Community concerns over unconventional gas (shale and coal seam) mining in Australia are increasing. These concerns relate to water and air pollution, land usage, fugitive emissions and to inadequate assessment and regulation. The environmental impacts have potentially serious human health consequences.
In 2010, Doctors for the Environment Australia first raised concerns about the potential health impacts of coal seam gas mining in Australia. We subsequently detailed these concerns in a submission to the Senate and to the NSW Parliament.
Professor Paul Stevens, energy expert at Chatham House, provides an independent view on this issue. He reviewed CSG in 2010; in 2012 he noted that disappointing outcomes had reduced the hype.
What could go wrong for public health?
Coal seam gas trapped in coal seams is the predominant form of unconventional gas in NSW and Queensland. Shale gas is trapped in shale formations; this is the predominant form in the US, and in Australia it has been located in the Cooper Basin in Central Australia. Proponents of coal seam gas mining often seek to draw distinctions from shale gas mining in order to play down the adverse impacts of shale mining reported in the US. In fact the public health concerns exist to varying degree with both forms of mining.
The fundamental public health issue is the potential for water contamination by chemicals which could seriously affect human health decades after exposure. Health impacts may arise from the use of fracking chemicals or from the release of hydrocarbons and other contaminants from the coal seams.
Pollutants – particularly volatile organic compounds – may be released into the air at the well head. In the United States, control measures determined by the US EPA in response to elevated levels of pollutants measured in several gas fields will be phased in by January 2015 In Tara, Queensland, it seems possible that the high recorded levels of fugitive methane may also reflect the presence of pollutants which are causing illness in local communities – similar symptoms are under investigation by the USEPA.
Public health experience indicates that in a range of environmental contamination issues prevention is the mainstay to protection. Think of lead or asbestos for example; adequate assessment and regulation are key measures.
The debate has failed to focus on these important issues because industry has placed the onus of proof of contamination on exposed communities. It has refused on many occasions to disclose what chemicals are actually used in fracking, and has circulated information inaccurately suggesting the procedure uses only benign substances.
Australia’s regulatory failures
Australia should have learned from the US 2005 Energy Act, which excluded fracking from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Act. This clause – which has become known as the “Cheney-Halliburton loophole” – meant that many shale gas operations began without a proper environmental impact assessment. Because they had no measurement of the “baseline”, they could not be properly assessed after the event either.
In Australia, baseline studies on aquifer water and air quality have not been done before CSG mining development. This is a failure of regulation in states.
The second and related failure is in chemical assessment of fracking chemicals by the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. Some assessment of chemicals is taking place after their widespread use and there is no national uniform means of imposing regulation. Assessment is just beginning, may take years, and there is no uniform requirement for disclosure. This is federal failure.
The third failure resides in the disparate and inadequate assessments in all states apart from SA, which has not yet completed its regulatory review. Despite potential environmental and health impacts, proper processes have been avoided by most states. A recent example of how the states should be made aware of the potential health issues is provided by the report from the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the province of New Brunswick in Canada, which details what every operator and regulator should know about the public health aspects of unconventional gas mining.
The Federal Government must take the lead
The fourth failure is that of the Federal Government, which should seek mechanisms to impose order and safety on the states. The tenuous access to Commonwealth regulation was to be through the EPBC Act via regulation of water. An Expert Committee has been formed to advise on the scientific aspects of CSG mining, but on track record, its advice is unlikely to be taken by the states. Other federal mechanisms will need to be sought.
However, it raises the vital question as to why the Federal Government under COAG proposals is likely to hand more environmental and therefore health regulation to the states.
Many health concerns could be allayed by tight regulation of mining technology, pre-emptive water analysis, monitoring for both water contamination and health impacts. Indeed it would be in the interests of industry to welcome such measures and promote them instead of spending large sums reassuring the public.
Finally what about regulation of the biggest potential health impact? The International Energy Agency has expressed concern about gas replacing renewable energy sources. This would delay any chance of early curtailment of greenhouse emissions. Climate change is accepted as a huge threat to health world wide.
