User:Paul SciencesPo/sandbox

Economic effects
(after the 3rd paragraph, add this paragraph)

Some studies call into question the claim that what has been called the “shale gas revolution” has a significant macro-economic impact. A study released in the beginning of 2014 by the IDDRI shows the contrary. It demonstrates that, on the long-term as well as on the short-run, the “shale gas revolution” due to fracking in the US has had very little impact on economic growth and competitiveness. It is also very unlikely to make some substantial contribution to GDP growth in the future. It would most likely be the same in Europe according to the study, despite of dramatically increased levels of production of unconventional oil and unconventional gas. Providing an optimistic hypothesis, in other words an upper estimation of shale gas effects on the level of US GDP, the study estimates the impact of hydraulic fracturing on the level of US GDP at 0.84% between 2012 and 2035, also estimating it as 0.88% of GDP growth during the period 2007-2012. Although the study found that on the very short-term, it has had a positive impact on GDP, estimated at 0.4%, due to a fall in gas prices, these effects are located and non-replicable over time (“one-off burst”). Overall, the study reads that “the US trade balance shows no sign of a large shift in competitiveness in non-petroleum and gas sectors”.

In Europe, using hydraulic fracturing would have very little advantages in terms of competitiveness and energy security. Indeed, for the period 2030-2035, shale gas is estimated to cover 3 to 10% of EU projected energy demand, which is not enough to have a significant impact on energetic independence and competitiveness.

Injected fluid section
(add this at the end of the section)

A comprehensive statewide study about the impact of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater is to be released in 2014 by the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It will be the first study of this scale to address whether or not there is an impact of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater contamination, previous having only shown evidence for very localized areas like in West Virginia as reported in 1987.

Seismicity
Hydraulic fracturing routinely produces microseismic events too small to be detected except by sensitive instruments, but it sometimes produces bigger events that can be felt by local populations. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the fracturing.[76] As of late 2012, there have been three known instances of hydraulic fracturing, through induced seismicity, triggering quakes large enough to be felt by people: one each in the United States and Canada, and two in England.[9][129][130] The injection of waste water from oil and gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing, into saltwater disposal wells may cause bigger low-magnitude tremors, being registered up to 3.3 (Mw).[131]

Several earthquakes in 2011, including a 4.0 magnitude quake on New Year's Eve that hit Youngstown, Ohio, are likely linked to a disposal of hydraulic fracturing wastewater,[9] according to seismologists at Columbia University.[132] Although the magnitudes of these quakes has been small, the United States Geological Survey has said that there is no guarantee that larger quakes will not occur.[133]

In addition, the frequency of the quakes has been increasing. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than magnitude 3.0 in the area spanning Alabama and Montana, and there were 87 quakes in 2010. In 2011 there were 134 earthquakes in the same area, a sixfold increase over 20th century levels.[134]

There are also concerns that quakes may damage underground gas, oil, and water lines and wells that were not designed to withstand earthquakes.[133][135] In England, two earthquakes that occurred in April and May 2011 of a magnitude of respectively 1.5 and 2.3 on the Richter scale were felt by local populations. The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change said the “observed seismicity in April and May 2011 was induced by the hydraulic fracture treatments at Preese Hall”, in the North of England. Because of these two events, seismicity is impact mostly related to fracking in the UK’s public opinion. In terms of risks, high levels of association between fracking and seismicity were documented in the UK in 2012 and 2013.

Difference between state and federal jurisdictions
The EPA has the power to issue permits for drilling and underground injection as well as regulations for the treatment of waste at the federal level. States are required to comply with federal law and regulations set by the EPA. States, however, have the power to regulate the activities of certain companies and industries within their borders - they can create safety plans and standards, management and disposal regulations, and public notice and disclosure requirements. Additionally, states can allocate or withdraw power from local governments in decision-making. Land-use ordinances, production standards, and safety regulations can be set by local governments, however state law “determines the extent of authority that municipalities may exercise.”

France
France has voted a transpartisan national ban on exploitation and exploration of shale gas and oil resources using the hydraulic fracturing technique in 2011. It was based on the precautionary principle as well as the principal of preventive and corrective action of environmental hazards, using the best available techniques with an acceptable economic cost to insure the protection, the valuation, the restoration, management of spaces, resources and natural environments, of animal and vegetal species, of ecological diversity and equilibriums.

