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
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
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 5
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 6
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 7
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 8
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 9
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 10
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 11
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 12
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 13
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 14
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 15
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 16
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 17
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 18
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 19
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 20
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 21
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 22
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 23
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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)
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 24
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 25
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 26
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 27
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 28
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 29
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 30
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 31
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 32
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 33
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 34
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 35
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 36
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 37
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 38
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 39
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 40
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 41
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 42
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 43
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 44
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 45
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 46
Scrutiny of the 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 47
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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?opendocume nt#P00300
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 48
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 49
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
(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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 50
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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 DEFICIENCIES
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 51
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 52
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 53
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 54
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 55
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 56
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 57
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 58
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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,
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 59
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 60
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 61
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 62
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 63
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 64
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 65
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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).
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 66
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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; …
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 67
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 68
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 69
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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”.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 70
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
APPENDIX 2: STATUTORY FUNCTIONS - JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT
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—
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 71
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
( 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 72
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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, ...
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 73
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 74
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 75
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 76
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
APPENDIX 3: MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 77
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
DÁIL SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT
Deputy Timmy Dooley Deputy James Lawless Fianna Fáil Fianna Fáil [Vice Chairman]
Deputy Michael Lowry Deputy Hildegarde Deputy Eamon Ryan Rural Independent Naughton Social Democrats Group Fine Gael - Green Party Group [Chairman]
Deputy Bríd Smith Deputy Brian Stanley Solidarity Sinn Féin - People Before Profit
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 78
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
SEANAD SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT
Senator Terry Leydon Senator Tim Lombard Fianna Fáil Fine Gael
Senator Michael McDowell Senator Joe O’Reilly Independent Group Fine Gael
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 79
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
COMMITTEE CONTACT DETAILS
Clerk to the Committee, Cléireach don Choiste, Joint Committee on Communications, An Comhchoiste um Chumarsáid, Climate Action and Environment, Gníomhú ar son na hAeráide agus Comhshaol, Houses of the Oireachtas, Tithe an Oireachtais, Leinster House, Teach Laighean, Kildare Street, Sráid Chill Dara, Dublin 2, Baile Átha Cliath 2, D02 XR20 D02 XR20 Ireland 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 80
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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]
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 81
Scrutiny of the 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
CONTENTS
Section
1. Interpretation
2. Prohibition
3. Short title
[No. 37 of 2016]
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 82
Scrutiny of the 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 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 83
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Short title
3. This Act may be cited as the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Act 2016.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 84
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
An Bille um Thoirmeasc ar Pheitriliam i dTír Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Mór a Thaiscéaladh agus a Astarraingt, 2016 Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 BILLE BILL
(mar a tionscnaíodh) (as initiated)
dá ngairtear Entitled
Acht do dhéanamh socrú maidir le toirmeasc ar An Act to provide for the prohibition of the pheitriliam a thaiscéaladh agus a astarraingt as leaca exploration and extraction of petroleum from shale scealla, gaineamhchlocha teanna agus síoga guail i dtír rock, tight sands and coal seams in the Irish onshore mór na hÉireann agus in uiscí inmheánacha na and Ireland’s internal waters. hÉireann.
An Teachta Antoine Mac Lochlainn a thug isteach, Introduced by Deputy Tony McLoughlin, 8 Meitheamh, 2016 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. ______
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 85
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 86
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
APPENDIX 5: EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM - PROHIBITION OF 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 EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION OF ONSHORE PETROLEUM BILL 2016
______
Meabhrán Mínitheach
Explanatory Memorandum
______
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 87
Scrutiny of the 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 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 88
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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”.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 89
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 90
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
APPENDIX 6: OPENING STATEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, CLIMATE ACTION AND ENVIRONMENT
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 91
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 92
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 93
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 94
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 95
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 96
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 97
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 98
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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;
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 99
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 100
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 101
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 102
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 103
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 104
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 105
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 106
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 107
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 108
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 109
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 110
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 111
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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).
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 112
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 113
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 114
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 115
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 116
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 117
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 118
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 119
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 120
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 121
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 122
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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, hydro- geology 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 123
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 124
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
APPENDIX 9: CDM SMITH / HOOPER PRESENTATION
Available at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/communicationsclimatechangenaturalresources/fra cking/20170131-Hooper-Presentation.pdf
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 125
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 126
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 127
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 128
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 129
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 130
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 131
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 132
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 133
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 134
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 135
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 136
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 137
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 138
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 139
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 140
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/ugeejointresearchprogramme/
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 141
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 142
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 143
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 144
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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;
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 145
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
(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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 146
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 147
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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. COM (2016) 863 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the 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.
COM (2016) 759 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 148
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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-----
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 149
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 150
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 151
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 152
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 153
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 154
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 155
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 156
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 157
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 158
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 159
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 160
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 161
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 162
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 163
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 164
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 165
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 166
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 167
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016 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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 168
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
APPENDIX 14: ESTIMATED VALUATION OF THE NW CARBONIFEROUS AND CLARE BASINS
VALUE OF RECOVERABLE GAS
Estimated MBTU Reserve Estimated Low / Estimated Equivalent in BTU (Million in TCF Value in USD Location High Reserve in CF (British Thermal British 70 (Trillion ($3.50 per 1 Estimate (Cubic Feet) Units} Thermal Cubic MBTU) Units) Feet)
NW Carboniferous Low 2.60 2,600,000,000,000 2,670,200,000,000,000 2,670,200,000 $9,345,700,000 Basin NW Carboniferous High 5.20 5,200,000,000,000 5,340,400,000,000,000 5,340,400,000 $18,691,400,000 Basin
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 169
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 170
Scrutiny of the Prohibition of the Exploration and Extraction of Onshore Petroleum Bill 2016
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.
Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Page 171