Health concerns associated with unconventional gas mining in rural Australia

full article:

Context

In the past 20 years, unconventional gas (UCG) mining has grown from being largely unknown to a 'global phenomenon'¹. The USA, China, Canada and Australia produce UCG, with countries in Africa, South and Central America, the Middle East and Europe considered 'potential new frontiers'¹.

Governments are examining the benefits and risks of UCG development to determine its future. Communities, particularly those in rural areas where most UCG developments are proposed, are concerned about environmental and health risks.

Research on the health implications of UCG has increased rapidly in the USA, alongside growth in the industry and the number of people (estimated at 15.3 million in 2013²) living within a mile of a hydraulically fractured oil or gas well. By 2015, at least 685 peer-reviewed papers on health implications of shale and tight gas mining had been published, with 80% between 2013 and 2015³. Few papers examine health concerns associated with coal seam gas (CSG) (coalbed methane) mining, which is occurring in two Australian states (Queensland and New South Wales), but now banned in Victoria^4,5.

Complex and changing messages surround the industry's health implications, challenging rural health professionals to respond. They may struggle with their role as service providers, needing to be cognisant of potential health risks, and as advocates for health protection in the face of uncertainty and technical complexity.

Issues

This communication offers assistance to rural health professionals facing these challenges. It is informed by the latest research evidence and a US tour organised by a South Australian farmer and attended by 11 Australians, including four South Australian Members of Parliament⁶. Six health concerns and relevance to Australia are highlighted.

1. No demonstrated long-term solution for hazardous wastewater management

Millions of litres of wastewater containing naturally occurring and introduced chemicals are brought to the surface through UCG operations^7-14. Some pose risks to human and animal health, including volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, naturally occurring radioactive materials and endocrine-disrupting chemicals associated with adverse effects at extremely low concentrations^10-16. Exacerbated by incomplete assessment and problematic disclosure, health risks from fracking fluids and wastewater remain uncertain.

Methods for handling and disposal of large volumes of wastewater remain problematic^11,14,15. Accidental surface water and aquifer contamination has occurred in Australia¹⁵. Evaporation ponds are vulnerable to spills and there is no long-term solution for disposing of remaining concentrated chemical and saline mixtures. The adequacy of treatment in removing chemicals of concern at a reasonable cost is uncertain^11,17.

An extensive literature review³ found that 40 of 58 (69%) peer-reviewed research studies investigating impacts of UCG on water quality contained findings indicating potential, positive associations, or actual incidence of water contamination.

2. Air pollution - an under-recognised significant health risk

All stages of UCG mining pose potential air pollution risks^{7-10,12,13,18-24}, including compressor station operations and extensive use of trucks and machinery emitting diesel exhaust, a carcinogen containing fine and ultrafine particles and nitrogen oxides, contributing to ground level ozone¹⁹. Risk assessments and exposure studies indicate that these pollutants, plus an array of volatile organic compounds, endocrine-disrupting chemicals and hydrogen sulfide emissions, may pose occupational and community health risks^13,18-24. A community-led study using location- and time-specific sampling detected volatile organic and other compounds above guidelines, raising questions about the sensitivity of standard air quality testing and health risks associated with frequent short-term exposures to pollutant levels exceeding guidelines^22-24.

Potential impacts of air pollutants on developing foetuses and children are particularly concerning^12,16,25-28. Four studies reported significant negative outcomes among infants of mothers with the highest exposure potential based on temporal changes (pre- vs post-drilling), spatial distance from and/or density of wells, or UCG activity levels. These outcomes include reduced average birth weight^25,26, increased prevalence of low birth weight²⁵, preterm births²⁷, high-risk pregnancies²⁷ and birth defects²⁸.

Adults may also face risks. In addition to suggestions from community symptom surveys²⁹, a large study found significant increases in cardiovascular and neurological patient hospitalisations in postcodes with greater densities of wells introduced between 2007 and 2011³⁰. Exposure to UCG activities is also associated with increases in mild, moderate and severe exacerbations of existing asthma conditions³¹. During drilling, hydraulic fracturing and production phases, the odds of hospitalisation and requiring new corticosteroid prescriptions increased by between 74% and three- to fourfold, respectively, after control of potential confounders.

These studies identified known air pollutants and psychosocial stressors as plausible causative contributors^25-31.

There have been few Australian studies. Unpublished accounts and a household survey near CSG activities recorded symptoms such as burning eyes, headaches, bleeding noses and difficulty breathing, especially among children³². A compilation of information by Queensland Health did not find associations between reported symptoms and air monitoring data³³, although authors recommended improved air quality measurements to assess temporal and spatial variation during CSG operations. Another Queensland study found greater increases in all-age hospital admission rates for neoplasms and blood/immune diseases from 1995 to 2011 in a CSG area compared to coal mining and rural areas, after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics³⁴.