In 2012, unconventional gas mining is expanding rapidly. Billions of dollars are being invested without adequate research, regulation and public health surveillance. We are trusting that the lucky country will get away with it. And as with coal the externality costs with be foisted onto to the public purse.
John Newlands
tree changer
From a human health perspective some methane can't be too bad as it is is produced in our guts and wafts up our noses. Mostly methane gas be it nat gas, coal seam, shale, biogas or synthetic 'wind gas' is both a substitute and a complement to wind and solar energy. Normally fast acting gas fired generators pick up the slack when there are lulls in these other sources. If we had no gas then wind and solar will become less viable without some way of storing energy. Some consider gas or other on…
Read morealigatorhardt
logged in via Twitter
Whether gas production is " affordable " or not is irrelevant to the presence of adverse health effects. Pre-testing of water supplies would provide a way to eliminate false claims of health damages from the drilling activity. I doubt the water test would be so expensive as to render the project unprofitable.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
no resource company wants to establish base line data, they know the damage it causes and don't want to be legally held responsible. Same thing for governments. As long as they can say they believed industry data, they also get let off the hook.
Sadly, by the time the real damage is done, these people have made their millions and moved on. Once again, it's the public that bears the costs.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert, you are not holding any facts in your comments, only innuendo.
This base lining was going on by the energy companies long before it became a legislative requirement in QLD. Please check you facts.
Best to do some real research instead of paraphrasing anti carbon based energy types.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
Peter, every one is entitled to their opinion. My observations of the real world support my perspective.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
I suppose the crux of the matter is that do they make the base line data publicly available, or do they keep it to themselves under commercial in confidence?
If it is full open disclosure to the public then all well and good, if something goes wrong, everyone knows where they are. If it is retained and not made available to people who have experienced negative impacts through any changes, then it makes it all too easy to say "we aren't responsible, prove it".
Point in case, the Condamine River.
Also, not every operator does the right thing. Can you say with conviction that they all do?
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert, an opinion is often coloured with bias, you can find the data if you look at govt sites, it is truly being collected. This is a fact not an opinion.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert was just making the fact clear vs opinion that the data is being collected, and before legislative requirements, the govt see it all, as well as many other interested parties.
Not sure what you mean about the conaamine, but if you refer to bubbles, this was documented int his same area by QLD State govt journals, years before CSG was dreanmt Media doesnt make money on good news, but by Creating intrigue..
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
i can grant that they may now be collecting the data, but that has not always been the case. Sadly, too often the lack of baseline data have been argued by operators after pollution incidents have occured to avoid taking responsibililty or casting doubt on the source of the pollution to avoid such responsibility.
And I say again, not every operator does the right thing. Eastern Star Gas is a Classic example of this.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert, well at last we got to the crux of your issue, if you read your first post to the one above, you go from painting ALL companies and the GOVT with a bad rap, to pointing out just one outfit
Dont know about NSW, except the industry there is in its infancy, with small companies, and little resources. QLD has done it smarter with using larger companies and plenty of technical resources.
I believe that outfit you mention were not part of a bigger company when the issues occurred..
NSW will have energy shorthages in the future, they need to get their act together.
Martin Nicholson
Energy researcher and author
David Shearman, wouldn't many of these concerns also relate to conventional gas drilling which has been done for many decades? If not could you explain the fundamental differences that make one hazardous and the other apparently relatively safe?
David Shearman
Emeritus Professor of Medicine at University of Adelaide
Dear Martin
I am not a geologist so my understanding of the principles involved depends on others. Essentially conventional gas is tapped from a reservoir of methane and some oil, unconventional gas involves purging coal or shale seams under pressure whereby many compounds may be released that may have biological effects. It may be that some such toxics are contained in conventional gas but there is much less opportunity for them to be released into ground water and the air breathed by communities.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
conventional gas forms in pockets in earths strata layers. Unconventional gas is gas molecules that are bonded to coal seams, usually in and amongst aquifers and require the rock to be shattered to release the gas in commercial volumes.
both are hazardous.
the main concerns arise with CSG when companies mine through aquifers, amongst residential areas, productive agricultural land and important remnant environments.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert where are you finding this mis information. Rocks / coals are not shattered to release the gas? Many flow as is.. there is no shattering going on. If you are trying to hint at fracturing, your understanding is incorrect, in fact shattering of the coals will cause loss of production?
