractures might

interact with aquifers. Data show an upwards extent of microseismicity of approximately

100m, with a worst-case event extending up to 300m above the perforation. Fracture

lengths show a strong decrease in probability with length. However, there is a relatively

long tail on the statistical distribution, which can never reach a probability of zero,

suggesting that there could be very rare large events with a small finite probability that

fractures may extend beyond 500m above the hydraulic fracturing zone. This should

inform regulatory requirements regarding the vertical separation of hydraulic fracturing

from aquifers, but should be verified with comprehensive baseline data.



During hydraulic fracturing, the permeability of the entire rock volume is increased by a

set of fractures that could connect any pre-existing through- going fault to the fracked

volume and thereby potentially connect the fracked volume to the surface. This process

has not been addressed in this study, as it is site-specific, requiring detailed local data to

establish the presence or absence of such permeable thoroughgoing fault pathways. Two

and three-dimensional seismic surveys, which would be expected to be undertaken by

the operators prior to any hydraulic fracturing activity, will provide further subsurface

knowledge that will enable better characterisation of subsurface geology, including the

location of fault zones.

BASELINE CHARACTERISATION OF AIR QUALITY

UGEE projects/operations can result in the emission of pollutants that, if present in high

enough concentrations, are associated with possible adverse health effects through

direct external contact or through inhalation. The sources of air pollution from shale gas

and related activities vary, depending on the stage of the project.

Very few, if any, methodologically rigorous studies have examined the potential cause–

effect relationships of UGEE activities and actual health outcomes related to air

emissions. Despite a lack of a clear agreement on the magnitude of air quality impacts

caused by UGEE activities, the available literature broadly agrees on the compounds, or

families of compounds, associated with UGEE activities.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) associated with any proposed UGEE project

should, therefore, address the predicted emissions and associated impacts in the context

of project-specific details, technologies and characteristics as rigorously as possible,

underpinned by a precautionary approach.

The precautionary approach is also fundamental to a Strategic Environmental

Assessment (SEA) or Health Impact Assessment (HIA) (should it be carried out) and

must be considered if potentially adverse environmental effects are predicted or if there

is sufficient scientific uncertainty relating to air quality impacts.

Methane, the primary component of shale gas, is a greenhouse gas. Most emissions in

UGEE projects have occurred during well completion when the “frack fluids” flow back to

the surface; however, there is concern that long-term emissions can occur after

completion through leaks from capped wells.

Air quality limits and target values across the island of Ireland are defined in EU

legislation. Guidelines published by the World Health Organization (WHO), which are

designed to offer guidance in reducing the health impacts of air pollution, supplement

national and European legislation.



A review of seven jurisdictions where commercial UGEE operations are ongoing found

that, in all cases, a full baseline characterisation of air quality had not been carried out

prior to the commencement of operations.

This has been highlighted as an important information gap and recommendations for

baseline studies and extensive investigations into potential air quality impacts have been

made in many studies.

Supplementary air quality baseline monitoring would be needed for UGEE impact

assessments on a project by- project basis. Proposed air quality monitoring on a

pollutant-by-pollutant basis was described.

OPERATIONS AND MITIGATION

This project reviewed the potential impacts of UGEE projects/operations as well as

mitigation measures to counteract these impacts. The evaluations were focused on

conditions in the island of Ireland, particularly the case study areas, and were based on

probable commercial scenarios in these areas.

This approach standardises assumptions made about future UGEE activities, given the

uncertainty of whether developments will proceed and, if so, how they will take place. At

this stage, the chosen probable commercial scenarios do not take account of potential

exclusions zones, such as Natura 2000 sites or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

UGEE projects develop in identifiable stages from initial assessments through to closure.

The activities and potential impacts vary according to the activities in each stage. The

planning and prior authorisation phase is, arguably, the most important phase of UGEE

development since it establishes rules, expectations and common understanding which

are then implemented in the later stages.

Water quality can be affected by various aspects of UGEE activities such as storm

water runoff, surface chemical spills and leaks and transportation spills which are likely

to occur and for which operators must be prepared with appropriate responses and

mitigation measures. In addition, fluids associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing

operations, together with natural gas constituents that are present or released,

represent potential sources of groundwater contamination if these migrate to the near-

surface environment via natural, induced or artificial pathways.

All of the issues above require appropriate regulation and enforcement.

Overall, deep hydraulic fracturing is not likely to result in a direct flow pathway into

shallow aquifers if adequate separation distances are maintained in excess of the

predicted fracture lengths. The primary risk of groundwater quality impact is stray gas



migration from the gas production zone as a result of an improper, faulty or failed

production casing and/or poor or improper cement grouting of the casing.

UGEE projects necessitate the use of water resources for several purposes and the

potential water use requirements in the two case study areas were compared with the

available resources to enable the identification of potential impacts.

The risks of impact from lake abstractions are considered to be small for the

larger lakes, although site- specific studies would be necessary to take account of

ecosystems and water balance;

The majority of streams in the two study areas could be sensitive to stream

abstractions. It appears unlikely that the total water demand for UGEE-related

activities could, or would, be sourced from a single catchment or stream,

especially during low flow conditions;

The well yields of the aquifers in the study areas cannot be predicted with

certainty without detailed studies. However, existing groundwater abstractions in

the two study areas are small and groundwater would potentially be a viable

source of water to meet demands, at least in part.

Any future proposals for UGEE- related abstractions would have to be assessed on a

case-by-case basis and evaluated at both local and catchment level.

The recycling and reuse of flowback and produced water is potentially an important

measure to reduce the impact of water resource requirements for UGEE

projects/operations. However, this may be limited by current regulations in Ireland and

Northern Ireland.

Impacts on other receptors that were not specifically addressed in the water, seismic

and air studies were addressed. The assessment of potential impacts and associated

mitigation measures is site specific and, therefore at this stage, only general conclusions

can be drawn. Nonetheless, it is estimated that most potential impacts range from

imperceptible to moderate, depending on the proximity to receptors and magnitude of

cumulative impacts. One of the main areas where uncertainties are liable to remain

relates to the quantification of long term green-house gas emissions.

The life cycle environmental assessment of UGEE projects/operations was evaluated.

During project operations, the well completion stage was found to be the most

significant source of emissions, followed by drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Effective

implementation of mitigation measures relating to these activities would, therefore, have

the most impact on overall levels of emissions. However, as is the case for conventional

sources of gas, emissions are dominated by the results of combustion at the electricity



generation plant, which typically represents approximately 90% of the total greenhouse

gas emissions impact.

The use of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing solutions, has been a concern of the public,

regulators and the scientific community in recent years. The hazard classifications of the

chemicals were assessed, based on existing European legislation. There are a few

examples of fracturing processes that do not use chemicals or certain groups of

additives; however, studies concluded that more research would be required before

fracturing fluids that do not rely on chemical additives are commercially viable.

Treatment and disposal methods were identified and assessed; disposal options linked

to the available treatment options were also reviewed and assessed. Municipal treatment

plants cannot adequately treat large volumes of flowback and produced waters.

Technologies exist to adequately treat flowback and produced water for reuse as

hydraulic fracturing fluids or direct discharge into streams and lakes. Based on the

probable extent of UGEE development in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the likely

volumes of flowback and produced waters, the best management option would be the

use of centralised treatment facilities with the proper treatment technologies. These

would be needed before any large-scale production. On-site treatment at individual well

pads using modular units is likely to be implemented during initial development.

Deep well injection may not be a viable disposal option because of restrictions in the

Mining Waste Directive.

Any changes to the regulatory regime and resultant proposed disposal of wastewater

from hydraulic fracturing by deep injection would require careful hazard assessment, as

well as monitoring and mitigation strategies.

Both on-site and centralised treatment facilities should be subject to appropriate

regulations, approvals, oversight and inspections by regulatory bodies that are specific to

UGEE projects/operations.

Environmental monitoring is needed at both sub-regional and local scales at each

stage of operations, i.e. baseline monitoring prior to any construction or operations;

operational monitoring during construction, drilling, hydraulic fracturing and production

activities; and post-closure monitoring conducted following completion of gas production,

well decommissioning and site restoration.

Specific requirements should include monitoring of surface and groundwater during the

construction and operational stage to detect any potential impacts on groundwater

quality or related receptors; post-closure monitoring of methane gas is considered

especially important at the wellhead of production wells in the post closure stage.



This precautionary approach should underpin the recommendations for the compounds

to be included in the list to be monitored for air quality purposes.

Seismic monitoring should include adequate baseline monitoring to characterise the

regional structural geology and seismic characteristics of the area. Real-time high-

resolution monitoring during operations should be linked to a traffic light system.

REGULATORY REGIME

The EU legislative framework is comprehensive, but potential gaps exist as most

directives and regulations do not specifically address UGEE projects or the deep

underground environment. However, the European Commission Recommendation

(2014/70/EU) “on minimum principles for the exploration and production of

hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing” indicates how

gaps should be addressed.

The European Commission is considering the development of a Best Available Techniques

Reference Document (BREF) that focuses on hydrocarbon exploration and production

that would encompass UGEE.