Overall, the peer-reviewed literature indicates concerning air quality and public health impacts, with 40 of 46 (87%) air quality studies finding elevated air pollutant emissions and/or atmospheric concentrations and 26 of 31 (84%) public health studies finding public health hazards, elevated risks or adverse health outcomes³.

3. Competition for water and land between gas companies and farmers

While the link between food safety and security and UCG has received less research interest, it is a critical concern for farmers for whom livestock health and water rights are paramount, especially with increased droughts predicted in Australia and globally³⁵. These concerns were highlighted in exceptionally drought-stricken California in 2015 where some crops were irrigated with unconventional oil wastewater³⁶. The long-term safety of treated water in farming remains uncertain, as toxins may transfer into food chains³⁷ and increased soil salinity may reduce productivity¹¹.

Negotiations between water and energy sectors face conflicting views and complexity, increasing with climate change and population growth³⁸. Prospects for successful coexistence between farming and UCG are further challenged by roads and mining infrastructure on agricultural land, pollution risks, livestock disturbance and economic uncertainties surrounding UCG^36-39.

4. Risks to mental health and social and emotional wellbeing

Some Pennsylvanian residents spoke of loss of social cohesion due to nearby UCG operations, polarising families and communities into winners and losers and those for and against. Disturbances from lights, noise, privacy invasion, anxiety about health, loss or contamination of water supply and falling property values enhanced distress among those living near wells.

In contrast, discussions with other residents and public relations firm Energy InDepth suggested the industry brings roads and neighbourhood improvements, reduced property taxes, increased business, training and research opportunities, jobs for local residents and increased self-worth. Production work often involves skilled fly-in, fly-out rotations with on-site accommodation.

Similar upbeat accounts emerged during the construction phase of CSG mining in the Darling Downs, Australia. However, research has found uneven impacts on residents and uncertainty in how communities will cope with the post-construction phase^40,41. A survey by Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of 390 residents found that 48.5% felt their community was 'only just coping', 'not coping' or 'resisting' the industry. While 51.5% felt their community was adapting, just 11.4% of this group saw the change as 'into something different but better'⁴¹.

The New South Wales Parliament Legislative Council Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas found widespread concern about CSG developments from rural, urban and indigenous communities. Some inquiry participants were concerned about poor behaviour by CSG companies and contractors, the pace of development and fear of loss of land and livelihood⁴².

In southern Queensland, 239 landholders, community and service representatives attending workshops linked psychosocial, health service, housing and financial stressors and negative mental health impacts with coal and UCG mining⁴³. Participants urged greater protection of mental health and increased health and psychological services in mining areas. Augmenting the Edinburgh Farming Distress Inventory⁴⁴ to include stressors linked to CSG mining, Morgan et al⁴⁵ demonstrated that mining concerns contributed to overall stress burdens and odds of experiencing depression and anxiety, felt most severely by farmers directly affected by mining activities.

The suicide of an Australian farmer in 2015 who, according to a family statement, resisted pressure and experienced the consequences of UCG and underground coal gasification on his farmland for more than 10 years⁴⁶ adds gravity to the findings of these studies^41,43,45. This death stimulated a national Senate Select Committee Inquiry on Unconventional Gas Mining but, after an interim report⁵, the Inquiry was suspended due to the 2016 Australian election.

The employment and economic benefits of UCG are often assumed to be substantial, but some research has contested this. For example, Chen and Randall³⁹ modelled long-term economic net benefits in Australia and found that, under some plausible scenarios, the economic benefits from agriculture alone exceeded those from CSG. Costs to health and community wellbeing and other externalities were not included in the modelling.

5. High levels and potency of fugitive methane emissions promoting climate change

Initially UCG was welcomed as a potential contributor to global greenhouse gas emission reduction and a positive step in responding to climate change. However, research suggests that as much as 3.6 and 7.9% of methane produced at shale-gas wells escapes to the atmosphere, with 'super-emitting' wells of great concern⁴⁷. Methane is 85 times more potent in trapping heat than carbon dioxide over 20 years, a critical period for emission reductions⁴⁸. In December 2015, a blowout of a UCG well connected to an underground storage facility at Aliso Canyon in California released more than 100 000 tonnes of methane, plus other volatile organic compounds of direct health concern⁴⁹. UCG mining thus contributes to global warming through major incidents, fugitive emissions and competition with renewable energies; hence, continued development may accelerate the severe health impacts of climate change^47-52.

