3 Environmental and Community Impacts of Shale Development in Texas The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) Task Force on Environmental and Community Impacts of Shale Development in Texas 4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS THE ACADEMY OF MEDICINE, ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE OF TEXAS Austin, TX This activity was supported by The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) and The Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number: 978-0-9990761-0-1 Digital Object Identifier: 10.25238/TAMESTstf.6.2017 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017945361 Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas, 3925 W. Braker Lane, Suite 3.8018, Austin, TX 78759; (512) 471-3823; http://www.tamest.org. Copyright 2017 by The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas. 2017. Environmental and Community Impacts of Shale Development in Texas. Austin, TX: The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas. doi: 10.25238/TAMESTstf.6.2017. 5 This report was initiated and administered by The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST), which is a nonprofit and brain trust for Texas composed of the Texas-based members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and the state’s Nobel Laureates. TAMEST convenes influential experts to promote cross-industry and cross-disciplinary research and knowledge sharing, and serves as an intellectual resource for the state. TAMEST brings the state’s top scientific, academic, and corporate minds together to further position Texas as a national research leader. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS TASK FORCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES (NAE), Chair, University of Houston, Houston DAVID ALLEN (NAE), The University of Texas at Austin, Austin RAMÓN ALVAREZ, Environmental Defense Fund, Austin JOHN BARTON, Texas A&M University System, College Station DENNY BULLARD, Texas Tech University, Lubbock JOSEPH FITZSIMONS, Uhl, Fitzsimons, Jewett & Burton, PLLC, San Antonio OMAR GARCIA, South Texas Energy and Economic Roundtable, San Antonio MATTHEW HARRISON, AECOM: Americas – Upstream Oil & Gas, Austin TRACY HESTER, University of Houston Law Center, Houston URS KREUTER, Texas A&M University, College Station KRIS J. NYGAARD, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Houston CRAIG PEARSON, Railroad Commission of Texas, Crane CESAR QUIROGA, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, San Antonio AMELIE G. RAMIREZ (NAM), UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio DANNY REIBLE (NAE), Texas Tech University, Lubbock BRIAN STUMP, Southern Methodist University, Dallas MELINDA TAYLOR, The University of Texas School of Law, Austin GENE THEODORI, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville MICHAEL YOUNG, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin Staff JEFFREY JACOBS, Study Director, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia MARY BETH MADDOX, TAMEST Executive Director TERRENCE HENRY, TAMEST CINDY KRALIS, TAMEST JAN LONG, TAMEST ANGELA MARTÍN-BARCELONA, TAMEST CHRISTINE McCOY, TAMEST EVA McQUADE, TAMEST CRYSTAL TUCKER, TAMEST Board Liaisons KENNETH ARNOLD (NAE), K Arnold Consulting, Inc. DAVID RUSSELL (NAS), UT Southwestern Medical Center 7 CONTENTS Contents PREFACE 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 12 SUMMARY 14 1 INTRODUCTION 26 SHALE WELL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, 29 SHALE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS IN TEXAS, 30 Texas Oil and Natural Gas Status, 30 Future Energy Production Scenarios, 31 Other Impacts of Shale Development, 31 Report Contents, 33 REPORT GENESIS, PROCESS, AND AUDIENCE, 34 2 FUNDAMENTALS OF TIGHT OIL AND SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT 36 3 GEOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY 44 TEXAS GEOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKES, 46 Texas Geology, Including the Basement, 46 Texas Tectonics and Subsurface Stress, 50 Texas Earthquakes, 52 PROGRESS IN UNDERSTANDING AND ASSESSING POTENTIAL FOR INDUCED SEISMICITY IN TEXAS, 55 Understanding How Injection May Induce an Earthquake, 56 Understanding the Complexity in Assessing Whether Injection Will Cause (or Has Caused) An Earthquake, 57 8 ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS Understanding Progress in Texas: Advancing the Knowledge and Science, 60 INDUCED EARTHQUAKES AND FLUID INJECTION, 62 HAZARD AND RISK FROM TEXAS EARTHQUAKES, 64 ROLES OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS IN INDUCED EARTHQUAKE MITIGATION STRATEGIES, 65 REDUCING KNOWLEDGE GAPS IN TEXAS GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY, 66 SUMMARY, 67 4 LAND RESOURCES 70 TEXAS LAND RESOURCES, 71 OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS, 73 ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS, 