The regulatory environment in selected other jurisdictions was examined (Denmark,

Germany, the UK and the states of Pennsylvania and Colorado). It was concluded that an

EU-wide approach to well integrity standards and compulsory EIA for UGEE

projects/operations could be of benefit. In addition, public engagement may need

development in the EU (except in Denmark, where EIA is compulsory for UGEE and

public consultation is a requirement).

The US states provided examples of how a mature, rule-based system leads to specific

controls and guarantees related to UGEE, although there was a lack of consistency

across the states in applying such rules.

The potential role of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) for UGEE was assessed. It was

concluded that HIA provides a framework for an evidenced-based assessment of

potential effects of UGEE on the health of a population and the distribution of those

effects. It can also raise awareness among stakeholders of health implications, be an aid

to transparent decision making and be a tool to engage stakeholders and support the

identification of mitigation measures.

A potential disadvantage of HIA is the absence of a legal basis, which may limit its

influence. HIAs can also be resource intensive and have a long duration.

At this early stage of development of UGEE and HIA in the island of Ireland, the

incorporation of HIA within EIAs as a best-practice requirement is likely to be the best



approach, as this will allow developments in the understanding of UGEE and in the

practice of HIA to be accommodated.

The regulation of UGEE on the island of Ireland was considered with reference to national

legislation and by considering whether or not measures were definitely required by EU or

Irish legislation. Measures that may be required and, therefore, have a degree of

uncertainty, could be required and implemented through land use planning, petroleum

authorisation or licensing conditions issued by the Department of Communications,

Energy and Natural Resources/Department for the Economy or conditions set in EPA

licences (Ireland) or environmental permits and licences (Northern Ireland).

The results of the work were also mapped on to island of Ireland regulations to consider

whether or not these impose any additional requirements.

Public engagement was addressed through the detailed review of five case studies,

which represent a range of project types and consultation approaches, to identify good

practice and potential areas for enhancing engagement. The application of the Aarhus

Convention and EIA and SEA Directives to proposed plans and projects involving UGEE

was also reviewed.

Several conclusions were drawn from the review: the geographical scope, duration and

scale of consultation should be relevant to the scale of the plan or programme for

consultation; a broad range of stakeholders and consultees should be engaged and their

availability considered; the format of the consultation should be driven by stakeholders,

and consultation is required at all stages of UGEE projects; and, finally, the consultation

process should be managed by advocates of the consultation and engagement process

rather than by advocates of the project. Evaluation of a consultation process needs to be

an integral part of the whole process and should be continuous and responsive to

change.



PROGRAMME CONCLUSIONS

The scope of the UGEE JRP was developed to address two key questions: can UGEE

projects/operations be carried out in the island of Ireland while also protecting the

environment and human health; and what is “best environmental practice” in relation to

UGEE projects/ operations?

The potential impacts or each activity at each stage were assessed and the suitability of

the applicable legislation evaluated to identify areas of regulation where there are gaps

or uncertainty.

The programme concluded that many of the activities associated with UGEE

projects/operations could proceed on the island of Ireland, while protecting the

environment and human health, using (mandatory) best practice and applying the

current regulations, together with a small number of additions and modifications

complemented by adequate implementation and enforcement. However, there are three

main potential impacts where the data and/or experience do not allow a conclusive

assessment of their consequences and these would require clarification before

environmental protection and human health can be ensured:

1. Pollution of groundwater aquifers due to failure or deterioration of well integrity. The

drilling and construction of wells is a routine activity in the water and oil and gas

sectors, and standards for their design and construction are well established.

However, experience shows that there are examples of failed wells or those where

well integrity has deteriorated. It is believed that a rigorous process of design, design

review, construction supervision and operational monitoring (with remedial works if

necessary) could mitigate this impact, although this cannot be demonstrated without

further evidence. There is incomplete knowledge of the aquifer systems in the two

study areas, with specific data gaps related to the “deep” hydrogeological

characterisation of these areas and how the deeper groundwater ow systems may be

hydraulically connected to shallow aquifers and receptors. As a consequence, the

impacts cannot be reliably addressed in the absence of baseline monitoring data;

such data should be collected over a period of 12 months prior to licensing of any

hydraulic fracturing activities.

2. The fracking process intentionally generates cracks in the rocks that typically extend

to 100–200m; however, statistical analysis suggests that they can extend up to 300

m and, in very rare circumstances, up to 500m. The separation between the fracking

activity and the base of the aquifer should exceed these distances to mitigate the risk

of pollutant and gas migration to the aquifer; this distance could be reduced if

impermeable rock layers separate the two. However, the risk of pollutant and gas



migration from the newly fractured shale rocks (after fracking) into the overlying

aquifers may be compounded or increased by the existence of pre-existing

permeable faults that could provide pathways for pollutants and gas between the

two separate layers. Site-specific data on seismic activity, rock characteristics and

existing fracture networks is required to develop better estimates for the two study

areas. This should be supplemented during any operations by more detailed

monitoring during UGEE operations.

3. Following the closure of a well, it is sealed and capped to prevent egress of gas.

However, there is evidence from conventional oil and gas wells that this closure

process is not always successful or may deteriorate over time, with the result that

stray gas leakage has occurred at sites. Neither the reasons for this nor the scale of

the emissions are known quantitatively and therefore their impact cannot be reliably

assessed until further data are available. Methane is an important greenhouse gas

and therefore this is an issue of concern, although it should be noted that

approximately 90% of greenhouse gas emissions are likely to occur during the

generation of electricity rather than at the production stage.

Prior to any authorisation for hydraulic fracturing, these issues should be better

resolved. Adequately designed baseline monitoring programmes for water and seismicity

will assist in improving the site-specific knowledge and therefore the assessment of the

risk of groundwater contamination by well failure and of induced seismicity in the two

study areas.

Two- and three-dimensional seismic surveys, which would be expected to be undertaken

by the operators prior to any hydraulic fracturing activity, will provide further subsurface

knowledge that will enable better characterisation of subsurface geology, hydrogeology

and natural seismic activity.

Long-term gas emissions are more difficult to address, since local datasets are not

available. Post-closure methane emissions are the subject of ongoing international

studies, but these will take time to conclude. If UGEE projects are initiated, then it is

recommended that more complete closure, testing of closure procedures (cementing,

etc.) and then long-term monitoring should be specified. In other jurisdictions, funding

for post closure monitoring has been arranged through the provision of a bond by the

developer and this should be considered in Ireland and Northern Ireland if any hydraulic

fracturing projects are to be undertaken.



Existing regulations in Ireland and Northern Ireland have broad applicability to potential

UGEE project/ operations, but there remain some potential deficiencies and ambiguities

that should be clarified, notably in relation to the Mining Waste Directive, whether or not

EIA is required (especially for small-scale projects), the requirement for SEA at national,

regional or multi-project levels and the protection of air and water.

The European Commission Recommendation (2014/70/ EU) and emerging best practice

attempt to cover gaps in underground risk protection, but there is no guarantee that the

proposed approaches will be required by regulators or adopted by industry. Many of the

potential uncertainties in legislation could be clarified through guidance that clearly

identifies how legislation will be applied. Best practice guidance should, therefore, be

adopted or developed for UGEE operations in the island of Ireland. The guidance should,

as a minimum, address all the points raised in the European Commission

Recommendation and in this research programme.

Before steps are taken to allow hydraulic fracturing to proceed on the island of Ireland,

and recognising that the development of both UGEE and HIA are in the early stages of

development in the island of Ireland, incorporating HIA within EIAs as a best-practice

requirement is likely to be the best approach. This will allow developments in the under-

standing of UGEE and in the HIA practice that should be accommodated. In addition,

developments in HIA for UGEE in other countries should be tracked, and the Irish

approach adapted where improvements are identified.



