A campaigner has received a letter from EPA that states categorically that they were informed in October 2014 that Queen’s University were not part of the research consortium. In June 2015, they went in front of the Joint Oireachtas Committee and gave details of how QUB were part of the Consortium, what tasks they were carrying out and details of their expertise!
An instance of a state agency lying to its own government?
Comment by a campaigner
Could this PDF (see further below) be posted online. It shows how naive those who have engaged with the EPA process have actually been. The word facilitators comes to mind.
EPA-JOC-statement-10-June-2015-Fracking
A facilitator is a person who helps a group identify and solve problems by structuring the discussion and intervening when necessary to improve the effectiveness of the group’s processes and outcomes. Facilitators, sometimes called moderators, maintain a neutral approach to topics and issues and serve the whole group in an unbiased manner.
The word facilitator is derived from the French word faciliter, which means to make easy or to simplify. Indeed, the goal of the facilitator is to make a group’s decision-making process easy, efficient, and effective.
In the mid-1970s, Doyle and Strauss, authors of How to Make Meetings Work, argued that facilitators were “neutral servants” responsible for making sure participants were using the most effective approaches to problem solving and decision making while reaching consensus efficiently. The role of facilitators in business has grown dramatically in the past few years. A number of recent books published on the topic describe the responsibilities of a facilitator as well as approaches for developing facilitation skills. The distinction is often made between facilitators who are external to the organization or the group and facilitators who are internal. Both external and internal facilitators focus primarily on a group’s process. In fact, some facilitators have minimal subject matter expertise.
THE ROLE OF THE FACILITATOR
Facilitators set the agenda for a group meeting or discussion, monitor the group’s process in discussing agenda items, and help the group reach consensus, make decisions, and set action plans. Effective facilitators bring out a variety of opinions and ideas, at the same time ensuring that all participants feel they are valued contributors to the discussion. Facilitators monitor how the group works together by encouraging participation, protecting individuals from attack, and minimizing dominance by one or two participants.
Facilitators begin by clearly defining the role they will play and the strategies they will use. In addition, facilitators help set ground rules for how group members will interact with each other, how long and when group members will speak, and how the group will make decisions.
Facilitators use a number of strategies to help groups achieve their goals. Focusing on consensus building, facilitators help participants discuss issues so that the end result is an outcome that all participants can support. Voting might be used to assess the depth of agreement or disagreement, but final group decisions are reached by consensus.
Facilitators can be most effective when groups are discussing future-oriented tasks such as developing mission statements, vision and value statements, or conducting strategic planning. Facilitation is also useful when groups are discussing complex or controversial issues that require an outsider’s unbiased attention to structure and process.
Typically, facilitators use flip charts, electronic boards, and web conferencing tools to capture ideas generated by group participants as well as the flow of the discussion. This visual reminder of the group’s ideas, decisions, and action plans provide a “recorded” memory for the group during the discussion and the notes following the group meeting.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING FACILITATORS
Advantages for groups that use facilitators include a well-structured meeting, focus on a common goal and a common process, record of the group’s discussion and decisions, and an efficient way to reach consensus and productive outcomes. Facilitators provide strategies to handle conflicts between members as well as other nonproductive participant behaviors that impede the group’s process. They also absolve group participants from the responsibility of handling the discussion or staying neutral.
Disadvantages can occur when facilitators are not effective. If a facilitator loses objectivity, the group may feel manipulated by the facilitator’s approach. Also, if the facilitator does not manage the group’s process effectively, the group will either waste time reaching consensus or in some cases may not meet their goals at all. Finally, groups can become overly dependent on a facilitator and may not learn the skills and strategies necessary to make decisions.
MANAGERS AS FACILITATORS
While facilitators are usually not members of the group since they are required to remain neutral, there is a trend toward managers and team members developing facilitation skills that they can use in meetings and discussions. Managers who assume the role of a facilitator, by definition, are not neutral. Yet, through facilitation managers can lead teams in managing change and achieving work-related outcomes. Specifically, managers as facilitators provide clear expectations of the work to be done, monitor the team’s process to increase team productivity, and manage the boundaries that can affect the work of the team. The manager as a facilitator empowers team members to make decisions and resolve problems.
For frequent, regular meetings, groups may rotate responsibility for acting as facilitator among team members or meeting participants. This spares any one person from always bearing the responsibility for focusing discussions, following the agenda, and enforcing time limits.