Unconventional gas is an over abused term, and relates to many forms of gas, just not CSG forms of gas.
You other understanding of conventional gas is somewhat incorrect.
Some of QLDs largest "conventional HC reserves" come from one of the braodest Aquifers spreading accross QLD, as part of the GAB, in fact many farms take water from this aquifer as well
Mining is a very incorrect terminology, and conjures up false images in peoples minds.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
David, please give a little more detail on your last line, do you realize that one of the broadest aquifers in QLD of the GAB, is also one the major conventional HC producers in the state. As a DR you would have studied physics and chemistry, please try to explain how these can travel thru aquifers to communities, firstly they would need to go against basic physics and pressure, and combine this with your knowledge on chemistry, toxiicity and fate etc..to support your sentence.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
Peter, fracturing allows the gas to flow in commercial volumes, without which it would be unviable. underground fracturing (shattering) is an imprecise art, best guesses, but no guarantees.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert, I have a reasonable understanding of fracturing. Shattering as you say is so deviated from the facts, shattering coals is an ideal way to stop the coals from producing to a well.
Many CSG plays have significant natural fracture zones, which allow the fluids gas and water to move more easily, hence
fracturing is not required on a significant portion of the wells in QLD.
Do you realize the fracturing is also used in Australia on every geothermal well.
After 2 million frac jobs in the world and many in Australia since 1960, to call it an imprecise art is condescending to the amount of engineering, geology, hyrdogeology and geomechanic proefessionals that are involved to design a frac. . .
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
which all amounts to an educated guess.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert good luck, looks like you created another smoke screen with an opinion, and a rant. If you are keen to understand a little more on a factual basis, vs hype, let me know. Cheers
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
Good luck to you too Peter. I came to th conclusion that we would not see eye to eye so gave up, have a good one
Andy Saunders
Consultant
Dr Shearman, I don't know much about medecine, but I do know a few things about gas. I try not to comment on medical matters, but I believe that your article is significantly biased in several ways regarding gas. Actually many ways, I won't have time or space to address all of them, so just a selection follows.
The reason that gas-industry experts differentiate coal-seam gas and shale gas is because they are very different. In a medical context, cancers vary widely (I think) - perhaps that is…
Read moreDavid Shearman
Emeritus Professor of Medicine at University of Adelaide
Andy
I think you are reading into my article many wrong impressions
I quote Stevens because I think he presents a balanced view! I have read his papers and have been to his talks and there is little doubt that his concerns have increased
Your point on benign substances is correct, I submitted two references to the editor and had not noticed the wrong one used, but the industry use of harmless or benign substances is frequent and you can find it yourself in the literature.
The role of public health is to define risks to human health and provide preventative measures. The risks from different forms of gas may vary quantitatively but are probably the same qualitatively
Comment removed by moderator.
Bruce Tabor
Research Scientist at CSIRO
Peter,
David Shearman has presented a thoughtful, balanced article. Your response is little more than an ad hominem attack and baseless assertions, that don't engage with any of the substantive issues.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Bruce,, the article is not balanced, Prof has only cut and pasted others words. And not shown any new information or value to the discussion. If one is going to cut and paste, best to check sources are relevant, and specific to the region and issues. It is easy to tell , that there has been no indepth review prior to writing this by himself, except a quick browse on the internet to see what has been in the media highlights. This issue of accuracy in online news webs like this , that there is much less requirement for regulation than in other media formats. At least there is significant regulation and oversight in the CSG industry in QLD, it is also pretty clear Prof has not had dialogue with CSG companies as well..I am all for research and independant thought and activity, but not rehashing of old news, to keep the flame burning...