76 Soil Erosion and Contamination, 77 Landscape Fragmentation and Habitat Loss, 77 Effects on Native Vegetation, 82 ISSUES FOR LANDOWNERS, 83 ACCESSIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF DATA, 85 SUMMARY, 87 5 AIR QUALITY 90 EMISSIONS AND IMPACTS, 92 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 92 Photochemical Air Pollutants and Air Toxics, 99 SUPPLY CHAIN AND INDIRECT IMPACTS, 105 IMPACTS OF AIR POLLUTANT REGULATIONS, 109 SUMMARY, 111 6 WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY 113 IMPACTS ON WATER AVAILABILITY AND SUPPLY, 115 SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION DUE TO MIGRATION OF FRACTURING OR FORMATION FLUID, 120 SPILLS OF FLOWBACK WATER, DRILLING FLUID, AND FORMATION WATER AT OR NEAR THE SURFACE, 122 WASTEWATER TREATMENT, USE, AND DISPOSAL, 125 SUMMARY, 127 7 TRANSPORTATION 130 TRUCK TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRUCKLOADS, 132 PAVEMENT IMPACTS, 136 TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPACTS, 138 9 CONTENTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS, 140 CURRENT INITIATIVES, 141 SUMMARY, 145 8 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS 147 ECONOMIC IMPACTS, 148 Economic Impacts in the Permian Basin, Barnett Shale, and Eagle Ford Shale Regions, 149 Economic Impacts within Local Counties and Communities, 150 Economic Impacts on Public School Districts and Universities, 152 SOCIAL IMPACTS, 153 Perceptions of Shale Energy Development—Barnett Shale and Eagle Ford Shale, 154 Behavioral Responses to Shale Energy Development—Barnett Shale, 160 Setback Distances, 161 Social and Environmental Justice, 161 Relevant Studies from Other States, 162 SUMMARY, 163 9 TRANSDISCIPLINARY CONNECTIONS, TRADE-OFFS, AND DECISION MAKING 165 TRADE-OFF DECISIONS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES, 167 DIFFERENCES IN TIME SCALES AND UNITS FOR EVALUATION AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS, 169 SUMMARY, 171 REFERENCES 173 APPENDIX A 195 APPENDIX B 198 10 ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS Preface Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies applied multiple times in long horizontal wells has led to an ability to profitably produce vast shale gas and tight oil resources. By adapting these enabling technologies developed and proven in Texas, the late George P. Mitchell led the economic development of shale energy resources. The abundant oil and gas supplies unleashed by shale development have generally led to lower cost electricity, heating, and gasoline for U.S. consumers. In addition to George Mitchell’s innovations, many other entities and individuals played important roles in promoting shale energy technologies and processes. The U.S. Department of Energy and the Gas Technology Institute (formerly the Gas Research Institute), for example, were critical partners in technology development for shale resources starting in the 1970s. These technologies have allowed Texas to lead the nation in oil and natural gas production and for the United States to be one of the world’s leaders in oil and natural gas production. A 2008 report from the National Academies, entitled America’s Energy Future, offered a very different landscape from what we see today. The following quote is taken from the preface of that report: “Nearly 60 percent of the U.S. demand for oil now is met by depending on imports supplied by foreign sources, up from 40 percent in 1990.” Similarly, the 2007 National Petroleum Council (NPC) report, titled Facing the Hard Truths about Energy, said the following: Conventional oil is forecast to contribute the largest share of global liquid supply, principally through increased production in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq. Unconventional oil such as Canadian and Venezuelan heavy oil and the U.S. oil shale is also likely to play a growing role in the liquids supply mix. However, most forecasts project that unconventional oil, together with coal-to-liquids (CTL) and gas-to-liquids (GTL), is unlikely to exceed 10 million barrels per day globally by 2030. 11 PReface Without the technology and resource development in Texas, U.S. energy security would be even more threatened than it was at the time these reports were released. Instead, less than seven years later, U.S. companies began to export both natural gas and crude oil, and were largely responsible for reducing the world oil price by a half. In fact, U.S. shale production since these reports were published just ten short years ago has surpassed almost everyone’s projections. Scott Sheffield, retired CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, when speaking at Columbia University in April 2017, stated, “I think [oil production] will be well over 10 million barrels a day at some point in time in 2018, and that is primarily due to the growth of the Permian