RFF’s Center for Energy Economics and Policy
Managing the Risks of Shale Gas:
Research Findings
Alan Krupnick, PhD
Director, Center for Energy Economics and Policy
June 27, 2013
Acknowledgments
• Funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
• From RFF: Alan Krupnick (PI), Sheila Olmstead (co-PI), Lucija
Muehlenbachs, Nathan Richardson, Jhih-Shyang Shih, Juha Siikamaki,
Ziyan Chu, Hal Gordon, Madeline Gottlieb; Kristin Hayes (Assistant CEEP
Director); Jan Mares; RFF Communications: Shannon Wulf, Pete Nelson,
Adrienne Young, Jeannine Ajello, Nicole Hardy
• Outside of RFF
Researchers
• Shimon Anisfeld, Yale University
• Beia Spiller, Environmental Defense Fund
• Chris Timmons, Duke University
• Hannah Wiseman, Florida State University
Advisors
• Mukul Sharma, University of Texas
• Karlis Muehlenbachs, University of Alberta
• James Saiers, Yale University (also co-author)
2
Plan for the Event
• Krupnick: Overview of our work on shale gas
development risks and brief presentation of “familiar
results”
• Presentations of new results:
•
•
•
•
Richardson: State by state regulatory results
Olmstead: Chemical Assay results
Muehlenbachs: Property Value study
Siikamaki: Public Survey
• Krupnick: Cross-cutting results and future research
• Break
• Panel of experts discussing utility of findings and
future research
3
Risk Matrix
4
Creating Risk Pathways (Risk Matrices on the web)
Intermediate
Impacts
Activities
Burdens
Site development and
drilling preparation
Air pollutants
Groundwater
Human health impacts
Drilling fluids and
cuttings
Surface water
Market impacts
Vertical drilling
Soil quality
Ecosystem impacts
Air quality
Climate change
impacts
Horizontal drilling
Saline water intrusion
Fracturing and
completion
Fracturing fluids
Well production and
operation
Flowback constituents
(other than fracturing
fluids)
Flowback and produced
water storage/disposal
Produced water
constituents
Shutting-in, plugging
and abandonment
Condenser and
dehydration additives
Workovers
Habitat/community
disruptions
Upstream and
downstream activities
Final Impacts
Habitat disruption
Quality of life impacts
Community
disruption
Occupational hazard
Other
5
Creating Risk Pathways (cont’d)
Activities
Burdens
Intermediate
Impacts
Final Impacts
Morbidity
Conventional air
pollutants and
CO2
On-road
vehicle activity
Air quality
Climate change
impacts
Noise pollution
Community
disruption
Aesthetics
Road congestion
Time loss
6
Sloan Project on Environmental Risks
1. Expert survey of
shale gas development
risks
Risk Matrix
2. Statistical analysis:
a) Effects of shale gas activity
on surface water quality in
Pennsylvania
b) Analysis of chemical assays
of flowback/produced water
c) Property Value effects
3. State-by-state regulatory
analysis
4. Public Survey
5. Summary
7
Sloan Project on Environmental Risks
Risk Matrix
1. Expert survey of
shale gas development
risks
Complete
2. Statistical analysis:
4. Public Survey
a) Effects of shale gas activity
on surface water quality in
Pennsylvania
Complete, PNAS
b) Analysis of chemical assays
of flowback/produced water
Available soon
c) Property value.
Complete
3. State-by-state regulatory
analysis
Complete (available today)
Presented at AERE,
Aspen Institute
5. Summary Complete (available today)
8
Surveying the Experts: Who & What?
215 experts:
•
•
•
•
NGOs (35): Most national environmental groups, some local
Academics (63): Universities/think tanks
Government (42): Federal agencies; about half the relevant states; river
basin commissions
Industry (75): Operating and support companies, trade associations,
consulting firms, law firms
Chose high priorities among 264 possible routine risk
pathways, 14 accident types.
Overlap of each groups’ high priority routine risk pathways
Consensus routine risk pathways
12
More detail
Some surprises
•
•
•
Surface waters dominate
Only two pathways (fracking fluids) are unique to the shale gas
development process
Habitat fragmentation included
Some expected findings
•
•
•
•
On-site pit and pond storage of flowback
Freshwater withdrawals
Venting of methane
Treatment and release of flowback liquids
What is not a frequently chosen pathway
•
Groundwater risks from fracking
•
Seismic risks
Responsibility
Who should be responsible for managing risks?
Government
Industry
NGO
Industry
Academic
Gov’t All experts
93.8%
49.4%
74.9%
74.8%
69.4%
6.2%
50.6%
25.1%
25.2%
30.6%
• All groups prefer shared responsibility
• For consensus pathways, majority of industry supports government
responsibility
Surface Water Quality Risk Study (PNAS, 2013)
We exploit spatial and temporal variation in the proximity
of shale gas wells, waste treatment facilities, and surface
water quality monitors in Pennsylvania to statistically
identify:
• the impact of shale gas wells on downstream
chloride and TSS concentrations; and
• the impact of shale gas waste treatment and
release to surface water on downstream chloride
and TSS concentrations.
15
16
Conclusion
• No statistically significant impact of shale gas wells on
downstream Cl- concentrations.
• A positive result here would have been consistent with
systematic contamination problems from spills, etc.
• Release of treated shale gas waste to surface water by
permitted wastewater treatment facilities increases
downstream Cl- concentrations.
• Effect is more strongly associated with facilities affected by
2011 regulatory attention from PA DEP/EPA.
• Shale gas well pads increase downstream TSS
concentrations.
17
Thank You!
www.rff.org/shalegasrisks
18