Comment pubs.acs.org/est
Special Issue: Understanding the Risks of Unconventional Shale Gas Development experts in law and political science. ES&T provides an especially appropriate venue for such a special issue, given its broad and leading coverage of environmental science, engineering, and policy. The first feature article in this special issue, by Small et al., summarizes key elements of the technical-social system of shale gas development, its risks, and their governance. For each principal domain of risk, the authors identify known or potential hazards and promising mitigation options. A first attempt is made to characterize the current state of knowledge about the risk and risk governance issues, including critical research needs. Risk domains considered include operational risks (accidents, leakage, and induced seismicity); impacts on water supply and water quality; local, regional, and global air pollution impacts; effects on global climate change; ecological effects associated with habitat disruption and toxicity; human health effects; and socioeconomic impacts on affected communities. Following this lead-off paper are papers that provide in-depth reviews of water resource impacts; air quality effects; effects on global climate change; potential human health implications; and socioeconomic risks to communities. In their review of water-related risks, Vengosh et al. identify potential impacts from (a) contamination of shallow aquifers by “stray gases,” which can evolve into salinization of shallow groundwater through leaking natural gas wells; (b) contamination of surface water and shallow groundwater from spills, leaks, and disposal of inadequately treated wastewater or hydraulic fracturing fluids; (c) accumulation of toxic and radioactive elements in soil or stream sediments; and (d) overextraction of water resources that could induce water shortages or conflicts with other water users. In the domain of air quality impacts, Moore et al. find that new research is needed to estimate emissions of air pollutants from shale gas production, including measurements before and during production, processing, transmission, storage, and distribution, as well as rarely quantified emissions from retired and abandoned wells. Newell and Raimi offer one of the first comprehensive analyses of the effects of both methane leakage and the economic forces affecting shale-gas related greenhouse gas emissions, including a likely increase in overall energy use due to lower prices, a shortterm decrease in GHG emissions due to displacement of coal by natural gas (already apparent in the U.S.), and projected longerterm effects due to displacement or delay of coal and oil, but also zero-carbon sources such as nuclear and renewables. While abundant natural gas does not drive economy-wide emissions to zero, having a low-cost alternative to more carbon-intensive fuels such as coal and oil can make it cheaper for society to achieve broad climate policies. Additional comprehensive analyses of the effects of shale gas development on global demand for fossil fuels and fuel switching are thus clearly needed.
A
dvances in methods for hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and related technologies that enable the recovery of natural gas and oil from deep shale formations have been ongoing for decades. However, it is primarily in the past few years that the evolution of this technology and its more widespread deployment in areas unaccustomed to recent oil and gas activity, such as in the eastern United States, has led to concern and controversy. Proponents argue that the shale gas revolution has enabled a new era of clean domestic energy, bringing significant economic benefits and jobs to those who need them and reducing U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while posing modest environmental risks similar to those of other natural gas and energy development technologies. Furthermore, they believe these risks to be well-managed by the current mix of drillers and operators utilizing ongoing improvements in technology and industry standards for best practice, together with the current set of governmental regulations. In contrast, opponents of “fracking” argue that it poses significant upstream, operational and downstream risks, and is currently implemented with inadequate safeguards and monitoring to protect against multiple environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts. They maintain that GHG emissions may increase in the long term due to shale gas, and that the emerging system of non-Federal (state-based) regulation in the U.S. exhibits high variability and inconsistency across states, with inadequate capacity for effective tracking, coordination and oversight of risks. Is there sufficient experience and scientific evidence to support or refute these opposing claims and narratives? Where is additional research most needed to provide the critical knowledge for improved understanding and management of shale gas technology, its risks, and its governance? Given the rapidly evolving technology and deployment of unconventional shale gas drilling, an assessment of the current state of knowledge of its risks and governance elements−and how they interact over different spatial, temporal, and organizational scales−is critically needed. The objective of this special issue is to begin to provide such an assessment. The papers in this issue were derived from two workshops organized in 2013 at the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), the first on risks and the second on risk governance. With support from the National Science Foundation, the Park Foundation, and Shell Upstream America, the NRC assembled a committee to plan the workshops and invited scholars and practitioners from academia, oil and gas companies, and state, federal and local agencies. The presentations at the workshops and the resulting collection of papers in this special issue review and assess the depth and breadth of science behind risk and risk governance approaches that academics, industry professionals and governmental regulators are beginning to bring to bear on this technology, which extends well beyond the confines of any single field of environmental science. The insights presented here include those of leading water, air and ecosystem scientists, geologists, engineers, health scientists, economists, social scientists, and © 2014 American Chemical Society
Published: August 5, 2014 8287
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es502459b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8287−8288
Environmental Science & Technology
Comment
