Shale Gas: Peer-reviewed Research Key to Progression

“There is too much to and fro in the shale gas debate. People simply do not know what is right and what is wrong and there are too many differing opinions.” This is Mike Stephenson’s opinion.

Speaking at 2011 Shale Gas Environmental Summit, the British Geological Survey’s (BGS) Head of Energy offered a scientific insight into several issues in order to help “clear the air” in respect to what is important and what isn’t in the shale gas debate.

“What has really dawned on me whilst looking at the debate is that one person says something and then another says something completely conflicting,” he said.

“And quite often these comments are not based on peer-reviewed research but based on consultancy reports, websites or even through just through word of mouth.”

Stephenson’s presentation acted as a summons to engage in more peer-reviewed research in order to once and for all establish the truth behind the arguments between those who are in support of shale gas and those in opposition. 

“We will then finally be able to say that ‘these are things that we don’t have to worry about and these are things that we do have to worry about and we have to protect with regulation.’”

He said that as it stands, people are terribly worried about issues that perhaps might never happen. Flaming faucets being one well-documented example he alluded to; an issue that opposition to the drilling campaigns in Blackpool have used in propaganda campaigns.

“We need someone to do some research to see if it is possible. We need someone to do it and then someone to check it to see that its right and we need lots of people doing this independently.”

Only when we get to this stage, said Stephenson, can we say that something matters and needs to be protected, or otherwise. He then pointed out several possible areas of concern in a drilling campaign. Fugitive methane, casing failures and the risk of a blowout were three such examples.

“These are all areas which are acceptable to research carefully, manage carefully and research design carefully in order to isolate variables to see if there are dangers or not.”

The biggest problem of all however, said Stephenson, is that there is hardly any peer-reviewed science available.

“If you want to look at something regarding methane contamination of groundwater for example. I can only find two properly published independently peer-reviewed papers. This is absolutely extraordinary considering how important the issue of shale gas is today.”

He identified this as the core problem throughout and a key issue that has to be addressed in order to progress or at the very least provide a sound foundation for ongoing debate. And one particular point he was keen to share with the delegation was that of BGS studies following the earth tremors in Blackpool, which he concluded were in fact a result of Cuadrilla’s liquid injection activities.

“However, we can also say, unequivocally, that from our experiences as seismologists these tremors were too small to be detected by human beings and that the tremors were way too small to cause any damage.”

His point was supported with an image of an enormous crack in a Blackpool road, which was published in a UK national newspaper. The crack was said to be the result of Cuadrilla’s activities in Blackpool, however Stephenson’s peer-reviewed scientific research concluded otherwise.

“So at least we have a bit of science that can tell us that this is not a problem and I would argue that we have to use science in all aspects of shale gas both systematically and carefully not only to inform the regulator but also to persuade the people in areas like Blackpool.”

He concluded that it is indeed the people that are more important than any regulations because they have the capacity to stop the whole industry in its tracks.

“What I would say we have to do is distinguish between what matters and what doesn’t through peer-reviewed science and then get the regulators to regulate properly based on scientific fact.”