APPENDIX 9: CDM SMITH / HOOPER PRESENTATION

Available at:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/fra

cking/20170131-Hooper-Presentation.pdf

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/fracking/20170131-Hooper-Presentation.pdf




APPENDIX 10: EPA LED JOINT RESEARCH PROGRAMME ON THE IMPACTS OF

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH

EPA led Joint Research Programme on the Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on

the Environment and Human Health

Integrated Synthesis Report

Summary Report 1: Baseline Characterisation of

o Groundwater,

o Surface Water and

o Aquatic Ecosystems

Summary Report 2:

o Baseline Characterisation of Seismicity

Summary Report 3:

o Baseline Characterisation of Air Quality

Summary Report 4:

o Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Summary Report 5:

o Regulatory Framework for Environmental Protection

The full suite of documents associated with Report of the Environmental Protection

Agency led Joint Research Programme can be accessed at:











APPENDIX 11: COMMITEE MEETING 31 JANUARY 2017

Policy issues arising from:

the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016

[PMB] and

the report of the EPA led Joint Research Programme on the Impacts of Hydraulic

Fracturing on the Environment and Human Health

Witnesses invited

Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment

o Mr. Matt Collins, Assistant Secretary, Natural Resources Area

o Ms. Orla Ryan, Principal, Petroleum Exploration Division

o 20170131 CCAE Opening Statement Fracking

Geological Survey of Ireland

o Ms. Monica Lee, Principal Geologist

Environmental Protection Agency

o Dr. Alice Wemeare, Research Manager

o Dr. Matt Crowe, Director, Office of Evidence and Assessment

o 20170131 EPA Opening Statement Fracking

CDM Smith

o Mr. Alan Hooper, Principal Investigator

o 20170131 Hooper Opening Statement Fracking

o 20170131 Hooper Presentation Fracking - PDF

o 20170131 Hooper Presentation Fracking - PPTX

Parliamentary Debates Official Report Tuesday 31 January 2017 full text | video

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=33136&&CatID=59



http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/fracking/20170131-CCAE-Opening-Statement---CCAE.docx

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/fracking/20170131-EPA-Opening-Statement.docx

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/fracking/20170131-Hooper-Opening-Statement.pdf


http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/fracking/20170131-Hooper-Presentation.pptx

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/CC22017013100001?opendocument

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=34477&&CatID=127



APPENDIX 12: SECOND STAGE MOTION

DÁIL ÉIREANN

Fógra i dtaobh Leasú ar an Tairiscint don Dara Céim : Notice of Amendment to Second

Stage

Motion

GNÓ COMHALTAÍ PRÍOBHÁIDEACHA

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

24. (l) An Bille um Thoirmeasc ar Pheitriliam i dTír Mór a Thaiscéaladh agus a

Astarraingt, 2016 — An Dara Céim.

(a) Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016

— Second Stage.

—Tony McLoughlin.

Leasú ar an Tairiscint don Dara Léamh:

Amendment to Motion for Second Reading:

1. To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

“Dáil Éireann resolves that the Bill be deemed to be read a second time on 30 June,

2017, to allow for:

(a) the publication of the Integrated Synthesis Report prepared as part of the

Environmental Protection Agency led cross-border Joint Research Programme on the

Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction;

(b) the opportunity for a public consultation on the Integrated Synthesis Report to be

undertaken and considered by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and

Environment, while noting that no application to engage in unconventional gas

exploration has been received by the Minister, nor would any such application, if

submitted, be considered until the research programme has concluded and there has

been time to consider its findings; and

(c) scrutiny between now and then by the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate

Action and Environment and for the Committee to consider submissions and hold

hearings that have regard in particular to ensure that:

(i) the proposed Bill strikes a balanced and measured approach in relation to

protecting public health and the environment and promoting the common good;



(ii) the Committee can take full account of the Integrated Synthesis Report on the

Environmental Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction and the

related public consultation;

(iv) the proposed Bill does not give rise to any unintended consequences or adverse

effects on the utilisation by the State of its natural resources or on the State’s

energy policy;

(v) the proposed Bill takes account of scientific information and expert knowledge on

matters related to exploration and extraction; and

(vi) the proposed Bill does not give rise to Constitutional or legal difficulties for the

State; and to fully discuss and explore other practical issues and consequences

that may arise as a result of the proposals.”.

— An tAire Cumarsáide, Gníomhaithe ar son na hAeráide agus

Comhshaoil.

25 October, 2016

Note: This motion was not moved.



APPENDIX 13: COMMITTEE DEBATE TUESDAY, 31 JANUARY 2017

The Joint Committee met at 17:00

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Deputy Eamon Ryan, Senator Tim Lombard,

Deputy Bríd Smith, Senator Michael McDowell,

Deputy Brian Stanley, Senator Joe O'Reilly.

In attendance: Deputies Martin Kenny, Tony McLoughlin and Eamon Scanlon.

DEPUTY HILDEGARDE NAUGHTON IN THE CHAIR.

The Joint Committee met in private session until 19.20 p.m.

SCRUTINY OF EU LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Chairman: We are now in public session. I remind members and witnesses to turn

off their mobile phones or to switch them to flight mode as they interfere with the sound

system and make it difficult for our parliamentary reporters to report on the meeting, as

well as for television coverage and web streaming.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the

Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their

evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the Chairman to cease

giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are

entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are

directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to

be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where

possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity

by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise

that any submission or opening statements the witnesses make to the committee will be

published on the committee's website after this meeting. Members are reminded of the

long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on,

criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or any official by name or

in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=32&MemberID=2028

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2028&pid=EamonRyanGP&year=2017&month=01&day=31


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2466&pid=TimLombard&year=2017&month=01&day=31


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2456&pid=BridSmith&year=2017&month=01&day=31


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=719&pid=MichaelMcDowellPD&year=2017&month=01&day=31


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2341&pid=BrianStanley&year=2017&month=01&day=31


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=1610&pid=JoeOReilly&year=2017&month=01&day=31


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2395&pid=HildegardeNaughton&year=2017&month=01&day=31





I have received apologies from Deputies Dooley and Lawless and Senator McDowell.

We now move on to scrutiny of EU legislative proposals. COM (2016) 767 is proposal

for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the promotion of the use of

energy and renewable resources. It is proposed that this proposal warrants further

scrutiny and it is further proposed that the committee seeks the views of the relevant

stakeholders. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2016) 861 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the

Council of the internal market for electricity. It is proposed that this proposal warrants

further scrutiny and it is further proposed that the committee seeks the views of the

relevant stakeholders. Is that agreed? Agreed.


Council establishing a European Union agency for the co-operation of energy regulators.

It is proposed that this proposal warrants further scrutiny and it is further proposed that

the committee seeks the views of the relevant stakeholders. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2016) 864 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the

Council on common rules for the internal market in electricity. It is proposed that this

proposal warrants further scrutiny and it is further proposed that the committee seeks

the views of the relevant stakeholders. Is that agreed? Agreed.


Council on the governance of the energy union amending directive. It is proposed that

this proposal warrants further scrutiny and it is further proposed that the committee

seeks the views of the relevant stakeholders. Is that agreed? Agreed.

POLICY ISSUES ARISING FROM THE EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION OF ONSHORE PETROLEUM BILL 2016 AND THE EPA REPORT ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: DISCUSSION

Chairman: The purpose of this meeting is to consider policy issues arising from the

Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 and EPA-led

joint research programme on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment and

human health.

I welcome our witnesses: from the Department of Communications, Climate Action and

the Environment, Mr. Matthew Collins, assistant secretary in the natural resources area,

and Ms Orla Ryan, principal officer in the petroleum exploration division; from the

Geological Survey Ireland, Ms Monica Lee, principal geologist; from the Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA, Dr. Alice Wemaere, research manager, and Dr. Matt Crowe;

and, from CDM Smith, Mr. Alan Hooper.

Opening statements have been circulated to the members. I propose that the witnesses

speak for five minutes each. We will then have a question-and-answer session.





Deputy Bríd Smith: May I raise a point of order?

Chairman: Yes.

Deputy Bríd Smith: This is with all due respect to everybody who has waited so

long for this session to begin and to the people in the Gallery. As I mentioned to the

Chairman earlier, I am baffled as to why we are going through this process of looking at

the EPA report and hearing from CDM Smith on the question of fracking. I am baffled

because the Bill, the purpose of which is to ban fracking, passed Second Stage in the

Dáil and that is the reality with which we should be dealing now. We should be

scrutinising the tightness and clarity of that Bill, rather than going through the facts - or

the lack of facts - yet again, hearing the opinions of various bodies that think fracking

should or should not have a place in Ireland or discussing reports from the EPA on

whether those opinions are valid. We dealt with all of that in the Dáil. On Second Stage

in the Dáil, it was quite clear that the sentiment of Deputies was that we disagree with

this, that and the other on the EPA report and that CDM Smith is compromised. We want

to move on now and get this Bill through.

Chairman: During the debate in the Dáil, the Minister recommended that this

committee consider this issue. The EPA report was also referred to this committee. In

the context of the new make-up of the Dáil, it is very important that this cross-party

committee gets the opportunity to discuss these issues. I hope we will have a productive

meeting. I take on board the Deputy's views but it is important that the committee has

this opportunity today. I ask-----

Deputy Bríd Smith: I am sorry, Chairman. The Minister did not recommend in the

Dáil that we go through the EPA report. That probably happened outside the Chamber.

In the Dáil, he said that the Bill was tight and needed to be legally checked. This is not a

legal check. This is going over the arguments for the Bill yet again.

Chairman: The role of the committee is to look at the issue of fracking. That is our

remit. It is a very important role that the committee has. The EPA report was referred to

this committee, which I think is a very valid pathway. It is something that we should be

capitalising on now in that we should be examining these issues. We are using the

correct format in this regard. As elected representatives, we have the power to consider

it in this format. I take on board the concerns of the Deputy and they are on the public

record. If we could just move on-----

Deputy Bríd Smith: On a point of order, I want to ask the official, although I do

not know his name-----

















Chairman: I am sorry. The official cannot speak in public session. That is only in

private session.

