Transcript from the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications Debate on the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing: Environmental Protection Agency
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/TRJ2015061000002?opendocument
Comment:
Dara Lynott from the EPA has now confirmed that actual “well construction is definitely part of this research”. If you read between the lines of this short extract from the debate below, you can clearly see that test-fracking will have to be a part of the EPA research programme (the impacts of seismic activity). Although several times during the debate the representative from the EPA was at pains to point out that fracking wouldn’t be a part of this joint research programme: “No hydraulic fracturing will be undertaken as part of this joint research programme“.
Mr. Dara Lynott: I thank Deputy Naughten. In answer to a number of his questions, I would say this is unique. It is unique in that we are using a proportional approach. Other countries rushed to exploratory licensing rather than standing back and doing the research on it. Ireland and the EPA have decided to do this research. Subsequently, Departments have decided to take their decisions regarding licensing. A number of countries have started and stopped and are now doing the research with a view to determining whether this is a good or a bad thing. The second unique feature of this research is that looking at research in the US is not applicable in many cases to Ireland. The geology of Clare, Leitrim and Fermanagh is quite unique and very complex in terms of hydrology and geology. For that reason the EPA was very much focusing on trying to get as much information as possible to capture the complexity of the geology and hydrology. Part of that is also about seismicity – the potential for earthquakes. In addition, there is the radiological nature of some of the groundwaters that are very deep underground, which have much longer exposure to rock containing radionuclides. All of that is part of this study. I cannot answer the Deputy as I do not know. Like the Deputy, I will be waiting for the study to tell me what the issues are. Well construction is definitely part of this research. Also, what I call decommissioning, or long-life decommissioning, is part of this research. A broad swathe of research is trying to accurately map the complexity of the system. It is also looking at construction standards and impacts. Our own initial study in 2012 said that well integrity was a key point. If the well is not constructed correctly, that provides a pathway from the surface or from the mid-layers to the lower layers or from the lower layers to the mid-layers. That is a key issue, and the research will have to look into it.
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/TRJ2015061000002?opendocument
Wednesday, 10 June 2015
Joint Committee on Transport and Communications Debate
Vol. 2 No. 124
Page
of 2
The Joint Committee met at 11:00
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Deputy Michael Colreavy,
Senator Terry Brennan,
Deputy Timmy Dooley,
Senator Eamonn Coghlan,
Deputy Dessie Ellis,
Senator Paschal Mooney.
Deputy Alan Farrell,
Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice,
Deputy Tom Fleming,
Deputy Brendan Griffin,
Deputy Noel Harrington,
Deputy Seán Kenny,
Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn,
Deputy Michael McCarthy,
Deputy Helen McEntee,
Deputy Finian McGrath,
Deputy Eamonn Maloney,
Deputy Michael Moynihan,
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan,
Deputy Brian Walsh,
In attendance: Deputies Denis Naughten and Thomas Pringle
DEPUTIES JOHN O’MAHONY and DAVID STANTON IN THE CHAIR.
The Joint Committee on Transport and Communications met in private session until 12.28 p.m. and met in joint sitting with the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality from 2.30 p.m.
Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing: Environmental Protection Agency
Co-Chairman (Deputy John O’Mahony): The purpose of the earlier part of this meeting is to engage with representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency in regard to the interim report prepared by it on the potential impacts on the environment and human health from unconventional gas exploration and extraction projects. On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome from the EPA, Mr. Dara Lynott, deputy director general, and Dr. Brian Donlon, research manager.
I draw the witnesses’ attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, 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 they 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 advise witnesses that any submission or opening statements they have made to the committee will be published on the committee website following the 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 an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on Mr. Dara Lynott to make his opening statement.
Mr. Dara Lynott: I thank the Chairman and the committee for inviting the Environmental Protection Agency in to discuss progress on the unconventional gas exploration and extraction joint research programme. As the Chairman said, I am joined today by Dr. Brian Donlon, who is the Environmental Protection Agency research manager. I will provide a short opening statement and then I will be happy to answer any questions that committee members might have. If I cannot answer them today, I will provide written answers later on.