Bernie Masters
environmental consultant at FIA Technology Pty Ltd, B K Masters and Associates
I detect more than just a touch of scare-mongering in this article. Where it states in relation to USA gas projects' impacts on the environment: "Because they had no measurement of the “baseline”, they could not be properly assessed after the event either." Rubbish! It is quite a simple process to do a before and after study using similar but different geographical sites. Not everywhere in the USA that is underlain by gas-containing shale or coal has been subjected to gas extraction. So, if there are suggestions that an existing gas-extraction project needs to be assessed for its environmental impact, move the control site (the site against which post-production parameters are to be compared) to an adjoining or nearby and geologically similar site.
While this technique does not allow for an absolutely exact before and after comparison to be made, it's nonetheless scientifically sound and verifiable, removing one of the article's main criticisms.
aligatorhardt
logged in via Twitter
There is no validity is assumptions made from a different location. You attempt to stereotype geography, when fissures in rock formations are individual local features, that cannot be accurately determined before fracking pressures are applied. To test an alternate location proves nothing about the characteristics of the first location. A pre-test, however does provide proof of existing conditions, so if conditions change after the fracking, then the fracking would be the reason. I must suspect the intentions of those who refuse to test before drilling and fracking.
George Crisp
Medical Practitioner
How exactly does air monitoring or water monitoring from an entirely different site determine how much change there has been at a drill site? I assume you have good evidence to back your statement up.
Bernie Masters
environmental consultant at FIA Technology Pty Ltd, B K Masters and Associates
Aligatorhardt: in an ideal world, I agree that it would be better to test a site prior to the commencement of fracking. However, we live in an imperfect world and, being a geologist, I have no doubt that it is entirely valid to extrapolate from one site to another provided they have significantly similar geological, lithological and other key characteristics which is often (usually) the case in areas of similar lithologies, etc.
Read moreThe point I was making is that the author claims that there was no…
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Gents, this is the issue with the Prof, and his mates at the DEA, they message half information.. the water baselines have been in progress for a long time in QLD.. With and without Govt regulations.
George Crisp
Medical Practitioner
if the pollutants in question are a clear danger to human health ( ie BTEX, Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Volatile Organic Compounds,heavy metals, radioactive compounds and criteria air pollutants) then monitoring for these both before, during and after development should be mandatory to protect public health.
Failure to do this cannot be rectified by measuring elsewhere, though it is true an approximation might be possible.
The whole point of Prof Shearman's article is that we have entirely neglected some of the public health implications so we are unable to quantify them.
This is also the case in the US where they are now becoming apparent. So why do think that examining the US situation is not something we could learn from?
Andy Saunders
Consultant
George
Pretty much all those compounds you mention are found in nature (they occur in petroleum and/or coal) and can be often detected in trace amounts even near undeveloped oil/gas fields (that indeed is often how oil/gas fields are found). By themselves they are not necessarily evidence of pollution by drilling/fracking operations.
It may surprise some/many people that we are all exposed to considrable background gamma radiation, for example, with the level dependent mostly on the local geology where you live - granites can have extremely high radiation levels, as can shales/slates. Just mentioning scary-sounding chemical names does not prove contamination.
George Crisp
Medical Practitioner
Yes, they are naturally occurring and highly toxic. When they are safely sequestered in the ground, they present little danger to human health. However, the process of extraction results in these materials being brought to the surface enabling exposure.
I agree they are not by themselves evidence of pollution. That is why baseline studies are important.
We are exposed to low level gamma radiation mostly of cosmic origin and the preponderance of evidence suggests that there is no safe threshold…
Read moreAndy Saunders
Consultant
George,
1) you're talking (it seems) mostly about fracking - almost irrelevant to coal seam gas
2) Radon is practically irrelevant to oil/gas production in Australia. Actually I'd say completely irrelevant except there's always that tiny possibility that someone, somewhere...
