Quality of Life

Introduction

BOX 1. HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE

Some of the impacts of shale development that are most salient to local communities are those in the area of health-related quality of life (HRQOL or, for the purposes of this guidebook, “quality of life”). The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease . . .” 1 Well-being and quality of life must therefore be considered in a discussion of individual and community health. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HRQOL is “an individual’s or group’s perceived physical and mental health over time.” This multidimensional concept has been shown to be an important predictor of health outcomes. HRQOL data can be used to determine health needs and guide interventions. 2 In order to measure quality of life, the WHO has identified the six domains in Table 1 below as important to assess. 3

Table 1. Domains of Health-Related Quality of Life 

Domain   Facets incorporated within domains
    Overall Quality of Life and General Health
1. Physical health   Energy and fatigue
Pain and discomfort
Sleep and rest
2. Psychological   Bodily image and appearance
Negative feelings
Positive feelings
Self-esteem
Thinking, learning, memory and concentration
3.  Level of Independence   Mobility
Activities of daily living
Dependence on medicinal substances and medical aids
Work capacity
4.  Social relationships   Personal relationships
Social support
Sexual activity
5. Environment   Financial resources
Freedom, physical safety and security
Health and social care:  accessibility and quality
Home environment
Opportunities for acquiring new information and skills
Participation in and opportunities for recreation/leisure
Physical environment (pollution/noise/traffic/climate)
Transport
6. Spirituality / Religion / Personal Beliefs   Spirituality / Religion / Personal Beliefs
 

Shale development projects have the potential to affect many, if not all, of these domains. Given the potential impacts on the economy, infrastructure, and physical environment of a community, these projects can influence the “environment” domain in particular. The aspects of HRQOL that we have focused on in this guidebook are social relationships; financial resources and opportunities for acquiring new information and skills (economic impacts); and the physical environment, including pollution, noise, traffic, lighting, and viewshed alterations. In this guidebook,the HRQOL concept is used as a framework for organizing these types of positive and negative community impacts and considering their potential relation to health.   


Stage 1: Initial Assessment

What health considerations are there?

Quality of Life

Initial exploration activities can begin to affect the physical environment of your community, particularly if you live in a rural area unaccustomed to traffic. During the few weeks that these activities take place, heavy trucks and convoys of other vehicles could be present on local roads, and the accompanying traffic and noise, although temporary, could affect residents’ quality of life.

When people in your community become aware of the potential for shale development in the area, they might begin to form expectations in anticipation of both the costs and benefits of that development. At this stage of early exploration, however, companies are still highly uncertain as to whether they will find sufficient mineral deposits to make development worthwhile.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

Local Officials

Once exploration activities start to become apparent, community members will likely start to form expectations around potential shale development. It can be useful at that point to put the activities in context. Local officials, operators, and seismic survey company representatives can assist by notifying residents and community leaders that surveying will take place, providing information on what to expect, and clarifying the likelihood that initial exploration activities will lead to next steps—and if so, on what time frame. These topics could be addressed at local town or county board meetings, local planning or zoning hearings, or an informational open house. 

Given that there can be a number of operators and seismic survey companies exploring an area, it is important to make an effort to include all of them in the planning and execution of community outreach activities.

Industry Representatives

The American Petroleum Institute (API), an industry association, has produced a set of guidelines for oil and gas operators on how to communicate with and engage local stakeholders around their projects. The document notes that many operators are already following practices similar to those described in the guidelines, and that its recommendations are “typical and reasonable” under normal operating circumstances. 4 The guidelines offer engagement options for all phases of the project development cycle, including the initial entry phase. Acknowledging that different operators can be exploring the same area, the guidelines suggest that companies coordinate with each other when reaching out to local stakeholders.  

The guidelines emphasize early two-way communication and proactive outreach to stakeholders, which companies should maintain throughout the life of the project. Other key recommendations for this phase include setting professional standards for both contractors and employees, providing training, and conveying company guidelines for safety, environmental, and health practices. It is also important to manage the expectations of stakeholders and contractors, especially given that the project often does not proceed past this stage. Companies should therefore develop a strategy for withdrawal and communicating to stakeholders about that scenario, even in this initial phase. 