The EPA is an independent statutory body. It was established in 1993. We have a wide range of responsibilities, including the regulation of large-scale industrial and waste facilities, monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment, overseeing local authority environmental responsibilities, co-ordinating environmental research in Ireland and, recently added, radiological protection. The main role the EPA will have with regard unconventional gas exploration and extraction, UGEE, projects will be its regulatory role through the integrated pollution control licensing process, whereby a licence will be required for onshore extraction of shale gas on a commercial scale. The EPA does not have a regulatory role at the exploration stage of these projects but the agency will be a statutory consultee with respect to any environmental impact assessment, EIA, conducted by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in assessing any applications it might receive for exploration licences.
The agency has also commissioned and is administering a joint research programme co-funded by the EPA, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency into the environment aspects of UGEE, in particular, hydraulic fracturing of shale gas, on behalf of a steering committee comprising the EPA, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Geological Survey of Ireland, the Commission for Energy Regulation, An Bord Pleanála, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland and the Health Service Executive. I will discuss these roles in more detail presently.
We are responsible for the development, co-ordination and management of environmental research in Ireland. We have fulfilled this role since 1994. Our research is focused on major environmental challenges and the provision of policy-relevant analysis and solutions research.
In May 2012, we published a small-scale study entitled, Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts. This small-scale study provided an introduction to the environmental aspects of fracking, including a review of regulatory approaches used in other countries. The main findings included the importance of well integrity for preventing groundwater contamination, the importance of a knowledge of local geology regarding potential impacts on groundwater quality, the uncertainty regarding the carbon footprint of shale gas and the small number of published peer-reviewed scientific studies in this area. This preliminary research project and a public consultation in 2013 were used to finalise the terms of reference of a more comprehensive research programme. The UGEE joint research programme began in August 2014 and is scheduled to be completed in July 2016. It is funded by a number of agencies.
The research is being undertaken by a consortium of independent organisations, comprising CDM Smith, British Geological Survey, University College Dublin, Ulster of Ulster, Queens University Belfast, Foster Wheeler and Philip Lee Solicitors. I have provided more detail on each of these members in appendix A in the document provided to committee members.
This joint research programme is designed to produce the scientific basis to assist the assessment of environmental impacts associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing or fracking in Ireland. The programme of research will assist regulators North and South in making informed decisions about fracking. Ministers in Ireland and the North have publically stated that the issuance of fracking licences will be dependent on the outcome of a thorough independent investigation of potential impacts on the Irish environment being completed by this consortium. This precautionary approach to fracking is unique to Ireland. The research will not replace or diminish the need for any of the statutory processes needed to seek permission for a fracking licence or development.
There are five main areas to this research. These include the impacts on surface waters, groundwaters and ecosystems; the impacts on seismic activity; the impacts on air quality; international operational practice and impact mitigation; and regulatory regimes for fracking in different countries. This research project will examine the potential health impacts derived from impacts on environmental media, for example, exposure to chemicals, vibration, light, noise as well as pollution of soils, air and water. The project will also examine the prevention of environmental factors from degrading human health. The consortium will explore the potential role of health impact assessment in the regulation of UGEE projects based on the experience in other countries. Recommendations will be made towards developing a protocol in Ireland.
No hydraulic fracturing will be undertaken as part of this joint research programme. This is a comprehensive programme of research and there are many elements to it. At present, there has been good progress on the UGEE JRP. However, I emphasise that no report has issued from the EPA regarding this research programme other than periodic status updates provided to the other funding partners. The latest status report has been included in the documentation provided to the committee as appendix B. This provides an update on the progress of each task as set out in the terms of reference, dated 22 April of this year. The final report will be made publically available on the EPA website. Further details on this research programme are available on a dedicated website referred to in the documentation.