North et al. draw on previous National Research Council studies to consider the state of the art on public and stakeholder engagement in risk characterization and decision making. They note that the analytic-deliberative process advocated in those study reports remains one of the most promising conceptual approaches to an holistic and integrated approach to risk governance, but one that has been little tried in the shale gas context. Mauter et al. highlight the variation in regional water management issues associated with shale gas development in the U.S. and the potential for other nations anticipating development of their shale plays to leverage these diverse experiences in formulating development strategies that minimize water-related impacts within their environmental, cultural, and political systems. Konschnik and Boling bring a perspective informed by their legal experience in federal air pollution regulation and oil and gas industry practices designed to achieve full community acceptance, proposing a combined federal-state approach for a “smart regulation framework” that includes an improved characterization of risks by regulators (i.e., the U.S. EPA) and the oil and gas industry; the determination of optimal mitigation strategies; the identification of appropriate regulations to ensure that optimal approaches are pursued; and enforcement to provide a level playing field for operators. When emergent technologies are deployed, or when established technologies are deployed to a vastly greater extent than had previously occurred, awareness of risks and establishment of effective systems of risk governance can be expected to lag. In the case of shale gas, arguments for jobs, revenues, nearterm climate change benefits, and energy security have compelled the rapid expansion of technologies for drilling, capturing, processing, distribution, consumption, and export of natural gas. The unintentional byproducts and risks of these operations are only beginning to become understood. Effective management of hazards and risks requires sound understandings of the dangers and well-designed institutions for governance and regulation. It also requires a coordinated effort to ensure that the research needed for decision support is conducted and integrated in an effective manner. It is our hope that this special issue contributes toward this outcome.
Adgate et al. review issues of human health, worker safety and population exposures to toxins and stress, noting that the broad, long-term studies needed to assess exposures and effects are not yet in place. Like determinations of water, air, and ecosystem impacts, human health assessments require extensive collection of baseline data sets, in this case for chemical and stress exposures, biomarkers, and baseline incidence rates for health end points of concern. It is clearly not possible to provide an effective evaluation of conditions “after” drilling, without a statistically rigorous characterization of conditions “before.” Concerns regarding health impacts and a lack of trust in the information provided by industry and government authorities on chemical exposures and risks are among the factors that may lead to broader community stress, stigma and harm. Jacquet also acknowledges the lack of baseline data in his review of the potential socioeconomic effects of shale gas, including those associated with boom-bust economic dynamics in mineralmining regions and communities. These include highly variable distributions of costs, externalities, and benefits; impacts on preexisting local industries such as tourism and agriculture; stress on local services and infrastructure; community conflict and mistrust in government local institutions; and social-psychological stress and disruption. He argues that effective treatment of these issues will require extended longitudinal studies in affected and comparison communities, revisiting previous studies and cases, and assistance to communities to participate in the associated data collection, mitigation, and planning. The feature article by Small et al. also provides an overview of important shale gas risk governance concerns from the second workshop. Federal, state, and local roles for shale gas governance responsibility in the U.S. are marked by the delegation of many regulatory functions from the federal to state levels, with significant differences among states in the regulatory instruments they employ, their capacity to enforce regulations, and the allocation of decision and zoning autonomy to local governments. Workshop participants also reviewed the potential contribution of enhanced stakeholder participation for shale gas governance; emerging approaches to shale gas governance in Europe, China, and other nations; and new initiatives for governance in the U.S. These include the development of voluntary performance standards by industry and NGOs; state initiatives requiring comprehensive planning for shale gas development; and possible scenarios for an increased role of Federal agencies in information collection and dissemination, regulation, and research support. Rabe reviews the historical evolution of state-based regulation of the oil and gas industry, noting that in some locations state regulations and enforcement capacity have lagged behind the initial wave of development, though the number of states with enabling legislation has grown rapidly in the past few years. Wiseman documents how states write and enforce their own oil and gas regulations, such as requirements for well casing and waste disposal; implement federal regulations where applicable; shape the nature and extent of municipal involvement and control; and participate in regional compacts managing water supply, air quality, and other issues that transcend state boundaries. However, as further documented, states often lack the staff and expertise to meet all of these tasks. Davis compares current shale gas regulation practices in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Texas, finding that fundamentally different local-state relationships have emerged. Furthermore, these relationships are still in flux, as reflected by a proliferation of local ballot propositions and pending court decisions.
Paul C. Stern† Thomas Webler‡ Mitchell J. Small*,§ †
■
National Research Council, Board on Environmental Change and Society, Washington, DC 20001, United States ‡ Research Fellow, Social and Environmental Research Institute, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002, United States § H. John Heinz III Professor of Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
Views in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of ACS, the U.S. National Research Council, or project sponsors. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
8288
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es502459b | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8287−8288