Federal
Fracking has known impacts on the environment and potential unknown direct or indirect impacts on the environment and human health. It is therefore part of the EPA’s area of regulation. The EPA assures surveillance of the issuance of drilling permits when fracking companies employ diesel fuel. This is its main regulatory activity but it has been importantly reduced in its scope by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that excluded fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control’s regulation, except when diesel is used. This has raised concerns about the efficiency of permit issuance control. In addition to this mission, the EPA works with states to provide safe disposal of wastewater from fracking, has partnerships with other administrations and companies to reduce the air emissions from fracking, particularly from methane employed in the process, and tries to ensure both compliance to regulatory standards and transparency for all stakeholders implied in the implementation process of fracking.

State
Pennsylvania’s Act 13 law on the one hand implements a State-wide regulation of hydraulic fracturing with the impact fee and on the other hand enshrines a really low standard of regulation preventing the possibilities for procedural justice and empowerment of local communities on the issue. Firstly, the law harmonizes the conditions for fracking regulations at the state level prohibiting local governments from legislating on the topic. It creates an impact fee for unconventional gas wells which benefits go to local counties and are to be used to tackle the effects of fracking locally. Nevertheless, the law has been widely criticized by environmentalists for it prevents local governments from adopting tougher regulations of fracking activities. Indeed, zoning powers to decide where and when to frack do not belong anymore to local authorities. The Pennsylvania Utility Commission has the power to invalidate any local ordinance conflicting with oil and gas operations. Fracking has to be authorized in all districts, comprising residential areas. Some chemicals are considered by the law as “trade secret” and information cannot be made public on their health effects. This bill, as well as most state-level regulations of fracking, has henceforth been seen as oriented towards the interests of the fracking industry against growing local concerns.

Vermont’s Act 152 has banned hydraulic fracturing in the exploitation and exploration of unconventional oil and gas as long as it is not demonstrated that it has no impact on the environment or public health.

Local
Local regulations can be a dominant force in enacting drilling ordinances, creating safety standards and production regulations, and enforcing their particular standards. However, in many cases state law can intervene and dominate local law. In Texas, the Railroad Commission can regulate certain industrial activities in their municipality, including production, delivery, and pipeline safety. However the state determined the zoning and permitting that places the sites there in the first place. In New York, RDSGEIS authorizes municipalities to advise the NYDEC if a fracking proposal is inconsistent with local land use laws, and in Pennsylvania, municipal drilling ordinances were usurped by the state’s Oil and Gas Act, that “superseded all local ordinances purporting to regulate gas well operations.” Additionally, Los Angeles has recently become the largest city in the US to pass a Fracking Moratorium.

State vs Federal regulatory jurisdictions
The state level of regulation sets a lower standard of regulation in terms of environmental issues than the federal one for different reasons. Firstly, states only have legislative power over their territory so the potential area affected by regulation is smaller than the federal one. Related to that, we can note that the EPA has power over cross-state resources such as rivers, thus a bigger regulative power. Secondly, environmental issues at the scale of states are usually related to energetic and economic issues through energy administrations, leaving the environmental impact behind economic considerations whereas the EPA’s unique mandate concerns environmental issues, regardless of their economic or energetic aspect, since it is more independent from energy administrations. State regulations are therefore considered to be weaker than federal ones. Thirdly, state-level policies are more subject to majority changes and lobbying whereas federal agencies work independently from Congress and thus deliver more continuity in terms of policy-making.

The academic literature has increasingly stressed the opposite regulatory agendas of natural gas advocates and environmentalists. Environmentalists and the supporters of a precautionary approach have advocated federal and powerful inter-state regulation as well as democratic empowerment of local communities. They have therefore supported inter-state organizations that gather state and federal actors such as the Delaware River Basin Commission when “natural gas policy” ones did not include federal actors. However, natural gas advocates have backed state-level and weak inter-state regulations and the withdrawal of regulatory powers such as zoning from local communities and institutions. They have only admitted a support to certain interstate organizations, but to the ones that pledge for weak regulations and which do not include heavy regulatory powers such as the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Additionally, proponents of state over federal regulation argue that states, with local and historical knowledge of their unique landscapes, are better able to create effective policy than any standardized federal mandate. Congress as well as industry leaders have had an impact on the regulatory exemptions of fracking and continue to be the dominant voice in determining regulation in the United States.

Risk-based approach
The main tool used by this approach is risk assessment. A risk assessment method, based on experimenting and assessing risk ex-post, once the technology is in place. In the context of hydraulic fracturing, it means that drilling permits are issued and exploitation conducted before the potential risks on the environment and human health are known. The risk-based approach mainly relies on a discourse that sacralizes technological innovations as an intrinsic good, and the analysis of such innovations, such as hydraulic fracturing, is made on a sole cost-benefit framework, which does not allow prevention or ex-ante debates on the use of the technology. This is also referred to as “learning-by-doing”. A risk assessment method has for instance led to regulations that exist in the US (EPA will release its study on the impact of fracking on groundwater in 2014 though fracking has been used for more than a decade).Commissions that have been implemented in the US to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing have been created after fracking had started in their area of regulation. This is for instance the case in the Marcellus shale area where three regulatory committees were implemented ex-post.