6. Regulation will not eliminate risk and impact

Much talk is devoted to promises of regulatory regimes to fully protect water, prevent well failures and blowouts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with UCG. However, there is little demonstration of actual, long-term cumulative safety through regulation. A referenced compilation of scientific, medical and media findings in the USA argues that regulations have not prevented significant harms, and that some harms are not preventable through regulatory opportunities⁷. Even if theoretically possible, the capacity of regulatory agencies to handle the burden of adequately monitoring and responding to many hazardous chemical, social, mental and physical health risks posed by large numbers of producing and depleted wells is uncertain.

Lessons learned

Many rural residents in Australia and other countries are concerned about UCG mining. Discussions with communities and experts, supported by expanding research, revealed evidence of an absence of safe solutions to toxic wastewater and air pollution, land and water competition, mental health and psychosocial wellbeing risks, climate impacts and unproven regulatory regimes. Emerging studies suggesting interference with foetal development are particularly concerning to rural families and livestock.

Many health organisations in the USA and Australia argue that UCG mining has progressed in advance of demonstrated safety to people and the environment. The upward trend in health research publications, with most indicating potential risk or associated negative outcomes³, has enhanced, not alleviated, human health concerns.

This research is an essential contribution towards understanding potential environmental health impacts associated with UCG. Fully understanding these impacts requires comprehensive assessments and detailed epidemiological studies with substantial numbers of people living near wells for sufficient time. Such studies are only just emerging, many with concerning findings. Although gaps remain, allowing the industry to expand whilst overlooking growing evidence of risk seems inconsistent with basic principles of environmental health protection. We urge governments in Australia and elsewhere to protect rural populations from these multiple potential, even if uncertain, risks.

While it is too late for a precautionary approach for millions of people living close to these operations, doctors and public health professionals can support rural residents and decision makers to avoid, limit and/or address these potential harms by ensuring the latest evidence is taken seriously in discourse and decision-making in local, national and global energy choices.

Acknowledgements

We thank members of the Unconventional Gas Group of the Doctors for the Environment Australia for sharing knowledge and publications on unconventional gas and Mr David Smith of Kalangadoo, South Australia, for organising the US Fracking Fact Finding Tour.

References

1. World Energy Council. World energy resources: unconventional gas, a global phenomenon. (Internet). Available: https://www.worldenergy.org/publications/2016/unconventional-gas-a-global-phenomenon/ (Accessed 13 August 2016).

2. Gold R, McGinty T. Energy boom puts wells in America's backyards: hydraulic fracturing largely driving transformation of the nation's landscape. The Wall Street Journal 2013; 25 October.

3. Hays J, Shonkoff SBC. Toward an understanding of the environmental and public health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: a categorical assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, 2009-2015. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0154164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154164

4. Victorian Auditor General's Office. Unconventional gas: managing risks and impacts. (Internet) 2015. Available: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/latest_reports/2015-16/20150819-unconventional-gas.aspx (Accessed 13 August 2016).

5. Parliament of Australia. The Senate Select Committee on Unconventional Gas Mining Interim Report. (Internet) 2016. Available: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Gasmining/Gasmining/Interim_Report (Accessed 13 August 2016).

6. Grindlay D. South Australian farmer and four politicians to document effects of fracking in America. (Internet) 2015. Available: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-02/fracking-unconventional-gas-mining-livestock-america/6514090 (Accessed 24 June 2015).

7. Concerned Health Professionals of New York. Compendium of scientific, medical and media findings demonstrating risks and harms of fracking (unconventional gas and oil extraction). 4th edition. Available: http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/COMPENDIUM-4.0_FINAL_11_16_16.pdf (Accessed 28 November 2016).

8. Finkel ML, Hays J. The implications of unconventional drilling for natural gas: a global public health concern. Public Health 2013; 27: 889-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.07.005

9. Coram A, Moss J, Blashki G. Harms unknown: health uncertainties cast doubt on the role of unconventional gas in Australia's energy future. Medical Journal of Australia 2014; 200(4): 210-213. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja13.11023

10. Werner AK, Vink S, Watt K, Jagals P. Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: a review of the current strength of evidence. Science of the Total Environment 2015; 505: 1127-1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.084

11. Davies, PJ, Gore, DB, Khan, SJ. Managing produced water from coal seam gas projects: implications for an emerging industry in Australia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2015; 22: 10981-11000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4254-8

12. Webb E, Bushkin-Bedient S, Cheng A, Kassotis CD, Balise V, Nagel SC. Developmental and reproductive effects of chemicals associated with unconventional oil and natural gas operations. Reviews of Environmental Health 2014; 29: 307-318. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2014-0057

13. Kassotis CD, Tillitt, DE, Lin C, McElroy JA, Nagel SC. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and oil and natural gas operations: potential environmental contamination and recommendations to assess complex environmental mixtures. Environmental Health Perspectives 2016; 124(3): 256-264.

