ReFINE – Continuing Professional Development – 15 November
Event Summary

The potential environmental and public health impacts of subsurface energy resource exploitation

The second CPD event provided an excellent opportunity for timely debate and learnings, especially with regards to what the EU and UK must learn from the US experience and vice versa. This document reflects the topics of discussion from the day.

First, it was apparent that there is necessity of thinking of public health impact and environmental impact in the wider context, for example, not just emissions directly associated with development, but indirect emissions, such as those associated with police vehicles controlling demonstrations at the site. Furthermore, the social consequences of any subsurface energy development, as well as potential impacts associated with new boom town communities, should be considered when assessing the potential public health and environmental impacts of developments.

Second, it is important to remember that context does matter and unfortunately it often gets overlooked. For example, in the US context, which State the activity is sited in matters a lot. We heard how the context of site location, geology and clay mineral composition matters and how this can be used to make decisions about where to exploit subsurface energy resources. There is also the wider subsurface and surface context, for example, what is the proximity to other communities? Does this give ground to differences in risk perceptions? We need to also be cognisant of the wider issues of public perception of risks.

The debate touched on the fact that the subsurface does matter in meeting the UK’s net zero emissions targets. Geothermal, Carbon Capture Usage and Storage, industrial feedstock are needed in the UK. Furthermore, the impact of Brexit is never far away from our thoughts. Whatever scenario becomes a reality, we are likely to have an energy policy that means subsurface energy resource exploitation will be back on the agenda.

There was a reminder to not forget legacy issues associated with former subsurface industries, e.g. legacy of coal mines and abandoned oil and gas wells and this led nicely into the themes of time and temporality and the need to consider questions of time and intensity of activity. Over time, the rate of things happening may be intensive, e.g. traffic emissions at a fracking site will vary depending on development stage. The British Geological Survey presented the case for gathering baseline data – this is a UK strength and we need to understand how to feedback this into US situation.

Discussions were raised throughout the day regarding public / private benefits. It is important that the economic impacts of developments are not overlooked. Finally, Dr Jen Roberts talked about humanising this endeavour and a call to remember that behind all the impacts are people and communities.

To conclude, thank you to the EU Commission, without this funding it would not be possible to host such a debate. Thanks also to delegates whose enthusiastic participation made it all worthwhile.

Professor Anthony Zito