Deputy Bríd Smith: Okay. In that case, I will ask the Chairman about something

mentioned in private session regarding the new Dáil and how it works. There was a new

standing order passed in respect of every Bill coming back for full scrutiny. I am a little

confused about the procedures. Standing Order 141(3) states that we can or must

scrutinise a Bill under the new Dáil regulations. My understanding, as a new Deputy, is

that parliamentary procedures are such that the Bill, at this point, should come to a

select committee comprising only Members of the Dáil and that the latter would examine

it. Later on, it would be returned to the Seanad. Now, we have the Bill coming to a Joint

Committee of both Senators and Deputies for scrutiny. Is this not a new departure? Does

it not fly in the face of the whole procedure of the Dáil looking at the Bill, making a

decision on it and then it being returned to the Seanad in order that it might

copperfasten matters?

Chairman: I wish to explain that we are looking at the policy issues here. Policy is

always considered by the joint Oireachtas committee, which includes Senators. That is

the process.

I will move on to our witnesses. I ask our first witness, Mr. Matthew Collins, assistant

secretary for natural resources from the Department of Communications, Climate Action

and Environment-----

Deputy Eamon Scanlon: I wish to add something.

Chairman: Very briefly. Is it on the same issue?

Deputy Eamon Scanlon: It is. I raised it in private session. I was of the same

opinion as Deputy Bríd Smith. It was debated in the Dáil on 27 October. The Bill was

voted down. The Government withdrew its amendment and the Bill was voted down. My

understanding was that fracking was not on the agenda any more. It is unfortunate------

Chairman: This committee-----

Deputy Eamon Scanlon: I take the Chairman's point as well-----

Chairman: I am sorry. I wish to explain. This committee decided to consider the

EPA report. It was a decision made by this committee. I know that Deputy Scanlon is not

a member and I will explain. It was a decision made by this committee to consider the

EPA report. That is what we were doing here today.








http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=1998&pid=EamonScanlon&year=2017&month=01&day=31













I return to our first witness, Mr. Matthew Collins. He has five minutes.

Mr. Matthew Collins: I thank the Chairman for inviting the Department to participate in

the hearings on the EPA joint research programme. I understand that my statement is

available to the committee. Therefore, I will limit myself to some introductory remarks to

save time. I confirm that the moratorium declared by Ministers on any fracking activities

in Ireland has been in place since 2011 and continues. No applications have been

approved. The Department acknowledges that the timeline envisaged for the research

was longer than anticipated but the report does answer some questions about the impact

of the unconventional exploration for gas on the environment and health. Three

significant areas require to be addressed before we can conclude that the methodology

for this extraction could be used in a compliant manner. Two relate to groundwater

concerns and the third is the implications for air quality. While not highlighted in the

three recommendations, it is also noteworthy that the report finds there are significant

gaps in the legislative framework covering this activity not only in Ireland but in several

countries. As the Minister indicated in the Dáil that he would like to see science-led

research as the basis on which we make decisions and conclude this matter, it is

considered appropriate that we discuss the findings and move on to the legislation. The

Minister indicated that the issues raised in the report justify maintaining the moratorium

until a definitive view is taken. This committee's conclusions on the findings of the joint

research programme will inform this conclusion and view.

The Minister has indicated that he supports a Private Member's Bill proposed by Deputy

Tony McLoughlin which proposes to introduce a ban on fracking. It has passed Second

Stage in the Dáil. The Minister indicated at that time that he would table some technical

amendments based on the language on Committee Stage. This is to ensure that the

complexity surrounding the technology is properly captured and that no unexpected or

unintended consequences might arise from the legislation.

We are very happy to answer any questions from the committee.

Chairman: I thank Mr. Collins and appreciate his brevity. We will hear from our

second witness from the Geological Survey of Ireland, Ms Monica Lee, principal geologist.

Ms Monica Lee: The Geological Survey of Ireland is the national science agency. We are

part of the Department so Mr. Collins' opening statement covers our perspective as well.

Chairman: Thank you. We will hear from our third witness, Dr. Matt Crowe from

the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

Dr. Matthew Crowe: We are very happy to be here to help the committee with its

deliberations in whatever way we can on the report and the Bill. As our statement is







available to all members of the committee I will pick out a couple of points.

The EPA's licensing role is relevant to this work and that is why we were involved in this

research. Onshore extraction of gas, if it were ever to happen in Ireland, would require a

licence from the EPA. We also have a research role as the national co-ordinator of

environmental research in Ireland. We have a broader role in respect of environment

reporting which is relevant to the broader issue and I am happy to discuss that issue in

respect of climate change and carbonisation if that is helpful to the committee. The

opening statement gives the history and context of the research, which I will take as

read.

The overall aim of the programme and the questions we were asked to address are set

out on page 4 of the statement. It is some time since the terms of reference for the joint

research programme were drawn up and it is easy to forget what the purpose of the

research was when we set out to do it. Now that it has concluded we should consider its

overall aim when the work commenced. It was originally intended to happen in two

phases. The phase one work is complete, the reports have been published and are

available on the EPA website and the phase two work did not commence. The EPA has no

plans now to do further research in this area in light of the decision of the Oireachtas in

October 2016.

The EPA did not do the research, it funded it. As a director of the EPA, however, I have

read the summary reports which are available to anyone who wants to read them. It is

clear to me from reading them that the research was independent, objective and

extremely thorough. Many people with a range of expertise and backgrounds were

involved and contributed to the work through the consortium, the steering committee

and the technical review groups. This shines through the reports.

Two answers emerged from the research. Notwithstanding that the baseline monitoring

intended to happen as phase two did not proceed, the research has gone a long way

towards answering the two questions originally asked of the research. As Mr. Collins

pointed out, the research raises questions to be answered. The research also makes

clear that these issues should be resolved prior to any authorisation of hydraulic

fracturing.

While the research poses specific questions, as always happens, there is added value

from the work, for example, the lifecycle assessment approach to this technology and

some of the work done on health impact assessment. These will have broader

implications and use for regulators and those involved in the environmental protection



area.

Overall, I am satisfied that the EPA and its joint research programme partners have

provided very good value for money to the State. Ireland is somewhat unique in having

taken such a precautionary approach to unconventional gas exploration. We are one of

the few countries where it has been decided to do the research, to consider what

baseline monitoring needs to be done in advance of allowing there to be exploration or

extraction. That is something to be proud of. In time, the work may be seen as a good

case study in the application of the precautionary principle in practice and evidence-

based policy making supported by independent research. I also pointed out that the

work was very controversial and generated a lot of public interest and engagement,

particularly in the two studies. The public sector can learn from that how best to involve

and engage local communities in decisions that can have a very direct impact on the

quality of their lives, their health and wellbeing. On the broader issue, as we start to

figure out what we are going to do about the challenges of climate change, engagement

with communities will be very important.

We are very happy to answer any questions the committee might have. If it has

questions we cannot answer we will get the information to the committee as soon as we

can after this meeting.

Chairman: I thank Dr. Crowe. I invite Mr. Alan Hooper of CDM Smith to address

the Joint Committee.

Mr. Alan Hooper: Unfortunately, I cannot use my powerpoint presentation because the

IT system is not working. I will skip through some of the slides quickly. As the members

of the committee have hard copies of the presentation, they can follow me as I go

through it. The third slide shows the scope of our work. We undertook a technical

research programme. There were no political, economic or considerations in the study.

There were five projects. We had two study areas, one in County Clare and the other on

the Border in counties Leitrim, Sligo, Cavan and Fermanagh. Our approach was based on

evidence. We used peer-reviewed data. We got information and data from regulatory

bodies. We looked at the regulatory structures. We used our own experience and

knowledge of the industry. We did not take any information from newspapers, social

media, anecdotes or Hollywood.

Members will see the slide that sets out the structure of the five inter-linking projects in

the EPA's scope of work. In projects A1, A2 and A3, we looked at the specific impacts on

water, seismicity and air quality. In the fourth project, we looked at the impacts of

unconventional gas exploration and extraction projects around the world, the mitigation





measures taken as part of those projects and the success of those projects. In the final

project, we looked at the regulatory framework in EU and Irish law and in other

jurisdictions. We examined these matters in the context of the two study areas. We

looked at the EU requirements and we studied what is going on in other jurisdictions. It

was quite a broad project.

The next slide indicates that the consortium was led by CDM Smith and was supported

by the British Geological Survey. University College Dublin and the University of Ulster

were involved in the seismic activities. The consortium also included Amec Foster

Wheeler, which has done a great deal of work for the European Commission on

regulation and best practice in fracking. Philip Lee offered us local expertise regarding

the regulations in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

I will not go through the description of the individual projects. I will move on to the slide

entitled "potential impacts", which sets out how the fracking process is divided into four

main stages for our purposes. Unconventional gas exploration and extraction projects

typically last between 15 and 25 years. The first stage we normally look at is

exploration. We split that into two parts: baseline monitoring and characterisation, which

is fairly benign, and test hydraulic fracturing. As test hydraulic fracturing is new and

rather different, we pulled it out as a separate entity. The second stage, which applies if

it is decided to proceed with fracking, involves a great deal of activity on pad

development and the development of infrastructure such as roads, water pipelines and

wells. The third phase is the production stage, when all of the development goes away

and the field starts to produce gas. The fourth stage involves a closure exercise. Our

analysis of the impacts across these four stages was based on five reports, which we

drew from an awful lot of information.