14. Llewellyn GT, Dorman F, Westland JL, Yoxtheimer D, Grieve P, Sowers T, et al. Evaluating a groundwater supply contamination incident attributed to Marcellus Shale gas development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 2015; 112(20): 6325-6330. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420279112

15. Carey MG, Redmond H, Haswell MR. Harms unknown: health uncertainties cast doubt on the role of unconventional gas in Australia's energy future. Letter to the Editor. Medical Journal of Australia 2014; 200(9): 523-524. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja14.00393

16. Balise VD, Meng C-X, Cornelius-Green JN, Kassotis CD, Kennedy R, Nagel SC. Systematic review of the association between oil and natural gas extraction processes and human reproduction. Fertility and Sterility 2016; 106(4): 795-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1099

17. Getzinger GJ, O'Connor MP, Hoelzer K, Drollette BD, Karatum O, Deshusses MA, et al. Natural gas residual fluids: sources, endpoints, and organic chemical composition after centralized waste treatment in Pennsylvania. Environmental Science and Technology 2015; 49(14): 8347-8355. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00471

18. McKenzie LM, Witter RZ, Newman LS, Adgate JL. Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources. Science of the Total Environment 2012; 424: 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018

19. Adgate JL, Goldstein BD, McKenzie LM. Potential public health hazards, exposures and health effects from unconventional natural gas development. Environmental Science and Technology 2014; 48: 8307-8320. https://doi.org/10.1021/es404621d

20. Esswein EJ, Snawder J, King B, Breitenstein M, Alexander-Scott M, Kiefer M. Evaluation of some potential chemical exposure risks during flowback operations in unconventional oil and gas extraction: preliminary results. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 2014; 11(10): D174-D184. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2014.933960

21. Gilman J, Lerner B, Kuster W, de Gouw, J. Source signature of volatile organic compounds from oil and natural gas operations in northeastern Colorado. Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 47(3): 1297-1305. https://doi.org/10.1021/es304119a

22. Brown DR, Lewis C, Weinberger BI. Human exposure to unconventional natural gas development: a public health demonstration of periodic high exposure to chemical mixtures in ambient air. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering 2015; 50(5): 460-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2015.992663

23. Macey GP, Breech R, Chernaik M, Cox C, Larson D, Thomas D, et al. Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: a community-based exploratory study. Environmental Health 2014; 13: 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-82

24. Brown D, Weinberger B, Lewis C, Bonaparte H. Understanding exposure from natural gas drilling puts current air standards to the test. Reviews on Environmental Health 2014; 29(4): 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2014-0002

25. Hill EL. Unconventional natural gas development and infant health: evidence from Pennsylvania. PhD thesis, Charles Dyson School Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University. (Internet) 2012. Available: http//:dyson.cornell.edu/research/resear?chpdf/wp/2012/Cornell-Dyson-wp1212.pdf (Accessed 24 June 2015).

26. Stacy SL, Brink LL, Larkin JC, Sadovsky Y, Golstein, BD, Pitt EO, et al. Perinatal outcomes and unconventional natural gas operations in Southwest Pennsylvania. PLoS ONE 2015; 10: e0126425. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126425

27. Casey JA, Savitz DA, Rasmussen SG, Ogburn EL, Pollak J, Mercer DG, et al. Unconventional natural gas development and birth outcomes in Pennsylvania, USA. Epidemiology 2016; 27: 163-172.

28. McKenzie LM, Guo R, Witter RZ, Savitz DA, Newman LS, Adgate JL. Birth outcomes and maternal residential proximity to natural gas development in rural Colorado. Environmental Health Perspectives 2014; 122(4): 412-417. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306722

29. Rabinowitz PM, Slizovskiy IB, Lamers V, Trufan SJ, Holford TR, Dziura JD, et al. Proximity to natural gas wells and reported health status: results of a household survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania. Environmental Health Perspectives 2015; 123: 21-26.

30. Jemielita T, Gerton GL, Neidell M, Chillrud S, Yan B, Stute M, et al. Unconventional gas and oil drilling is associated with increased hospital utilization rates. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(7): e0131093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131093

31. Rasmussen SG, Ogburn EL, McCormack M, Casey JA, Bandeen-Roche K, Mercer DG, et al. Association between unconventional natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale and asthma exacerbations. Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine 2016; 176(9): 1334-1343. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2436

32. McCarron G. Symptomatology of a gas field - an independent health survey in the Tara rural residential estates and environs. (Internet) 2013. Available: http://www.ntn.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Symptomatology-of-a-gas-field-An-independent-health-survey-in-the-Tara-rural-residential-estates-and-environs-April-2013.pdf (Accessed 12 June 2013).