The seismic survey company can undertake a number of actions to reduce community impact. The API guidelines encourage operators to work with their contractors as well as local agencies and officials to promote road safety and good traffic management. 5 To avoid interfering with regular traffic patterns, for example, the seismic survey team often meets with local officials to learn about peak travel times in the area, school bus routes, and the optimal areas for parking. They also meet with the official in charge of local infrastructure to learn which roads and bridges to avoid or to upgrade prior to seismic survey work. 

Some survey companies use the following methods to reduce the impacts of their activities:

  • obtaining permission from landowners before conducting seismic tests on private property
  • establishing a safe buffer zone between seismic testing activities and potentially sensitive structures or objects
  • when clearing paths (lines) for seismic equipment, cutting narrow lanes, including slight bends to prevent  predators having an easy view of their prey; avoiding valuable trees; and avoiding the creation of ruts
  • plugging shot holes on both ends
  • removing all equipment, materials, stakes and waste after testing is done
  • repairing any rutting or surface disturbance that may have occurred

Finally, companies might also discuss their survey plans with landowners to help them avoid sensitive or valuable areas. The surveyor might seek to conduct seismic tests as far from surface waters as possible to reduce the potential for erosion and runoff into bodies of water.

Landowners

Earthworks, a nonprofit advocacy organization working to protect communities and the environment from the adverse impacts of mineral and energy development, has developed a handbook for landowners in areas where oil and gas development is taking place. Among other recommendations, Earthworks suggests that landowners discuss the placement of the equipment or the location of the seismic testing activities with the company before the tests take place to minimize any surface disturbance. If property owners are using a well for drinking water, Earthworks advises landowners to consider testing the water before and after seismic exploration on their property to establish a baseline and allow them to note any changes that take place. For more on potential impacts and tips for landowners, see the resources section below.  

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.

What resources can provide further information?

Quality of Life

  • Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, “What to Expect When You’re Expecting a Well” (June 2014). This brochure for landowners gives an overview of the lifecycle of a typical well and answers questions that landowners may have. The regulations and agencies mentioned are Canadian.
  • Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door? A Landowner’s Guide to Oil and Gas Development” (Durango, Colorado: Oil and Gas Accountability Project, 2005). Earthworks is an advocacy organization working on natural resource extraction issues. This handbook describes the stages of oil and gas development; potential impacts of oil and gas development on health, safety, and quality of life; alternative technologies and practices; the legal and regulatory issues; tips for landowners; and landowner stories. For more details on seismic exploration and tips for landowners, see pp. I-6 – I-7.  

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.

Stage 2: Leasing & Permitting

What might my community experience?

To identify the owners of the mineral rights in your community, third party contractors will conduct extensive research at the local office of deeds and records, often resulting in a noticeable increase in activity and demands on that office. 

As in the previous stage, there can be a number of different industry representatives operating in your area. In addition to the oil and gas companies and their contractors, there are agents, often known as landmen, who negotiate mineral leases with property owners. They might work on behalf of a particular company or work independently as a speculator to put together acreage that they can later resell to oil and gas operators. 

For local property owners who hold the mineral rights to their land (see Box 2), landmen may approach them to lease the mineral rights. These owners can negotiate leasing terms and additional agreements for use of their surface property to access the minerals. Depending on the stage at which mineral owners are contacted, the price offered per acre can vary significantly.

For surface owners who do not own the mineral rights, some states require companies to make a good faith effort to negotiate surface use agreements with them. Some companies will negotiate such agreements even in the absence of a requirement. 

There are 58 million acres of land nationwide where the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns the mineral rights, but private citizens own the surface property. 6 The agency has established standards and guidelines for interacting with landowners that oil and gas operators must follow (“the Gold Book”). According to these guidelines, the operator must make a good faith effort to come to an agreement with the surface owner regarding access to the lands. If these efforts should fail, then the operator is required to post a bond for any damages or losses incurred by the surface owner. 7

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 

What health considerations are there?

Health considerations at this stage continue to be focused in the quality of life domain, with the introduction of possible impacts on social relationships in your community. As discussed in Box 1 on health-related quality of life, an individual or group’s perceptions of their position in life in the context of their environment can have an important role to play in their overall health and well-being. 8 The quality of life concept includes economic, social, and psychological aspects, among others.

Quality of Life—Economic Impacts

Some landowners may financially benefit from the project by signing lease agreements with the operator, which can result in an improvement in quality of life by providing them greater financial resources and opportunities.