Members will see that a number of slides feature pretty tables, or not-so-pretty tables.

These simple tables rate the potential impacts of the activities in each phase of the

fracking process and assess whether those impacts are normal from the perspective of

society. It is not unusual to be building a road or a pad, for example. It is unusual, from

the perspective of society and the regulations, to be doing hydraulic fracking so it is

going to be a bit of a problem. We looked at whether the regulations that apply to each

activity need modifications or additions. If I had more time, I would go through the

various tables to illuminate what we found. I can do that by reference to the conclusions.

The first slide dealing with conclusions follows all the tables to which I have referred. The

first conclusion we came to is that fracking projects and operations involve multiple

activities which have the potential to affect human health and the environment in



different ways. The relative importance of these impacts varies from place to place,

because these projects are very site-specific, and with time. As I have said, many of the

activities are conventional in so far as they involve things that happen frequently. People

build roads to allow materials to be transported and install pipelines to transfer water.

Much of this activity is fairly typical of society and of behaviour across many industries

and is therefore well regulated. There is a lot of regulation in place and the mitigation

measures are quite well developed.

I ask members to turn to the next slide dealing with conclusions. When we looked at

other jurisdictions, we found that the operational requirements and therefore the

practices that are going on are quite different from country to country. That is a

reflection of the fact that this is a new industry that is evolving rapidly, especially in the

US. We noted that the regulatory environment in the US differs significantly from that in

Europe, partly because the US authorities approach things differently and partly because

ownership issues are completely different there. In the US, the resource is owned by the

landowner rather than the state. This means the landowner has a much bigger incentive

to get involved. That is a fairly basic difference. Many of the more damaging practices in

the US would not be allowed in Ireland because of EU regulations. I refer to the use of

open-wastewater lagoons, for example, or to practices like flaring and deep underground

reinjection. Many of the bigger problems in the US simply would not be allowed here

under EU regulations. It is quite ironic that industry best practice - the United Kingdom

Onshore Oil and Gas group, for example, has developed best practice guidance in this

area - addresses many of the issues that are raised by stakeholders. There is a nice

body of work there that should be incorporated in the regulations if this goes ahead. The

industry has set out what it is prepared to do. I suggest the public authorities can

achieve a great deal of benefit from holding the industry to that.

In the next slide dealing with conclusions, we set out our view that many of these

activities could proceed in Ireland without causing too much damage to the environment

or to health as long as the best practices we have identified in the report are followed

and current regulations are applied with a small number of additions and modifications.

This needs to be complemented by adequate implementation of the regulations by the

industry and enforcement of them by my friends in the EPA.

We are of the view that an unsatisfactory risk status is still attached to three impacts.

We could not say that mitigation measures would work in these contexts. I have listed

the three impacts in question on one of the slides. We believe there may be a risk of

groundwater pollution from failed boreholes, of groundwater pollution caused by gas

migrating through the cracks created during fracking, and of emissions after the closure



of the wells. We did not have enough evidence to say that problems would not arise in

these areas. In our view, there is still a problem. I will go through the three risks

individually. When we say there is a risk of groundwater pollution from failed borehole

integrity, we are referring to the possibility of the pumped materials going down leaking

into the aquifers. It is also possible that the returning gas or the production waters - the

deep waters that naturally come out of rocks and are usually highly polluted - could leak

out as well. If the well fails, there is a problem.

When one engages in fracking, one creates cracks. Fracking releases gas into the well.

Potentially, those cracks could be a route for migration of gas and polluted water. There

is quite a debate about how long those cracks might be. The industry will say they are

10 m or 20 m in length, but a great deal of data points to the possibility that they are

over 200 m in length. We think they might extend to 300 m in extreme conditions. We

know from the statistical analysis we use that they could theoretically extend to 500 m if

long cracks can go vertically from the oil-bearing strata to the aquifers. If these cracks

extend to the aquifers, the possibility of gas and pollutant migration presents itself. That

is worse if there are existing faults that link in with the natural cracks as a sort of

double-whammy.

The third unsatisfactory risk is the possibility of post-closure gas emissions. Things

should be straightforward when all the gas is out and the well is capped, but that is not

the case. There are international examples of leaks from conventional and

unconventional wells. In principle, the design of these elements should be

straightforward. It should be easy enough to do, but leaks can happen. We cannot say it

is not a risk. The levels of gas emissions from a well are typically low, but if there are

gas emissions from a number of wells over a long period of time, those levels can be

significant.

They are the three issues that we really highlight as being problems. We suggest they

should be addressed by anyone who wants to do hydraulic fracturing. They can be

addressed, to some extent, by baseline monitoring. If we had baseline monitoring of

water and seismicity for the two study areas, we could say with a lot more certainty how

likely it is that gas and pollutants will migrate from the wells to the aquifers. Similarly if

there is going to be any seismic activity, seismic surveys will be done before anything

happens to provide us with better knowledge of the sub-surface geology and

hydrogeology. The structure of the geology and hydrogeology, which is the way water

moves around, is fundamental to two of these issues. If the data are there ahead of

time, there is a reasonable chance of being able to say whether we think it is a problem

but that cannot be done without the data. In a sense, we will not know the long-term



gas emissions because they are long term. There are ongoing studies but it will take a

long time to find out. If countries want to proceed with this, there is no reason why the

design cannot be well specified and well implemented. The testing of the closing

procedure could be done and then linked to long-term monitoring. We would recommend

a bonding issue so if there are problems the operators pay rather than the Government.

They are the three activities the Government could move forward on to make it a more

satisfactory industry.

The last issue is the regulatory environment. Many regulations have come out of the EU.

They are widespread and are quite applicable to these types of operations but there are

some deficiencies and ambiguities on which clarification is needed. One is the mining

waste directive which the EU is clarifying. There are issues associated with the reuse of

wastewater. Wastewater is not supposed to be re-injected. The argument is that the

water that has been injected down and comes back as part of the fracking process is

wastewater. If it was to be reused, there would be a much lower demand for water and

the water resource, which is a concern. That is an issue we felt need clarification. It is

not clear in the environmental impact assessment directive what scale of projects that

should be applied to. In Denmark, they have taken a view that all fracking projects,

whether only for exploration or not, have an environmental impact assessment.

Similarly, it is not really clear at what scale the strategic environmental assessment,

SEA, should be. If one was doing an exploration well or a few wells, one probably would

not do it but if one was going to do the whole of the northern carboniferous basin

throughout Leitrim and Fermanagh, then an SEA is needed. The application of SEAs

needs to be clarified. Extraction licensing in Ireland needs to be strengthened because

there is such significant water demand in this industry. The European Commission has

developed recommendations for this industry and it attempts to cover the gaps in the

existing regulations. It is quite good and covers most of those gaps. We think it should

be included in guidance. Similarly, the best practice coming out of industry should be

included in guidance. With those two together, with the existing legislation, the

Government can go a long way to controlling this industry quite well.

We were asked to look at what role health impact assessments might have. They are not

well developed in Ireland. Hydraulic fracturing is a new industry. Those two things do not

go together very well. There is not much data. We thought the best approach would be

to incorporate health impact assessments within the EIA as a best practice requirement

for this industry.

I am pleased to take any questions the committee has.



Chairman: I thank the witnesses for their brief statements this evening. I will start

with a question for the Department on its position versus that contained in the EPA's

report. The conclusion of the EPA report is that there are concerns that can be mitigated

by certain measures, whereas the Department's position is there is sufficient evidence to

maintain the ban. What are the problems that the Department sees as warranting the

ban? Will the witnesses expand on that?

In its conclusion, the EPA states there is a lack of data and experience to permit a

reliable assessment with regard to fracking. There are a lot of peer-related reviews such

as, for example, the Cornell Medical College New York report and the US EPA report,

both of which have issues with fracking. How did the EPA decide there was not enough

data or experience out there? In layman's terms, does it come down to the fact that

fracking has not been in existence for that long? Will the witnesses expand on those

questions?

I will ask the witnesses to bank those questions. I will call on Deputy Stanley and Deputy

Eamon Ryan.

Deputy Brian Stanley: I thank the witnesses for their attendance. I also thank

them, as well as those in the Gallery, for their patience while waiting. If one is going to

do something that is a risk, the first thing one has to do is ask whether it is necessary. If

there is a pedestrian crossing where one can walk safely across the road, why would one

go 20 yd. up the road to cross the road without a red light for traffic to stop? It seems as

though the risks involved here are substantial. The witnesses have waited a long time

and other people want to ask questions. There are huge risks involved, which is clear

from the report and the Department's conclusions on it. A more comprehensive report on

a seven-year study done in New York concluded that the administration should ban it

completely. There are risks to the environment, air and water quality and Mr. Alan

Hooper touched on some of those. The report that was done here did not deal with the

effects of burning shale gas; it simply dealt with the extraction of shale gas. In this

country, we are already way behind our international obligations in terms of reducing

greenhouse gas emissions. Will the witnesses from the EPA share any thoughts they

have about the effects of burning shale gas in terms of what effect it would have on our

CO2 emissions and whether it would increase those or not?