Academic scholars who have studied the perception of hydraulic fracturing in the North of England have raised two main critiques of this approach. Firstly, it takes scientific issues out of the public debate since their is no debate on the use of a technology but on its impacts. Secondly, it does not prevent environmental harm from happening since risks are taken then assessed instead of evaluated then taken as it would be the case with a precautionary approach to scientific debates. The relevance and reliability of risk assessments in fracking communities has also been debated amongst environmental groups, health scientists, and industry leaders. A study has epitomized this point: the participants to regulatory committees of the Marcellus shale have, for a majority, raised concerns about public health although nobody in these regulatory committees had expertise in public health. That highlights a possible underestimation of public health risks due to hydraulic fracturing. Moreover, more than a quarter of the participants raised concerns about the neutrality of the regulatory committees given the important weigh of the fracking industry. The risks, to some like the participants of the Marcellus Shale regulatory committees, are overplayed and the current research is insufficient in showing the link between fracking and adverse health effects, while to others like local environmental groups the risks are obvious and risk assessment is underfunded.

Precaution-based approach
The second approach relies on the precautionary principle and the principal of preventive and corrective action of environmental hazards, using the best available techniques with an acceptable economic cost to insure the protection, the valuation, the restoration, management of spaces, resources and natural environments, of animal and vegetal species, of ecological diversity and equilibriums. The precautionary approach has led to regulations as implemented in France and Vermont, banning fracking.

Such an approach is called upon by social sciences and the public as studies have shown in the North of England and Australia. Indeed in Australia, the anthropologist who studied the use of hydraulic fracturing concluded that the risk-based approach was closing down the debate on the ethics of such a practice, therefore avoiding questions on broader concerns that merely the risks implied by hydraulic fracturing. In the North of England, levels of concerns registered in the deliberative focus groups studied were higher regarding the framing of the debate, meaning the fact that people did not have a voice in the energetic choices that were made, including the use of fracking. Concerns relative to risks of seismicity and health issues were also important to the public, but less than this. A reason for that is that being withdrawn the right to participate in the decision-making triggered opposition of both supporters and opponents to fracking.

The points made to defend such an approach often relate to climate change and the impact on the direct environment; related to public concerns on the rural landscape for instance in the UK. Energetic choices indeed have an impact on climate change since greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels extraction such as shale gas and oil contribute to climate change. Therefore, people have in the UK raised concerns about the exploitation of these resources, not just hydraulic fracturing as a method. They would hence prefer a precaution-based approach to decide whether or not, regarding the issue of climate change, they want to exploit shale gas and oil.

Framing of the debate
There are two main areas of interest regarding how debates on hydraulic fracturing for the exploitation of unconventional oil and gas have been conducted.

“Learning-by-doing” and the displacement of ethics
A risk-based approach is often referred to as “learning-by-doing” by social sciences. Social sciences have raised two main critiques of this approach. Firstly, it takes scientific issues out of the public debate since there is no debate on the use of a technology but on its impacts. Secondly, it does not prevent environmental harm from happening since risks are taken then assessed instead of evaluated then taken. Public concerns are shown to be really linked to these issues of scientific approach. Indeed, the public in the North of England for instance fears “the denial of the deliberation of the values embedded in the development and application of that technology, as well as the future it is working towards” more than risks themselves. The legitimacy of the method is only questioned after its implementation, not before. This vision separates risks and impacts from the values entitled by a technology. For instance, fracking entitles a transitional fuel for its supporters whereas for its opponents it represents a fossil fuel exacerbating the greenhouse effect and global warming. Not asking these questions leads to seeing only the mere economic cost-benefit analysis.

This is linked to a pattern of preventing non-experts from taking part in scientific-technological debates, including their ethical issues. An answer to that problem is seen to be increased public participation so as to have the public deciding which issues to address and what political and ethical norms to adopt as a society. Another public concern with the “learning-by-doing” approach is that the speed of innovation may exceed the speed of regulation and since innovation is seen as serving private interests, potentially at the expense of social good, it is a matter of public concern. Science and Technology Studies have theorized “slowing-down” and the precautionary principle as answers. The claim is that the possibility of an issue is legitimate and should be taken into account before any action is taken.

