TOWARD AN EVIDENCE-BASED FRACKING DEBATE Science, Democracy, and Community Right to Know in Unconventional Oil and Gas Development The Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists TOWARD AN EVIDENCE-BASED FRACKING DEBATE Science, Democracy, and Community Right to Know in Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Gretchen Goldman Deborah Bailin Paul Rogerson Jessie Agatstein Jennifer Imm Pallavi Phartiyal OCTOBER 2013 ii UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS TOWARD AN EVIDENCEBASED FRACKING DEBATE iii © 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and eective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. The UCS Center for Science and Democracy works to strengthen American democracy by advancing the essential role of science, evidence-based decision making, and constructive debate as a means to improve the health, security, and prosperity of all people. The full text of this report is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org/HFreport or may be obtained from: UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552. DESIGN: Penny Michalak COVER PHOTOS: (main) ©2013 Trudy E. Bell; (left to right) © US Geological Survey; © Flickr/chesapeakeclimate; © Shutterstock.com/Glovatskiy; © Brookhaven National Laboratory; © Architect of the Capital TOWARD AN EVIDENCEBASED FRACKING DEBATE iii Contents CONTRIBUTORS iv BOXES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv 1. Fracking and Climate Change 6 2. Drinking Water Contamination in CHAPTER ONE 1 Dimock, Pennsylvania 9 Introduction 3. Air Pollution Concerns in Dish, Texas 12 CHAPTER TWO 7 Probing the State of the Science on Unconventional 4. Hidden Science and Silenced Citizens Oil and Gas Development in Legal Settlements 18 2.1. Fracking Impacts: What the Science Tells Us 7 5. Industry Interference in Community 2.2. Interference in the Science 17 Decision Making 19 2.3. Current Research Needs 22 6. Chemical Disclosure and Public Health 22 CHAPTER THREE 25 7. Data Disclosure Sources Should Understanding the Regulatory Landscape Be Approached With Caution 27 3.1. Federal Regulation 25 3.2. State Laws 30 8. Policy Makers and Corporate Connections 31 9. A Need for Comprehensive Laws 34 CHAPTER FOUR 35 Right to Know in the Public Dialogue: Best Practices for Empowering Citizens 10. What Makes a Good Government Information Source 40 4.1. Online Sources 37 4.2. Government Resources 37 11. Silencing Community Discussion 4.3. Mainstream News Sources 43 of Fracking 42 4.4. Navigating Information about Risk 46 12. Academia as an Information Source 49 CHAPTER FIVE 51 13. A Toolkit for Community Decision Making 53 Toward Improved Dialogue and Decision Making REFERENCES 54 iv UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS TOWARD AN EVIDENCEBASED FRACKING DEBATE 1 Contributors Gretchen Goldman is an analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Deborah Bailin is a democracy analyst and ACLS Public Fellow in the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. Paul Rogerson was a research assistant in the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. Jessie Agatstein was a research and outreach associate in the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. Jennifer Imm was a research intern in the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. Pallavi Phartiyal is the senior analyst and program manager for the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. Acknowledgments This report was made possible by the generous support of the Arkay Foundation and UCS members. The authors would like to thank the following external reviewers for their time and thoughtful input: Adam Brandt (Stanford University), Susan Christopherson (Cornell University), Jean Goodwin (Iowa State University), Aubrey Miller (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), and Hannah Wiseman (Florida State University). We also would like to thank the many UCS sta members who reviewed, edited, and otherwise helped shape the direction of this report: Adrienne Alford, Don Anair, Christina Carlson, Steve Clemmer, Danielle Fox, Peter Frumho, Michael Halpern, Aaron Huertas, Yogin Kothari, Dave Reichmuth, Kathleen Rest, Michelle Robinson, Andrew Rosenberg, Seth Shulman, Bryan Wadsworth, and Celia Wexler. Finally, we would like to thank Trudy E. Bell for her masterly editing and Penny Michalak for her deft layout and design. Organizational aliations are listed for identication purposes only. The opinions expressed in this report are solely the responsibility of the authors. TOWARD AN EVIDENCEBASED FRACKING DEBATE 1 CHAP TER O N E Introduction racking. A few years ago, this was not a familiar term for most Americans, but today it is a house- F hold word in many parts of the country. It sparks contentious debates in town halls, in company board rooms, in state houses, in the halls of Congress, in news outlets, and on social media. Hydraulic fracturing is one key step in what is considered an “unconventional” method for extracting oil and natural gas from shale or other types of rock formations a mile or more underground. While hydraulic fracturing has been used for several decades to extract oil from shales in Texas and elsewhere, recent advances have adapted the process for the extraction of natural gas and also made the process more economical. us, hydraulic fracturing—together © Shutterstock.com/zhuda with horizontal (directional) drilling and several other key While hydraulic fracturing has been used by industry for many decades, technologies—has spurred the rapid expansion of oil and recent technological advances have enabled a rapid expansion of uncon- ventional oil and gas development in the United States only in the last few gas extraction in shale and other tight rock formations that years, creating new risks in new places. had been previously inaccessible, from Pennsylvania to North Dakota to Alaska. It is important to note that the oil and gas industry uses e expansion of unconventional oil and gas develop- the word “fracing” (without a k) or “fracking” (with a k) ment has made the United States one of the world’s leading narrowly to mean the single specic engineering process producers of natural gas and has contributed to recent of hydraulic fracturing (often taking only a few days), declines in natural gas prices, resulting in signicant fuel whereas the general public and news media have come switching from coal to natural gas in the electricity sector to use the word fracking (with a k) to mean the entire and increased natural gas use in the industrial sector (EIA enterprise of unconventional oil and gas development, from 2013). And the boom seems unlikely to lose momentum drilling (which can take a month or more) to nal extrac- in the near future (Figure 1, p. 2, and Figure 2, p. 3). e tion (which can take years) (Bell 2013; FracFocus 2013; Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Mooney 2011). is report looks at unconventional oil Department of Energy (DOE) projects shale gas will grow and gas development broadly—from the perspective of an from about one-third of total U.S. natural gas production in aected community—and thus employs the broader term 2012 to nearly half by 2040 (Sieminski 2013). For oil, the fracking as it is used in general parlance, because commu- agency expects similar increases, with more than half of oil nity concerns encompass many parts of unconventional production in the lower 48 states coming from tight forma- oil and gas development, including the well construction, tions (which are likely to necessitate hydraulic fracturing) by production, wastewater disposal, distribution, and storage. 2040, compared with a third today (Sieminski 2013). 2 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS TOWARD AN EVIDENCEBASED FRACKING DEBATE 3 Figure 1. PRODUCTION OF SHALE GAS IN THE UNITED STATES 30 Rest of U.S. 25 Marcellus (PA, WV) Haynesville (LA, TX) 20 Eagle Ford (TX) Bakken (ND) Woodford (OK) 15 Fayetteville (AR) Barnett (TX) 10 Antrim (MI, IN, OH) BILLION CUBIC FEET PER DAY FEET PER CUBIC BILLION SHALE GAS PRODUCTION DRY PRODUCTION GAS SHALE DRY 5 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Production of natural gas (methane) from shale in the United States has expanded rapidly in the last 10 years, and is projected to continue increasing through 2040 (EIA 2013; Sieminski 2013). “Dry” means that the natural gas is extracted in gaseous form rather than in liquid form. e dizzying speed at which unconventional oil and gas health problems? What will happen to the social fabric of my development has expanded across the country has created community? Will I be exposed to the risks without receiving scienti c, legal, and social challenges as our democratic the bene ts of such development? institutions have struggled to keep up. Promises of economic e limited availability of objective and independent data growth and community revitalization have led many states about the physical impacts of this new widespread industrial and local communities to embrace development. At the same activity on public health and the environment plus its social time, communities are worried about the risks that come e ects on communities has created barriers to scientists along with any bene ts, as well as about the unequal distri- trying to improve understanding of its risks and bene ts. bution and short-lived duration of economic bene ts. Will Indeed, rapid industry growth and future pro t potential my drinking water be contaminated? Will I experience related have left science vulnerable to interference from special interests. Biased science, con icted politicians, and misin- formation in the public dialogue create a noisy landscape The dizzying speed at which unconventional oil for decision making. Government o cials and lawmakers and gas development has expanded are challenged to regulate the activity e ectively through a patchwork of local, state, and federal laws.