"Green" policies are destroying this country

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119018469#Comment_119018469

Gript is not a credible source and Tom McGuirk has not researched his article properly

The 1300 figure relates to PM2.5 pollution which, in Ireland, where WHO guidelines are exceeded, the cause was found to be mostly solid fuel heating. Some of this is coal, some is wood, and some is Turf.

Turf is much less energy efficient compared with Coal, much more turf needs to be burnt, releasing much more PM2.5 and Much more CO2 for the same amount of heat as Coal, And Peat is much more valuable as a carbon sink and a habitat than it is as a fuel.

Where do they back up the claim that deaths from poor air quality has fallen?.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119018668#Comment_119018668

Any idea why several investors have walked away from Barryroe over the last decade?

SlowBlowin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019207#Comment_119019207

That is so funny, you cant even get the authors name right when blaming him for bad research, ironic !

Before you go on to tell me how much better coal is compared to peat, why not answer my post (many many pages back now) where I went into the detail of including the mining emissions, the marine transport emissions, and the legacy methane and co2 emissions from the coal mine which last 100s of years. Much like the iron battery, you went quiet when confronted with the facts, don't expect me to answer the same questions over and over again.

Mecanudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019207#Comment_119019207

The 1300 figure relates to PM2.5 pollution which, in Ireland, where WHO guidelines are exceeded, the cause was found to be mostly solid fuel heating. Some of this is coal, some is wood, and some is Turf.

Absolute baldercrocks.

The EPAs own scientific research undertaken in Dublin (Ireland's mostly densely urbanised area) shows that the burning of fossil fuels was responsible for between 46-50% of particulate pollution sampled. The remainder was from vehicular exhausts and other sources.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.epa.ie/publications/research/climate-change/Research_Report_367.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjqtdWjwMj3AhXNasAKHTnXAKAQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3dhXUa1Kj9dH83yz8OTv-C

SlowBlowin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019502#Comment_119019502

Don't know about you but I am done repeating myself, and doing the research when people wont even read or acknowledge the facts presented. Its this type of dogmatic behaviour that is destroying support for the green party policies.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119018668#Comment_119018668

I tried to verify these figures but I cannot find any official statistics on 2021's energy mix for electricity generation in Ireland

The statistics are up until 2020 with Eirgrid set to release their report for 2021 in Q2 2022

If you can find a source for the data please let me know

However, from the SEAI website there are these statistics

And on the exact same page a little further down is this

So what I think may be happening, is that Gas networks Ireland (who put out the press release that the Farmers Journal copied from without bothering to source it) may have mixed up their statistics a bit and compared some apples with some oranges

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019392#Comment_119019392

John not Tom, sorry, I got his name wrong.

If the question was unanswered many many pages ago, there's a very good chance I never saw it and am not too inclined to wade through many many pages of this thread to try and dig them out again. If you have a link to the comment I'll respond to those questions.

BTW, I wasn't saying how good Coal is, I was comparing Turf to Coal to point out how bad Turf is. Its dirtier and less energy dense and its better to leave it as peat than to dig it up and burn it.

And one of McGuirks points was that deaths from air pollution have gone down while turf has also declined in popularity, but he never provided any source for this claim. I don't think he has one either. Do you happen to have one?

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019502#Comment_119019502

Baldercrocks?

Thats a new one

Anyway, the EPA released a report specifically looking into this very matter

In the places where PM2.5 pollution is a problem, Solid fuel fires are by far the dominant sources of this pollution.

https://www.epa.ie/publications/research/air/Research_Report_318.pdf

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019199#Comment_119019199

Nobody is moving any goalposts. Where did anyone say this policy was to bring ireland into compliance with the EU minimum standards.

The proposals are because even meeting those standards, we still have a significant air quality problem where these fuels are used to heat houses.

The fact that WHO guidelines are regularly exceeded is used to support this argument

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019340#Comment_119019340

The lack of a licence being granted is hardly going to encourage investors, and right now that is Ryan`s fault.

Considering our present situation with such reliance on an ensecure gas supply, and the fact that granting a licence would not cost the state a red cent, that is completely inexcusable. Especially after him granting licences for gold and silver exploration.

SlowBlowin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019678#Comment_119019678

OK, thanks for asking. I researched this because of the many comparisons between turf and coal on this thread. These are made blindly, just taking into account the emissions figures between the fuels. It became obvious to me, looking at the numbers, especially the 100 year emissions of the mines themselves as the exposed coal faces oxidise, that turf is getting a poor press as it seems nobody is taking these demonstrably true facts into account. It is cleaner than the coal we import.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118938324#Comment_118938324

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019879#Comment_119019879

Sorry that doesn't explain it given that the barryroe reserves are known about since the 1970's. There have already been several additional scoping works and licences issued to develop the area, none of which have led to any development

A total of five wells have been drilled to appraise the Barryroe field. Esso Corporation drilled two wells in 1973 and 1974, which tested oil. The first well, 48/24-1, flowed oil from the Middle Wealden sands at the rate of 1,300 barrels of oil a day (bopd), while the second well, 48/28-1, flowed at 1,527bopd.