33. Queensland Health. Coal seam gas in the Tara region: summary risk assessment of health complaints and environmental monitoring data. (Internet) 2013. Available: https://www.health.qld.gov.au/publications/csg/documents/report.pdf (Accessed 12 June 2013).

34. Werner AK, Watt K, Cameron CM, Vink S, Page A, Jagals P. All-age hospitalization rates in coal seam gas areas in Queensland, Australia, 1995-2011. BMC Public Health 2016; 16: 125. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2787-5

35. Collins M, Knutti R, Arblaster J, Dufresne J-L, Fichefet T, Friedlingstein P, et al. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility. In: TF Stocker, D Qin, G-K Plattner, M Tignor, SK Allen, J Boschung (Eds). Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014; chapter 12.

36. Freyman M. Hydraulic fracturing and water stress: water demand by the numbers. A Ceres Report. (Internet) 2014. Available: http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/hydraulic-fracturing-water-stress-water-demand-by-the-numbers (Accessed 15 September 2015).

37. Bamberger M, Oswald RE. Long-term impacts of unconventional drilling operations on human and animal health. Journal of Environmental Science and Health 2015; 50(5): 447-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2015.992655

38. Hussey K, Carter N, Reinhardt W. Energy sector transformation: implications for water governance. Australian Journal of Water Resources 2013; 17(2): 170-179. https://doi.org/10.7158/W13-025.2013.17.2

39. Chen C, Randall A. Economic contest between coal seam gas mining and agriculture on prime farmland: it may be closer than we thought. Journal of Economic and Social Policy 2013; 15(3): 5.

40. Rifkin W, Everingham J, Witt K, Uhlmann V. Lessons CSG operators can learn from Southern Queensland towns. Gas Today (Internet) 2015; autumn. Available: http://gastoday.com.au/news/lessons_csg_operators_can_learn_from_southern_queensland_towns/91959 (Accessed 17 November 2015).

41. Walton A, McRae R, Leonard R. CSIRO survey of community wellbeing and responding to change: Western Downs region in Queensland. CSIRO Technical Report. (Internet) 2014. Available: http://www.gisera.org.au/publications/tech_reports_papers/socioeco-proj-3-community-wellbeing-report.pdf (Accessed 13 August 2016).

42. New South Wales Parliament. Legislative Council. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. Inquiry into coal seam gas (report no. 35). (Internet) 2012. Available: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/DBAssets/InquiryReport/ReportAcrobat/5226/Report%2035%20-%20Coal%20seam%20gas.pdf (Accessed 15 September 2015).

43. Hossain D, Gorman D, Chapelle B, Mann W, Saal R, Penton G. Impact of the mining industry on the mental health of landholders and rural communities in southwest Queensland. Australasian Psychiatry 2013; 21(1): 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856212460287

44. Deary IJ, Willcocks J, McGregor M. Stress in farming. Stress Medicine 1997; 13(2): 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(199704)13:2<131::AID-SMI727>3.0.CO;2-T

45. Morgan MI, Hine DW, Bhullar N, Dunstan DA, Bartik W. Fracked: coal seam gas extraction and farmers' mental health. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2016; 47: 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.012

46. Bender family. Bender family releases statement. Queensland Country Life. (Internet) 2015; 20 October. Available: http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/story/3434983/bender-family-statement/ (Accessed 20 October 2015).

47. Howarth RW. A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Science and Engineering 2014; 2(2): 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.35

48. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

49. Conley S, Franco G, Faloona I, Blake DR, Peischl J, Ryerson TB. Methane emissions from the 2015 Aliso Canyon blowout in Los Angeles, CA. Science 2016; 26 February. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2348

50. Voiland A. Methane matters. Scientists work to quantify the effects of a potent greenhouse gas. NASA Earth Observatory. (Internet) 2016. Available: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/ (Accessed 1 April 2016).

51. McJeon H, Edmonds J, Bauer N, Clarke L, Fisher B, Flannery BP, et al. Limited impact on decadal-scale climate change from increased use of natural gas. Nature 2014; 514: 482-485. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13837

52. Staddon PL, Depledge M. Fracking cannot be reconciled with climate change mitigation. Environmental Science and Technology 2015; 49(14): 8269-8279. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02441