Response to the Comment by Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20 March 2015) on the paper "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas" by Stamford and Azapagic (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-581)

Laurence Stamford; Adisa Azapagic

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.020

Response to the Comment by Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20 March 2015) on the paper "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas" by Stamford and Azapagic (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-581)

Laurence Stamford, Adisa Azapagic

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

194 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In the recent Comment on our paper "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas" (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-518), Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20th March 2015) allege that we exaggerated the potential impacts of shale gas extraction in the UK. They first take an issue with our inclusion of worst case scenarios despite our clear declaration in several places in the paper that this is indicative of what could happen within the confines of a very ill-defined and highly variable future reality. Secondly, Westaway et al. claim that key assumptions in the modelling reflect illegal practices that would not occur, when in fact this is an exaggeration of the legal situation and these practices are still viable. This rebuttal addresses some of the claims made by Westaway et al. while welcoming further open and impartial discourse in this area.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	947-948
Number of pages	2
Journal	Applied Energy
Volume	155
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.020
Publication status	Published - 2015

Keywords

LCA
life cycle assessment
shale gas
fracking

Access to Document

10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.020

FULL-TEXT

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Response to the Comment by Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20 March 2015) on the paper "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas" by Stamford and Azapagic (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-581)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{c1dce9d2bfe24258a2bdb5138743773a,

title = "Response to the Comment by Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20 March 2015) on the paper {"}Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas{"} by Stamford and Azapagic (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-581)",

abstract = "In the recent Comment on our paper {"}Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas{"} (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-518), Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20th March 2015) allege that we exaggerated the potential impacts of shale gas extraction in the UK. They first take an issue with our inclusion of worst case scenarios despite our clear declaration in several places in the paper that this is indicative of what could happen within the confines of a very ill-defined and highly variable future reality. Secondly, Westaway et al. claim that key assumptions in the modelling reflect illegal practices that would not occur, when in fact this is an exaggeration of the legal situation and these practices are still viable. This rebuttal addresses some of the claims made by Westaway et al. while welcoming further open and impartial discourse in this area.",

keywords = "LCA, life cycle assessment, shale gas, fracking",

author = "Laurence Stamford and Adisa Azapagic",

year = "2015",

doi = "10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.020",

language = "English",

volume = "155",

pages = "947--948",

journal = "Applied Energy",

issn = "0306-2619",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

Response to the Comment by Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20 March 2015) on the paper "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas" by Stamford and Azapagic (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-581). / Stamford, Laurence ; Azapagic, Adisa.
In: Applied Energy, Vol. 155, 2015, p. 947-948.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to the Comment by Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20 March 2015) on the paper "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas" by Stamford and Azapagic (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-581)

AU - Stamford, Laurence

AU - Azapagic, Adisa

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - In the recent Comment on our paper "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas" (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-518), Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20th March 2015) allege that we exaggerated the potential impacts of shale gas extraction in the UK. They first take an issue with our inclusion of worst case scenarios despite our clear declaration in several places in the paper that this is indicative of what could happen within the confines of a very ill-defined and highly variable future reality. Secondly, Westaway et al. claim that key assumptions in the modelling reflect illegal practices that would not occur, when in fact this is an exaggeration of the legal situation and these practices are still viable. This rebuttal addresses some of the claims made by Westaway et al. while welcoming further open and impartial discourse in this area.

AB - In the recent Comment on our paper "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas" (Applied Energy 134 (2014) 506-518), Westaway et al. (Applied Energy, available online 20th March 2015) allege that we exaggerated the potential impacts of shale gas extraction in the UK. They first take an issue with our inclusion of worst case scenarios despite our clear declaration in several places in the paper that this is indicative of what could happen within the confines of a very ill-defined and highly variable future reality. Secondly, Westaway et al. claim that key assumptions in the modelling reflect illegal practices that would not occur, when in fact this is an exaggeration of the legal situation and these practices are still viable. This rebuttal addresses some of the claims made by Westaway et al. while welcoming further open and impartial discourse in this area.

KW - LCA

KW - life cycle assessment

KW - shale gas

KW - fracking

U2 - 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.020

DO - 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.020

M3 - Letter

SN - 0306-2619

VL - 155

SP - 947

EP - 948

JO - Applied Energy

JF - Applied Energy

ER -