3) The vast majority of gamma rays we experience are from our surroundings (chiefly the minerals we're standing on, but if you happen to live in a house made of granite then you'll get a fair dose from that). Cosmic…
Read moreGeorge Crisp
Medical Practitioner
Andy, in reply to comments,
the last of which I take exception to.
1 - Fracking is not " almost irrelevant to CSG", and it is certainly central to the shale gas developments that are unfolding in Western Australia. And remember we are talking about public health risks arising form all stages of the unconventional gas industry. Advocates tend to focus on the actual stage of hydraulic fracture and claim there is no evidence for concern, or that fracking has been occurring for half a century…
Read moreAndy Saunders
Consultant
George;
Apologies if I have offended you, I was exaggerating an analogy to make the point.
Literally every shale has uranium in it, producing lots of gamma rays. That would include the shales around Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, everywhere. And some thorium and potassium, also radioactive. Some of which (not much) gets into our drinking water, as well as into produced water in oil/gas wells, and has done for ages. Nothing to do with fracking. Or CSG for that matter. Some areas in the USA produce…
Read moreBernie Masters
environmental consultant at FIA Technology Pty Ltd, B K Masters and Associates
George, it is very common in the field of environmental science to choose what are called paired catchments - two similar but different areas - to determine how environmental parameters change when one catchment is left untouched as a control or reference site and the other catchment is subjected to change or disturbance. In the context of the article written by David Shearman, I agree that, in an ideal world, we would not need to do 'paired catchment' studies to determine the impacts of fracking. But, since the baseline studies have not been undertaken, a very acceptable substitute is to used paired catchments. In turn, this effectively removes one of his arguments against fracking.
George Crisp
Medical Practitioner
Bernie, we are not talking about an ideal world, we are talking about public health. The premise is to minimise harm and risks to public health. We cannot do this unless we know what exposure is occurring and likely to occur.
Unfortunately, the danger with your compromise, which can only approximate change after the fact, is that we are effectively trading development costs and expediency for risks to human and environmental health. Most people view this as very bad deal.
Bernie Masters
environmental consultant at FIA Technology Pty Ltd, B K Masters and Associates
George, I understand where you're coming from but we're not talking about eliminating risk (which is impossible), instead we're talking about doing as good a job as is reasonably possible to minimise risk. On this basis, the 90% or better approximation that would result from using the 'paired catchment' approach is entirely and scientifically acceptable. And, in places where baseline data is absent, the cost of applying the paired catchment approach is more expensive than gathering baseline data before a project starts, so the trade-off you refer to between development costs and expediency is actually worse for the fracking operator, not better.
The bottom line is that the absence of baseline data is, as I've stated earlier, unacceptable but can be readily circumvented, so the author's objections to fracking on this basis is refuted.
George Crisp
Medical Practitioner
I'm not sure if we are responding at cross purposes here but, I will reiterate: It is exactly the deficiency in baseline data that allows drilling companies to hide behind the uncertainty over pre-exisitng hydrocarbons in groundwater. Surely you must be aware of this?
The problem is: uncertainty.
This is why there has been such interest in papers such as:
Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing
Osborn S., Vengosh et al.
Potential…
Read moreRobert McDougall
Small Business Owner
i find it astonishing that base line data is not collected by resource companies and included in their applications for licences. I thought that was the reason for the minimum spend requirements contained in the Mining Acts.
Oh thats right, resource companies are not required to substantiate their claims of "negligable" "minimal" impacts with scientific data, just as the regulators don't have the resources to check to see if these motherhood statements are valid.
just keep the dollars flowing and by the way, if you want a project approved, youre going to have to quietly fork out "x" million for this pet project over there...
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert, once again, these incorrect statements, baseling was being performed long before it became legislation..Please do some real research, before spreading this mis information
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert, go check out all the compnaies that are being paid to perform these baslineing chemcial analysis, you will see how busy they are, and the amount of takeovers and new starts to teh volume of work being doing in baseling..
