A new study from researchers at Harvard University generated headlines correlating responsible natural gas development with senior citizen mortality lacks rigor, makes poor assumptions, and fails to establish any causal connection.

Make no mistake, our industry supports and encourages credible, clear-eyed science – after all, we’re scientists, geologists, environmentalists, and public health experts all working to develop and utilize energy resources in the most efficient, responsible manner. Unfortunately, though, this latest study is just another example of correlation not equaling causation, where the actual data and conclusions fall far short of the media headlines.

Before getting to the specifics, it’s important to note the decades-worth of objective research confirming natural gas poses no risk to public health. In fact, in 2018 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Pa. DEP) conducted a comprehensive air quality study to gauge risks associated with shale development, and found “limited impacts to the air quality around the sites it examined and little risk of healthy residents getting sick from breathing the air nearby, ” according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Another study monitoring air quality around the Ft. Cherry School District in Washington County (the state’s 2nd largest producing county) found volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the area “were well below health-protective levels.”

Here’s three key things to know about Harvard’s study:

  1. Flawed Data

The most obvious of shortcomings is the researchers’ use of zip codes to account for well pad proximity. In rural regions – where a majority of drilling activity takes place – one zip code could account for the entire county and is not demonstrative of where wells are located and people live. In cities, a zip code changes on almost every block. But in Greene County, for example, the zip code that includes even the most populated town spans an 11-mile radius.

It is important to also consider rural senior citizens already have lower life expectancies for a number of socioeconomic factors, and these disparities were present long before unconventional natural gas development came underway. According to a CDC study, rural Americans are more likely to die from five leading causes (heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, stroke, or unintentional injuries) compared to urban counterparts.

Finally, the Harvard Study classifies their findings as being associated with unconventional natural gas development. The researchers admit more than 2 million oil and gas wells were analyzed across the country, yet there are only 200,000 unconventional wells in the U.S. – demonstrating nearly all wells analyzed were actually not modern, horizontal wells developed with hydraulic fracturing.

  1. Lack of Measurement

Notably, the study failed to take any measurements at production sites and instead assumed anyone within a certain radius was “downwind” and exposed to harmful pollutants. As is the case across Appalachia, emissions associated with natural gas development are already minimal, and many companies are installing devices to monitor, locate, and eliminate unwanted leaks from wellheads and pipes in real-time.

But despite the researchers’ claims – and how the study has been cast in the media – the data itself shows lower concentrations of particulate matter in the regions they considered to be “exposed” to such pollutants. “Each of the four UOGD PE levels had lower concentrations of PM2.5 (particulate matter of up to 2.5 μm in aerodynamic diameter) and were less developed, compared with the unexposed level,” the research states.

In fact, even the researchers admit they “were unable to estimate the associations between specific UOGD-related airborne agent(s) and mortality.”

In Pennsylvania, harmful air emissions have actually been on the decline since the birth of the shale revolution. Sulfur Oxide (SOx) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) declined 93 and 81 percent, respectively, between 2005-2018 in the power sector. VOCs, too, were about 40 percent lower in 2018 compared to 2005.

  1. Correlation ≠ Causation

As noted above, living in proximity to a well does not equal exposure, and there’s overwhelming evidence confirming natural gas development is not a threat to community health and safety:

  • National Bureau of Economic Research (2019): “The drop in natural gas prices in the late 2000s, induced largely by the boom in shale gas production, averted 11,000 winter deaths per year in the US.”
  • U.S. EPA (2021): CO2 emissions fell 8.4%in the U.S. between 2018-2019 “due to increasing electric power generation from natural gas.” This decline reflects an 11% reduction from 1990 levels, and a 33% decline from the 2005 peak.
  • DEP (2018): Long-term Marcellus Ambient Air Monitoring project “did not observe exceedances of the NAAQS for pollutants monitored,” and “Did not examine potential acute or chronic impacts to individuals working in, adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of natural gas extraction, gathering and/or processing facilities.”
  • DEP (2018): “A state air monitoring study meant to gauge the long-term health risks of living near Marcellus Shale operations found limited impacts to the air quality around the sites it examined and little risk of healthy residents getting sick from breathing the air nearby.”
  • Air monitoring study in the Ft. Cherry School District (2016): “All individual (volatile organic compound) concentrations in the monitored area were well below health-protective levels.”
  • DEP (2015): “There is little potential for harm to workers or the public from radiation exposure due to oil and gas development.”

*BONUS*

Despite this study being branded as a U.S. EPA, National Institute of Health (NIH), and Harvard study, one of the main funders of the study is the Climate Change Solutions Fund, whose mission is to “hasten the transition from fossil fuel-based energy systems to…renewable energy sources and…accelerate progress toward a greener world.”