Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

No, I will put my questions now, although I might intervene again later. Like Deputy Stanley, I must apologise for my absence. It was due to an unfortunate timing circumstance as the motion on the climate committee had to be discussed and agreed in the Dáil. It is related to the debate here. I have been frantically reading some of the submissions to prepare my questions. I regret missing the presentations but I have a fair idea of the views after reading some of the material.

I will start with a few technical questions. Perhaps Professor Shannon and Dr. Walker, who I know very well, or Mr. Collins from the Department will be able to help me. Most of our oil and gas options, the licensed exploration locations, are in further distant waters. Is that a fair summary? My understanding is that we have searched every pocket in the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea and found nothing aside from Kinsale and another pocket below. Other than that most of our exploration is in the Porcupine and in deep distant waters. Where do we think we will find oil and gas? People were talking for years about how we have €600 billion worth of oil and gas offshore but fortunately or unfortunately, and one can pick which is the right word, I do not believe we will strike oil or gas. Relying on it as a security strategy is like relying on a gambler who is putting the last €5 in the slot machines in Las Vegas. That is the territory we are in. Where do the witnesses think oil and gas might be found? From which field will we get this great security? If I were to offer the witnesses €500 million to invest in offshore wind off the west coast or offshore oil and gas, in all honesty which economic investment would they make?

I have another question for the oil industry experts. What is the estimated cost - I realise this depends on the field but it is possible to aggregate and estimate it - of a barrel of oil from the Atlantic? What does the price need to be for it to come ashore? We had an incredible demonstration from the International Energy Agency, a cheerleader for the oil and gas industry. It mentioned figures such as $40 per barrel for shale gas in the United States. I was amazed when the agency said it believed the cost of offshore was coming down so one could get oil or gas from the Gulf of Mexico or from Brazil for $30 or $40 per barrel. What is the estimated cost of a barrel of oil from Irish waters? What is the business projection of what that would have to be?

I have a final technical question. I read IBEC's analysis in which it quotes the ESRI and UCC projection for natural gas consumption to remain steady out to 2050. In the course of my research I was reading some of the other experts' projections for the future, an impossible task. To take one example, the energy scenarios of Bloomberg New Energy Finance would be as good as any and are recognised by the industry as probably among the best. Its wording refers to a dramatic fall in European gas production between now and 2050, and that is before we develop new battery technologies and take into account the ongoing contraction in the price of renewables. However, its best summary analysis is a dramatic reduction in demand for European gas. Why does IBEC think the ESRI and UCC are more accurate in terms of projecting that gas will continue at current levels? That would shoot us through any climate targets we might have. Why does it believe UCC and the ESRI versus the wider analysis? I can cite some other examples. An organisation in London, E3G, has done a great deal of work for the European Union examining projected gas demand. It recognises that a massive overcapacity in gas infrastructure networks is likely, even with existing investment plans. I can cite numerous reports showing overinvestment in gas. In those circumstances I question the Department's analysis that gas is good. It is bizarre that we have a climate action Department cheering on gas.