Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits

Wheeler, David; MacGregor, Margo; Atherton, Frank; Christmas, Kevin M.; Dalton, Shawn E.; Dusseault, Maurice B.; Gagnon, Graham A.; Hayes, Brad; MacIntosh, Constance; Mauro, Ian; Ritcey, Ray

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.008

Cited by 35 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies have led some authors to argue for an ethical analysis of shale gas production (de Melo-Martin et al 2014, Field et al 2014, North et al 2014, Short et al 2015, Wheeler et al 2015. In particular, some have argued that shale gas production raises issues of environmental justice (Carre 2012, Perry 2012, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2012, Fry et al 2015, Ogneva-Himmelberger and Huang 2015.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just fracking: a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in Pennsylvania, USA

Clough

Bell

2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This letter presents a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in the area of Pennsylvania lying over the Marcellus Shale, the largest shale gas formation in play in the United States. The extraction of shale gas using unconventional wells, which are hydraulically fractured (fracking), has increased dramatically since 2005. As the number of wells has grown, so have concerns about the potential public health effects on nearby communities. These concerns make shale gas development an environmental justice issue. This letter examines whether the hazards associated with proximity to wells and the economic benefits of shale gas production are fairly distributed. We distinguish two types of distributive environmental justice: traditional and benefit sharing. We ask the traditional question: are there a disproportionate number of minority or low-income residents in areas near to unconventional wells in Pennsylvania? However, we extend this analysis in two ways: we examine income distribution and level of education; and we compare before and after shale gas development. This contributes to discussions of benefit sharing by showing how the income distribution of the population has changed. We use a binary dasymetric technique to remap the data from the 2000 US Census and the 2009-2013 American Communities Survey and combine that data with a buffer containment analysis of unconventional wells to compare the characteristics of the population living nearer to unconventional wells with those further away before and after shale gas development. Our analysis indicates that there is no evidence of traditional distributive environmental injustice: there is not a disproportionate number of minority or low-income residents in areas near to unconventional wells. However, our analysis is consistent with the claim that there is benefit sharing distributive environmental injustice: the income distribution of the population nearer to shale gas wells has not been transformed since shale gas development.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just fracking: a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in Pennsylvania, USA

Clough

Bell

2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conversely, UOGD opponents may emphasize perceived scientific consensus in the opposite direction -high potential for some impacts seen as undesirable (such as water contamination), low potential for others considered beneficial (such as local jobs), and an overall sense than risks outweigh the benefits. Moreover, for engagement-based risk communication that focuses on maximizing public input into UOGD-related decision-making [82], summarizing the state of scientific agreement on specific impacts helps provide important background information for citizens as they participate in the policy-making process [83].…”

Section: Risk Communication Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of scientific consensus? Political divergence and partisanship in unconventional energy development in the United States

Clarke

Evensen

2019

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk communication scholars have examined public perception of scientific consensus on a variety of politically controversial risk topics; social-psychological factors that shape such views (i.e., political ideology); and effects on issue attitudes. Few studies, however, have combined these antecedents and outcomes within a single framework -one that describes how politically polarized attitudes emerge via ideologically-divergent perceptions of scientific agreement. We address this shortcoming in the context of an emerging risk topic -unconventional oil and natural gas development (UOGD) in the United States -that is politically controversial and where scientific agreement on specific impacts along with value-laden assessments of benefit and risk are subjects of scholarly and public debate. Using a quota survey of United States adults (n = 700), we find that political conservatism heightened support indirectly via: (1) perceived scientific consensus that benefits outweigh the risks and, in turn, the belief that UOGD's health, economic, and environmental impacts in the United States have been positive and (2) lower perception of scientific consensus that risks outweigh benefits, which likewise heightened beliefs that aforementioned impacts have been positive. We discuss implications for risk communication research related to energy development.

