Rumsfeldian thinking on Marcellus science

Donald Rumsfeld had a long career in government service, most recently as President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense. He was known for, among other things, his cryptic way with words.

One of his more famous quotes can be applied to the swirling mass of conundrums that surround shale gas development in Pennsylvania: “Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

Got that? Let’s break that down. Or try to.

When it comes to Pennsylvania’s Marcellus boom, the industry is quick to repeat the mantra that something hasn’t happened – that there has never been a documented case of groundwater contamination from fracking. But as Rumsfeld might remind us, “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” And a problem in Pavilion, Wyoming suggests otherwise.

Then there are the known knowns; for example, that the number of approved Marcellus permits in Pennsylvania should reach 10,000 by the end of April. We also know that poor drilling practices can contaminate drinking water, and that without best available pollution controls, drilling can cause severe local air pollution; and fracking and disposal of wastewater can cause minor earthquakes.

There are many known unknowns. We know that we don’t know how many wells will eventually be drilled in Pennsylvania to capture gas from the Marcellus, Utica, and other shale formations. We know that Pennsylvania faces complex cumulative impacts from gas development, but we really don’t have a firm grasp on the scope and extent of those impacts and how best to avoid them; plus, those changes will occur on an unprecedented scale. We know that public health can be harmed by shale gas development. Identifying the scope, causes and preventative measures is another matter. We know that there are alternative fracking methods possible, but we don’t know if they are economical, or for that matter, what their effects might be.

The unknown unknowns – well, who knows?

All of this actually has a point - we shouldn’t cut funding for scientific studies on the impacts of gas extraction. We should be increasing it.

We need to study and understand the cumulative impacts of shale gas development in Pennsylvania. We need an across-the-board commitment to science in understanding and preventing  problems of shale gas development to the natural world, to natural resources, air and water, to public health. We need a commitment to continuous improvement. All of this rests on a foundation of science. Of free inquiry. Of ceaseless questioning and peer review of answers derived. It will take money. It is a proper role of government to fund this research. It is an essential role. It should be an expanded one.

Rumsfeld cautions: "Learn to say 'I don't know.' If used when appropriate, it will be often." It is vitally important that we make Pennsylvania’s shale gas unknowns known.