Bernie Masters
environmental consultant at FIA Technology Pty Ltd, B K Masters and Associates
George, again, I understand the points you are making but you seem to be comparing what has happened in the US with what you fear may happen here in Australia where fracking is still in its infancy. If the US EPA wants to get tough with its fracking companies, they have the ability (one would hope) to require the type of testwork I've been discussing to see if fracking is the actual cause of the pollution problems. Here in Australia, my understanding is that the state EPAs are far more powerful than…
Read moreRobert McDougall
Small Business Owner
any ideas as to how you repair an aquifer?
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Go have a look at the data from QLD Govt to see how much water depletion there has been in some aquifers due to farming and other land activities, Guess the repair mechanism may be similar?
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
As far as i know there is no way to repair an aquifer. Yes water depletion occurs for a variety of reasons and as we have become more knowledgeable about our impacts on aquifers, we should be aiming at minimising our impacts rather than saying, "oh well, farming has already depleated the aquifers, so we should be able to as well".
But there is a huge difference between using water from an aquifer and conducting activities that have a high probability of contamination or altering the natural channels of flow in and amongst aquifers.
the repair mechanism from over drawing is to draw less water, allowing it to recharge naturally. The repair mechanism when an aquifer becomes polluted with industrial chemicals or alteration of the natural subterraneon flows is another matter all together.
Peter Hoberg
Physics
Robert, High probability has a very clear meaning, after 2 million fracs globally, there are no proven cases of aquifer containimation form this type of business, In fact most of hte cases end up being landholders, industrial and city and other refuse issues being the cause.
Read morePlease explain how the chemicals are going to travel against the flow of fluids in the aquifer to damage great areas and other aquifers.
Grade 10 physics shows that fluids will flow from the greatest pressure to the least…
Andy Saunders
Consultant
Dear David;
You made two comments in the last 24 hours. Unfortunately the latest policy changes to this site (which limit the degree of nesting of comments) make it very difficult to follow threads (perhaps they should change the name of the site - certainly discourages "conversations" - are you listening out there?). So I hope you can tie this to your comments.
Stevens presents a balanced view, I agree. The thrust of his article is "given the large numbers of wells involved, it's important…
Read moreGeorge Crisp
Medical Practitioner
Dear Andy,
All these assertions of safety. Perhaps you could let us know what you are a consultant in, or perhaps who you represent?
Andy Saunders
Consultant
George
I consult on many topics and to several clients. None have been, or are, oil/gas companies.
George Crisp
Medical Practitioner
So, you are not an evasive non-expert in this field then. Nice to know.
Andy Saunders
Consultant
George;
I'd like to think of myself as something of an expert, or at least well-informed.
George Crisp
Medical Practitioner
Don't you think it rather presumptuous to call into question the opinions and views of those that actually do have expertise in a field, namely "health", and cast aspersions by claiming expertise in a field, when in fact you have none other than a self professed belief.
A little knowledge as they say...
Andy Saunders
Consultant
OK George, I'll bite.
I'm sure I *do* have quite some knowledge and experience in this area. Certainly enough to know that David Shearman is significantly under-informed about gas development. I'll certainly defer to his medical expertise - I haven't claimed any for myself (apart from what I flagged as possibly a crude medical analogy to make a point). But there are significant gaps in his understanding about gas well hazards.
Do *you* have any knowledge about gas wells? Do you think, for example…
Read moreGeorge Crisp
Medical Practitioner
OK so what is your expertise.
You continue to raise a series of red herrings (often the same ones), that do nothing to address the issue of risk from leakage, well failure, poor regulation and bad practice.
By continuing to do this you are demonstrating that you fail to understand the difference between information and knowledge.
Andy Saunders
Consultant
George;
I'm starting to think you are a troll - you haven't answered my questions and you call into question my expertise. So I'll answer your last points, while still waiting for your reply to my earlier questions.
Leakage: risk of surface leakage from CSG and/or shale gas wells (and I note you fail to distinguish them - fortunately for this one area they are very similar) is practically the same as any other conventional gas well.
Read moreRisk of subsurface leakage (behind casing) is very low for…