The licensing role of the EPA is restricted to class 9.1 of the first schedule of the EPA Acts. This covers the extraction, other than offshore extraction, of petroleum, natural gas, coal or bituminous shale. Any proposed project involving the commercial-scale extraction of shale gas would, therefore, need to apply to the EPA for, and be granted, an IPC licence to operate. Any licence issued for such an activity would also regulate the environmental aspects of any hydraulic fracturing operations taking place as part of the extraction facility. No such application has been received by the EPA to date. Any application received in future will be assessed on a base-by-case basis in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Acts. Key environmental issues to be addressed in any future application include potential for groundwater contamination from methane migration, the impact of any chemical additives to the fracking fluid, treatment and disposal of flow-back fluid, greenhouse gas emissions and water usage.
Research reports commissioned by the EPA are intended as contributions to the necessary debate on the protection of the environment. Further research is required to fully understand the potential impacts on the environment from the use of this technology. The key questions this research needs to answer are whether this technology can be used while also fully protecting the environment and human health, and, if so, what is best environmental practice in using the technology. The question of whether the existing EU environmental regulatory framework is adequate for unconventional fossil fuels projects is also being addressed.
This joint research programme aims to inform policymakers and other stakeholders on a range of questions in respect of environmental protection. The research programme will result in a series of reports that will help regulators North and South in coming to an informed decision if and when a licensing application is received for UGEE in the coming years. I hope I have given the committee an overview of this project and I am happy to answer any questions committee members may have.
Co-Chairman (Deputy John O’Mahony): Thank you, Mr. Lynott. At this point I have to leave the meeting. Deputy Brendan Griffin will take over as Acting Chairman.
Deputy Brendan Griffin took the Chair.
Senator Paschal Mooney: I thank Mr. Lynott and Dr. Donlon. Given that the EPA is at such an early stage in this research, we are somewhat limited in the type of information that we can extract from the agency. The appendices have been helpful in that regard. I wish to focus on Appendix A, about which I am sure my colleagues will have something to say about also.
There is serious concern about the involvement of CDM Smith in the research project. The note on the company’s activities fails to acknowledge that it has been heavily involved in fracking in the USA and Europe, most particularly in Poland, as well as Ukraine. I have read the contents of its website and comments made by its CEO and it seems that the company is, at best, in sympathy with the concept of fracking. In that context, serious questions must be asked about its independence. I ask the delegates to address that issue because from an initial reading of the EPA’s notes on CDM Smith one would not get the impression that the company had been involved in fracking operations. I am sure others will quote from press releases issued by the Love Leitrim group which is actively involved in anti-fracking activities in County Leitrim and expressing alarm in this regard.
Another issue of concern relates to submissions on the terms of reference. I am a little confused because the Love Leitrim group has stated the study, as it stands, does not answer the question as to how it will look at the issue of health but focuses on the second section of its terms of reference relating to best practice in regulating the gas industry. However, from what I had read of the EPA’s documents, I was satisfied that the health implications of fracking would be part of the research. I, therefore, ask the delegates to reassure the committee on that point. I made a submission at the time and raised the matter at the committee because it was a serious omission from the terms of reference and the EPA, in correspondence I had received, had acknowledged that health was a matter that would be looked at in the study. In its submission the EPA also makes reference to health. I, therefore, ask the delegates to clear up the confusion in that regard.
On the progress made in undertaking various tasks, the EPA states one task is nearly complete, namely, A1, an “assessment of existing baseline monitoring (best) practices, including water quality aspects, the location of existing monitoring points with specific regard to geological/hydrogeological conditions to inform best practice for an island of Ireland geological context … This assessment should also make reference to the legislative requirements to develop an environmental monitoring programme.” The EPA makes the point that it would not be involved in the regulation of fracking were it to happen here. Is that correct? The presentation document states the, “EPA does not have a regulatory role at the exploration stage of these projects”.
Mr. Dara Lynott: I will take the last point first.
