Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Lynott and Mr. Donlon for coming before the committee. This is not their first time and I do not think it will be their last. I want to acknowledge the outstanding work done by groups opposed to fracking in my part of the country, with particular reference to Dr. Aideen McLoughlin, who has provided valuable assistance to those of us who need to be updated on the technical aspects of what is a very complicated process. There are quite a lot of questions. I know Deputy Colreavy will be putting some questions to the witnesses in the context of the information that has been provided to us. There are quite a lot of questions, so I will try to condense it as best I can.

Not only I but also my friends and neighbours in County Leitrim, who will be severely and immediately impacted by any decision to introduce hydraulic fracturing into my part of the country, are totally opposed to it. I will continue to be opposed to it. It is not in the best interests of the community in which I live and it will have a devastating impact on our largest economic contributor - that is, tourism - apart from the farming impacts on the ecosystem.

How can the EPA possibly justify having a survey where the main consultant is a company that is avowedly pro-fracking? Any investigation or research into its activities worldwide could not but come to that conclusion. How can it be independent if it is a pro-fracking company, which has assisted in the development of hydraulic fracturing as a process and continues to do so, particularly in Poland? How has this company ended up not only being one of a consortium of parties, as has been outlined, but also taking a leading role over the last 12 months? If one looks down the list published on the EPA website of who is undertaking particular tasks and projects, if it is not CDM Smith, it is AMEC, another pro-fracking company. That is the context of the question. At the end of this process, who is going to evaluate? Who is going to be the independent arbiter of the report once it is published? What will happen the report when it is published? Will a review or evaluation of the report be carried out either by the lead Department or by either of the other two Departments mentioned here? This survey, as it is currently being operated, is so deeply flawed in the minds of those who are watching and monitoring the development of the process of hydraulic fracturing in Ireland, to the point at which I do not believe they will accept the conclusions of this report, simply because CDM Smith is directly involved.

The witnesses have gone some way towards addressing the issue of health. One of the key questions raised by those opposed to fracking is how the operation can be carried out on the island of Ireland while also protecting the environment and human health. It was implied that a review of the impact of fracking on human health is included in the study. Maybe the witnesses could clarify and confirm that. I know they have made reference to human health issues, but which task will include such a review of health, who will be carrying it out and what medical expertise does this contractor have in the context of human health?

Irrespective of the issues surrounding the process of hydraulic fracturing, one of the major concerns people have - and which I have, thinking of my family in Leitrim - is the impact on health. Chemicals will be injected into a natural environment. Chemicals have consequences. They can, and will, in my opinion, interfere with watercourses. They will create pollution. It is perfectly obvious that the wastewater that is pulled out of hydraulic fracturing worldwide is not useable. It is contaminated. It raises other questions I will not go into now about what happens the millions of gallons of water used. Where is it going to come from, and what is going to happen to it?

The definition of human health in the terms of reference is very narrow and does not consider impacts on human health caused by a number of key items. I will not go into great detail on these, but they include radioactive releases from underground in the context of the chemicals, threats from fracking infrastructure and traffic accidents, and the risk of birth defects and fertility issues.

A range of issues can have an adverse impact on human health. The conclusion is drawn that even if a review of the health impacts of fracking was carried out in accordance with the terms of reference it would be incomplete. Does the EPA have an opinion on this?

My next question is on an issue which has been raised by Friends of the Earth in the very topical context of the climate change conference in Paris. Its view is that the research does not fully address damage to the environment if it does not address greenhouse gas emissions, but this is not an issue that has been raised so far in the report's terms of reference or in the tasks being carried out. I suggest that as the terms of reference do not require an appropriate assessment of the impact on climate change, if the Government decides to allow fracking based on this research, the decision will not be based on full information. I agree with Friends of the Earth's conclusions that we should ensure that any research that would influence future national policy takes into consideration climate change impacts. It is an important issue and perhaps the witnesses have a view on it.

Friends of the Earth raises another question which needs to be put to the EPA. The report does not ask fundamental questions on whether Ireland should extract fracking gas; rather, it is concerned with how to frack. In other words, the entire process screams with the view that the survey, which is led by a pro-fracking company, will conclude it is justifiable to introduce hydraulic fracturing in this country so long as the regulations are complied with and the EPA is happy that everything is regulated and complied with. However, international evidence has indicated that compliance has not happened and does not happen, and that even in the most regulated environments, accidents have happened. This is particularly the case when dealing with unstable chemicals. In the environment about which we are speaking, which is in my part of the country, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will not be accidents. This question needs to be addressed. Is the EPA able to tell us with any degree of certainty that the survey's conclusions are not about how to frack but about whether or not we should frack?

As the EPA has a leading role in climate change research and policy, it is important that it address these questions. If Ireland extracts its estimated recoverable shale gas reserves, will Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions increase, stay the same or decrease? This is one of the tests President Obama applied to the Keystone XL pipeline, which he recently rejected in the United States. It is a valid question to put to the EPA as the regulatory body concerned about the environment. If all countries extract their recoverable shale gas reserves, how would it affect our chances of staying within the globally agreed target of limiting global warming to less than 2°C? Mary Robinson, along with many others, cautions that to stay within 2°C globally, two thirds of fossil fuels must remain in the ground. I pay tribute to Eamon Ryan, the leader of the Green Party, who addressed a group of Deputies and Senators at a briefing organised by Dr. McLoughlin and her allies and supporters, which was very informative. Mr. Ryan made this very point. He believes that in light of the existing reserves worldwide there is absolutely no need to take out two thirds of the fossil fuels which are underground. This raises the question as to why Ireland should bother with hydraulic fracturing. Why do we need to do it? Why should we even be having this discussion?