Gas fracking: do we understand the potential health consequences?

UNEP has just released a new bulletin on Hydrological fracturing (fracking). The document introduces the topic, and then analyses it in the context of climate change and energy consumption needs.  Among the  aspects addressed there are a few very relevant for HIA and public health practitioners. There is also a bibliography for those interested in further information.

Environmental and health concerns
UG exploitation and production may have unavoidable environmental impacts (see Figure 4). Some risks result if the technology is not used adequately, but others will occur despite proper use of technology (EU, 2011). UG production has the potential to generate considerable GHG emissions, can strain water resources, result in water contamination, may have negative impacts on public health (through air and soil contaminants; noise pollution), on biodiversity (through land clearance), food supply (through competition for land and water resources), as well as on soil (pollution, crusting). The sections below further outline the potential environmental and health impacts

Risk on public health

When occurring in densely populated areas, UG production raises several specific threats to well-being. The most direct concern is the risk of explosion from the construction of new pipelines (Rahm, 2011). Other consequences have a slower onset, such as release of toxic substances into air, soil and water. In Texas, emissions from shale gas operations are being checked for contaminants after blood and urine samples taken from household residents near shale wells revealed that toluene was present in 65% of those tested and xylene present in 53% (Rahm 2011). Both of these chemicals are commonly present in fracking fluid and known for being toxic. The biocide substances which are also contained in fracking fluid, and may be released during surface water leaks, can lead to serious damage to the surrounding habitat (IEA, 2012).
More common nuisances include noise pollution, primarily associated with drilling and fracking (which is a non-stop operation over several weeks), but also from truck transport (Rahm, 2011).
Fracturing fluid consists of large amounts of water mixed with chemicals and sand. In most countries the chemicals used in fracking fluid are considered trade secrets (Zoback et al., 2010). If companies are not required to publicly disclose the full list of chemicals used, assessing potential short- and long-term impacts on public health will be difficult. Colborn and others (2011) compiled a list of products (about 1000) used in fracking fluid. They carried out literature review on 353 chemicals and found that "more than 75% of the chemicals could affect the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs, and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems. Approximately 40–50% could affect the brain/nervous system, immune and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% could cause cancer and mutations." (Colborn et al., 2011).
Nonylphenol, for example, which is commonly used in fracking fluid, mimics estrogen, and can cause the feminization of fish, even at concentrations not detected by normal monitoring of the fluid (NYS-WRI, 2011). The consequence of the feminization of fish is an imbalance between male and female populations, resulting in a deficit of fertilization and potentially leading to a rapid decline of these fish populations.

Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts

Researchers at Tyndall Manchester, in partnership with The Co-operative, have updated their assessment of the environmental impact of shale gas in light of new developments in the UK. The report, released in November 2011, updates their January 2011 work. It finds that in the absence of a stringent global emissions cap, large-scale extraction of shale gas cannot be reconciled with the commitments enshrined in the latest international climate change agreement, the Copenhagen Accord (2009).
The report has also an interesting chapter on human health and one of the main findings of this work is that there is a paucity of information on which to base a quantified assessment of environmental and human health risk.
The report provides a list of key risks and impacts of shale gas and shale gas processes and development. Those can be divided as follows:
 contamination of groundwater by fracturing fluids or mobilised contaminants arising from:
o wellbore/casing failure; and/or
o subsurface migration;
 contamination of land and surface water, and potentially groundwater via surface route, arising from:
o spillage of fracturing additives; and
o spillage/tank rupture/storm water overflow from liquid waste storage, lagoons/pits containing cuttings/drilling mud or flowback fluid;
 water consumption/abstraction;
 wastewater storage, transport and treatment;
 land and landscape impacts from;
o drill rig and well pad
o storage ponds or tanks
o access roads
 impacts arising during construction and pre-production:
o noise/light pollution during well drilling/completion;
o local traffic impacts;
 seismic impacts

Is it too late to stop dangerous climate change?

This is the question that has inspired Friends of the Earth to undertake a year-long research project made up of three research reports.

The first report considered the latest science findings, concluded that global temperature increases must be kept below 1.5 degrees to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change, and identified what this means for future emissions. It found that the EU would need to reduce its emissions by 60% by 2020 from 1990 levels, the United States would need to make even deeper cuts and China would need to peak its emissions by 2013 and then reduce them by 5% per year. These are clearly eye-watering reduction targets.

The second report used an adapted DECC 2050 pathways model to see if it's possible for the UK to live within its share of remaining emissions space - what we call a carbon budget. It also considered whether it was possible to do so in a socially just way. It concluded that even with Herculean efforts across all sectors the UK cannot meet its reduction goals without deploying technologies that take carbon out of the air, so-called negative emissions technologies. It did however conclude that reductions could be made without disproportionate impact on poorer households - although it would require a very determined effort to do so.

The final report is a technical analysis of the different potential negative emissions technologies currently being researched. It found that many of the technologies are at a very early stage of development, some bring significant risks, and that the most promising technologies are likely to be extremely expensive - certainly far more costly than action to reduce carbon emissions in the first place. It also found practical limits to the contribution that negative emissions technologies can make - at best, they can only provide a supporting role to emissions reductions. It concluded that dangerous climate change can only be averted if much-accelerated carbon emissions reductions are made across the globe in addition to negative emissions.

Click here to go to the Friends of the Earth website to download the reports.