A case of the blind leading the blind , there would be far more sense in getting the full information on fracking , the pros and cons , there’s plenty of info from New York and other US states who have debated the issue extensively , inform the public and then send a committee to find out the opinions , there is little doubt people are not fully aware or informed enough about fracking to be in a position to have anything other than a half informed talking shop at at the moment. Arse about face,

Why would the Oireachtas Transport Committee visit Leitrim to gauge the public’s views regarding fracking? The Environment Committee or Energy Committee I would understand but Transport???

About the only thing we have going for us is our most famous natural resource – unspoilt landscapes, clean air and waterways. Unfortunately our gov won’t think twice about jeopardising what we have to make a quick buck. There is no return from fracking. Miniature earthquakes,
Toxic sludge pits, (more) toxic chemicals in your water, air pollution.
NO TO FRACKING

The press are missing the big statement by EPA in that committee hearing.

The EPA will not oversee exploration of Shale Gas. In fact it was very unclear as to who would oversee and regulate Shale gas exploration.

Well said, Tom White. We have all the science on our side to ban fracking. The general public still seems oblivious to that though. Just a reminder – bans or moratoria in half of Europe – France, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, Austria, parts of Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, full ban in Vermont in the US, moratoria in New York and New Jersey, ban on the way in Québec. Now they ALL couldn’t be wrong, could they?

Oireachtas committee to visit Leitrimto discuss fracking… more like Oirechtas committee sent by Tamboran resources to convince people its ok to frack up your county.

its too dangerous leave it there till a New method of extraction is discovered seen a documentary a while ago about fracking in America countless towns and villages left with poisonous water, farm animals dying people getting sick. one bloke in it was able to turn on his tap hold a lighter to the water and it would go up in a flame we would be mad not to ban this.

In the New York Post, Phelim McAleer – co-producer/director of the forthcoming Frack Nation – relates the amusing story of how Matt Damon and co were driven to increasingly desperate measures to make their Promised Land movie look vaguely credible.

I broke the news that “Promised Land” was about fracking and now I can reveal that the script’s seen some very hasty rewriting because of real-world evidence that anti-fracking activists may be the true villains.

In courtroom after courtroom, it has been proved that anti-fracking activists have been guilty of fraud or misrepresentation.

There was Dimock, Pa. — the likely inspiration for “Promised Land,” which is also set in Pennsylvania. Dimock featured in countless news reports, with Hollywood celebrities even bringing water to 11 families who claimed fracking had destroyed their water and their lives.

But while “Promised Land” was in production, the story of Dimock collapsed. The state investigated and its scientists found nothing wrong. So the 11 families insisted EPA scientists investigate. They did — and much to the dismay of the environmental movement found the water was not contaminated.

There was Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers in Texas, a group that produced a frightening video of a flaming house water pipe and claimed a gas company had polluted the water. But a judge just found that the tape was an outright fraud — Wolf Eagle connected the house gas pipe to a hose and lit the water.

Other “pollution” cases collapsed in Wyoming and Colorado. Even Josh Fox, who with his Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland” first raised concerns about flammable water, has had to admit he withheld evidence that fracking was not responsible.

BTW, Gazprom is a major contributor to the anti-fracking “movement,” Curious.

NO TO FRACKING, IN THE WHOLE OF IRELAND

No frigging fracking!!

Water, water everywhere and ne’r a drop to drink.

sadly it is going to go ahead regardless of what anyone thinks I’m just happy the money is going to stay in Ireland and between this and oil off the west coast we will be out of recession and back on top….oh wait we don’t keep the money here forgot we were sold out

More licencing.

Hello and much love to all who oppose fracking. I worry about all our Sacred Springs in Ireland if our present government allow fracking to go ahead. My family and i and many of our friends have been using our Wells and Springs for generations to “draw” water for our homes, for drinking and cooking. In the Springs that have not been effected by dumping, bad farming practices and Chernobyl, the water is a pure, clean and a vital source of life for many thousands of people in this country. Fracking will POISON these Springs and render them useless for many generations to come, if not for all time. The Druids and then the Irish Saints used these Springs to heal and envibe people for thousands of years, so its high time the government, elected by the people started to listen to and stand up for the people of this fair Island and fight to preserve what is good and sacred instead of subscribing to greed and in the process destroying our lush green land and rendering it uninhabitable for our future generations. Please help to SAVE OUR SPRINGS. Very concerned citizen…………….

tell them to frack off theres enough mutants in leitrim without poisoning there water aswell

NIMBY even if it created a few jobs

Anyone who has based their opinion on fracking on the gaslands propoganda film is an idiot.

Fracking is a safe process that wont result in flaming tap water . Anyone opposing fracking seems to have 0 background in engineering or the petrochems industries.

Fracking toasters

Many new reports coming out at the moment that give some balance to the hysteria and scare mongering we hear from the ” Anti frackers” a new report has been published in NZ, and the British reports all available on line.

We are not going to burn in our beds, our animals are not going to die , the gas wells will not explode, and our houses will not fall down..clearer heads will make the decisions. we will have a natural gas industry and life will go on

Royal Society of London
Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing
The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing
(often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed
effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and
enforced through regulation. Hydraulic fracturing is an established technology that
has been used in the oil and gas industries for many decades. The UK has 60 years’
experience of regulating onshore and offshore oil and gas industries.
Concerns have been raised about the risk of fractures propagating from shale
formations to reach overlying aquifers. The available evidence indicates that this
risk is very low provided that shale gas extraction takes place at depths of many
hundreds of metres or several kilometres. Geological mechanisms constrain the
distances that fractures may propagate vertically. Even if communication with
overlying aquifers were possible, suitable pressure conditions would still be
necessary for contaminants to flow through fractures. More likely causes of possible
environmental contamination include faulty wells, and leaks and spills associated
with surface operations. Neither cause is unique to shale gas. Both are common to
all oil and gas wells and extractive activities.
Ensuring well integrity must remain the highest priority to prevent contamination.
The probability of well failure is low for a single well if it is designed, constructed
and abandoned according to best practice. The UK’s well examination scheme
was set up so that the design of offshore wells could be reviewed by independent,
specialist experts. This scheme must be made fit for purpose for onshore activities.
Effects of unforeseen leaks or spills can be mitigated by proper site construction
and impermeable lining. Disclosure of the constituents of fracturing fluid is already
mandatory in the UK. Ensuring, where possible, that chemical additives are nonhazardous
would help to mitigate the impact of any leak or spill.
Concerns have also been raised about seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing.
Natural seismicity in the UK is low by world standards. On average, the UK
experiences seismicity of magnitude 5 ML (felt by everyone nearby) every twenty
years, andof magnitude 4 ML (felt by many people) every three to four years. The
UK has lived with seismicity induced by coal mining activities or the settlement
of abandoned mines for a long time. British Geological Survey records indicate
that coal mining-related seismicity is generally of smaller magnitude than natural
seismicity and no larger than 4 ML. Seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing is
likely to be of even smaller magnitude. There is an emerging consensus that the
magnitude of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing would be no greater than
3 ML (felt by few people and resulting in negligible, if any, surface impacts). Recent
seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing in the UK was of magnitude 2.3 ML and
1.5 ML (unlikely to be felt by anyone). The risk of seismicity induced by hydraulic
fracturing can be reduced by traffic light monitoring systems that use real-time
seismic monitoring so that operators can respond promptly.