Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:13:33.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unconventional Gas Development in the U.S. States: Exploring the Variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Olga Schenk ,
Michelle H.W. Lee ,
Naveed H. Paydar ,
John A. Rupp  and
John D. Graham
Olga Schenk
Affiliation:
School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Indiana University
Michelle H.W. Lee
Affiliation:
School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Indiana University
Naveed H. Paydar
Affiliation:
School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Indiana University
John A. Rupp
Affiliation:
School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Indiana University
John D. Graham
Affiliation:
School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the large interstate variation in levels of unconventional gas development in the U.S. states. The following hypotheses are advanced to predict whether a state will be predisposed toward development: (H1) the availability of unconventional gas reserves; (H2) the availability of infrastructure to support development; (H3) a recent history of conventional oil and gas development; (H4) Republican party control of the Governor's office and state legislature; (H5) relatively low sensitivity to environmental issues; (H6) regulatory systems that treat UGD as a variant of conventional gas development; (H7) a pressing need for economic benefits as indicated by state and local measures of household income, unemployment and poverty; (H8) and public opinion supportive of development. To various degrees, each of the hypotheses is supported but important exceptions and surprises are uncovered in the qualitative and semi-quantitative analyses. Future research should continue the effort to explain the variation of development by expanding the geographical scope of inquiry and enlarging the sample of jurisdictions.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 436 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 EIA, “U.S. expected to be largest producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons in 2013”, 4 October 2013, available on the Internet at <http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13251> (last accessed on March 26 2014).

2 Levi, Michael. The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America's Future. (Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

3 Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, the treaties of the European Union did not have a specific title on energy. However, the supranational energy-related legislative activities have steadily increased, whereas the EU was drawing from the related legal bases in which the EU had the powers to regulate. IEA, “IEA Energy Policy Review. The European Union”, (Paris: OECD/IEA 2008), pp. 27 et sqq.

4 Consolidated Version of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, Article 194, 13 December 2007, in force 1 December 2009, Official Journal of the European Union (2012), pp. 134 et sqq.

5 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high volume hydraulic fracturing in the EU, COM(2014) 23, at p. 4.

6 Commission Recommendations of 22 January 2014 on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, 2014/40/EU.

7 BMUB, “Überblick über die geplante “Fracking”-Regelung”, 4 Juli 2014, available on the Internet at <http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/wasser-abfall-boden/binnengewaesser/fracking-regelung/> (last accessed on August 4 2014). See also UBA, “Umweltauswirkungen von Fracking bei der Aufsuchung und Gewinnung von Erdgas insbesondere aus Schiefergaslagerstätten. Teil 2 - Grundwassermonitoringkonzept, Frackingchemikalienkataster, Entsorgung von Flowback, Forschungsstand zur Emissions- und Klimabilanz, induzierte Seismizität, Naturhaushalt, Landschaftsbild und biologische Vielfalt”, (Dessau-Roßlau, UBA: 2014).

8 Jon Gertner, “George Mitchell: He Fracked Until It Paid Off”, The New York Times, available on the Internet at: <http://nytimes.com/news/the-lives-they-lived/2013/12/21/georgemitchell> (last accessed on August 2 2014).

9 Colorado Geological Survey, “Energy Resources – Natural Gas”, available on the Internet at <http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/energy-resources/natural-gas/> (last accessed on 8 May 2014).

10 IRGC, Risk Governance Guidelines for Unconventional Gas Development, (Lausanne: IRGC, 2013), at pp. 3–40 Google Scholar.

11 EIA, “The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage”, August 2004, available on the Internet at <http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/storagebasics/storagebasics.html> (last accessed on 8 May 2014).

12 Freyman Monika, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Water Demand by Numbers. Shareholder, Lender, and Operator Guide to Water Sourcing”, February 2014, available on the Internet at <http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/hydraulic-fracturing-water-stress-water-demand-by-the-numbers> (last accessed on 14 July 2014), at p. 19.