Quality of Life—Social Impacts

Many communities where shale development occurs are small, cohesive rural communities with a place-based identity. With the introduction of lease offers to some residents—but not others—in the community, residents can begin to perceive the potential benefits of the project as unequally distributed, creating a new source of community tension and disagreement. These changes, as well as those that take place in future stages, could result in the loss of a sense of community identity and cohesion. Furthermore, the prospect of shale development can cause some residents to start moving out of the area, either because of  increased activity driving up costs (see Economic Impacts under Stage 3), or because they are concerned about the potential environmental and social impacts.

In communities that are economically depressed, the prospect of economic benefits accompanying shale development can be a source of optimism. As mentioned above, the project might lead to improvements in local infrastructure, and might offer increased job opportunities if the project proceeds to exploratory drilling (see Economic Impacts under Stage 3). At this stage, however, it can be important to temper such optimism with an awareness of the possibility that the project will not move forward, to prevent the community making premature investments based on expected income.

Quality of Life—Psychological Impacts

According to the World Health Organization, health is “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” 9 Psychological stress and the perception of negative impacts can play a significant role in an individual’s overall health. Chronic stress can result in physical health impacts and initiate a self-reinforcing cycle—i.e., in response to a psychological or physical stressor, an individual’s perception of health impacts may increase, which in turn increases his or her allostatic load, or the “wear and tear on the body” resulting from the accumulation of repeated or chronic stress. 10 

In this stage of shale development, landowners who do not control the mineral rights on their property, or those who may not wish to sign agreements but could be subject to forced pooling laws, might experience psychological stress related to uncertainty and a sense of lost control over a valuable financial asset and their home environment. Landowners concerned about property values or possible damages to their estate could also experience such stress and a decline in quality of life. In addition, uncertainty surrounding the potential project and its impacts, as well as a fear of change, can have negative psychological effects on some community members.

In a 2013 study published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, researchers interviewed a small set of residents in areas of shale development in the Marcellus Shale play who were reporting health impacts. 11 The goal was to identify the physical and mental stressors that participants attributed to shale development. The most commonly reported stressors involved the perception of negative interactions with and a lack of trust in company representatives and government officials. The top concerns identified were the following:

  • having their concerns denied or being provided with false information (79%)
  • corruption (61%)
  • having their concerns/complaints ignored (58%)
  • being taken advantage of (52%) 12

The authors observed that these stressful feelings likely reinforced participants’ concerns for their health, which increased over the three sessions of the study. As the authors note, there are relationship-building steps that local officials and company representatives can begin taking during the early stages of shale development to help alleviate concerns around trust and credibility. The activities listed in the “What Can Be Done?” sections of this guidebook, as well as those suggested in the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) “Community Engagement Guidelines.” 13  could be helpful in establishing relationships with communities.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES

What topics are useful to discuss at this stage?

If local officials and company representatives meet to discuss the company’s anticipated needs and potential community impacts, possible topics to cover include:

  • the likelihood that the project will proceed to production
  • the length of time the operator anticipates conducting activities in the community
  • the typical number of outside workers the project will require and how the company plans to accommodate them  
  • the number of families and children who could accompany project workers, which can help local officials determine whether more educational resources are needed
  • the profile of the local labor pool and whether the company plans to hire locally; if so, what  job skills and training might be necessary
  • the company’s emergency response plans and potential demands on emergency and fire department services, including any training needs and any specialized emergency response equipment that should be acquired (e.g., personal protective equipment)
  • amount and timing of anticipated vehicle traffic; which local roads/bridges to avoid or are in need of an upgrade
  • method for responding to any impacts to local infrastructure and services
  • the company’s plans for water sourcing; air, water, and noise monitoring; waste disposal; and erosion control
  • approach to responding to community concerns about light,  noise, and dust from traffic
  • any plans to conduct flaring at the site
  • the company’s approach to engaging local community stakeholders

Depending on the outcome of these discussions, potential areas for collaborative planning or joint initiatives could emerge. For example, local officials can potentially work with the company and other regional stakeholders to coordinate the construction of water pipelines or common waste disposal facilities. These stakeholders may work together to establish educational programs in the region to train local workers in the skills needed at project sites (see Box 10. Examples of Education and Training Programs). 

Local officials could also work with company representatives to hold an informational session or open house about the potential for shale development in the community. Many of the above topics should also be covered in an open house—in particular, it can be helpful to discuss the likelihood that the project will proceed and the length of time operations would last. 

