Yale University researchers are in a pickle.
This week, researchers with the Ivy League school published an epidemiological study – which, by definition, is a statistical model not actual measurement and analysis of environmental data and exposure – claiming water as an exposure pathway for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
Yet, the same researchers have previously published numerous exposure studies of areas with high shale development activity and concluded chemical detections were “rare,” “not attributable to unconventional oil and gas”, and that “no study to date has found widespread contamination attributable to unconventional oil and gas activity.”
On the one hand, Yale researchers state: “water is an important route of exposure”; but, on the other the same researchers conclude in “the most comprehensive” water sampling studies that “UOG-related water contamination occurs rarely or episodically.”
Which is it? In each exposure-based study the Yale School of Public Health researchers have completed, they’ve come to the same conclusion: unconventional oil and gas development does not impact groundwater or drinking water resources.
For each of these exposure studies finding no impact, Yale didn’t bother to publish a press release, like they did with the epidemiological study claiming a possible link to childhood disease. And the media, which were not equally spoon fed the previous studies, simply regurgitated through click-bait headlines, rather than asking any questions.
It seems a dereliction of journalism to not ask simple, straightforward questions, such as: “Why does this statistical study assume water as a pathway when your previous studies that take actual water samples indicate no impacts from oil and gas or fracking activity?”
Unfolding here is the clear difference between what happens in reality vs. statistical modeling. Make no mistake, our industry is absolutely committed to scientific rigor, as we’re a sector made up of biologists, chemists and engineers, working collaboratively to more effectively develop energy with even less environmental impact.
Importantly, the body of academic studies and government reports based on actual exposure data continue to confirm natural gas is developed safely, responsibly and in a matter that protects public health and our environment. More than a decade ago, Pennsylvania natural gas producers voluntarily committed to transparently disclosing chemical use well before the regulatory requirements, as it is today.
What’s more, the Department of Environmental Protection has documented zero situations where chemicals associated with hydraulic fracturing have migrated into groundwater or surface water. It comes as no surprise, as credible academic research confirms DEP’s findings.
On water, consider a 2020 study that concluded waterways have been unaffected by development after reviewing data from streams in state forest lands where 500 unconventional natural gas wells have been drilled. Or a 2018 Penn State study that found “fracking had no major threats to groundwater” and, in fact, also identified an overall improving water quality trend in Bradford County, one of the most heavily drilled.
Then there’s the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, which has been continuously monitoring water quality and quantity since shale development began in Pennsylvania. Years of 24/7 data collection continues to confirm: “Natural gas development has had no discernable impact on water quality in the Susquehanna River Basin.”
Similar conclusions are found in air quality studies, as well, with continuous air monitoring studies finding volatile organic compounds “well below health protective levels.”
Unfortunately, epidemiological studies that lack the necessary rigor to advance a scientific understanding are increasingly the favored approach, given the ability to generate alarming headlines. In February, researchers with Harvard took a similar approach – flawed data, no actual measurement – to advance claims relating to senior citizen mortality.
As these so-called studies are published, we must see them for what they so-often are: Efforts to advance an anti-natural gas agenda, drive more dollars to already well-funded activist organizations, and of course – serve as internet click-bait.