The EPA does not have a role in issuing an exploratory licence. It is not intended as part of the research that exploratory drilling for hydraulic fracturing will take place, rather in the first task to which the Senator referred we have carry out an assessment of how much information we have on groundwater in the area. To pull it back a little, the EPA has a role in assessing groundwater quality in Ireland. We report on a regular basis to the European Union on the quality of groundwater. As part of that process, the EPA has sunk wells all over the country to fill in knowledge gaps in order that we can obtain a national picture. However, for this type of research and particularly because it is focused on shales in counties Clare and Leitrim and parts of Northern Ireland we need more information on groundwater than we would need for a national programme. First, we need to ascertain how many groundwater wells are there, what state they are in and whether they are usable. Then, through the steering group, we propose having “X” number of wells. These wells will tell us where the groundwater is, its depth and volume, in what direction it is flowing and assist in obtaining an accurate, underground picture of the groundwater in the area. There is no exploratory drilling associated with hydraulic fracturing as part of this research. If there was to be exploratory drilling, the researchers would have to obtain a licence from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, but that Department has stated there will be no exploratory drilling licences issued until the research has been completed. The expected date for completion of the research project is 2016. Once an application is made in respect of the commercial drilling of shale beyond exploratory stage, those involved will have to come to the EPA for a licence. At that stage we will have a regulatory role, but that is beyond this research period up to 2016 and exploratory licensing which will happen within a particular period of time. After the exploratory phase, if hydraulic fracturing is commercially viable as determined by those involved, they will have to come to us and a number of other regulatory agencies to go through the normal regulatory processes.
On the health implications, our view is that the issue of health is part of the study. As I said in my opening statement, the health impacts associated with pollution of environmental media are definitely part of the project. That means the level of air, water, vibration and noise pollution will be assessed as part of the project. It will also look at how a health impact assessment has been utilised in other countries in dealing with this type of project. We will have a fairly good handle on the health impacts associated with environmental pollution of the various media involved.
The Senator referenced CDM Smith, which is a very large consultancy firm. Like many large legal and accountancy firms, it has a lot of clients and provides advice on a wide range of issues. It is part of a much wider consortium which includes the Geological Survey of Britain, University College, Dublin, the University of Ulster and Philip Lee Solicitors, among others. In our tender we deliberately went looking for experience in this realm. The tender document stated: “The proposed project team is expected to include members who have comprehensive understanding of geology and hydrology, as well as an in depth knowledge of a range of legal, environmental, health, socio-economic and technical issues, as well as knowledge of mineral and fossil fuels (preferably unconventional gas) extraction practices and technologies”. We looked for people with experience in this area, but we went through an open tender process which involved 27 people from 14 or 15 organisations in assessing six bids from various consortia to conduct this very important research valued at €1.25 million. That independent group came to the view that CDM and its consortium was the best. All of the consortium members were required to sign a conflict of interest form, which they did. We are happy that the group conducting this research is eminently qualified to carry it out and will do so in a peer-reviewed, independent manner and that the research will be fit for purpose.
Deputy Michael Colreavy: I welcome the delegates from the EPA. Having said that, I do not think we should be here. This is a personal as well as a political issue for me. Senator Paschal Mooney lives close to the area most immediately threatened by fracking, but I practically live in it. I know the real fear people have as we discuss the matter coldly and scientifically. I am not a scientist or an engineer, but I am a person who is passionate about the beautiful unspoilt landscape of north Leitrim and County Fermanagh. One could not have picked a more beautiful part of the country to set out to destroy and it hurts me that members are obliged to sit here and discuss mechanisms that might tell them it will be all right to destroy this landscape and to destroy the livelihoods, health and well-being of those who live in this landscape. This is why I believe members should not be here.
The request to submit expressions of interest was sent out by the Government’s predecessor and I must state that had I been in the Oireachtas at the time, I certainly would have tried to block it. There was no public discussion and no Dáil debate over it. I have used freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions, telephone calls and meetings with civil servants to try to establish what was the trigger to issue those advertisements seeking expressions of interest. I cannot get such a trigger point and one need not be cynical to assume that somewhere in the midst of all that off-the-record discussion and debate, extensive lobbying was going on in behalf of the energy industry. I find it extraordinary that those requests for expressions of interest and exploratory licences were issued in the dying days of the previous Administration, not just here but in Stormont as well. That is not and cannot be a coincidence. There is a puppeteer with a hand up a glove some place in all of this. I simply have not been able to identify what person, company or companies are lobbying the group and who is the puppeteer in this regard. I will park this issue now for the present.