The conclusions of the Department on its potential to pollute ground aquifers is of huge

concern to people. I am from the midlands but I know there is huge concern about that

in the north west. The potential for cracks has been outlined very vividly. There could be

cracks of up to 500 m from hydraulic fracturing. The closing of wells was also addressed.







We are doing a study in this country where it has not yet happened. Perhaps Mr. Alan

Hooper will address this point. The studies in the United States addressed a situation

where it has happened and where the environmental consequences can be seen, felt and

measured. Does CDM Smith agree it is difficult to do it here because it has not happened

here yet?

What is the impact of burning shale gas? Will it exacerbate the appalling situation in this

State where we are far behind and will fall far short of the very modest targets we set

ourselves to meet in 2020 and 2030? I cannot figure out why, as an island nation, we

are even entertaining this because surely we have enough, in that we have an

abundance of renewable sources of energy. The EPA has looked at all of this in the past,

as I am sure have some of the people here with scientific backgrounds. We are only

scratching the surface in terms of exploring and researching such sources and

developing the technology to harvest wind, wave, solar and all the other bioenergies that

are available and into which we should be tapping. Why we are even taking the risk of

going down the road of shale gas is beyond me. Why cross the road 20 yd. from the

pedestrian crossing when one can press the button and have a red light to stop traffic? It

is beyond me why we are taking the risk.

Chairman: I will bring in Deputy Ryan.

(Interruptions).

Chairman: I ask those in the Public Gallery not to applaud or make commentary

during this session.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: It is a strange situation because there is consensus. In the

Second Stage debate, we reached an important decision so it is strange that we are

stepping back a bit. However, it is not a permanent step back. In fact, we have respect

for this process and for the submissions that various people with an interest in this

matter have been asked to present and the work they have done on them.

Two or three issues arise. Dr. Crowe referred to climate change. For me, that is the

quintessential first obstacle for any development of fracking. We need to keep four fifths

of fossil fuel resources underground. If we burn the shale or tight oil and shale

resources, we will have runaway climate change that we will not be able to stop. There

are also secondary issues around methane release, which I believe is an acute problem

in the shale fracking industry. The analysis we have been presented confirms to me,

specifically for the sites in Leitrim, Sligo and Roscommon, that the issue of water

pollution is very significant. There are many other concerns that could be raised. From

all the analysis I have read here, this is a geological formation in which there are natural






http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2028&pid=EamonRyanGP&year=2017&month=01&day=31



risks, as there are already breaks in the fracturing in the natural sediments of the area.

There are real risks. The concerns in the hydrological analysis presented by SWAN are

being backed up. In that geological area, there is a risk of contamination of the most

critical water resource we have, namely, the mouth of the Shannon. It seems to me to

be a non-starter. It gives us a certain comfort in following the process of restricting the

application of fracking in Ireland. In my mind, it makes ever more sense.

I would be interested to hear from Mr. Collins from the Department on one final matter.

In our earlier considerations today, the other reassuring development - if I am not

breaking confidence - is the sense that the Bill, as presented, is fundamentally legally

sound, although there may be a need for a tweaking of words. I think it may be

appropriate for the Department, with its drafting expertise, to provide wording

suggestions for the definition of "land", "the State" and other examples mentioned

earlier. The reassurance for those campaigning on this side is that we have a process

whereby, as we agreed under Standing Order 141, we are carrying out the pre-

legislative process, which is not going to be long and drawn out. This legislation is

heading towards Committee Stage, for which the select committee will be responsible.

Subject to the Dáil agreeing Report Stage and the Bill's enactment, it will go to the

Seanad. I would be interested to hear from Mr. Collins, as he has a similar assessment,

whether there is anything in the legislative process that, in the Department's view,

screams "Stop". If there is, I am not aware of it. That is the good news from my

perspective. We have a fairly clear path to bring this legislation to Committee Stage and

to enactment.

Chairman: I will revert to the witnesses before I take the next three members'

questions. The witnesses might have those questions banked. I call the EPA or the

Department, whichever wants to go first.

Mr. Matthew Collins: I am happy to go first. The reasons for maintaining the

moratorium are quite simple. There are a number of unresolved issues in the risks that

have been identified. They relate to groundwater and air quality. Those risks mean that

the frameworks are unresolved at the moment. That is the justification for the

Department maintaining the moratorium, particularly in light of the Oireachtas

examining a legislative basis for preventing fracking. It seems clear to us that, in the

interim, we are satisfied that those risks exist. It is in line with the policy goal of the

Oireachtas in terms of the legislation. The Minister has already said that he accepts the

Bill. He is supportive. He flagged quite a long time ago his specific concerns about

groundwater and air quality. It is important that the research that was carried out





flagged that as well.

Having the research is useful because it provides comfort in terms of the direction in

which the legislation is going. We have a very clear basis and rationale for what we are

doing and the approach we are taking. Rather than allowing this activity to take place

and examining it in retrospect, which some jurisdictions have done, we have probably

benefited from the fact that the better approach has been to prevent the activity, do the

analysis in advance of the activity and to then allow a policy and legislative framework to

be developed that addresses that activity.

In terms of the legal soundness of the Bill, I am not a lawyer and I know there are

parliamentary draftspersons who are professionals in this area. What I can say is that

the intention of the legislation is very clear. It is to achieve a prohibition of fracking. We

want to ensure we achieve that through the legislation. Sometimes, legislative drafting

can be complex and this is a particularly technical area as well. It will probably be a

drafting issue, but I think people on both sides agree on the intent of the Bill and that is

what we want to ensure occurs.

Dr. Matthew Crowe: I wish to respond to the Chairman's question on the data and the

evidence. Thinking back to 2010 and 2011, when this first came on the EPA's radar,

there was a lot of talk about fracking in America and other parts of the world. There was

the possibility that it might happen in Ireland at some point. Our concern at that time

was to get more information about the Irish context. The Irish underground is very

specific to Ireland. Even within different parts of Ireland, it varies from one place to the

other. The study addressed that to a certain extent. It looked at whatever available data

there is in Ireland right now. Of course, at the time the study was originally designed,

there was also an intention that there would be monitoring done in terms of boreholes,

seismic monitoring, etc, but it was never done. We are where we are on that. The key

thing is to get the Irish context of the data, information and evidence from a regulation

point of view. If we were ever in a situation in which we had to consider an application

for the extraction of shale gas, we would want to have all of the knowledge and

information that we needed about the specific area in which that was going to happen.

Some of that would be gathered in the course of an application. However, there are

issues such as the strategic environmental assessment, which was mentioned earlier.

There are things the State can do to provide that baseline information, which makes the

job of regulators more efficient and effective.

In terms of risk, an issue Deputy Stanley raised, the main point is that hydraulic

fracturing has not happened in the Republic of Ireland. The approach that has been



taken in Ireland is the precautionary approach to do the research, get the data, collect

the evidence and then base policy on whatever that happens to be. The policy context

has changed since 2011. We now have a White Paper on energy, which we did not have

then. There is a much broader context in which to examine whatever energy systems

may be considered for Ireland in the future.

We also have the climate legislation, very specific targets for 2050 in residential and

transport electricity generation and an 80% reduction of carbon dioxide compared to

1990 levels. The broader issue will be addressed in the national mitigation plan, which is

to be prepared this year. The whole point of that plan is to set out a roadmap for how

Ireland is going to reach the targets in the legislation that have been set for 2050.

Everything has to be considered on that basis. Essentially, we are talking about

decarbonising the energy system. At present, that system is heavily dependent on fossil

fuels. A total of 90% of energy in Ireland comes from fossil fuels. There is a much

bigger issue at play in respect of the challenges posed by climate change which relate to

how we move from an energy system that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels to one

that is not. If there was ever a possibility that shale gas would be considered as part of a

national energy resource, it would have to be considered within the broader policy

consideration of decarbonisation and the targets set out in dealing with climate change.

Chairman: Did Deputy Brian Stanley have a question for Mr. Hooper?

Deputy Brian Stanley: Yes. I asked about the study carried out here and the

studies in the United States, particularly the one in New York State. The Americans have

experienced and live with the consequences of shale gas extraction. Can Mr. Hooper

comment on this?

Mr. Alan Hooper: We did examine the work done in New York State and other states in

America. One of the big problems, which to an extent returns us to the Department's

comment, is that the Americans did not do any baseline work before they started, which

makes it very hard to know what was caused by fracking. Ireland is right. It was a good

study to have carried out before anything was put in the ground. The lack of baseline

data does make life very difficult and it invalidates much of the information available

because researchers do not know what they are comparing against. It is also very site

specific. The geology of New York State is very different from that of Ireland. It is

seismically much more active than Ireland; therefore, there would probably be a lot

more fractured rock than here. One of the big problems, which brings us back to Deputy

Eamon Ryan's point about water pollution, is that it depends on the underground

geology, hydrogeology and fracturing. Those data are not available. It is not possible to







say if there are or are not many fractures. That piece of information is vital in the

assessment of the risk.

