
Flaring from Oil and Gas Development and Birth Outcomes in the Eagle Ford Shale - bookofjoe
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP6394
======
jeffbee
Pretty interesting. The association between nearness to oil wells (not flares)
is associated with a difference of 0.1 weeks of gestation, or 17 hours, and a
reduced birth weight of 18g. It's nice to see papers that express total faith
in their statistical methods.

~~~
wjnc
I agree. They create a really nice combined-source dataset and then get
totally lost in some quasi-scientific and quasi-statistical narrative of
models, indicators, p-values and possible effects that are not there in
extended models. On top of it all they don't seem to notice the brittleness of
their argument. It only holds for Hispanic women, but not for non-Hispanic
whites? How would a pregnancy differ between those groups? I would imagine it
doesn't and there are other factors in play. (Hint: little socioeconomic
information taken into account, although source of insurance and smoking will
pick some of that up.)

Without having touched the data I think they show that more flares mean
slightly shorter gestation and birth weight. Show that. It's novel. Show it
from three angles with different indicators. Prove that it's there. Is it not
an artifact? What are other health indicators in those regions doing? Etc.

The conclusion reads as if you need to prove your possible wokeness in your
tenure track. Sprinkle enough possibly and anything goes, even that which you
haven't shown.

~~~
klyrs
> It only holds for Hispanic women, but not for non-Hispanic whites? How would
> a pregnancy differ between those groups?

If one population lives / works closer to flares than another, they could have
greater exposure. If one population works outside more than another, they
could have greater exposure. If one population is wealthier than the other,
their homes may have more up to date air conditioning, including filtering,
leading to lower exposure. If one population is wealthier than the other,
women will have greater flexibility to stay home for the duration of their
pregnancy

> The conclusion reads as if you need to prove your possible wokeness in your
> tenure track.

This reads as if you need to flex your anti-wokeness after ignoring
significant environmental differences that white and Hispanic women
experience.

Some factors I mentioned are confounded -- we've seen lower premature birth
rates during the pandemic, and we may have a good opportunity to really
understand why so many babies are born premature. This study is a piece of
that puzzle.

~~~
wjnc
So shouldn't this be in the paper and preferably in the form of testable
hypothesis? I guess we agree that the Hispanic part probably isn't useful
unless we imagine genetic differences between the populations? The wokeness
alert is in the sloppy use of ethnicity and the use of words like "possibly"
without any scientific rigor. If you imagine causal effects going through
socioeconomic factors that affect different parts of society differently, do
model that explicitly. And in this paper the effect size is that small, that
you'll probably end up nowhere. They could have been frank about that instead
of a conclusion full of strong words.

------
drak0n1c
From a climate perspective, I've seen articles saying that flaring is bad for
the environment, and other articles saying that raw natural gas methane
leaking into the atmosphere is also very bad.

We know that methane is 84x more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2 and is
also worse than water vapor. If CO2 and water vapor are the products of
flaring methane, isn't it better to flare if the source cannot be adequately
capped or staffed for capture?

Edit: On further research - it looks like the complicating non-climate factor
is that leaking gas can sometimes contain hydrogen sulfide and other toxins,
and while burning eliminates some toxins it can inadvertently create and
disseminate others.

~~~
afandian
Or leave it in the ground and find alternatives.

An awkward option, but it is an option.

~~~
JimTheMan
At the moment, burning methane may be a favourable alternative to burning Coal
until something better turns up. Coal is terrible for the environment.

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
>Until something better turns up

Are you seriously ignoring all the renewable energy alternatives and only
considering the worst possible fossil fuel to try to make natural gas a
seemingly good option?

FYI, in the first half of 2020, renewables generated 40% of the EU-27’s
electricity, whereas fossil fuels generated 34%. Things are moving fast now,
and neither gas nor coal are part of the future (source: [https://ember-
climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fue...](https://ember-
climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fuels/))

~~~
JimTheMan
I don't think gas is a _good_ option but I consider it a lesser of a few evils
until renewables come along with a good solution to generate a base load. I'm
not trying to invalidate what the EU is doing, but they are still burning
fossil fuels and if I have to choose between a few I choose gas.

I'm in a country with a lot of coal you see. Coal is the default option and I
would really like it not to be. Especially given we have a lot of aging
powerplants that are going to need replacement shortly...

I know that nuclear is an option, but I am generally unimpressed by the
cost*construction_time/power ratio.

------
hinkley
They have generators to burn wellhead gas now. I’m a bit shocked this is still
legal. Or maybe disappointed is the right word. This is the EPA we’re talking
about.

~~~
JimTheMan
I recently was involved in the construction of a gas plant. There was a flare
and it's basically a requirement for safety reasons. Although the gas is
scrubbed prior to it being burnt provided there is no catastrophic event.

Generators only draw down on a little gas so as to power the plant.

~~~
rckoepke
Flares in gas plants are generally burning a much cleaner composition than
wellhead flares, and are generally more tuned and better supervised by
operators who can tweak parameters to get an optimal burn that minimizes
byproducts.

------
heyflyguy
Interesting research. I have wondered if the flaring affects people's
circadian rhythms. The light at night can make it seem like daytime in some
places. The flaring can be happening a 1/4 mile away and it's like having a
porch light shining in your window.

~~~
rckoepke
This is an interesting hypothesis to me. The noise can be somewhat impressive
as well for some flares.