A third well, 48/24-3, drilled by Marathon in 1990 tested oil from Lower Wealden sands flowing at the rate of 1,619bopd.

Providence Resources drilled the 48/24-10 well using the GSF Arctic III semi-submersible rig following the acquisition of extensive 3D seismic data in 2011. The well flowed at the rate of 3,500bopd with 43° API oil with a wax content between 17% and 20%.

https://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/barryroe-oil-field-north-celtic-sea-basin/

In addition, providence had a deal fall through due to financing as recently as Oct 2021 despite doing another survey. Note this is also after a Chinese group pulled out as well.

https://www.oedigital.com/news/491570-providence-resources-starts-barryroe-site-survey

The CEO then stepped down and they decided to try work out funding themselves. However, given their limited cash reserves, its more likely that Providence will end up going bankrupt than actually developing Barryroe.

As for Ryan holding anything up, all that is being asked for is that any application include information on the companies who will actually be onsite doing the work. This is a fair question and the very lowest bar in terms of due diligence given the potential for catastrophic ecological damage should some cowboys come in to do the extraction. That Providence do not seem able to provide this information speaks literal volumes and again, is a massive red flag.

This is basic due diligence and should not be a major impediment to any serious operator. That it is such an impediment for Providence doesn't fill me with any confidence as to their abilities or competence.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019619#Comment_119019619

The SEAI published their Interim Energy Balance report yesterday. Perhaps had you spent less time attempting to disparage the Farmers Journal you would have found it.

https://www.seai.ie/news-and-media/interim-energy-balance-20/

Some of the highlights :

Energy Supply: 11.8% of Ireland`s energy supply came from renewables, down from 13.3% in 2020

Renewable Energy : Wind energy and hydro energy output were down by 15.8% and 19.6% respectively.

Electricity : The renewable energy share of electricity generation fell to 35% (down from 42% in 2020)

opinionated3

Is the incoming hard hitting recession going to impact these green policies even worse? Surely people will be saving/ holding on to whatever money they have for the foreseeable future, meaning the "spare" cash they may have will not now be spent on insulation, heat pumps etc? They certainly won't be rushing out to get a loan from one of the financial institutions to retrofit their homes......

firminjo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058211251/green-policies-are-destroying-this-country

Agreed

Mecanudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019778#Comment_119019778

Yes I've read that report as well. You do realise that just three sites were sampled in that report yes?

What that report and the other report I linked to, go to show is that there is considerable spatial and temporal variation in P2.5 particulate emissions and that the sources of those particulates also varies considerably.

The report you linked to above set specific criteria for each of three urban areas sampled - which skewed their findings specifically to areas more dependent on fossil fuels other than natural gas and smokeless coal.

So it is incorrect to try and claim that for the country overall - most or all of the P2.5 particulates come from fossil fuel burning - where the differences between that study and the other study I linked, show that there is evident widespread variation in the source of P2.5 emission sources.

Therefore it does not stand up that "In the places where PM2.5 pollution is a problem, Solid fuel fires are by far the dominant sources of this pollution."

The only thing you can conclude from that study of the three urban areas sampled, which are not in smokeless coal zones and do not have natural gas - is that solid fuel fires at certain times of the day were responsible for elevated levels of P2.5.

And that's not the same thing at all.

Mecanudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019816#Comment_119019816

Well it's certainly implied where you said

"That figure is perfectly legitimate to use when supporting a policy aimed at reducing PM 2.5 pollution"

And when it was shown that Ireland had no Exceedences of annual EU air quality standards for P2.5 - as per the most recent EEA Air Quality Report - you dived off into how WHO standards were more stringent etc.

The whole notion of Mr Ryans rantings about fossil fuel and air quality and then throwing turf into the mix amounts to pure and unadulterated scaremongering which more than tries to suggest that our air quality Standards are somehow abysmal and warrent immediate cessation of the burning of turf specifically. When the EEA Air Quality standards show otherwise.

That WHO guidelines on just about everything and the kitchen sink are more stringent that the EU guidelines is a question for whole another discussion.

Banana Republic 1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119013688#Comment_119013688

This coming from the Barron Von Spoofingtom. 🙄

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019952#Comment_119019952

I have asked this so many times off you that you are making Ryan`s stonewalling look like childsplay.

What difference should it make to Ryan if Providence Resources, or anyone else, has a viable gas find on their hands or not as regards Barryroe and issuing a licence.? Nobody is asking the state to fund anything to do with Barryroe.