In a business world marked by rapid change, the role of facilitators will continue to expand as the need for managers and teams to solve complex problems also grows.
SEE ALSO: Management Styles ; Teams and Teamwork
Mary V. Herman
Revised by Wendy Mason
FURTHER READING:
“GP Business: Resolve Conflict for the Best Team Effort.” General Practitioner 12 November 2004, p. 30.
Kremer, Dennis. “Rules for Improved Meetings. (Viewpoint)” Fairfield County Business Journal, 20 December 2004, p. 38.
Rees, Fran. How to Lead Work Teams: Facilitation Skills. San Diego: Pfeiffer and Company, 1991.
Schwarz, Roger. The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass, 1994.
Weaver, Richard, and John D. Farrell. Managers as Facilitators: A Practical Guide to Getting Work Done in a Changing Workplace. San Francisco: Berrett–Koehler, 1997.
Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Ex-Gov/Facilitator.html#ixzz3pZAX7V4G
Brian
Opening Statement
Prepared for
JOINT OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Wednesday 10th June, 2015
PRINTED COPIES AVAILABLEDelegation
Mr Dara Lynott, Deputy Director General, EPA Dr. Brian Donlon, Research Manager, EPA
2
Introduction
First of all, I would like to thank you Mister Chairman, for inviting the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss progress on the Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) Joint Research Programme (JRP) I am joined here to-day by Dr. Brian Donlon, EPA Research Manager. At the end of this opening statement, we would be happy to answer any questions that you might have and if we are unable to provide answers today I will arrange for the relevant information to be forwarded to the Committee.
The Role of the EPA As you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency is an independent statutory body, established in 1993 under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, with a wide range of responsibilities including regulation of large scale industrial and waste facilities, monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment, overseeing local authorities’ environmental responsibilities, coordinating environmental research in Ireland and radiological protection. The work of the EPA is carried out by its five Offices:
Office of Environmental Enforcement Office of Climate, Licensing and Resource Use Office of Environmental Assessment Office of Radiological Protection Office of Communications and Corporate Services
The main role that the EPA will have with regard Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) projects, will be its regulatory role through the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) 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 will be a statutory consultee with respect to any Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR) in assessing any applications received for exploration licences.
The Agency has also commissioned research into the environmental impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction in particular hydraulic fracturing in shale gas. These roles are set out below:
The Research Role of the EPA The EPA is responsible for the development, co-ordination and management of environmental research in Ireland and has provided funding for environmental research since 1994. Our research is focused on major environmental challenges and the provision of policy relevant analysis and solutions research.
In May 2012 the EPA published the study: Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts. This small-scale study was conducted for the Agency by the University of Aberdeen. It provides an introduction to the environmental aspects of fracking including a review of regulatory approaches used in other countries and outlined areas for further investigation and research. In brief, some of the key findings of the study were:
3
The importance of well integrity for preventing groundwater contamination. The importance of knowledge of local geology regarding potential impacts on groundwater quality and possibility of tremors. The uncertainty regarding the “carbon footprint” of shale gas in comparison to conventional natural gas. This is an important climate change issue. The small number of published, peer reviewed, scientific studies in the area.
The study also examined regulatory approaches in Europe, North America and elsewhere, and identified areas where further research is required to determine Best Practice.
This preliminary research project and a Public Consultation in 2013 were used to finalise the more Terms of Reference of a more comprehensive research programme. The UGEE Joint Research Programme (JRP) began in August 2014 and is scheduled to be complete in July 2016. It is funded by the EPA, DCENR and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). It is managed by a steering committee comprising the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government; DCENR; the Geological Survey of Ireland; Commission for Energy Regulation; An Bord Pleanála; NIEA, the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland and the Health Services Executive.
The research is being undertaken by a consortium of independent organisations comprising CDM Smith Ireland Ltd., British Geological Survey, University College Dublin, Ulster of Ulster, Queens University Belfast, AMEC Foster Wheeler and Philip Lee Solicitors (See Appendix 1 for further details).
The UGEE JRP has been designed to produce the scientific basis to assist assessment of the environmental impacts associated with high volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Ireland. The programme of research will assist regulators – both North and South – in making informed decisions about fracking. Ministers in both the Republic and Northern Ireland have publically stated that the issuance of fracking licences will be dependent on the outcomes of a thorough, independent, investigation of potential impacts on the Irish environment. This precautionary approach to fracking is unique to Ireland. The UGEE JRP will not replace, or diminish the need for, any of the statutory processes necessary to seek permission for a fracking licence or development.
