Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 24 October 2013
2. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if his attention has been drawn to the structural damage to hydraulic fracturing equipment with consequential environmental damage and possible water contamination triggered by recent flash floods in a heavily fracked area of Colorado, USA. [45353/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am aware of reports of the incident to which the Deputy refers.
No application proposing the use of unconventional gas exploration or extraction has been approved in Ireland. No decision will be made on applications for exploration licences proposing the use of this technology until after the results of the Environmental Protection Agency research into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional gas exploration has been finalised and its findings considered and fully debated. A final report in this regard is not expected before 2015.
It should be acknowledged that physical geography and geology vary from country to country and the Irish environment is different to the environments in which many unconventional gas projects and operations are taking place worldwide. While we can and will learn from experiences in other countries, we should remember that any application proposing the use of unconventional gas exploration and extraction in Ireland must be subject to environmental impact assessments in accordance with the EIA directive. Such an assessment would entail consideration of the potential impact of the project on the population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between these factors.
It is the case, therefore, that if the use of unconventional gas exploration and extraction were to be introduced in Ireland that the risk of flooding would fall to be considered by the environmental impact assessment.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. In my role as Opposition spokesman on communications, energy and natural resources, I speak with people from both ends of this debate. I speak with representatives from the companies whose motivation is clear, namely, the desire to make money, which is fine. However, I also speak with people who have been affected by fracking, including people from Colorado and Pennsylvania. Shortly after Christmas, the Taoiseach spoke in glowing terms of what he found in Pennsylvania but the people from those states have told me they thought their Government and the Government agencies were on the side of big business in each step taken with regard to hydraulic fracturing. I was glad to hear the Minister of State indicate the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, will take into account the possibility of flash flooding and of storms when considering this application. However, I ask further that the EPA and the Minister of State himself meet and converse with those who have been damaged by fracking, as well as talking to the businesses concerned and the regulatory bodies. The Minister of State also needs to hear the stories of those who have been damaged by hydraulic fracturing in other jurisdictions. I ask the Minister of State to give that commitment.
I assure the Deputy that I have met and will continue to meet any group or agency that wishes to discuss with me their concerns about fracking, regardless of whether they are from County Leitrim, Pennsylvania, Colorado or wherever. My door is open and my job is to listen and to learn. To be specific however, the proposed EPA study will include consideration of the regulatory approaches of other countries that have extensive experience with unconventional gas exploration. This study will examine all of that and the best environmental practice for unconventional gas exploration and extraction projects will entail using the most effective techniques in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment and human health as a whole by demonstrating strict adherence with all relevant environmental legislation. In this regard, the programme will take an overview of the European Union environmental legislation applicable to unconventional gas exploration and this will include legislation that relates to all aspects of unconventional gas exploration. It will examine detailed information on the regulatory approaches of other countries that have extensive experience of this activity. This will include, where possible, a review of case studies where unconventional gas exploration and extraction covered more than two jurisdictions, that is, where transboundary activities would occur. Moreover, a minimum of five countries will be examined, including at least two within the European Union and at least one country in which a moratorium on unconventional gas has been introduced.
I thank the Minister of State for his clarification and I assume the finding of all these studies will be laid before the House.
Absolutely, yes.
They should be forwarded to the spokespersons as speedily as possible. As I do not believe Members will get to this issue during Question Time, I have a further question. There is growing evidence that hydraulic fracturing and those involved in it are part of a giant Ponzi scheme, because it is costing three times as much as had been projected to get the volume of gas they are getting in the United States. Will the Minister of State ensure there is an independent, not an industry-based, study, into the real economics of hydraulic fracturing? Will such an independent study feed into the eventual decision over and above the report from the EPA? There are real fears in some jurisdictions that where negotiations have yielded some financial payback to governments, it is offset by the additional costs involved therein. There are real fears that those who are investing in hydraulic fracturing now are getting extremely jittery and worried and that banks are pushing the companies involved to drill to an ever increasing extent to cover the initial outlay.
On the question of public consultation, I also might add that when the EPA advertised for public views, more than 1,000 submissions were received. Obviously many of them dealt with the environmental impacts to which the Deputy has referred but a considerable number of concerns were raised on the potential impact to human health, leading to the steering group agreeing it would add a health expert to scrutinise the data it had been examining.
As for the specific question the Deputy now has raised, the economic cost to a company to do anything in respect of planning, in other words, what it spends on its operation, must be borne by the company itself. However, the Deputy is correct in that if there are other costs on the community, such as improvements to roads, engineering works or whatever, there obviously also are community costs arising from planning permissions. Leaving aside hydraulic fracturing, in the planning process, part of the planning consideration pertains to the economic cost to improvements. In other words, people who apply in respect of a house also are obliged to make a contribution towards water, sewerage and road costs. Consequently, I presume that any application that has an economic impact anywhere in this country and that is wider than the specific company or person making the application, is considered and is part of the planning process. One frequently sees impositions on companies regarding planning applications and moneys levied to ensure that in such cases, whatever they may be, that additional community costs are covered for the community that will be specifically affected.
Would this cover the lifetime of the project and not merely its establishment?
I am sorry Deputy but we do not have time.
That obviously would have to be a planning consideration.
Before moving on to the next question in the name of Deputy Mattie McGrath, I have just been reminded that as there was no order to extend Question Time beyond 5.45 p.m., that is when we will be concluding and we do not want to eat into the time for the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. I wished to make that point and call on the Minister to respond to Question No. 3 in the name of Deputy Mattie McGrath.
I apologise, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I must state that I was curious about that. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, and Deputy Moynihan will be aware, there was a time when Question Time was sacrosanct in this House. It started at 2.30 p.m. and it did not matter if the sky fell, as it went on at that time but it now appears to have become a moveable feast.
Government reform.
Is that what it is called?
The Minister, Deputy Howlin, is responsible.
As we only have a small amount of time, we should move on to Question No. 3.
It might be no harm to revert to that timetable.
That is my view.
And mine.
And mine.