I have also pointed out that nobody is going to commit to drilling or extraction without their being a licence issued, so no way of knowing who is going to be on site until one is issued. A catch 22 that I believe Ryan is well aware of.

Seeing as he has refused to meet anyone connected with Barryroe, then to ask these due diligence question how were they communicated to the company, and with you being so certain they were, perhaps you can post them up here. If you could do the same for the company that received exploration licences for gold and silver from Ryan their reply, especially who is going to be on site, that would be great.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020408#Comment_119020408

Spoofing that you do not have a clue on the marginal pricing policy ?

No need for anyone to spoof on that. You have more than demonstrated that yourself.

Mecanudo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019952#Comment_119019952

So basically your comment is yet another hatchet job on the company responsible for the Barryroe oil and gas field. Well that's hardly surprising is it.

Let me ask how many of the companies involved in the Renewable energy sector have you queried or looked into their investors or funding? Especially those companies who have been responsible for significant environmental damage to sensitive habitats such as blanket bog in Donegal and in other counties?

As for this.

"As for Ryan holding anything up, all that is being asked for is that any application include information on the companies who will actually be onsite doing the work. This is a fair question and the very lowest bar in terms of due diligence given the potential for catastrophic ecological damage should some cowboys come in to do the extraction. That Providence do not seem able to provide this information speaks literal volumes and again, is a massive red flag."

Complete and utter unmitigated rubbish. No where has any statement been made to explain Mr Ryan's reported stonewalling of the company involved. In fact the same company is on record having written to Mr Ryan and his department several times and receiving no reply whatsoever. So unless you can share some deep insider information from Mr Ryans department - then what's written there is nothing more than bs.

I also see you're now ranting about "due diligence" and "catastrophic ecological damage"!

Sorry just for a small moment there I thought broken was back. First of all - all commercial oil and gas exploration undertakings must go through a detailed application and assessment process for ecological and environmental impacts. Something you're evidently not aware of.

The thing is none of your whinging on about the company so far in this thread, in anyway has any relevance to the fact that the company is looking to move to the next phase of assessment, with an extraction date commensurate with that.

And yet you continue with more of the same. What gives?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020454#Comment_119020454

What difference should it make to Ryan if Providence Resources, or anyone else, has a viable gas find on their hands or not as regards Barryroe and issuing a licence.?

Doesn't a blind of difference whether they have a viable find or not. What makes a difference is the safe extraction of that find by a competent operator.

I have also pointed out that nobody is going to commit to drilling or extraction without their being a licence issued, so no way of knowing who is going to be on site until one is issued. A catch 22 that I believe Ryan is well aware of.

Again, sorry, but history says otherwise. Barryroe's last licence expired in 2018 I believe and they had 2 potential investors since then, APEC & SpotOn Energy both fall through. Its also important to note, both of these fell through prior to there being the additional requirement from the Dept, so the new requirement being a blockage does not stack up.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020529#Comment_119020529

So what are these additional requirements that have been communicated to Providence, and assuming they were also communicated to the company that Ryan granted licences to for gold and silver, what was their response and what was the result of Ryan`s due diligence as regards who they have said they will have on site.

Yet again, no company is going to commit to extraction on Barryroe without a license being issued. But at least you have given up on it being any concern of the state on funding, as nobody is asking the state for any.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020584#Comment_119020584

Err. I never had any concern over state funding of Barryroe, not sure where thats coming from. Maybe I mis-spoke or something to give you that idea, but its a private venture so the state has nothing to do with it in terms of cost.

So what are these additional requirements

Here you go.

https://assets.gov.ie/77796/965e4661-8bde-4f9b-8bce-464c80611981.pdf

If you have a read through this document what you will find is that it actually sets out to manage the risk to the state from exploration activities, so that the state is not negatively impacted in any way. Something I just realised, the requirements actually pre-date Ryan and go back to 2019, so would have been put together under the stewardship of Denis Naughten/Richard Bruton.

In considering an application the Minister will take the following into account having regard to the authorisation applied for:

• The work programme proposed by the applicant

• The technical competence and offshore experience of the applicant

• The financial resources available to the applicant;

• The applicant’s policy to health, safety and the environment 4

• Where relevant, previous performance by the applicant under any authorisations to which the applicant has been a party.’

Also, as to why its being done

The Department considers that it is important to understand the Applicant’s financial capability with the view to being able to make a judgement as to the likelihood that the Applicant has the necessary financial resources to meet its Financial Commitments as set out within the Work Programme(s). This Guidance is designed to ensure that the financial capability appraisal performed by the Department is:

a) Robust, to ensure the State adequately addresses its risk

b) Proportionate, to the risk presented to the State by the Applicant and its Work Programme

c) Transparent, regarding the requirements of the Applicant

d) Efficient, with information requirements being clear to the Applicant at the outset

Its possible investors are running a mile because of 3.9 & 3.10 as they may not want to open themselves up to scrutiny if they are not up to scratch.

