Re: Public Health England’s reply to editorial on its draft report on shale gas extraction
Harrison and Cosford have great confidence in best practices and regulation of shale gas development and state their conclusion as “a considered judgment, rather than a ‘leap of faith’” [1]. However, there is still a disconnect between the evidence they present and their conclusions. There are certain problems inherent in the technology that regulations and best practices will not alter. For example, concrete well casings leak at a high rate, leading to inevitable contamination of ground water and air [2,3]. Also, fugitive emissions occur at many points in the process [4,5] and a growing body of literature since our editorial suggests that methane emissions continue to be a problematic part of shale gas development [6,7]. The industry has every incentive to solve these problems since emissions of natural gas are profits lost, but have been unable to do so for decades.
The authors of both the Public Health England report and the joint review by the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering suggest that there is something special about the way the UK government will regulate the industry. Assertions of operational best practices and adequate regulations are nothing new. In fact, they have been made in nearly every US state that has developed its shale resources. Yet, in the US regulations and best practices have not been able to reduce risks down to acceptable levels. This confidence seems to us a fig leaf to mask the potential for harm to human health and the environment. As we stated in our editorial, the science of public health should concern itself with empirical evidence, not theoretical solutions.
The US experience should give the UK pause before rushing to exploit this resource when so many questions about the environmental and public health impacts of shale gas development remain. There has been a recent surge of research to address these questions and a better understanding is only beginning to emerge. As a recent report prepared for the Council of Canadian Academies seemed to understand [8], the more appropriate scientific response is to acknowledge the many uncertainties and recognize that more information is needed on the potential impacts that could result from this process. We find it preferable to allow this research to continue rather than draw premature conclusions about the low risk of shale gas development, especially when there is already so much evidence to the contrary.
1 Harrison J, Cosford P. Public Health England’s reply to editorial on its draft report on shale gas extraction. BMJ 2014;348:g3280–g3280. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3280
2 Davies RJ, Almond S, Ward RS, et al. Oil and gas wells and their integrity: Implications for shale and unconventional resource exploitation. Marine and Petroleum Geology Published Online First: 2014. doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.03.001
3 Watson T, Bachu S. Evaluation of the Potential for Gas and CO. SPE Drilling & Completion 2009;24. doi:10.2118/106817-PA
4 Jackson RB, Down A, Phillips NG, et al. Natural Gas Pipeline Leaks Across Washington, DC. Environ Sci Technol 2014;48:2051–8. doi:10.1021/es404474x
5 Brandt AR, Heath GA, Kort EA, et al. Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems. Science 2014;343:733–5. doi:10.1126/science.1247045
6 Pétron G, Karion A, Sweeney C, et al. A new look at methane and non-methane hydrocarbon emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the Colorado Denver-Julesburg Basin. J Geophys Res Atmos 2014;:2013JD021272. doi:10.1002/2013JD021272
7 Caulton DR, Shepson PB, Santoro RL, et al. Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development. PNAS 2014;:201316546. doi:10.1073/pnas.1316546111
8 Cherry J, Ben-Eli M, Bharadwaj L, et al. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada. 2014.http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx
Competing interests:
We have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare AL, JH, and SBS all have roles within Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE). This organisation’s mission is “to provide a multi-disciplinary approach to identifying reasonable, healthy, and sustainable energy options for everyone.” It works to “help empower citizens and policymakers by organizing and supplying objective, evidence-based information.” PSE did not receive any funding for the preparation of this manuscript. MLF has no competing financial interests to declare.
Rapid Response:
Re: Public Health England’s reply to editorial on its draft report on shale gas extraction
Harrison and Cosford have great confidence in best practices and regulation of shale gas development and state their conclusion as “a considered judgment, rather than a ‘leap of faith’” [1]. However, there is still a disconnect between the evidence they present and their conclusions. There are certain problems inherent in the technology that regulations and best practices will not alter. For example, concrete well casings leak at a high rate, leading to inevitable contamination of ground water and air [2,3]. Also, fugitive emissions occur at many points in the process [4,5] and a growing body of literature since our editorial suggests that methane emissions continue to be a problematic part of shale gas development [6,7]. The industry has every incentive to solve these problems since emissions of natural gas are profits lost, but have been unable to do so for decades.
The authors of both the Public Health England report and the joint review by the Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering suggest that there is something special about the way the UK government will regulate the industry. Assertions of operational best practices and adequate regulations are nothing new. In fact, they have been made in nearly every US state that has developed its shale resources. Yet, in the US regulations and best practices have not been able to reduce risks down to acceptable levels. This confidence seems to us a fig leaf to mask the potential for harm to human health and the environment. As we stated in our editorial, the science of public health should concern itself with empirical evidence, not theoretical solutions.
The US experience should give the UK pause before rushing to exploit this resource when so many questions about the environmental and public health impacts of shale gas development remain. There has been a recent surge of research to address these questions and a better understanding is only beginning to emerge. As a recent report prepared for the Council of Canadian Academies seemed to understand [8], the more appropriate scientific response is to acknowledge the many uncertainties and recognize that more information is needed on the potential impacts that could result from this process. We find it preferable to allow this research to continue rather than draw premature conclusions about the low risk of shale gas development, especially when there is already so much evidence to the contrary.
1 Harrison J, Cosford P. Public Health England’s reply to editorial on its draft report on shale gas extraction. BMJ 2014;348:g3280–g3280. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3280
2 Davies RJ, Almond S, Ward RS, et al. Oil and gas wells and their integrity: Implications for shale and unconventional resource exploitation. Marine and Petroleum Geology Published Online First: 2014. doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2014.03.001
3 Watson T, Bachu S. Evaluation of the Potential for Gas and CO. SPE Drilling & Completion 2009;24. doi:10.2118/106817-PA
4 Jackson RB, Down A, Phillips NG, et al. Natural Gas Pipeline Leaks Across Washington, DC. Environ Sci Technol 2014;48:2051–8. doi:10.1021/es404474x
5 Brandt AR, Heath GA, Kort EA, et al. Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems. Science 2014;343:733–5. doi:10.1126/science.1247045
6 Pétron G, Karion A, Sweeney C, et al. A new look at methane and non-methane hydrocarbon emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the Colorado Denver-Julesburg Basin. J Geophys Res Atmos 2014;:2013JD021272. doi:10.1002/2013JD021272
7 Caulton DR, Shepson PB, Santoro RL, et al. Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development. PNAS 2014;:201316546. doi:10.1073/pnas.1316546111
8 Cherry J, Ben-Eli M, Bharadwaj L, et al. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada. 2014.http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/shale-gas.aspx
Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare AL, JH, and SBS all have roles within Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE). This organisation’s mission is “to provide a multi-disciplinary approach to identifying reasonable, healthy, and sustainable energy options for everyone.” It works to “help empower citizens and policymakers by organizing and supplying objective, evidence-based information.” PSE did not receive any funding for the preparation of this manuscript. MLF has no competing financial interests to declare.