Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29710821›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2018

Frequency Analysis of Failure Scenarios from Shale Gas Development.

Noura Abualfaraj, Patrick L Gurian, Mira S Olson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Noura AbualfarajDepartment of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. na489@drexel.edu.
Patrick L GurianDepartment of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. plg28@drexel.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7456-9740
Mira S OlsonDepartment of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. mso28@drexel.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study identified and prioritized potential failure scenarios for natural gas drilling operations through an elicitation of people who work in the industry. A list of twelve failure scenarios of concern was developed focusing on specific events that may occur during the shale gas extraction process involving an operational failure or a violation of regulations. Participants prioritized the twelve scenarios based on their potential impact on the health and welfare of the general public, potential impact on worker safety, how well safety guidelines protect against their occurrence, and how frequently they occur. Illegal dumping of flowback water, while rated as the least frequently occurring scenario, was considered the scenario least protected by safety controls and the one of most concern to the general public. In terms of worker safety, the highest concern came from improper or inadequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). While safety guidelines appear to be highly protective regarding PPE usage, inadequate PPE is the most directly witnessed failure scenario. Spills of flowback water due to equipment failure are of concern both with regards to the welfare of the general public and worker safety as they occur more frequently than any other scenario examined in this study.

Indexed as

Natural GasHumansOil and Gas IndustryWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalNatural GasWastewaterWater Pollutants, Chemicalexposure pathwaysfailure scenariosfrackingoccupational health riskshale gas

Identifiers

PMID29710821
PMCPMC5981924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.