Variations in risk-assessment of environmental impacts of fracking
Issues also exist regarding the way risk assessment is conducted and whether it reflects some interests more than others. Firstly, an issue exists about whether risk assessment authorities are able to judge the impact of hydraulic fracturing in public health. A study conducted on the advisory committees of the Marcellus Shale gas area has shown that not a single member of these committees had public health expertise and that some concern existed about whether the commissions were not biased in their composition. Indeed, among 51 members of the committees, there is no evidence that a single one has any expertise in environmental public health, even after enlarging the category of experts to “include medical and health professionals who could be presumed to have some health background related to environmental health, however minimal”. This cannot be explained by the purpose of the committee since all three executive orders of the different committees mentioned environmental public health related issues. Another finding of the authors is that a quarter of the opposed comments mentioned the possibility of bias in favor of gas industries in the composition of committees. The authors conclude saying that political leaders may not want to raise public health concerns not to handicap further economic development due to fracking.

Secondly, the conditions to allow hydraulic fracturing are being increasingly strengthened due to the move from governmental agencies’ authority over the issue to elected officials’ authority over it. The Shale Gas Drilling Safety Review Act of 2014 issued in Maryland forbids the issuance of drilling permits until a high standard “risk assessment of public health and environmental hazards relating to hydraulic fracturing activities” is conducted for at least 18 months based on the Governor’s executive order.

Institutional discourse and the public
A qualitative study using deliberative focus groups has been conducted in the North of England, where there is a big shale gas reservoir exploited by fracking. These group discussions reflect many concerns on the issue of the use of unconventional oil and gas. There is a concern about trust linked with a doubt on the ability or will of public authorities to work for the greater social good since private interests and profits of industrial companies are seen as corruptive powers. Alienation is also a concern since the feeling of a game rigged against the public rises due to “decision making being made on your behalf without being given the possibility to voice an opinion”. Exploitation also arises since economic rationality that is seen as favoring short-termism is accused of seducing policy-makers and industry. “Risk” is accentuated by what is fracking as well as what is at stake, and “blind spots” of current knowledge as well as risk assessment analysis are accused of increasing the potentiality of negative outcomes. Uncertainty and ignorance are seen as too important in the issue of fracking and decisions are therefore perceived as rushed, which is why “participants favored some form of precautionary approach”. There is a major fear on the possible disconnection between the public’s and the authorities’ visions of what is a good choice for the good reasons. “Potential conditions of “acceptance” thus require representation of the public, redistribution of expertise – closing the gap between representatives and citizens and between lay person and experts –, justice as fairness and social good, precaution, humility of scientific knowledge (…) and a process of deliberative appraisal and scrutiny”. Two movements sum up these potential solutions: “the democratization of democracy” and “the politicization of technology”.

It also appears that media coverage and institutional responses are widely inaccurate to answer public concerns. Indeed, institutional responses to public concerns are mostly inadequate since they focus on risk assessment and giving information to the public that is considered anxious because ignorant. But public concerns are much wider and it appears that public knowledge on fracking is rather good.

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing page
Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes the potential contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the potential migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, the potential mishandling of waste, and the health effects of these.[1][2] Many cases of suspected groundwater contamination have been documented.[3][4] Most of the studies on the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing have been conducted in the United States.[citation needed] This is due to the fact that the US has not adopted a precautionary approach and therefore has decided to use fracking, conducting ex-post risk assessment, which allows to see the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment. Countries that have adopted a precautionary approach like France cannot evaluate such impacts since they do not undergo the potential hazards of fracking. Nevertheless, studies also exist for the North of England, Canada and Australia too, whose approach is close to the American one.

Air emissions
(include after the 2nd paragraph)

This has led to saying shale gas could be a “transitionel fuel” to help reaching Greenhouse gas emissions diminution in order to fight climate change and global warming. Nevertheless, studies have demonstrated that the argument did not empirically hold in the UK. Indeed, a study conducted in 2011 by Broderick et al. said that “If the UK Government is to respect its obligations under both the Copenhagen Accord and Low Carbon Transition Plan, shale gas offers no meaningful potential as even a transitional fuel.” Moreover, the 2012 Tyndall Center report stated that the US have known an increase in coal consumption that has gone on rising. They thus conclude, saying “without a meaningful cap on global emissions, the exploitation of shale gas reserves is likely to increase total emissions.”