13 Dosi, Giovanni, “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories” 11 Research Policy (1982), at p. 147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Unruh, Gregory, “Understanding Carbon Lock-in” 28 Energy Policy (2000), at p. 817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Slovic, Paul, Fischhoff, Baruch, Lichtenstein, Sarah, “Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk”. In: Schwing, Richard C.; Albers, Walter A. (eds.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? (New York: Plenum Press, 1980), at pp.181–216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Cook, Jeffrey J., “Who's Regulating Who? Analyzing Fracking Policy in Colorado, Wyoming, and Louisiana” 16(2) Environmental Practice (2014), at p.107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Davis, Charles, ‘The Politics of ‘Fracking’: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in Colorado and Texas’ 29(2) Review of Policy Research (2012), at p. 88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 League of Conservation Voters, ‘National Environmental Scorecard. Archive’, 2014, available on the Internet at: <http://scorecard.lcv.org/scorecard/archive> (last accessed on 29 July 2014).

19 One study estimates that 1.7 million jobs in the USA were stimulated by UGD, 20% in drilling activity, 30% in suppliers of equipment and services, and 50% in stimulus by enhanced spending by workers (for home builders, car dealers etc). About $62 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue in 2012 was attributed to UGD. Cf. John Larson, Leta Smith, “Surprising Boom for the U.S. Economy”, Wall Street Journal, 6 March 2013, at p. A14.

20 Rabe, Barry G. & Borick, Cristopher, “Conventional Politics for Unconventional Drilling? Lessons from Pennsylvania's Early Move into Fracking Policy Development”, 30(3) Review of Policy Research (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Boudet, Hilary et al., “Fracking” controversy and communications: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing”, 65 Energy Policy (2014), at pp. 57–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. John D. Graham et al., “Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues”, 2014, Conference Proceedings: Risk, Perception, and Response Conference and 20th Kyoto University International Symposium. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Boston, USA, March 20-21, 2014, available on the Internet at <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcra/risk-perception-and-response-conference/conference-agenda-and-papers/> (last accessed on 24 July 2014).

22 Ibid.

23 SPE, “Guidelines for Application of the Petroleum Resources Management System”, 2011, available on the Internet at: <http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/PRMS_Guidelines_Nov2011.pdf> (last accessed on 24 July 2014),at p. 231.

24 Arthur Berman and Lyndon Pittinger, “Resource Assessment of Potentially Producible Natural Gas Volumes From the Marcellus Shale, State of New York”, 10 April 2014, available on the Internet at <http://www.lwvny.org/advocacy/natural-resources/hydrofracking/2014/Marcellus-Resource-Assessment-NY_0414pdf.pdf> (last accessed on July 24 2014), at p.20.

25 Joan Crockett and David Morse, “The New Albany Shale in Illinois: Emerging Play or Prolific Source”, 6 September 2010, available on the Internet at <http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-108/issue-33/exploration-__development/the-new-albany-shale.html> (last accessed 16 July 2014).

26 Timothy Cama, “Officials cut Calif.'s Monterey Shale oil estimate 96%”, The Hill, 21 May 2014, available on the Internet at <http:thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/206758-officials-cut> (last accessed 2 August 2014).

27 John Funk, “Utica Shale Gas Production Ramping Up Slowly, Ohio Report Shows”, 16 May 2013, available on the Internet at <http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/05/utica_shale_gas_production_ram.html> (last accessed 16 July 2014).

28 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, “Ohio's Natural Gas Production Nearly Doubles from 2012 to 2013” 2 July 2014, available on the Internet at <http://ohiodnr.gov/news/post/ohios-natural-gas-production-nearly-doubles-from-2012-to-2013> (last accessed 16 July 2014).

29 U.S. Department of Energy, “Coal Bed Methane Primer: New Sources of Natural Gas – Environmental Implications”, 2004, available on the Internet at <http://www.all-llc.com/publicdownloads/CBMPRIMERFINAL.pdf> (last accessed July 24 2014).

30 Freyman Monika, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress”, supra note 12, at p. 7.

31 U.S. Drought Monitor, “Texas”, 24 July 2014, available at <http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?TX> (last accessed on 24 July 2014).

32 Freyman Monika, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress”, supra note 12, at p. 68.

33 Ibid., at p.6.

34 EIA, “Ohio Natural Gas Marketed Production”, 30 April 2014, available on the Internet at <http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050oh2a.htm> (last accessed on 8 May 2014).

35 Michigan Office of Geological Survey, “Hydraulic Fracturing of Natural Gas Wells in Michigan”, 21 May 2011, available on the Internet at <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/Hydrofrac-2010-08-13_331787_7.pdf> (last accessed on 8 May 2014).