The UGEE JRP has five main elements: 1. Impacts on surface waters, groundwaters and related ecosystems; 2. Impacts on seismic activity; 3. Impacts on air quality; 4. International operational practice and impact mitigation measures; and 5. Regulatory regimes for fracking in different countries
This Research Project will examine the potential health impacts deriving from impacts on environmental media for example: exposure to chemicals, vibration, light, noise, and pollution of soils, air & water. The project will also examine the prevention of environmental factors from degrading human health.”
The research team will review health Impact Studies worldwide to explore the potential role of Health Impact Assessment in regulation of UGEE projects/operations based on the
4
experience in other countries, and recommendations will be made towards developing a protocol in Ireland.
There will be no Hydraulic Fracturing completed as part of the EPA 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 (see Appendix 2 for progress against each task). The final report will be made publically available on the EPA website. Further details on the research programme are currently available on a dedicated website www.ugeeresearch.ie.
The Licensing Role of the EPA Class 9.1 of the first schedule of the EPA Acts 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 Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) licence in order 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 activity.
No such application has been received by the EPA to date. Any future application to the EPA would have to demonstrate the use of best environmental practice in order to minimise environmental impact. Applicants would be required to demonstrate that the proposed activity would not cause any breaches of National legislation or European directives. For example, with regard to protection of groundwater, an applicant would be required to show that no breaches of the Water Framework Directive or relevant national Water Quality Standards would occur.
Any application received in the future will be assessed on a case by case basis in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Acts. Among the key environmental issues to be addressed in any future application would include: potential for groundwater contamination from methane migration, the impact of any chemical additives in the fracking fluid, treatment and disposal of flowback fluid, greenhouse gas emissions and water usage.
Links to European Technical Working Groups The EPA, representing Ireland, participates on an EU technical working group on the environmental aspects of unconventional fossil fuels, in particular shale gas. The working group consists of member states, European Environment Agency and EU Commission representatives. The purpose of this group is:
To assist in identifying and addressing knowledge gaps, potential key issues, and priorities in relation to environmental protection; To act as a platform for information exchange on environmental aspects of, and best practices for shale gas projects; To contribute to the Commission’s efforts to assess whether the existing EU environmental legislation ensures an appropriate level of protection to the environment and humans as regards shale gas practices.
Summary Research reports 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
5
environment from the use of this technology. The key questions this research needs to answer are whether this technology can be used whilst 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.
In conclusion, this Joint Research Programme aims to inform policy makers and other stakeholders on a range of questions in relation to environmental protection. We will get 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 the Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction Research Programme and I am happy to answer any questions the Committee members may have for me.
6
Appendix A
A note on the organisations and members of the group, co-ordinated by CDM Smith, carrying out a study on Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction in Ireland
CDM Smith CDM Smith is an employee-owned consulting, engineering, construction, and operations firm delivering a range of service to public and private clients in 135 countries worldwide. Established in Ireland since 2001, their ISO 9001- accredited office in Dublin has worked on a diverse range of water and environmental projects. Notably, CDM Smith has been the lead consultant on the Eastern River Basin District project since 2003 and completed a number of Water Framework Directive related projects on behalf of EPA, including the Groundwater Works Programme (as Client’s Representative), the Source Protection Zones project (as lead consultant) and preparing Guidance on Discharges to Groundwater.
Worldwide, CDM Smith has been involved in numerous oil and gas projects, assisting regulatory agencies and the industry with the planning, design and operational support for the development of unconventional gas resources by providing the services including site planning, permitting, and environmental impact statements; land use, asset management, and GIS services; field data and sampling programmes; water management plans and process treatment design services; operation and maintenance and air quality services.
Queens University Belfast (QUB), Groundwater Group The Groundwater Group (GWG) at Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) has expertise in integrated hydrological/hydrogeological characterisation in poorly productive aquifers and evaluating the impact of human activities on water quality in surface and groundwater bodies. In addition, the GWG has access to an equipment pool and analytical facilities that are not available elsewhere in the island of Ireland, e.g. wire line geophysical logging, carbon dating, stable isotope analyses.
