Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome everyone to the second part of our meeting. It is wonderful for members to have the opportunity to engage with the EU Commissioner for Energy, Mr. Günther Oettinger. I hope I pronounced his name properly.

Furthermore, I am very pleased to learn that the Commissioner has agreed to come to Ireland again next May during our Presidency of the European Council. I am delighted to welcome the Commissioner to Leinster House and I am sure I speak for colleagues when I say how honoured we are he has chosen to come before our committee. I trust he had a pleasant time this morning at the launch of the east-west electricity interconnector and prior to that at the Institute of International and European Affairs. He had a busy schedule which I hope he enjoyed.

The Commissioner is accompanied by his deputy head of cabinet, Mr. Eric Mamer, and by Barbara Nolan, head of the European Commission Representation in Ireland. They are all very welcome.

I wish to draw the witnesses' attention to the fact by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are also 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 or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I wish to advise that the opening statement the Commissioner has submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website after this meeting.

I remind members 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 an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on the Commissioner to make his address, following which members can put forward specific questions, as opposed to statements, as we have to conclude in 50 minutes as the Commissioner has to meet a tight time schedule.

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

Chairman, Members of Parliament and ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured to join you today. This committee has done much to put energy on the political map, to ensure that Ireland plays its part in European energy developments and to raise awareness among colleagues. My visit to Ireland today is a truly enriching experience. This country plays such an important part in Europe's history, in particular as it will hold the EU-Presidency during the first semester next year and no doubt the Presidency will mean that the Government is involved in that function. If the members look to the Lisbon treaty, they will note that we have to increasingly interconnect the Commission's work and the work of all our European institutions with that of the national parliaments. Perhaps energy is one of the main sectors where we need a perfect partnership between member states energy policies, and energy policy on a European level.

The energy sector is a long-term one which needs public private partnership, and it is not only a question of politics or markets but of both. The first item on our agenda is investments, the second is infrastructure and the third is looking beyond 2020 at what is the long-term legal framework in the Internal Market. As members will know, the European Union has two fundamentals - the first is peace and freedom and the second is the Internal Market, an open market for products, wares, goods and services, a market for everybody, for all employees, without protection or subsidisation, namely, a level playing field.

Energy includes the oil sector, its work and functions and also the coal sector, but electricity and gas are young latecomers to our European Union Internal Market. We have to conclude the Internal Market and speak about what is our framework for investments beyond 2020. There is a lack of investments. Today was a good day for this country, the UK and for Europe as a whole. The first east-west interconnnector is a huge investment. It is high technology and it is a bridge to the Internal Market in practice. However, we do not have enough investments in areas ranging from research and development to production, transport infrastructure, storage, technologies and capacities to energy efficiency. We need more investment and investment means mainly private investments, and perhaps additional public investments from member states' budgets and from the European Union budget, but investments need long-term clarity and long-term planning security. Nobody invests millions or billions if there is no business case for long-term investment. We need a smart common partnership in energy to develop between members states and the European Union to achieve a confident level for private investments.

What are our instruments in this respect? What is our legal competence on a European Union level? First, it is the Lisbon treaty. In this treaty there is an article to Europeanise, as it were, energy regulation, although there is one exemption. The energy mix, namely the mix for electricity, is up to member states. We have 14 member states using nuclear power and 13 member states avoiding nuclear power. We have member states using coal for 90% of their electricity production while others have come down to zero in that respect. We have member states which are pushing renewables while others are more defensive. I was in the Baltic states in recent days and gas is dominant in those states while in other member states gas plays a smaller role.

The Lisbon treaty, beyond technology and the energy mix, provides competence to Europeanise, as it were, energy policy. Our 20-20-20 targets, as members will know, include a 20% reductions in C02 emissions, 20% more energy efficiency and having 20% renewables in our European energy mix. In these years we have to control what happens, or in close partnerships our member states can give some advice and some subsidisation, and we are on line to reach these three targets which will have to be realised.

Our next instrument is the Internal Market. The Commission has to be the Internal Market police to observe if anything is working against the operating of the Internal Market rules.

The Internal Market means competition, transparency, a level playing field and openness for investors in a market of 500 million consumers and without any internal border. The interconnector is a necessary piece of infrastructure to develop market goods in the Irish market, the UK market and the European market.