36 EIA, “California. State Profile and Energy Estimates”, 19 June 2014, available on the Internet at <http://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=CA> (last accessed on 2 August 2014).

37 Pennsylvania General Assembly, Session of 2012, HB 1950 Oil and Gas (58 PA.C.S.) Omnibus Amendments, 14 February 2012.

38 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, “J-127A-D-2012”, 17 October 2012, available on the Internet at <http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-127A-D-2012oajc.pdf?cb=1> (last accessed on 14 April 2014).

39 Case 13CV63, Colorado Oil and Gas Association, and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Plaintiffs, Top Operating Co., Plaintiff-Intervenor v. City of Longmont, Colorado, Defendant, and The Sierra Club, Earthworks, Our health, Our future, Our Longmont, and Food and Water Watch, Defendant-Intrevenors, July 24 2014.

40 Bobby Magill, “Voters in Colorado, Ohio Cities Say No to Fracking”, 6 November 2013, available on the Internet at <http://www.climatecentral.org/news/voters-in-colorado-ohio-cities-sideline-fracking-16707> (last accessed on 15 December 2014).

41 ELPC, “Understanding the Illinois Hydraulic Fracturing Law”, 3 January 2014, available on the Internet at <http://elpc.org/illinoisfrackinglaw> (last accessed on 3 August 2014).

42 State of New York Executive Chamber, “Executive Order No.41: Requiring Further Environmental Review”, 13 December 2010.

43 IRGC, Risk Governance Guidelines for Unconventional Gas Development, supra note 10, at p. 32.

44 Here and in the following, the data on the economic distress measures was obtained from the American Community Survey (5- year estimates) via the “Community Facts” data base from the “American Fact Finder” by feeding in a state or county and drawing the data from the categories “Income” and “Poverty”. Cf. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, via “American Fact Finder”, “Community Facts”, available on the Internet at <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml> (last accessed on 9 May 2014).

45 PUC, “Impact Fees. Top Receiving Counties for 2012”, available on the Internet at <https://www.act13-reporting.puc.pa.gov/Modules/PublicReporting/Overview.aspx> (last accessed on 9 May 2014).

46 From 2007 to 2011, per capita income in Pennsylvania counties with more than 200 wells rose 19% compared to 8% in counties with no wells. Fred Siegel, “Fracking, Poverty, and the New Liberal Gentry”, Wall Street Journal, 8 November 2013, at p. A15.

47 Danny Hakim, “Cuomo Proposal Would Restrict Gas Drilling to a Struggling Area”, 13 June 2012, available on the Internet at <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/nyregion/hydrofracking-under-cuomo-plan-would-be-restricted-to-a-few-counties.html?_r=1&> (last accessed 24 July 2014).Steve Hargreaves, “New York Set to Lift Fracking Ban” 1 July 2011, available on the Internet at <http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/01/news/economy/fracking_new_york/> (last accessed on 24 July 2014).

48 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, “Economic Impacts of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry on the US Economy in 2011”, July 2013, available on the Internet at <http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Jobs/Economic_impacts_Ong_2011.pdf> (last accessed 24 July 2014).

49 Southern Illinois University- Carbondale, “Poll: Southern Illinois Voters Divided over Fracking”, 29 October 2013, available on the Internet at <http://news.siu.edu/2013/10/102913par13148.html> (last accessed 24 July 2014).

50 EurActive, “Yellow Paper Hydraulic Fracturing. Hydraulic Fracturing auf dem Prüfstand: Potenziale und Risiken”, June 2012, available on the Internet at <http://www.euractiv.de/files/docs/EurActiv.de_Yellowpaper_Fracking.pdf> (last accessed 24 July 2014).Robert A. Hefner III, “The United States of Gas: Why the Shale Revolution Could Have Happened Only in America”, May/June 2014, Foreign Affairs, available on the Internet at <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141203/robert-a-hefner-iii/the-united-states-of-gas> (last accessed 24 July 2014).

51 Ibid. in Robert A. Hefner III, “The United States of Gas”.

52 For the pioneering contribution on the development of stringency indices for oil and gas regulation across 31 U.S. states, see Nathan Richardson, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, et al, “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation”, (Washington D.C.: RFF 2013).