QUB provides expertise in the impacts of weathering on the hydrological properties of poorly productive hard rock aquifers and the influence of heavy metal contamination on wetland ecosystem health. They also provide hydro-geophysics expertise with experience in research in catchment hydrology, hydrometrics and near-surface and laboratory geophysics together with experience in hydrogeology in groundwater resources characterisation, prospection, management and protection in both research and consultancy projects. Members of the QUB team have contributed to the development of integrated geophysical approaches to develop 3D conceptual models of Irish hard rock aquifer systems. The hydrogeology expert and worked on a range of groundwater-related research topics, including geochemical/hydrogeological assessment of abandoned mines in poorly productive aquifers, wetland characterisation and integrated hydrological investigations of Irish catchments.
British Geological Survey (BGS) BGS has a long track record of studies of seismic hazard around the world and is recognised internationally as an authority on seismic hazard methodology and associated software development. Over the last thirty years, BGS have developed considerable expertise in the analysis of seismic events, including event discrimination, determining location and magnitude, calculating source geometry and automatic near real-time determination of earthquake parameters.
7
BGS has provided both objective data and scientific expertise to assess the hazards from induced earthquakes resulting from shale gas exploration and production, and has helped inform regulatory decisions on hydraulic fracturing operations. In 2012, BGS co-authored a report commissioned by Department of Energy and Climate Change that set out a number of recommendations for the mitigation of seismic risk in future hydraulic fracture operations for shale gas.
BGS also provided scientific advice on the hazard from induced earthquakes to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report that examined the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing during shale gas exploration and production. BGS and partners at a number of universities in the UK, have secured funding to install dense network of sensors in areas of future shale gas exploration or production in the UK that will enable new research into both the nature and hazard of seismic activity induced by future industrial activities such as fracking and provide essential knowledge to inform public perceptions and the debate into benefits and hazards of industrial activities.
BGS also has extensive experience in pollution risk assessment. Recent work has included reviews of risk to groundwater from emerging groundwater contaminants and their degradation products). In terms of environmental impacts of shale gas, BGS recently published a report on the potential impacts on groundwater from shale gas including consideration of water resource requirements. Their expertise extends to water resource assessment and modelling, and in particular consideration of the impacts of climate change on water availability). They are also currently undertaking a national survey of methane (and other indicators) to provide a baseline against which future impacts from shale gas can be assessed to supplement their wider programme of groundwater baseline work
University College Dublin (UCD), Geophysics Group The Seismology Laboratory, Geophysics Group, School of Geological Sciences at University College Dublin has a track record across a spectrum of seismological problems, including (i) high spatial resolution seismological network installations and maintenance, (ii) seismicity data acquisition, processing and source parameter determination (locations & moment tensor solutions) and (iii) computational seismology (development of numerical schemes for wave propagation in fluid saturated media).
The Group has published in top journals on induced seismicity problems in mines (with the University of Ulster, Coleraine), fluid driven seismicity on volcanoes (having installed its own mobile seismic networks) and on background microseisms in Ireland. The lab has recently installed and operates three small aperture seismic arrays on Ireland (for locating microseisms) and two 6‐element arrays in Iceland (for monitoring volcano seismicity and ice quakes). The data from Iceland are streamed to their lab in Dublin to allow for real‐time analysis.
University of Ulster, Geophysics Research Group The Geophysics Research Group of the University of Ulster has worked on seismicity induced by several different industrial processes for more than 20 years. They are world authorities on the triggering of earthquakes by stress interaction with external stress fields and between different seismic events. Under the Griffiths Geoscience Programme (Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources), they have, for the last 2
8
years been working on earthquakes and deformation associated with the injection of fluid into the subsurface. This work uses state of the art understanding of the physics of earthquake nucleation and rupture to add extra information to data collected on site, thus providing a very much better constraint on the underlying probability distributions from which the data are drawn. They have additionally developed Bayesian statistical techniques to fully quantify uncertainty in forecasts of likely earthquakes which can be updated on an hourly basis as additional data becomes available. They can, therefore, provide unique insight into the development of probabilities of seismic events of any given energy which can be used to test and to advise variations on the ‘Traffic‐Light’ system.