3.9 Reliance on another entity

An Applicant may, in order to prove its financial capability, rely on the resources of entities or undertakings with which it is directly or indirectly linked (the “Supporting Entity”). In such a scenario the Supporting Entity and not the Applicant will be subject to the financial capability assessment. Section 3.9 sets out additional requirements in relation to a Supporting Entity. This support does not negate the need for all Applicants to provide the necessary documentation upfront as part of its original application.

3.10 Consortiums

In the case where an authorisation has been submitted by a consortium consisting of multiple parties, each party whose resources are being relied upon will be deemed an Applicant. As a result, each consortium member whose resources are being relied upon will be required to provide the information outlined in Section 4 of this Guidance. Each consortium member will be assessed based upon its financial capacity in relation to its proportion of the Work Programme(s). Where one member of the Consortium may be challenged to evidence its financial capability the Department may request that each Applicant, as part of the consortium, agrees to be joint and severally liable to fulfil the Financial Commitments under an Authorisation and demonstrate how the Consortium will contract joint and several liability in a robust manner. Alternatively, a Guarantee from a suitable Supporting Entity may suffice as outlined in Section 3.9.

It should also be noted that while the Dept is no longer accepting new applications for exploration licences for natural gas or oil, nor will there be any future licensing rounds, if Providence had an application in works then they just have to wait for it to be processed. So long as they meet the relevant criteria they will get their licence and can lash ahead.

One last thing I want to add, these requirements, the financial and technicial evidence that must be provided before granting of licenses, they are not just for oil & gas. The same, if not more stringent set of requirements also applies under the recently announced MAC (Maritime Area Consent) process for the likes of the offshore wind developers. So, if Providence turned around in the morning and decided to build an offshore windfarm, they would still have to meet the same level, if not higher, of requirements.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/fab8f-maritime-area-consent-mac/

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020407#Comment_119020407

That would be the same WHO that appointed Johan Giesecke, (the architect of Sweden`s let it rip policy on Covid 19 on the basis that the virus was harmless and everyone in Sweden would have immunity from further infection within a matter of weeks), as special advisor to their director general on pandemic response.

Who would not take what they say after that appointment as gospel 😲

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119019912#Comment_119019912

Cutting turf by hand is by far the exception rather the rule these days. Most of the turf is cut by machines even when it's non commercial. I'll accept argument that hand cut turf is much more sustainable than coal, but using a hopper or Sausage to cut the turf does a lot of damage to the bog that can cause it to dry out and then it can no longer 'heal' or regenerate. Instead it begins to release the stored carbon as the dry soil begins to oxidise

Coal mines are awful for the environment but strip mining bogs is just as bad minus the transportation costs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020806#Comment_119020806

Its a distinction over which crap is crappier when they're both crap

In other news, briquettes may not make the cut and could be banned from Sept along with the other polluting fuels if they can't be shown to be clean enough to pass the requirements

https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0505/1296333-peat-briquettes/

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020347#Comment_119020347

Nobody claimed that most of the pm2.5 in Ireland comes from solid fuel burning.

The claim is that solid fuel burning is emitting the PM2.5 that is responsible for the premature deaths that Ryan is referring to.

Do you see what you're doing? You're pointing at the places that don't burn turf and where there are bans on smokey coal and saying 'there's no PM2.5 problem here'.

And then dismissing the places where turf is burnt a lot, leading to significantly more PM2.5 pollution, and saying they're not representative of the entire country.

The whole point is that the places that burn the most turf and coal and wood, suffer the most from PM2.5 and these are the people who are most likely to get sick or die prematurely due to this exposure

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020693#Comment_119020693

It comes across as nothing more than Ryan sitting on his hands doing nothing other than throwing regulations at a company hoping they go away that could actually help with our supply of gas and leave us in E.U compliance. Something from the SEAI report for 2021 highlighting just how unreliable renewables are we are going to need for a long time to come.

I notice no mention of windfarms on shore in your reply. Would that have anything to do with the state being fined 15.000 euro a day by the E.U. on Derrybrien. A figure that had reached 17 million by February ? Or why if all those due diligence exercises were carried out there was another major windfarm bog slide in Meenbog in Donegal just 18 months ago and is the state now on the hook for that as well ?

It looks like due diligence is a bit of a movable feast for some.

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119020806#Comment_119020806

You should mention that to the Germans that the Irish greens have been telling us for years we should be striving to emulate. They have gone back to, not just coal, but to strip mining coal.