Deputy Bríd Smith: I thank the delegates for their presentations. I was very

sceptical about this process before we started and have already questioned the

legitimacy of going down this road. I am even more sceptical now, having heard the

presentations. Dr. Crowe and Mr. Hooper repeatedly say "if ever," "maybe some time,"

"if we do have to," "should we have to reconsider," "we do not have the evidence and is

that not unfortunate," "we are where we are," "we do not have the proper evidence to

be able to say definitively" and "Ireland is different." I get a very strong sense, although

they do not say it, that they are hedging their bets and that we might some day be able

to revisit the question of fracking shale gas in this country. The research is by CDM

Smith, a pro-fracking company which is working with a State body tasked with

protecting our environment, including our water and population. I see a big compromise

in that relationship and get the impression that they sort of regret the decision of the

Dáil before Christmas to move to ban fracking in Ireland. I would like them to comment

on this in a genuine way as scientists and people who are interested in the industry

because I am very concerned that we are going through this process for a different

reason. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I find it extraordinary that we are going

through the process of listening to the delegates report on something we have rejected

democratically. We should be moving to another stage.

Earlier we heard the legal opinion which advised us of some interesting points connected

with language such as how to describe the State and land and whether we would have to

link this with amendments to previous Acts dating from the 1960s dealing with

petroleum. That is the advice we, as an Oireachtas committee, need to hear to move on.

I am suspicious that it will be dragged out and that the industry regrets that a door has

not been left open to allow fracking in this country.

I thank and give credit to the people in the Visitors Gallery and their communities for

their work in presenting thousands of petitions and going through Governor Cuomo's

research in the State of New York and bringing it to Leinster House. Deputy Tony

McLoughlin is a local Deputy of the Fine Gael Party and were it not for the rank and file,

ordinary decent farmers and citizens who live with the potential danger that their

environment will be destroyed, this issue would not have been brought to the floor of the

Dáil. The delegates have admitted that it is a danger and that we do not know enough.

Why would we want to take it out of the ground in the first place? If we are hurtling

towards climate change and bound by the Paris Agreement to seriously reduce our

carbon emissions within the next 20 to 30 years, this proposal flies in the face of the





idea that the committee even consider the concept of extracting more fossil fuel from the

ground. It should be left there to protect the environment and the people living in it.

Alternative ways to produce energy should be found.

I hope my suspicions that the industry wants to leave a chink open on the basis that this

will not get through or that it could be revisited in the future are utterly and totally

misguided and wrong, but I would like to hear that is the case. We need to deal with

climate change and protect the environment. Any idea of shale gas becoming part of an

industry in this country flies in the face of that need.

Deputy Martin Kenny: I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to

contribute, although I am not a member of the committee.

This is a huge issue in Sligo, Leitrim and west Cavan. For many years we have examined

the possibility of shale gas extraction and the dangers it would present to communities.

There is disappointment that we are consulting on the issue. The majority of those whom

we represent - I speak for all of the Deputies who represent the constituency - thought

this issue had been put to bed and that we had banned extracting shale gas from the

soil, but now we find ourselves here talking about it. We hope we are not stepping

backwards but can move forward. It is good, however, to have the opportunity to listen

and try to learn something.

How does the notion of examining the extracting of shale gas at a time when as a

society we are trying to move away from fossil fuels fit with the Department's position?

How does it match its stated strategy to move away from fossil fuels? For most lay

people, it does not match and they cannot understand it. Deputy Bríd Smith said it: most

people smell a rat. They say individuals with big money and big businesses are pulling

the strings behind the scenes. We seek reassurance that is not happening.

Science is fine and we all deal with it, but the people who live in the community must

also have a say. How much of the lived experience of ordinary human beings who have

lived there for generations has been taken on board because their lives will be affected?

Although there are recommendations that certain conditions be imposed on companies

which extract shale gas such as sealing the wells, this is a very precarious industry. The

business that might bore for and extract the gas might be bankrupt and gone ten years

later but the mess will be left. That also needs to be dealt with. Whose responsibility will

it be? Will it be the responsibility of the State to clean up the mess in such a situation?

That would be a very regrettable path to go down.

I may have to leave early because I have to go to the Chamber.


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2405&pid=MartinKenny&year=2017&month=01&day=31



Chairman: That is no problem. The debate will all be on the record.

Deputy Martin Kenny: If I leave before I get the answers to my questions, it will

not be out of disrespect.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon: I am in the same position as Deputy Kenny. I thank the

Chairman for allowing me-----

Chairman: Not at all.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon: -----to contribute to the meeting. I am not a member of

the committee. As somebody who comes from the north west of Ireland, I have a

significant interest in this matter. I visited sites in America where shale gas was

extracted. This is not a new industry; it has been going on for the past 20, 25 or 30

years. Some of the sites I attended are environmental disasters, quite honestly. I have

talked to people who live close to these sites. Often there is not just one pad; there

could be 150 or 200 pads within a small area. This destroys the whole area and the

quality of life for the people who live there. I see that CDM Smith has been in business

for 70 years and is a big company with 5,000 staff and 140 offices globally. Mr. Hooper

says there is no doubt but that there are risks involved in this process. I know he cannot

make guarantees in this regard. I come from the north west and represent the

constituency of Sligo-Leitrim. We do not have much up there and struggle to survive

much of the time, quite honestly, whether it be the farming community or people trying

to get employment. However, two things we have are clean water and clean air, and I,

as a person elected democratically by the people of that constituency, will never support

fracking to be allowed in this country.

Chairman: I will explain to members the process regarding the referral of a Private

Members' Bill to the select committee. It is up to the select committee and this

committee to engage in detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill, after which we

report back to the Dáil prior to Committee Stage. I say this just in case there is any

confusion as to what we are doing. It is agreed that we are in the middle of that process.

The Minister, Deputy Naughten, in the Dáil referred the Bill to the committee and

advocated strongly that the committee play a key role in this process. We are having a

very productive session, and it is important that we engage in this process.

I ask the witnesses to reply to those last three questions.

Mr. Matthew Collins: I will respond to some of the questions Deputies Bríd Smith,

Martin Kenny and Scanlon raised. I wish to clarify that there has been no fracking in

Ireland, and the Minister is very clear that there is no window to the arrival of fracking,

so the moratorium remains in place. We expect we shortly will have in place legislation




http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2405&pid=MartinKenny&year=2017&month=01&day=31











that will prohibit fracking in Ireland. I wish to be clear also that the Minister is the

licensing authority, so a licence would have to be approved by the Minister for any

fracking activity to take place. Without that authorisation, it cannot go forward. If the

Deputies would like some clarification on the process involved in this regard, I can ask

my colleague to clarify it for them, but I hope my comments provide some reassurance

to Deputies as to where we stand regarding the policy. No fracking has happened to

date, and the moratorium remains in place and will remain in place until legislation to

the contrary is in place.

Chairman: Does Ms Ryan wish to come in on that point?

Ms Orla Ryan: To reiterate what Mr. Collins has said, the Minister is the licensing

authority. No petroleum activity of any description can take place without the Minister

issuing a licence. No licences have been issued; no licences will be issued. The Minister

has confirmed he supports the legislation that will set out to ban this process, so there is

no concern in that regard.

Regarding Deputy Martin Kenny's question as to whether the concerns of local people

were taken into consideration, our Department insisted that the terms of reference be

put to public consultation and it was on foot of this public consultation that people's

concerns regarding human health were added to the terms of reference and that

somebody from the HSE was co-opted onto the committee to consider these issues.

Therefore, there was quite detailed public consultation on the terms of reference that

would consider in the first instance the potential impacts of fracking on both the

environment and subsequently human health.

Dr. Matthew Crowe: Whether this technology is introduced in Ireland is a policy

question and a question for the Oireachtas. The EPA, like all public bodies in Ireland, is

fully accountable to the Oireachtas. When the legislation was introduced in October, it

brought some policy clarity to the situation which had not been there before and clarity

is always good when it comes to figuring out where we are going. Again, the research

programme was set up for a very particular purpose. I mentioned in my opening

remarks that a specific aim was set for the programme. It was a joint research

programme involving a number of different organisations. In judging the research, one

must go back to the original questions and aims the programme was established to deal

with at that point in time. As I said in my opening remarks, overall, the research has

gone a very long way towards answering the questions it was originally asked to answer.

The research was independent. This is not EPA research. It is EPA-funded research but it

is also funded by other bodies. The programme was set up for the research to be





conducted independently, and this happened as a result of the way in which the

consortium was established. Then there are the many other public servants in particular

who were involved through the steering committee and the various review groups that

contributed to the development of the materials, which the members of the committee

all now have as they have since been published in the reports. I reiterate the point I

made earlier that Ireland has adopted the precautionary principle here. This will be seen

in time as a case study in how to deal with a controversial issue such as this: one should

get the evidence, get the information, get the data one needs, take the time to do it,

produce the research, produce the reports and then make one's policy decisions in that

kind of informed, evidence-based position that will help with the policy.

Chairman: I will bring in Deputy McLoughlin. We will finish up soon but I am

conscious that this is Deputy McLoughlin's Bill.

Deputy Tony McLoughlin: I apologise for being late. As the Chairman knows, I

am not a member of the committee but I was anxious to hear some of the comments

made. My colleagues here, Deputy Scanlon and the other Deputies who also represent

my constituency of Sligo-Leitrim, gave commitments on this issue many months ago. It

has been a major issue in our area for many years. I was very pleasantly surprised by

the unanimous decision in the Dáil in October on Second Stage. To be quite honest, I am

a little concerned. I know the Chairman was trying to clarify the process of going from

Second Stage to Committee Stage and the fact that we are now listening to comments

being made. I was of the opinion that perhaps on Committee Stage, more advice and

more detail should be sought. However, having read some of the comments made in the

past by CDM Smith and others, I was very concerned. I heard some speakers talking

about what has happened only this evening. A colleague of mine who has a huge interest

in the United States came to me and expressed huge concern and told me I should be

here to express concern again this evening. There is no justification for anybody in this

room to water down in any way the concerns of the people about fracking under any

circumstances. When I approached colleagues from all parties and none, it was most

unusual for a backbencher in a Government party to have a Bill succeed. It was a

unanimous decision. I hope that will stand when we go to Committee Stage. Irrespective

of what comments are made and what detail is forthcoming, given what we have seen

and heard and the evidence that has been given to me and others, under no

circumstances can the people of this country be subjected to fracking.

Having been here and having listened to some of the comments, I would be concerned if

there were any change of heart. I ask the Chairman and his colleagues on this

committee to ensure adherence to what was stated in the Dáil in October by every party




http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/zoomin?readform&chamber=committees&code=CC2&memberid=2325&pid=TonyMcLoughlin&year=2017&month=01&day=31



and none. Everyone supported the idea that under no circumstances would we have

fracking and nobody would be subjected to it. We are concerned on the health grounds.

We talk about it, particularly in my area, due to agricultural concerns and concern for the

general well-being of people in this country, not only of this generation but for

generations to come. I would be concerned.

Chairman: Are there any final comments from the witnesses before we finish up?

No. I thank the witnesses for attending the meeting and for their patience. We had a

long agenda. It was a worthwhile engagement. I propose that the committee publishes

the submissions received in relation to this meeting and the letter received from the

Minister. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 8.32 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 February 2017.





APPENDIX 14: ESTIMATED VALUATION OF THE NW CARBONIFEROUS AND CLARE

BASINS

VALUE OF RECOVERABLE GAS

Location Low / High

Estimate70

Estimated Reserve in TCF (Trillion Cubic Feet)

Estimated Reserve in CF (Cubic Feet)

Equivalent in BTU (British Thermal

Units}

MBTU (Million British

Thermal Units)

Estimated Value in USD ($3.50 per 1

MBTU)

NW Carboniferous Basin

Low 2.60 2,600,000,000,000 2,670,200,000,000,000 2,670,200,000 $9,345,700,000

NW Carboniferous Basin

High 5.20 5,200,000,000,000 5,340,400,000,000,000 5,340,400,000 $18,691,400,000

Clare Basin Low 1.49 1,490,000,000,000 1,530,230,000,000,000 1,530,230,000 $5,355,805,000

Clare Basin High 3.86 3,860,000,000,000 3,964,220,000,000,000 3,964,220,000 $13,874,770,000

Total Low 4.09 4,090,000,000,000 4,200,430,000,000,000 4,200,430,000 $14,701,505,000

Total High 9.06 9,060,000,000,000 9,304,620,000,000,000 9,304,620,000 $32,566,170,000

GAS PRICE

$3.50 = 2017 high, Natural Gas Weekly Update, $/MMbtu.71

1,000 cubic feet (1 Mcf) = 1,027,000 Btu.

Estimated Value in USD of recoverable gas: €14.7B - €32.6B.

70 Research Project on Hydraulic Fracturing ─ Interactions with the Water Framework Directive & Groundwater Directive and Implications for the Status of Ireland’s Waters, Kieran Craven, B.Sc. (Geology and Biology), Ph.D. (Geology), Dr Paul Johnston, John Kenny, LLB, LLM, Barrister-at-Law, et al, May 2016 p121, 129 71 US Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Spot Prices Henry Hubb, https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/ Accessed on 27 March 2017

https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/



GLOSSARY

Definition - What does Trillion Cubic Feet (Tcf) mean?72

Trillion Cubic Feet abbreviated as Tcf is a volume measurement unit of natural gas. A

trillion cubic feet (1,000,000,000,000 cubic feet) is equivalent to approximately one

Quad. A Quad is an abbreviation for a quadrillion (1,000,000,000,000,000) Btu's. A Btu

(British thermal unit) is a unit of measurement for energy, representing the amount of

heat that is needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree

Fahrenheit.

“Petropedia explains Trillion Cubic Feet (Tcf)”73

The volume of natural gas is either measured in Billion cubic feet (Bcf) or Trillion cubic

feet (Tcf). During custody transfer of natural gas between two parties, the price paid by

one party however, does not depend on the volume of natural gas transferred in Tcf. It

depends on the enthalpy or the amount of heat or energy the natural gas being traded

will generate when it is burnt, i.e., the price or the market value of natural gas depends

on the British Thermal Units (Btu).

1 cubic foot (cf) = 1,027 Btu

100 cubic feet (1 hcf) = 1 therm (approximate)

1,000 cubic feet (1 Mcf) = 1,027,000 Btu

(1 MMBtu) 1,000 cubic feet (1 Mcf) = 1 dekatherm (10 therms)

1 million (1,000,000) cubic feet (1 Mmcf) = 1,027,000,000 Btu

1 billion (1,000,000,000 cubic feet (1 bcf) = 1.027 trillion Btu

1 trillion (1,000,000,000,000) cubic feet (1Tcf) = 1.027 quadrillion Btu

Energy Dictionary74

British Thermal Unit (BTU), MBTU, MMBTU

A standard unit of measurement used to denote both the amount of heat energy in fuels

and the ability of appliances and air conditioning systems to produce heating or cooling.

A BTU is the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of a pint of water

(which weighs exactly 16 ounces) by one degree Fahrenheit. Since BTUs are

measurements of energy consumption, they can be converted directly to kilowatt-hours

(3412 BTUs = 1 kWh) or joules (1 BTU = 1,055.06 joules). A wooden kitchen match

produce approximately 1 BTU, and air conditioners for household use typically produce

between 5,000 and 15,000 BTU.

MBTU stands for one million BTUs, which can also be expressed as one decatherm (10

therms). MBTU is occasionally used as a standard unit of measurement for natural gas

and provides a convenient basis for comparing the energy content of various grades of

natural gas and other fuels. One cubic foot of natural gas produces approximately 1,000

BTUs, so 1,000 cu.ft. of gas is comparable to 1 MBTU. MBTU is occasionally expressed as

MMBTU, which is intended to represent a thousand thousand BTUs.

72 https://www.petropedia.com/definition/9354/trillion-cubic-feet-tcf accessed on 27 March 2017. 73 ibid 74 https://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/british_thermal_unit_(btu)__mbtu__mmbtu.html Accessed on 27 March 2017

https://www.petropedia.com/definition/9354/trillion-cubic-feet-tcf

https://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/british_thermal_unit_(btu)__mbtu__mmbtu.html



APPENDIX 15: PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON UGEE

On 22 December 2016, the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and

Environment invited public submissions on hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’. Those

making submission were invited to provide any factual information or any

recommendations from which the Committee might be able to draw conclusions from.

The closing date for receipt of submissions was 10 February 2017.

The response to the public consultation was considerable with a significant number of

individuals and organisations submitting their views to the Committee. The

overwhelming majority of the submissions received were in favour of the bill and

opposed to hydraulic fracturing. Their opposition was based on a number of factors,

centred primarily around environmental and health concerns. These include:

Increased risk of seismic activity;

Increased air and noise pollution;

Threats to air quality;

Threats to water quality;

Threats to public health;

Threats to local wildlife;

Pressure on local infrastructure.

The Committee received only one submission which opposed the Prohibition of the

Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016. This opposition was based

primarily on the fact that prohibition of hydraulic fracturing would prevent the extraction

of potentially economically viable domestic natural gas.

While the Joint Committee acknowledges that there may potentially be some economic

benefits in allowing fracking to proceed, in light of the evidence presented to the

Committee and the submissions received, the Committee believe that it is in the interest

of the State, that legislation in the area be enacted.

The Committee wishes to acknowledge and thank the following for responding to the

Public Consultation Process:-

Friends of the Earth Petition signed by 7,675 individuals

Farmers of North Leitrim (120 submissions lodged)

Tourism/Equestrian Tourism Enterprises (14 submissions lodged)

Concerned Citizens of Co. Leitrim (293 Postal submissions lodged)

General Submissions (122 Email submissions lodged)

The Committee would once again like to take the opportunity to thank all the individuals

and groups who made submissions on this topic.