AMEC AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK is one of the UK’s largest environmental and engineering consultancies. It incorporates the former Entec business and is a focused supplier of consultancy, engineering and project management services to its customers in the world’s oil and gas, mining, clean energy, environment and infrastructure markets. Since 2012, AMEC has undertaken a number of projects associated with unconventional gas exploration and extraction in the UK and Europe, with support from colleagues in US actively involved in shale gas extraction. These include projects for the European Commission (Technical Support for Assessing the Need for a Risk Management Framework for Unconventional Gas Extraction), UK Environment Agency (Review of Assessment Procedures for Oil and Gas Well Casing Installation) and the United Kingdom Water Industries Research (UKWIR) (Understanding the Potential Impacts of Unconventional Gas Fracking on the UK Water Industry). As a result, AMEC has an excellent understanding of the issues associated with unconventional gas, how operations are conducted and the mitigation measures available to reduce impacts and regulatory options.
Alongside this experience, AMEC can bring to this project extensive experience of providing technical consultancy to unconventional gas extraction production in North America and Australia. They have a thorough understanding of the risks and hazards presented by unconventional gas extraction together with relevant technical control measures. This includes risks and issues relating to fracturing, water supply, waste water treatment, materials handling, public engagement and development of best practice. AMEC is a member of the Marcellus Shale Coalition – an industry group that has developed best practice guidance for shale gas extraction in North America.
Philip Lee Solicitors Philip Lee is a specialised commercial law firm with its principal office in Dublin. They also have an office in Brussels, reflecting their EU & competition law and international trade focus, and a full-time presence in San Francisco which focuses on inward investment. They advise both public and private sector clients on the management of environmental risks and liabilities, particularly in relation to waste, water, major and strategic infrastructure and energy projects. The breadth of their practice includes regulatory compliance, commercial due diligence, contractual (including construction) disputes, planning and licensing hearings, CPO and private acquisitions and compliance with EU and international laws. Philip Lee provides strategic advice to both national and international clients on a wide variety of environmental projects. They draw on their environmental team’s expertise, particular strength in European law.
9
Appendix B Status update of progress against the individual tasks of the Terms of Reference
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
A1 1 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. Any limitations and/or knowledge gaps should be expounded. This assessment should also outline/make reference to the legislative requirements to develop an environmental monitoring programme.
Nearly Complete Awaiting finalisation of Interim Report A1.1
A1 2 Development of sub-regional geological/hydrogeological characterisation and conceptual model based on all of the available existing data for the case study areas. This model should be further refined when data are acquired through Tasks 3, 5 and 6. General principles of data requirements, acquisition and assessment should enable application in the context of the existing water management arrangements for the island of Ireland.
Nearly Complete Awaiting finalisation of Interim Report A1.2
A1 3 Preparation of a technical specification for a sub-regional baseline monitoring programme that will be informed by the geological and hydrogeological characteristics of the case study sites, i.e. taking specific regard of the conceptual understanding of local/regional groundwater flow regimes in these areas.
Ongoing
10
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
A1 4 Some or all aspects of this task will be part of the Supplementary Tender referred to in Section 5.2: If additional monitoring points are required, the successful Framework operator will be asked to submit a supplementary tender for Task 4 a-f inclusive and will then be responsible for the whole procurement process for a sub-contract for the installation and commissioning of the additional monitoring points, in accordance with EU and National Procurement procedures. This sub contract will include but not be limited to:
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 4a The preparation of all tender documentation for the sub-contract including the provision of specifications for monitoring installations, which shall be in line with best practice and to an appropriately high standard. The Steering Committee will review these specifications and may request amendments/clarifications (within 21 days). The technical specification shall outline the parameters which should be analysed, including the reasons for selection, test methods and required limits of detection.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 4b Tender evaluation, tender recommendations to Steering Committee and administration including the issue of sub-contract award documentation following approval (within 21 days) to award the contract from the Steering Committee.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 4c Management, supervision and administration of sub contract for the provision of additional monitoring points, as well as attendance upon the sub-contractor. This task will include ensuring that any additional monitoring points are installed to the agreed specification and with full hydrogeological supervision.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
11
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
A1 4d The successful tenderer will be required to fulfil the role of Project Supervisor Design Process (PSDP) and/or designer under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2006 and Amendment Regulations 2008 to 2013 and will be required to ensure full compliance with these regulations.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 4e The successful tenderer will be required to prepare the Final Account for the sub-contract and to produce the Final Report on the provision of the additional monitoring points.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 4f The successful framework operator will be responsible for negotiating with landowners to:
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 4f i Obtain permissions to enter onto lands suitable for the installation of the additional monitoring points; and
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 4f ii Use and have access to the additional monitoring points as well as making any payments arising to land owners in respect of loses/inconvenience incurred by them as a result of the operation of monitoring points on their land.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 5 Identification of potential surface water and associated ecosystem receptors, highlighting areas that have been designated as having a particular environmental importance, which should be included in baseline monitoring.
