Santos claims report used to ‘confuse and not inform’

January 12, 2012

Gas mining giant Santos Limited has spoken out over a recent US
report which questions the safety of coal seam gas exploration and extraction in NSW.

Matthew Doman, who is the company’s Manager Corporate Communications, claims the report, seized on by environmentalists and the Greens and touted as showing a correlation between CSG practices and processes in Australia and the US, was being “misused to confuse rather than being to inform”.

“Santos’ CSG operations in Australia are today supporting the irrigation of forage crops which is leading to dramatic increases in cattle productivity,” Mr Doman said.

“In many cases cattle graze side by side with our operations.

“The recently released report by the Allen Consulting Group shows that the successful development of Santos’ CSG operations in NSW will actually boost agricultural output by one percent.

“These outcomes contradict the research paper on the supposed negative impact of gas production on livestock promoted by the National Toxics Network.”

Mr Doman said the report has attracted criticism from leading Australian
scientists.

“It is another example of information being misused to confuse rather than inform community understanding about coal seam gas,” Mr Doman added.

“The authors of the paper themselves say ‘this is an imperfect study’.

“For example they make it clear it is not a robust scientific paper, more a collection of anecdotal data upon which they base some suppositions that are unproven.

“US Scientists have documented cases of animal health problems which
they believe have possible links to gas drilling.

“The report, published earlier this week in the journal New Solutions, involved interviewing the owners of animals who reported negative health effects on their animals.

“The report does not provide statistics on the incidence of health problems or prove a causative link between health problems and gas drilling.

“It is a series of case reports of negative health effects in areas where gas drilling occurs.”

Mr Doman said Professor Ian Rae an expert on chemicals in the environment and is an Honorary Professorial Fellow in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne, was one of a number of Australia scientists and experts, who commented on the US findings in the report.

Professor Rae is also an advisor to the United Nations Environment Programme on chemicals in the environment.

“Professor Rae said the article makes a case for ensuring that cattle and other animals do not drink the water recovered from shale or other gas operations.

“He said it’s self-evident that such water is likely to be contaminated with natural and/or industrial chemicals, so a warning of this sort is appropriate.

“The authors say that their study is not an ‘epidemiological analysis’ nor a ‘study of health impacts’ but does have value in presenting the risks and suggesting further study and in suggesting changes to present practices in the industry.

“Professor Rae said that while it certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper but is, rather, an advocacy piece that does not involve deep (no pun intended!) analysis of the data gathered to support its case.

“The data in Table 2 (in the report) is incomplete in that no dates or places are provided, and no references to other commentary on the events it reports, so it’s hard to assess the weight of the evidence.

“Surely there were reports to or by regulatory agencies.

“It could be that this is old evidence and that note has been taken of the hazards and appropriate regulations put in place to mitigate them.

“We just don’t know.

“Contributions to the journal are said to be refereed, but the refereeing process evidently was not very stringent.

“For example, better refereeing would have forced the authors to provide the details I identified above as missing from their compilation.

“As well, it might also have curtailed some of the less-well supported statements and asked for more recent references to the scientific basis for expressions of concern that material dated to the 1960s and 1970s.

“Bamberger appears to be a veterinarian in private practice in Ithaca, New York, while Oswald is a pharmacology professor at nearby Cornell University.

“As far as I can see, neither has a track record of investigation in environmental studies.

“This does not mean they are wrong to sound a note of concern, but it does mean that they cannot be regarded as experts in the field with broad experience and attainments.

“New Solutions is not a mainstream journal of the sort where high standards of refereeing would apply.

“It is, as the masthead proclaims, ‘a journal of environmental and occupational health policy’, and claims to be ‘the only journal that attempts to both define the issues and offer perspectives’.

“This is an overstatement since a number of other journals do this.

“I have not had time to read the articles in recent issues of the journal, but the titles show that they are advocacy pieces dealing with issues that are matters of concern, and for that reason are also extensively covered by other journals.

“In summary, the message can be heard in Australia that care needs to be taken in handling the water recovered during shale gas operations. We did not need an article like this to tell us.”

Professor Ian Rae is an expert on chemicals in the environment and is an Honorary Professorial Fellow in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne. He is also an advisor to the United Nations Environment Programme on chemicals in the environment.