If one compares other transport infrastructure, for decades and more recently we developed highways, railways, open airspace with hubs and regional airports, and container shipping to transport products. We have a digital agenda for information, navigation and communication. If one compares these other transport technologies, in terms of quality and capacity, to our existing infrastructure for gas and power, it is as though we are living on the borders of the 19th century. There is no electricity interconnector between Spain and France. In my home region of south-west Germany, in terms of connections to France, there are 60 bridges over the River Rhine for cars, trucks and goods but no bridge for electricity. Lithuania has just one gas pipeline coming from Russia. It is an isolated island that depends on Russian gas because there is no alternative. It is necessary to diversify routes and supplies and to develop new interconnectors between member states. That is key for this political generation.

We have ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G, the European association of our TSOs. They are working closely with the Commission to develop bigger regional visions. One region consists of Ireland, the UK, the North Sea, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and France. The interconnector is just a start. Perhaps it will need more capacity at the end of the day. We could also look to having offshore gas pipelines and interconnectors from the UK to the Netherlands or a North Sea ring interconnecting Denmark, Germany and the UK. There is much to do because without the newest standard of infrastructure there is no competition, there is no solidarity when needed, there is not good security of supply and we cannot invest in the best locations for renewables. As an example, in the southern part of Germany there are many investments in onshore wind, but it is not really a windy region. In Bavaria one has 1,800 hours a year of wind to power. In a year there are 8,765 hours. If I look offshore and onshore on Ireland's western border I see up to 4,000 hours of wind to power. If we had interconnectors, a level playing field and a functioning internal market, investors would invest in this country and not in the southern part of Germany. It is the same with solar energy and the southern part of Europe.

We are now developing bigger European regions for our mid-term strategies for infrastructure. Our infrastructure package for a faster process to get permits for pipelines and grids is currently under way in the European Parliament. Our position is that if one needs a super-grid or pipeline, between three and four years is enough to prove all arguments and offer a transparent process to citizens to decide which concrete pipeline is preferred. It is not good to spend ten or more years discussing the alternatives. It is not good for nature, citizens, or industry, and it is not helpful in finding a better solution.

In addition, in the Commission's proposal for the next multi-annual financial framework, for the budget period starting in 2014 and ending in 2020, we have our programme to connect Europe's facilities. It is about co-financing projects of common European interest. As members are aware, the European Council gave an order to avoid isolating Ireland before the end of-----

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have already had a problem today with someone leaving a mobile telephone on. Could they please turn it off? It is interfering with the sound transmission.

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

It is mine or it is the Chairman's. On the proposal to connect Europe's facilities, the cost will be €9 billion over seven years to co-finance projects of common European interest to more than one member state. We will develop a list of priorities for the European Parliament which will go back to member states as well for a decision on which priorities should be realised in the next five to 15 years and co-financed by the European Union.

My last point relates to investments, infrastructure and the framework Beyond 2020. The 2020 targets are binding ones but the story will come to an end at the end of 2020. My main question to member states currently is whether we need a new common approach - a new generation of ambitious but pragmatic targets. It would not be smart to begin to focus on 2030 in 2020. It is important to examine whether our main goal should be CO2 emissions reduction, renewables or both. We must examine whether we should focus on efficiency or devise a scheme that is a market-based instrument to achieve pragmatic CO2 prices. We must speak about 2030 in order to ensure long-term clarity for investors for the next decade. It is important to do so now. I wish to come to conclusions and binding decisions before the end of our mandate and before the next elections to the European Parliament in June 2014.

There are many other points but that is enough for the moment. It is up to members to say what they expect in terms of concrete positions.

Ireland's Presidency in the first semester of 2013 is an obligation but it is a major opportunity also. If it wishes it should continue this contact next month because to involve the national parliaments in the best manner in all these points is relevant. I may have a legal position but without Ireland's acceptance there is not a chance. With its acceptance in a European team involving member states and the European Commission we will have the authority to convince our citizens and develop all these plans in the next five to 15 years.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Oettinger for that very good overview. We will go straight to questions because our time is limited. I call Deputy Michael Moynihan.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Commissioner and his officials from Europe and I thank him for his outline. I have a number of questions. The expectation is that the European Union as a whole is moving into a deregulated market. Our Commission for Energy Regulation approved an increase in gas prices in particular recently and even though the market is partially deregulated there were a number of copy-cat increases by other service or product providers. What role can the European Commission play to ensure that if we deregulate completely within the European Union we will not have price fixing, for want of a better term, or a cartel but absolute competition within the energy market? The United States and Japan have consistently lower gas prices than the European Union. What steps can be taken at a European level to ensure the raw material is at the lowest possible price?