Nearly Complete
12
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
A1 6 This task will be part of the Supplementary Tender referred to in Section 5.2: Baseline groundwater, surface water and associated ecosystems monitoring shall be undertaken for a minimum period of 12 months with provision for the on-going operation and maintenance of the network. Where appropriate, this shall use existing monitoring networks and points, and, if required, monitoring of correctly installed additional monitoring stations upon installation. Monitoring of potential existing monitoring points and any newly installed station(s) will require discussion with the Steering Committee, which may request clarifications/amendments (within 21 days). As the monitoring results are collated, the network and procedures should be reviewed in discussion with the Steering Committee.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A1 7 Geological assessment of the existing fracture networks and networks that are likely to be produced by fracking operations and the implications for water flow and pollutant transport, with specific reference to overlying groundwater bodies.
Ongoing
A1 8 Quantitative assessment of a) water requirements for UGEE projects/operations (for an individual, typical pad and for each permit area) and b) groundwater and surface water resource availability. The assessment should identify the potential UGEE projects/operations water usage impacts on local and catchment water requirements. These requirements include, but are not limited to, direct abstractions (groundwater and surface water) and flows/inputs for surface water and ecosystems.
Ongoing (with Project B)
A1 9 Recommendations for baseline monitoring requirements. Assessment as to which elements of baseline monitoring, could be undertaken by the state versus by the industry. The assessment should include co-ordination and quality assurance requirements, and make reference to best practice for other similar industrial activities on the island of Ireland and other EU
Not started
13
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
countries.
A1 10 Ensure effective dissemination of the research findings in accordance with the overall dissemination plan of the Research Programme, which will be agreed with the Steering Committee.
Ongoing
A1 GTS Groundtruthing Survey Ongoing – 1st round has been completed – 2nd round in progress
A2 1 Assessment of existing baseline monitoring operated worldwide for UGEE projects/operations to inform best practice for an island of Ireland geological context. This assessment should also outline/make reference to the legislative requirements to develop an environmental monitoring programme.
Nearly Complete Awaiting finalisation of Interim Report A2.1 (Tasks 1 & 3)
A2 2 Evaluate methodologies, such as InSAR, EDM, tiltmeters and GPS, or their equivalent for the monitoring of ground deformation that may be associated with UGEE projects/operations.
Nearly Complete Awaiting finalisation of Interim Report A2.1 (Task 2)
A2 3 Assessment of existing data on natural seismicity in the island of Ireland. This assessment should include an analysis of magnitude of natural earthquakes with regard to actual damage caused, including the potential to cause damage to the integrity of oil and gas wells, as well as the public perception of this (potential) damage.
Nearly Complete Awaiting finalisation of Interim Report A2.1 (Tasks 1 & 3)
14
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
A2 4 Assessment of the magnitude and physical effects of induced seismicity that may be associated with UGEE projects/operations in the island of Ireland (including hydraulic fracturing and re-injection). This will include a review of induced seismicity related to existing operations elsewhere in the world but will also assess the relationship between event magnitude and physical effects applicable to the geology of the case study areas in Ireland. The actual and perceived impacts of induced seismicity from potential UGEE projects/operations in the island of Ireland should be related back to the findings of Task 3 (i.e. assessment of existing data on natural seismicity).
Nearly Complete Awaiting finalisation of Interim Report A2.1 (Task 4)
A2 5 Preparation of a technical specification for a sub-regional baseline monitoring with appropriate conceptual model(s) that will be informed by the geological/seismological characteristics of the case study sites taking into consideration existing monitoring infrastructure and identify if, and where, additional monitoring stations are required relating back to the area-specific geological/seismological conceptual understanding.