Mr. Lynott has used the word “independent” at least four, if not five, times in his presentation. CDM Smith is a cheerleader for the fracking industry and no reasonable person will place any credit in any report for which it is leading the consortium engaged by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in this regard. It is on the record as being cheerleaders for the fracking industry and neither I nor anyone else will place the slightest credibility in a report that comes out from a consortium led by CDM Smith. It was an extraordinary decision to engage CDM Smith and I do not care what it has signed as that is what it does. This is what its shareholders expect it to do, namely, to get fracking into Europe, the United States and Ireland. That is how it makes its money. It is not doing this for what it is getting from us or from Stormont, which it would regard as a pittance. Are these people acting in the interest of those who I represent in the north west of Ireland or are they acting in the interests of their shareholders? The answer is clear. What I consider to be extraordinary is that any Government agency would expect the likes of me and the people I represent to believe it could be independent as it cannot. I do not care how many Chinese walls are in place; Chinese walls are paper walls.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Brendan Griffin): As the Deputy has spoken for six minutes, he might put the questions please.
Deputy Michael Colreavy: The presentation went on for eight and a half minutes and I am at least entitled to as much time as the presentation.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Brendan Griffin): No, please put your questions.
Deputy Michael Colreavy: I am getting to the question. First, how can the EPA expect that reasonable people will treat the report that will emerge from this process eventually as independent when the project is being led by cheerleaders for the fracking industry? Please tell me more than they have signed an undertaking, because that does not answer the question. How can reasonable people be expected to believe this will be independent? Are not two people, who formerly were in the British Geological Survey, working with Tamboran Resources, which has one of the licences here? I realise this will entail additional work for the joint committee but I will be asking that the EPA comes back before it because although the report is dated 26 April, I only received eight days ago. It is just me and a man from County Kerry and I need to talk to many different groups that were involved in this matter to analyse what the joint committee has received thus far. For example, it does not state which consortium companies are doing which modules of the work.
Mr. Lynott spoke about the health impact assessment but is will that be a public health impact assessment and who will be carrying it out? There is no reference to the already-existing body of peer-reviewed medical information and I am informed there have been 400 different reports within the past 12 months of which 170, if not more, have been peer-reviewed. It is clear that a huge effort is being made by the fracking industry and by political supporters of that industry to get this introduced throughout the world. I have just received word in the course of this meeting that thankfully, the European Parliament has voted in favour of an amendment calling on member states not to authorise fracking until it can be proven to be safe for the environment and health. That is very welcome.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Brendan Griffin): We will put the questions Deputy.
Deputy Michael Colreavy: The first question I want answered is how does the EPA expect me or reasonable people to believe this will be an independent report, when the company leading on the research is a cheerleader for the fracking industry and the reason for its existence is to make sure that fracking takes place in Europe, the United States and wherever it can introduce it?
Acting Chairman (Deputy Brendan Griffin): Can we get a response to the questions and to any other questions asked?
Mr. Dara Lynott: To begin with, the EPA also is about the protection of the environment. Its sole role is the protection of the environment for the people of Ireland. We have been doing research for a long time and commission research where there are complex issues coming down the line that need more information to allow everyone to come to an informed view or decision on them. We were the first to come through, with a 2012 preliminary study, to try to carry out literature-based research on all the available data and studies that exist. Moreover, from that we developed a scope of work on which we subsequently went out for public consultation. We have a robust and independent system, which is the same system we have used for all €74 million worth of research we have commissioned since 2007. Since then, we are relying on 27 people from An Bord Pleanála, the Commission for Energy Regulation, the Departments of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, the EPA, the Geological Survey of Ireland, the Health Service Executive and a number of universities. We relied on those 27 experts to go through all six tenders – there was not just one tender, there were six – to identify who was most appropriately suited to carrying out this research. We relied on them to use their best judgment in an unbiased way. This is publicly-funded research, it is not research commissioned by private industry. The money for the project is being invested by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Northern Ireland authorities. We must ensure that this research is peer reviewed and robust. We have a steering group comprising a number of independent, publicly-funded individuals who come together and use their best knowledge to determine whether this research stands up to scrutiny. Ultimately, the latter will have to be the case because it will not be published anywhere unless it is peer reviewed. I reiterate that no hydraulic fracturing will happen as part of this research. No exploratory licence will be granted until this research is completed. All regulatory processes will come into play if and when some private entity decides to become involved.