show abstract

“…Comprehensive (Becklumb, Chong, and Williams 2015, Belcher 2014, Broomfield 2013, European Commission DG Environment 2015, Fleming 2015, Green and Jackson 2015, Hays et al 2015, King 2010, Krupnick, Gordon, and Olmstead 2013, Philippe & Partners 2011, Robinson 2012, Schneider 2012, Soeder et al 2014, Uliasz-Misiak, Przybycin, and Winid 2014, Wiseman 2013, Wright 2014, Ziemkiewicz, Quaranta, and McCawley 2014 Copithorne 2010) Atmospheric (Ethridge et al 2015) Chemical (Gosman 2013) Community, Population and health (Meng 2015, Penningroth et al 2013, Schafft, Borlu, and Glenna 2013, Touzel 2012, Wheeler et al 2015, Williams 2015, Zhang, Hammack, and Vidic 2015, Krzyanowski et al 2000, Mitka 2012, Rosenman 2014, Tuller 2015 Due diligence (Nicholas and Lozier 2013, Dana and Wiseman 2014, Hagstrom and Adams 2012 Geology (Lange et al 2013, Kissinger et al 2013 Process safety (Uth 2014(Uth , 2012 Radiological (Daniels and Chapman 2013, Nelson et al 2015, Zhang, Hamma...…”

Section: Further References For Risk Assessment Reporting Related To mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There Scientific Evidence to Support the Selection of Hydraulic Fracturing Rules?

Campin

2016

Day 3 Wed, April 13, 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of hydraulic fracturing to hydrocarbon-rich basins has evolved since the first tentative steps to stimulate conventional oil reservoirs in the United States Mid-West in the late 1940s, into a widely practiced technology, principally used today in gaining commercial flows of unconventional hydrocarbon reserves. The early application of the technology was directed toward draining methane from coal seams as a safety measure (Thakur 2014), evolving to assist commercial recovery of coalbed methane as the first systematic use in the unconventional resources. In conjunction with the application of horizontal drilling and completions technology, real time micro-seismic monitoring technology, and understanding of the nature of unconventional resources geology, the phenomena of modern shale gas and oil extraction transformed the US energy landscape. Following this break-through in the US, other jurisdictions commenced similar pursuits for their unconventional petroleum potential. The application of hydraulic fracturing was just one more aspect in a rapidly evolving complex business where regulations were in a state of permanent catch-up.Regulations to address specific environmental 1 risks 2 associated with on-shore hydraulic fracturing evolved as use of the technology spread to new jurisdictions. State oversight of hydraulic fracturing is the norm worldwide other than for single-level federal jurisdictions such as the UK. Elsewhere, federal regulation is generally restricted to the outer envelope of environmental impacts such as air quality standards and receiving water standards, except with the case of off-shore activities. State regulations tend to be directed to the exploration and development processes with local government exerting control using 1 Environment includesa. ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and b. all natural and physical resources; and c. amenity values; and d. the social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) or which are affected by those matters 2 Risk means consequence times probabilityplanning rule 3 s such as noise and set-back. Off-shore regulation of hydraulic fracturing is dominated by federal authorities across the globe due to complexities of national waters and contiguous hydrocarbon basins extending across national economic zone boundaries (Nordtveit 2015, Gordon andPaterson 2015). This paper builds on earlier work where hydraulic fracturing regulations from fifty five jurisdictions were assessed (Campin 2013). Self-selected rule categories (fifty nine elements) were identified based on frequency of occurrence in the various regulatory frameworks examined. The rationale and justification for environmental protection parameters is examined and documentary evidence is assessed for selected rules. This paper draws from the peer reviewed, scientific literature or official reports from government agencies and is restricted to the on-shore sector.Regulation in the absence of a ...

show abstract

Hydraulic fracturing – Integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits

Cited by 35 publications

References 34 publications

Just fracking: a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in Pennsylvania, USA

Just fracking: a distributive environmental justice analysis of unconventional gas development in Pennsylvania, USA

The politics of scientific consensus? Political divergence and partisanship in unconventional energy development in the United States

Is There Scientific Evidence to Support the Selection of Hydraulic Fracturing Rules?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About