Nearly Complete Awaiting finalisation of Interim Report A2.2 (Task 5)
A2 6 Some or all aspects of this task will be part of the Supplementary Tender referred to in Section 5.2: If additional monitoring points are required, the successful Framework operator will be asked to submit a supplementary tender for Task 4 a-f inclusive and will then be responsible for the whole procurement process for a sub-contract for the installation and commissioning of the additional monitoring points, in accordance with EU and National Procurement procedures. This sub contract will include but not be limited to:
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
15
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
A2 6a The preparation of all tender documentation for the sub-contract including the provision of specifications for monitoring installations, which shall be in line with best practice and to an appropriately high standard. The Steering Committee will review these specifications and may request amendments/clarifications (within 21 days). The technical specification shall outline the parameters which should be analysed, including the reasons for selection, test methods and required limits of detection.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A2 6b Tender evaluation, tender recommendations to Steering Committee and administration including the issue of sub-contract award documentation following approval (within 21 days) to award the contract from the Steering Committee.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A2 6c Management, supervision and administration of sub contract for the provision of additional monitoring points, as well as attendance upon the sub-contractor. This task will include ensuring that any additional monitoring points are installed to the agreed specification and with full hydrogeological supervision.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A2 6d The successful tenderer will be required to fulfil the role of Project Supervisor Design Process (PSDP) and/or designer under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2006 and Amendment Regulations 2008 to 2013 and will be required to ensure full compliance with these regulations.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A2 6e The successful tenderer will be required to prepare the Final Account for the sub-contract and to produce the Final Report on the provision of the additional monitoring points.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A2 6f The successful framework operator will also be responsible for negotiating with landowners to:
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
16
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
A2 6f i Obtain permissions to enter onto lands suitable for the installation of the additional monitoring points; and
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A2 6f ii Use and have access to the additional monitoring points as well as making any payments arising to land owners in respect of loses/inconvenience incurred by them as a result of the operation of monitoring points on their land.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A2 7 This task will be part of the Supplementary Tender referred to in Section 5.2: Seismic monitoring shall be undertaken for a minimum period of 12 months with provision for the on-going operation and maintenance of the network. Where appropriate, this shall use existing monitoring networks and points, and, if required, monitoring of correctly installed additional monitoring stations upon installation. Monitoring of potential existing monitoring points and any newly installed station(s) will require discussion with the Steering Committee, which may request clarifications/amendments (within 21 days). As the monitoring results are collated, the network and procedures should be reviewed in discussion with the Steering Committee.
Not Started – Supplementary Tender
A2 8 Examination of global experience of seismic events stimulated by or otherwise related to fracking and other UGEE projects/operations with assessment of likely impacts and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the geological context of the island of Ireland.
Ongoing
A2 9 Linking with Project B – Assessment of the success of pre-fracturing modelling techniques to predict the propagation (number and height) of fractures in the target horizon in order to predict induced seismicity and to predict the risk of fractures creating preferential pathways for pollutants.
Ongoing
17
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
A2 10 Assessment of what baseline monitoring could be undertaken by the state versus by the industry. This assessment should include co-ordination and quality assurance requirements, and make reference to best practice for other similar industrial activities on the island of Ireland and other EU countries.
Not started
A2 11 Ensure effective dissemination of the research findings in accordance with the overall dissemination plan of the Research Programme, which will be agreed with the Steering Committee.
Ongoing
A3 Review of existing air monitoring data including naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM).
Nearly Complete awaiting Final Reports 3 finalisation and & Summary Report 3 submission
A3 Review of requirements and experience of Air Baseline characterisation in countries where UGEE projects/operations have taken or are taking place.
Nearly Complete awaiting Final Reports 3 finalisation and & Summary Report 3 submission
A3 Identify and make recommendations for guidelines on the extent of Air baseline monitoring (frequency, location and types of pollutants to be covered) that needs to be carried out for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (i.e. on a project basis).
Nearly Complete awaiting Final Reports 3 finalisation and & Summary Report 3 submission
A3 Ensure effective dissemination of the research findings in accordance with the overall dissemination plan of the Research Programme, which will be agreed with the Steering Committee.
Ongoing awaiting Final Reports 3 finalisation and & Summary Report 3 submission
18
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
B 1 Water Impacts and Mitigation Measures: This task should examine the potential environmental impacts of UGEE projects/operations on groundwater and surface water bodies, including the potential migration of methane, chemicals and other contaminants, both from surface and subsurface sources. Findings should be informed by an objective assessment of the risks and hazards posed by UGEE projects/operations, supported by a literature review and experience from other jurisdictions. Mitigation measures to address water impacts (including but not limited to effluent management/treatment and well construction) should be critically reviewed and presented. This should include a review of the success of innovative developments within the industry to reduce water impacts.
Ongoing
B 2 An assessment of the direct (e.g. abstraction) and indirect impacts (e.g. drinking water, other receptors) of the use of local water sources for UGEE projects/operations and specifically, fracking. This should include a review of innovation within the industry to source water from existing industrial processes, such as cooling water, waste water treatment works effluent and innovation related to water-free fracking.