Mr. Oettinger spoke about renewables. Ireland has been going down the path of renewables in every community and county at various levels. I understand the total budget for renewables is 3.7%. Does the European Commission have any plans to target more resources to individual business or even individual house owners to encourage them to go down the route of renewables and direct the grant subsidy to the smaller micro-businesses or communities rather than to multiples or large corporations? There would be a better take-up of it if that were done.

On Monday the European Commission came out with new legislative proposals on the bio-industry, and it has spoken about removing the funding from that post-2020. Following the exit of our country from beet production we have done numerous feasibility studies and reports on renewable energy including ethanol, bioethanol and so forth. Is this measure not a retrograde step? Our entire community is dependent on oil, and I believe 84% of the raw material for energy comes from outside the European Union. Is that sustainable? Will Dr. Oettinger explain the Commission's decision announced on Monday regarding biofuels?

Is there any scope within the Commission's programme for recovery? The Commissioner's stated objective on that point is for growth and job creation. Is there a specific programme within that? If we consider co-financing, this country is co-operating with Europe on austerity programmes to a major extent and we will be looking for more flexibility from Europe and more co-financing in regard to investment. There are people who are willing to invest in alternative energy across this country and more could be done in that regard. The Commissioner might answer those questions.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Commissioner to Ireland and thank him for his direct and pragmatic approach. I take on board all the points he made, particularly the point that our energy infrastructure has not kept up with other advances in technologies.

What data exists on wind energy and its efficiency in terms of a cost-benefit analysis of setting up wind energy turbines as they feed into the grid? Is it a cost-effective energy source compared to the cost of setting up all the technologies? I have been interested in wind energy for a very long time. Its development is happening very slowly and costs huge amounts of money. What is the thinking in that area, specifically regarding wind energy?

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Commissioner is very welcome to Ireland. I thank him for taking the time to attend this meeting. I welcome Mr. Mamer and Ms Nolan also. The next time they come to Ireland I ask them to please visit the beautiful north west - Sligo and Leitrim, where the next stop is the Atlantic. It is a beautiful area.

I thank the Commissioner for his address. It is heartening that he has a vision of where Europe will go in the coming years. It is welcome that we are presented with the challenges we must face as part of the European vision.

I have two questions for the Commissioner. Would the EU and the Commissioner's office consider a greater investment in the development of sustainable energy in the member states? In terms of our targets that are set out, we may need more encouragement and finance for private-public investment in the member states to make that switch to renewable energy.

Can the Commissioner confirm that it will remain at the discretion of member states as to the type of energy they will be using into the future, whether it is oil, gas, renewables or whatever? The discretion in that regard will remain with the member states and nobody from Europe will dictate the form of energy generation that is to be used in the member states.

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

Let me compare energy prices and global markets. Japan is not a problem for Europe because it has so many imports; it must buy more and more gas. Its price for electricity is higher than our price in Europe. It does not have any fuels of its own. It is a big, isolated island. There is no co-operation with anybody - North or South Korea, China or Vietnam. Japan has no advantage in terms of the energy price related to Europe and it will abandon nuclear power. It will not reactivate all existing power plants and therefore energy is no argument to be investing in Japan.

The United States is increasingly producing its own oil. It is accepting some environmental risks, as in the Gulf of Mexico. Its producers are entering deep water to drill, producing sand oil and fracking for oil. The United States has a lower tax rate and only some imports. By producing its own oil it has a big advantage relative to countries in Europe regarding the transport sector and other industries. In former times it imported large volumes of gas from Qatar and Nigeria. Now it does not need any gas from third states and will begin to export shale gas next year. The price of gas in the United States is 25% of that in Europe. There is, therefore, a big advantage. The reindustrialisation of the United States is a prospect and I regard the deindustrialisation of Europe as a danger.

