Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:12:09.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Experts Say About the Environmental Risks of Shale Gas Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Alan J. Krupnick  and
Hal G. Gordon
Alan J. Krupnick*
Affiliation:
Center for Energy and Climate Economics at Resources for the Future
Hal G. Gordon
Affiliation:
Resources for the Future
*
Correspondence: Alan Krupnick ▪ Resources for the Future ▪ 1616 P Street NW ▪ Washington, DC 20036 ▪ Phone 202.328.5107 ▪ Email [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Public discourse suggests a lack of consensus in the United States regarding the environmental impacts of shale gas development. Newly available shale gas has reduced the cost of electricity and heating and replaced coal, but public fears about the environment threaten to curtail those gains. We designed the first survey-based analysis of the views of government, industry, academic, and nongovernmental experts to identify their priorities for regulation and voluntary action among 264 routine and 14 accidental environmental risk “pathways.” We find that nongovernmental experts select many more problems but that there is considerable agreement on the most important ones, which can guide research, policies, and practices so that shale gas benefits continue and environmental impacts are limited.

Keywords

risk pathwaysshale gas development
Type
Selected Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 44 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Unconventional Gas and Oil Development: Economic and Environmental Impacts , August 2015 , pp. 106 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Allen, D.T. Torres, V.M. Thomas, J. Sullivan, D.W. Harrison, M. Hendler, A. Herndon, S.C. Kolb, C.E. Fraser, M.P. Hill, A.D. Lamb, B.K. Miskimins, J. Sawyer, R.F. and Seinfeld, J.H. 2013. “Measurements of Methane Emissions at Natural Gas Production Sites in the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(44): 17768–17773.Google ScholarPubMed
American Petroleum Institute. 2013. “Hydraulic Fracturing Best Practices Overview.” American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. Available at www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/hf/hydraulic-fracturing-best-practices (accessed June 2014).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. “Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources: Executive Summary.” EPA, Washington, DC. Available at www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf (accessed July 2015).Google Scholar
Marcellus Shale Coalition. 2014. “Recommended Practices” website. Marcellus Shale Coalition, Pittsburgh, PA. http://marcelluscoalition.org/category/library/recommended-practices (accessed June 2014).Google Scholar
Olmstead, S.M. Muehlenbachs, L.A. Shih, J.S. Chu, Z. and Krupnick, A.J. 2013. “Shale Gas Development Impacts on Surface Water Quality in Pennsylvania.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(13): 4962–4967.Google ScholarPubMed
Richardson, N. Gottlieb, M. Krupnick, A. and Wiseman, H. 2013. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” RFF Report, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar