Sir, – I was glad to see your article on hydraulic fracturing (Home News, December 12th).
To clarify the point regarding divided opinion, I think the fact that Roscommon and Leitrim councils have unanimously voted against fracking, as well as the town councils of Bundoran and Donegal, the only councils to have voted so far, throws some weight in favour of the numbers opposed. And Dublin is planning to pipe Shannon water in, so the potential contamination will reach households and hospitals there.
Is it clean energy? Studies show that (unlike conventional natural gas) shale gas, in its extraction and processing, has so much embedded energy that it is worse than coal in emissions.
In terms of jobs at risk, Government figures show in excess of 320,000 employed in agriculture and tourism, not counting the wider food industry, all mainly locally/family-owned industries. We rightly pay An Bord Bia and Fáilte Ireland millions to continue promoting this country as a clean and safe environment for growing food and for tourists to visit in their millions. Why put all that at risk?
The Minister for Agriculture recently said we hope to increase our share of the world market in baby formula from the present 16 per cent to 25 per cent. Today I spoke with a full-time dairy farmer in Wexford who, although he is well outside the threatened areas, fears the reputation of the industry nationally will be tarnished by any fracking activity.
We should also be putting some thought into food security, a growing concern world-wide.
A claim has been made that shale gas might provide up to 20 per cent of our energy needs. Given the health and economic risks attached, I would suggest we would be better off investing in energy conservation – it can be argued we waste at least 20 per cent of the energy we buy. And given the likely threat to employment in the above environment-dependent industries, there could be a consequent drop in energy demand at least equalling any energy gained. Personally I see hydraulic fracturing in this country as utterly pointless, and could be characterised as Russian roulette with at least four bullets in the gun. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Your page on fracking (Home News, December 12th) is dominated by a graphic which portrays the fracking process as clean, green and low impact. This could leave your readers with the impression that it is a low-key affair that does not have any impact on the surrounding landscape.
The truth is quite the opposite: each well requires between one and seven million gallons of fresh water per frack, and conservative estimates show each well may be fracked 10/12 times. This huge amount of fresh water will have to be taken from the same sources as our drinking water, putting incredible pressure on already stretched resources.
This leads us to another question, Where does this water go afterwards? While much of the water and chemical mixture stays below ground, with the potential to pollute our ground water, most of it comes back up to the surface in the form of a toxic brew full of hazardous chemicals and volatile organic compounds. This sludge has to be stored and disposed of, and much of the land take required for fracking a well is in the shape of these highly toxic settling ponds, which are missing from your graphic showing the process.
There is also mention of landowners receiving welcome income from the exploration companies. The very nature of “fracking” means that while one farmer may receive income from the company, the impacts of the process would be felt by many of his neighbours who are not in receipt of any income and may live a considerable distance away. This would lead to the fracturing of local communities as well as the destruction of our internationally recognised clean, green food production industry.
Natural gas is perceived as a clean energy, however the recovery of natural gas in this manner is far from clean, leaving many unanswered questions as to the long-term effects on the landscape and the communities involved.
Even in the US, where it is a relatively mainstream process it is only viable due to laws passed by President George Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney allowing “fracking” to be exempt from clean air and water legislation. – Yours, etc,