A point was made on elasticity in taxation and pricing. There are two points of note on higher energy prices. First, the higher the price, the more efficient the consumption. This was a strategy. High energy prices make one more careful about using energy and one avoids energy consumption. Second, whenever a Minister for Finance had a problem with his budget, he developed a new energy tax. Increasingly, this practice is ceasing. I have two examples. In France the new President, Mr. Hollande, made a regulation to reduce the cost of petrol and diesel by six cent - three cent from the national budget and three cent from the market. As the market leader is state owned, it is just a public decision. A period of three months applies and it is a question of politics. This runs contrary to what occurred in former times. In Germany the Bundesrat, the second Chamber, asked the Chancellor to reduce taxation on electricity to strike a balance in respect of the increasing volume of renewables and higher guaranteed feed-in tariffs for renewables investment. Increasingly, Europe must work actively to avoid the next steps leading to higher energy prices.

We need more industries in Europe. It would be wrong to deindustrialise it. I refer to the production of steel, copper and aluminium and to the chemical, paper, textile and high-tech textile industries, for example.

With regard to regulation and the market, it is our obligation to reduce regulation. Let me be very frank: member states and the Commission may have varying positions. Increasingly, we develop regulated markets through nuanced market design. "Market design" is a wonderful term. I refer to subsidies, preferences in regard to infrastructure, feed-in tariffs and guaranteed prices, etc. On the subject of harmonising regulation, we ought to be more defensive in approaching new proposals. This should be a common approach in the European Union. We should be more critical of new proposals on regulation.

What can the Commission do? If member states accept our proposal for the next MFF for seven years, they will note three main programmes. First, there is some €9 billion available to connect countries in Europe. Second, there is €6 billion available for energy research in partnership with member states with a view to securing public-private projects. Third, there is up to €17 billion in the Cohesion Fund for our structural programmes. This is mainly to achieve energy efficiency in existing buildings. If a mayor of a city wishes to renovate a quarter of his or her downtown area, he or she can get money from the European Union budget. He or she must co-finance it using his or her own budget or that of his or her state. It is also a question of co-financing in order that private investors can renovate existing buildings in the best way to achieve energy efficiency which will be one of the main priorities in the next period in our cohesion programmes.

Consider wind power and the means of comparing investment and costs. The answer will depend not only on wind energy production but also on the oil price in 2020. With oil prices expected to increase step by step and peak oil perhaps behind us, renewables will become increasingly attractive. However, the price increases are not certain. The price of gas is decreasing and the Americans are using their own gas sources and do not need as much coal as they did in the last decade. Therefore, the price of coal on the global market is decreasing. Perhaps not in Denmark or Austria but in the global market fossil fuel prices are competitive.

We need some subsidies for renewables. The first need concerns infrastructure. Bearing in mind the nature of wind generation, one needs additional grid infrastructure where normally one would not need a grid. Infrastructure provision is a public obligation. The EU budget is to be co-financed by member states. Not all of the investment but some may be in our common interest. Second, there is a need for research. Research programmes on the newest renewable technologies are necessary for us to be more competitive in generation.

Perhaps we need some guarantees, or feed-in tariffs, but there ought to be a reduction. I accept the need for public expenditure on renewables but not as a never-ending story.

It should be combined with a clear strategy because at the end of the day renewables must be market-based. They must be competitive in the market and not depend for their entire lifetime on public expenditure. Therefore, we undoubtedly need the best locations. Photovoltaic production in Dublin is not meaningful, but it is in Madrid or in partnership with Morocco. Similarly, wind energy production in the North Sea and the Atlantic will be perfect in the long term. I am sure investment costs for offshore wind parks will fall. We have more and more experience of how to install them with specialised ships and greater expertise. Increasing numbers of companies are engaged and competition means lower prices. However, a period of approximately five to ten years will be needed, after which I hope offshore wind parks can be as competitive as onshore wind parks at the best locations increasingly are.

As for biomass, it has not been forgotten. Perhaps it will be considered in the next round.

Tom Fleming (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Commissioner and his officials and thank him for his presentation. The situation in the Middle East is volatile and could threaten the availability of oil reserves. While it probably would have a huge impact worldwide, given the dire economic and financial straits in which we find ourselves, it certainly would have a major retrograde effect on this country. Today members received a report on oil security from the International Energy Agency and I wish to ascertain whether the Commissioner is satisfied with the level of Ireland's national reserves. Will it be able to withstand a dramatic fall in supplies? I hope this will not happen, but in the event that there is a sudden lack of availability, would we be able to withstand it? I ask because Ireland is on the periphery of Europe and this emphasises the point on renewable energy. As it is located on the edge of the Atlantic, Ireland probably has the best conditions for both wind energy and wave energy production; the latter certainly has huge potential off the coastline. Is the Commission setting down standards whereby Ireland should develop priorities in respect of the various factors mentioned and given the availability of energy resources? We probably should try to capitalise on all of these sources. Wave power also should be considered in addition to wind energy.