Ongoing
B 3 A comprehensive assessment should be conducted of experience with the level of use of recycled flowback water in UGEE projects/operations and the potential for increasing these levels. An assessment should be carried out of the scope for, and implications of, recycling the flowback water for reuse in further fracturing operations in the case study areas used for Project A1, the results of which will inform potential impacts to other locations.
Ongoing
19
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
B 4 Other Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures]: This task should employ similar approaches to Task-1 to examine impacts from UGEE projects/operations on other areas, which shall include, but are not be limited to human beings, flora & fauna (including farm & domestic animals), air, both local and global (i.e. CO2, including fugitive emissions) impacts, climatic factors, landscape, material assets, cultural heritage, as well as the interaction between these areas. Mitigation measures to address these potential impacts should be critically reviewed and presented.
Ongoing
B 5 Life-Cycle Assessment: A comprehensive assessment of the cumulative environmental impact of UGEE projects/operations should be conducted supported by a literature review and experience from other jurisdictions and compared with similar published assessments of other energy sources.
Ongoing
B 6 Chemicals: Typically, chemicals such as biocides and dyes, among others, are used in UGEE projects/operations. This work package should examine techniques in UGEE projects/operations, including evidence of chemicalfree UGEE projects/operations and the purposes of individual additives, to ascertain current and emerging practices in the context of avoidance of the use of additives that have the potential to harm the environment.
Ongoing
B 7 Identify and assess the success of treatment and disposal methods for flowback fluid identifying specific case studies from around the world, with specific reference to a European example. Linking with Task 6, identify the treatment technologies available to adequately treat typical chemicals, used in the process, in combination with likely constituents of produced water. Disposal options linked to the available treatment options should also be reviewed and assessed.
Ongoing
20
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
B 8 Linking with Projects A1, A2 and A3: Research into identifying best practice for environmental monitoring of potential impacts arising from individual UGEE projects/operations sites (including emissions monitoring, monitoring of mitigation measures effectiveness, and of impacts on the receiving environment).
Ongoing
B 9 Examination of validity and range of existing and potential monitoring and mitigation[6] techniques, to include but not be limited to geophysical techniques (down-hole and surface) for use in monitoring, control, horizon selection, and injection management.
Ongoing
B 10 Any other issues that become apparent in the course of the project and will contribute to the required knowledge base of this topic should be considered.
Ongoing
B 11 Ensure effective dissemination of the research findings in accordance with the overall dissemination plan of the Research Programme, which will be agreed with the Steering Committee.
Ongoing
C 1 An overview of the EU environmental legislation applicable to UGEE projects/operations. This should include environmental legislation that relates to all aspects of UGEE projects/operations from the planning to the cessation of activities, including aftercare requirements.
Nearly Complete
C 2 Detailed information on the regulatory approaches of other countries that have extensive experience with this activity. This should include where possible a review of case studies where UGEE projects/operations covered two jurisdictions (transboundary activities). A minimum of five countries (with at least two within the EU) should be examined including at least one country where a moratorium on unconventional gas exploration has been introduced.
Nearly Complete
21
Projects Tasks Description of Tasks (as per Terms of Reference)
Status (22/04/2015)
Related Interim Reports
C 3 The potential role of Health Impact Assessment in regulation of UGEE projects/operations should be considered based on the experience in other countries, and recommendations should be made towards developing a protocol in the island of Ireland context.
Ongoing
C 4 Best practice for UGEE projects/operations: This work package should examine all regulatory enforcement requirements and best operational practices for UGEE projects/operations, in relation to (but not limited to): water resources management, waste management, emissions control, risk quantification and management/minimisation, avoidance or mitigation of detrimental seismic events, use of chemicals, well construction, well and site remediation, air emissions management and residuals management, as well as financial provisions.
Ongoing
C 5 Public engagement: This work package should examine a minimum of five case studies of public engagement in UGEE projects/operations (or other similar projects) to identify best practices and recommend the most appropriate strategy in the island of Ireland context.
Not started
C 6 Any other issues that become apparent in the course of the project and will contribute to the required knowledge base of this topic should be considered.
Not started
C 7 Ensure effective dissemination of the research findings in accordance with the overall dissemination plan of the Research Programme, which will be agreed with the Steering Committee.
Ongoing
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/transportandcommunications/EPA-JOC-statement-10-June-2015-Fracking.pdf