CDM is one part of a large consortium which includes Philip Lee solicitors, Foster Wheeler, UCD and British Geological Survey. Its role is to co-ordinate this research. CDM is a significant player in environmental consultancy worldwide, employs 5,000 people and it consults on every aspect of the environmental impacts of projects. We are satisfied that the process we have undergone was robust. The process of peer review and oversight by the steering group is also robust, designed to ensure that the research will stand up to scrutiny. We are of the view that it will provide answers in respect of the questions we have put forward.
Deputy Michael Colreavy: Is Mr. Lynott in a position to name a site – not to mention a country – where CDM Smith Ireland Limited recommended that fracking should not proceed?
Mr. Dara Lynott: I have no information to provide the committee on that.
Deputy Michael Colreavy: It would be instructive if that question were asked.
Dr. Brian Donlon: One of the members of the consortium is AMEC Foster Wheeler, which has advised the European Commission in respect of regulation in member states. It contributed to a report for the German federal ministry in 2012 in which it was recommended that hydraulic fracturing should not be banned but that its application should only be allowed with strict regulation in place and should be accompanied by intensive administrative and scientific supervision. Moratoria subsequently implemented were independent of the study in question and responsibilities of the individual states. One member of the consortium, therefore—–
Deputy Michael Colreavy: Dr. Donlon has put his finger on it. People are concerned that this work is being done in order that a checklist can be provided in respect of aspects that must be monitored and measures to be put in place to minimise any potential impact. However, they fear that what is being worked on is something that will indicate that provided certain actions are taken, fracking can safely proceed. If neither Dr. Donlon nor I can look at the companies involved in the consortium and say that there is not a single instance where one of them stated that in the case of a particular installation – again, not to mention a country – it would be wrong to allow hydraulic fracturing to proceed. When I refer to hydraulic fracturing, I mean UGEE. I have also become used to calling it fracking. There is not even one installation in respect of which any of these companies stated that the latter should not be allowed to go ahead. In global terms, this country is a small garden in the Atlantic. If we poison a bit of it, we will poison it all. It will not matter to those in the Chinese market who are buying infant formula from this country if the water in the north west is poisoned. All they will do is stop purchasing our milk products.
Deputy Denis Naughten: I thank the representatives from the EPA for coming before the committee. I have an interest in this matter. The main focus is on Leitrim and Fermanagh but the former shares a border with north Roscommon. If fracking is to take place, it will probably will be expanded outwards because the geology of north Roscommon is very similar to that of Leitrim and the entire Lough Allen basin.
Hydraulic fracturing is very new technology and that is probably why there have been very few peer-reviewed scientific journal articles published in respect of it. I wish to ask a number of questions but before doing so, I wish to pursue a particular matter. Is it not the case that what we are doing with our counterparts in Northern Ireland in this particular field is unique? Am I correct in stating that it has not been done anywhere else in the world? The results of this research will be extremely significant because not only will it have implications in respect of fracking in Ireland, it will also have major implications for fracking throughout the world in the future. The latter is the case because research of this nature has not been carried out to date. In other words, there is not a body of research available which reflects that which is going to be produced here. Whatever the outcome of the research – and subject to it being properly peer reviewed – it will be extensively quoted, probably for generations, as the litmus test with regard to whether fracking should take place or the conditions under which it should take place, not just in Ireland or Europe but across the globe.
A number of questions arise. I recall attending a presentation in Dawson Street at which some of the key researchers in this area were brought together. The major issue which arose at that event related to well integrity, which, based on the research that has been carried out to date – limited though it may be – is the single biggest threat in respect of fracking. As a