Water consumption and harm to agriculture
Some producers have developed hydraulic fracturing techniques that could reduce the need for water.[27] Using carbon dioxide, liquid propane or other gases instead of water have been proposed to reduce water consumption.[28] After it is used, the propane returns to its gaseous state and can be collected and reused. In addition to water savings, gas fracturing reportedly produces less damage to rock formations that can impede production.[27] Recycled flowback water can be reused in hydraulic fracturing.[5] It lowers the total amount of water used and reduces the need to dispose of wastewater after use. Nevertheless, fracking converts millions of gallons of water into toxic wastewater each year, taking this water out of the water cycle and the possibility of further use, except in fracking itself after recycling. In addition, the technique is relatively expensive, however, since the water must be treated before each reuse and it can shorten the life of some types of equipment.[29]

After the last paragraph:

Consequences on agriculture have already been observed in North America. In some regions of the US that are vulnerable to droughts, farmers are now competing with fracking industrials for the use of water resources. In the Barnett Shale region, in Texas and New Mexico, drinking water wells have dried up due to fracking’s withdrawal of water, and water has been taken from an aquifer used for residential and agricultural use. Farmers have seen their wells go dry in Texas and New Mexico as a result of fracking’s pressure on water resources, for instance in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Agricultural communities have already seen water prices rising because of that problem. In the North Water Conservation District in Colorado was organized an auction to allocate water and the prices rose from 22$/acre-foot in 2010 to 28$ in the beginning of 2012.

Water contamination
Although local groundwater contamination resulting from fracking has been documented, the American Environmental Protection Agency has launched a comprehensive study whose results will be released in 2014 to know if there is a general impact of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater contamination.

Seismology
Hydraulic fracturing causes induced seismicity called microseismic events or microearthquakes. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the fracturing.[56] The magnitude of these events is usually too small to be detected at the surface, although the biggest micro-earthquakes may have the magnitude of about -1.6 (Mw). However, as of late 2012, there have been three instances of hydraulic fracturing, through induced seismicity, triggering quakes large enough to be felt by people: one each in the United States, Canada, and England.[57][58] In England, two earthquakes that occurred in April and May 2011 of a magnitude of respectively 1.5 and 2.3 on the Richter scale were felt by local populations. The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change said the “observed seismicity in April and May 2011 was induced by the hydraulic fracture treatments at Preese Hall”, in the North of England. The injection of wastewater from gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing, into saltwater disposal wells may cause bigger low-magnitude tremors, being registered up to 3.3 (Mw).[59]

Regulation sub-section
There are two approaches to regulation. In many States, including almost all US States except Vermont, the UK, Canada or Australia, a risk assessment approach is favored, meaning that fracking is practiced before assessing its risks. However, in other States such as France and Vermont], the [[precautionary principle as well as the prevention principle invoked in terms of public health, have prohibited the use of fracking until it is proven that it has no impact.

Many chemicals used in fracking are known to be carcinogenic but some US States’ regulations allow them to stay “trade secrets” and companies using them in hydraulic fracturing processes do not have to publicize their use to the public. It is for instance the case in Ohio and New Mexico. Criteria of public health in the issuance of drilling permits have also been withdrawn from the EPA’s area of regulation, unless diesel is used, in 2005 when fracking was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Finally, a study conducted on the advisory committees of the Marcellus Shale gas area has shown that not a single member of these committees had public health expertise and that some concern existed about whether the commissions were not biased in their composition. Indeed, among 51 members of the committees, there is no evidence that a single one has any expertise in environmental public health, even after enlarging the category of experts to “include medical and health professionals who could be presumed to have some health background related to environmental health, however minimal”. This cannot be explained by the purpose of the committee since all three executive orders of the different committees mentioned environmental public health related issues. Another finding of the authors is that a quarter of the opposed comments mentioned the possibility of bias in favor of gas industries in the composition of committees. The authors conclude saying that political leaders may not want to raise public health concerns not to handicap further economic development due to fracking.

Scientific debate
There are two main approaches to regulation that derive from a scientific debate over the value of risk assessment. Social sciences have raised two main critiques of risk assessment. Firstly, it takes scientific issues out of the public debate since their is no debate on the use of a technology but on its impacts. Secondly, it does not prevent environmental harm from happening since risks are taken then assessed instead of evaluated then taken as it would be the case with a precautionary approach to scientific debates. The relevance and reliability of risk assessments in fracking communities has also been debated amongst environmental groups, health scientists, and industry leaders. The risks, to some, are overplayed and the current research is insufficient in showing the link between fracking and adverse health effects, while to others the risks are obvious and risk assessment is underfunded.

Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In France and Vermont for instance, a precautionary approach has been favored and fracking has been banned based on two principles: the precautionary principle and the prevention principle. Nevertheless, some States such as the U.S. have adopted a risk assessment approach, which had led to many regulatory debates over the issue of hydraulic fracturing and its risks.

US scientific and regulatory debates
The existing content will be put in this sub-section.