I refer to the Shannon LNG project in the south west - in County Kerry to be precise. As the Commissioner might be aware, the project proposes the importation, storage and distribution of liquefied natural gas, but it is running into huge impediments. An investment of €1 billion is planned and the project has much potential for job creation. While the particular region to which I refer needs such investment, bureaucracy is preventing the development from moving. I ask the Commissioner to investigate to ascertain whether he can use his good offices to have the project expedited. I refer to setting it up and getting it going.

As for our gas and oil fields and the potential therein off Ireland's southern and western coasts, I note there have been agreements with multinational oil exploration companies. However, Ireland does not appear to be realising the maximum financial gain from these interested bodies. In the Commissioner's opinion, can we renegotiate any deal done in the past in long-term negotiations? It does not appear we will get the amounts in royalties we should in the event that such resources are eventually brought onshore in viable quantities in the future.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the Commissioner and hope he enjoys his time in Ireland. I am interested to note his background is as a tax consultant and I am sure members would have loved to have the opportunity to find out what were his views on Irish taxation policy in the light of our economic problems. Many of the questions have had a local dimension and I note that, politically, the Commissioner started out as a town councillor and then as a district councillor. Consequently, he will be very familiar with local issues.

My questions are related specifically and solely to hydraulic fracturing in the context of increased dependency in Europe on fossil fuels and a lower investment programme. The Commissioner has noted that as a result of the economic downturn Europe-wide there has been lower investment in renewable energy production, and he has touched on a serious issue. I also noted the references made by him to shale gas production in the United States. In that context, is there not then a temptation for countries in Europe to consider shale gas extraction as a way out of the energy crisis that appears to be developing? How advanced are the Commission's deliberations in formulating a European Union-wide policy, which I presume will emerge from the Commissioner's directorate? Is he involved in discussions on fracking at European Union level? What timeline is envisaged before the Commission issues its proposals which were initiated last year in a report on the environmental impact of fracking? Has the Commissioner seen the report? Has he submitted observations on fracking to his Commission colleagues in that context? Has he answered questions on fracking submitted by MEPs?

I ask these questions to get some context in respect of this growing issue. It is extremely controversial in the region from which my colleague Deputy Michael Colreavy and I come, in the north west of the country. It is so controversial that in the absence of relevant and up-to-date technological data, any attempt to grant a licence for the development of hydraulic fracturing in the area would be met with extremely stiff resistance.

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

First, in respect of biofuel, as members are aware, we have a binding target of 10%. By 2020, 10% of the transport sector overall - that is, railways, trucks, buses, aeroplanes and cars - should be powered by sustainable energy. One option is electromobility, but reaching a figure of 10% in eight years is not feasible. A target of 1% would be much more feasible; while electromobility will have a future, it needs a period of 20 to 40 years. Consequently, biofuel use is just one answer. We had an obligation to bring forward a report and make proposals on what went wrong. We perceive two problems in biofuel industries. First, some imports from Brazil, Nigeria and the United States are not really sustainable. If one considers Brazil, existing fields for agriculture are being used for biofuel production, but as there is a need for food, people go into forests to activate new fields for new agricultural investments.

Imports have to be sustainable. Oil imports alone are not acceptable.

The next point relates to first and second generation energy resources. We are holding to the 10% level. We are saying that up to 2020 just 5% can come from first generation resources and that additionally up to 5% has to come from biomass and second generation resources. The Commission wants to take these two binding decisions to balance what is going the wrong way with what should be brought back to an environmental and sustainable position. An EU regulation means every member state has to store 90 or more days of its oil consumption. We have realised this target. We have perfect systems to transport oil in pipelines and trucks, etc. We have 90 days' supply in each of the 27 member states. It is a perfect system. When there were no oil imports from Libya last year, it was not really a problem for Italy. The oil ban on Iran announced in July has not affected Greece and Italy. We have a functioning market, with solidarity between member states. Therefore, security of supply to the market is guaranteed and there is no need to open our storage capacity to bring supplies into the market. Saudi Arabia is producing more oil than ever. It is bringing volumes to the market at a time when Iran is not as active as an exporter to the European Union. There is some debate between the United States and the International Energy Agency. The Commission and member states have to reflect on what should be done. There is an argument that increasing oil prices to bring more volumes to the market could be a way of reducing the price of oil. There is no really binding argument for the opening of our storage capacity. There is an open debate between the United States, the International Energy Agency and us, and I hope it is a rational one. As there are elections in Washington, we will wait and see.

What is the role of gas production? That is an important question. There is no doubt that gas is a perfect partner for renewables because it is environmentally friendly and flexible. As a power source it is more flexible than a coal or nuclear power plant can be. Our strategy is to diversify sources and tools for gas supply. We have new LNG terminals and new pipelines. We have to open new regions such as the southern corridor with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. I do not know what the concrete business case is for the Irish LNG terminal. We have to look at issues such as what is subsidised, whether there is a problem with our internal market rules, whether there is a business case, whether there is enough consumption and the relationship with the pipeline. In general, in Europe there is not enough infrastructure. We need more LNG terminals, more pipelines and more storage capacity. I cannot say which one is the most important. The European Union cannot reach all of its goals without new infrastructure. Germany does not have its own LNG terminal.

The EU gas market needs 530 billion cu. m of gas each year in order to meet consumption levels. According to our outlook, that figure will increase to 600 billion cu. m. Our own gas resources will come to an end in the years to come. The United Kingdom will stop supplying gas in the next decade and the Netherlands will stop some years later. Some 64% of the gas used in the European Union is imported from third states. This means that 36% comes from our own resources. Our Russian partners are our most relevant partners. Every year some 140 billion cu. m comes from Gazprom sources to us. Norway is in second position and Algeria, third. When our own resources come to an end, we will need an additional 180 billion cu. m each year. This volume should not be imported from Mr. Putin; rather, it should come from Qatar and Nigeria by ship to our LNG terminals, or it should come from shale gas. Shale gas is not the perfect answer when we are trying to avoid imports. It is not a replacement source of energy; rather, it is an additional source. If some volumes come from shale gas, that will be welcome. We are comparing demonstration projects and looking at all reports. We are comparing and analysing them. That work is being done by my colleague, Janez Potočnik, and me. Some regions in the European Union are sensitive for reasons relating to nature and soil, etc., and there are other regions where we could test this. Perhaps Poland is in the leading position.

My advice would be not to make any decision for the next decade. Ireland should be open and flexible. Perhaps it will be in a better and more competent position in three to five years, time. Some experts and engineers have said to me that in five or ten years, time all we will need is water and pressure. We will not need chemicals. That is different from today. Perhaps some demonstration projects in Poland will inspire more confidence among citizens and bring more clarity to the issue across Europe. It is not necessary to enter this market now. However, it would be wrong to decide, now and forever, that there would be no shale gas used anywhere in the European Union.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Conversely, it would be wrong to commit to using shale gas.

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

Yes. Perhaps we will have some models from member states engaged in this process. Other member states should wait and see. They should be open. Perhaps they should be defensive, but they should not decide against it.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to repeat a question I asked earlier because it has not been answered. Will the discretion to decide the form of energy generation remain with member states into the future?

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

Yes, of course. We need member states and the Council for all of these decisions. This means that national parliaments are needed at the end of the day. These are historic decisions. It is not part of the daily operations of the Commission.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Irish Government retain its discretion in the context of deciding whether hydraulic fracturing can be used?

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

Yes, of course.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is Mr. Oettinger doing at present with regard to investigating the various technological advancements and environmental concerns relating to shale gas extraction?

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

We charged several institutions with providing us with inputs. We are in close contact with research centres in the science sector. We analysed all the reports we received. We also have contacts with gas companies that are active in the US in the context of discovering what has been their experience, particularly regarding what can go wrong. In March of next year I will be travelling to Houston, Texas, and the American mid-west in order to visit some exploration fields. We are also in contact with our Polish and other partners.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Commissioner be publishing his conclusions?

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

Yes. We published three reports ten days ago. All of the information we obtain will be made available to everybody in a transparent way.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commissioner and his colleagues for coming before the committee and providing members with such food for thought. I have no doubt that the information supplied will be of great benefit to the committee as it goes about its work. I wish the Commissioner a safe journey back home.

Mr. Günther Oettinger:

I thank the Chairman. I am glad I could be of assistance.