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

LOCAL OFFICIALS

Quality of Life—Economic Impacts

It is important to note that local governments may experience a shortfall in funding in the early stages of development due to new demands upon local infrastructure and services, while the government might not receive additional income from production taxes for 2-5 years. 14 Local officials could therefore begin discussions with state legislative and executive branches during the early stages of shale development on how to design a tax structure that allows local governments to receive funding in a manner that meets their communities’ infrastructure and service needs.

The economic impacts of shale development begin to materialize in Stage 3—Exploratory Drilling and are addressed in detail there.

Quality of Life—Noise Impacts

The permitting stage is a good time to consider how to avoid or mitigate many potential impacts, given that siting is a critical aspect of managing the impacts of noise. Some states require a noise mitigation plan as part of the permitting process. Truck traffic to and from the site is another major source of noise that stakeholders can seek to mitigate in this early phase. Local officials can therefore play a role in establishing speed limits for truck traffic, as well as designating appropriate truck routes.

The health impacts of noise are addressed under Quality of Life—Noise Impacts in Stage 3 when sound levels from the project could begin affecting residents.

Quality of Life—Visual Impacts

As with noise, the permitting phase—when plans are reviewed regarding siting and design of the project—is an important time for addressing visual impacts (see Quality of Life—Visual Impacts in Stage 3 for an overview). There are statutory requirements to protect significant scenic, historic, and recreational locations, including at state and federally owned sites. State regulators might conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) at this stage, and they could seek the input of municipal authorities on topics such as potential visual impacts. 

For local officials, particularly those in tourist areas with high-value scenery, it can be useful to 1) conduct an early assessment to identify area resources of high visual sensitivity; 2) gather input from residents on their concerns regarding siting; and 3) review local land use ordinances. When there are significant cultural, historic, or natural resources near the planned development site, it may be helpful to conduct modeling or computer simulation of the viewshed, or the landscape/scenery visible to the eye from a fixed vantage point. 15

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES

Quality of Life—Noise Impacts

The best way to alleviate the effects of noise at the well site is by increasing the distance between the source and the person hearing it (“the receptor”). With multi-well pad shale development operations, one pad can drain a larger basin than in conventional oil and gas development, allowing more flexibility with regard to pad location. State requirements for setbacks of well pads from residences vary significantlyIn an RFF survey, 20 states were found to have building setback restrictions for natural gas wellheads, ranging from 100 feet to 1,000 feet, with an average restriction of 308 feet. 16 After examining composite noise levels for various activities involved in shale development, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recommended in a 2015 report setbacks of at least 1,000 feet, or even greater distances for multi-well pads. 17

In addition to following setback restrictions, the operator could undertake the following activities in the permitting phase:

  • conducting a noise impact assessment  that accounts for the presence of vulnerable populations or individuals in the vicinity
  • siting access roads as far away from homes, schools, and other sensitive buildings as possible
  • selecting a site that allows the topography or vegetation to act as sound barriers
  • piping  in water and/or recycling it on site to reduce truck traffic to the site (it is worth noting that pipelines have their own impacts, discussed in Appendix E)

Quality of Life—Visual Impacts

As with noise, the operator could seek to avoid visual impacts by siting well pads and access roads away from visually sensitive areas. Mitigation measures to consider during the permitting phase include:

  • minimizing the footprint of the well pad
  • reducing the size of  fluid retention ponds or replacing them with storage tanks
  • using topography or vegetation to screen the site from view
  • seeking to reduce  the visual impact of structures such as compressor stations through design considerations (for example, by emulating the area’s existing agricultural structures) 18

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.

Stage 3: Exploratory Drilling

What health considerations are there?

Quality of Life – Economic Impacts

Many communities have the opportunity to benefit from natural resource development in their area. Shale energy development offers the prospect of jobs to local economies; lease payments and royalties for property owners; and increased tax revenues, royalties, and lease payments for state and local governments. Local workers employed on shale gas projects can enhance their skills and increase their earnings potential. Projects can also stimulate demand for local businesses, including the construction, retail, and services industries. The presence of the oil and gas industry can also contribute to or attract investments in regional infrastructure, which benefits other area businesses. Such benefits can improve the economic outlook for the community and its residents, contributing to an enhanced quality of life.

Whether a community will benefit in the long term depends on several factors, principally on its size, the diversity of its economy, and the state of its economy when development begins. Smaller, rural communities with little economic diversity and a high rate of energy development activities are at greater risk of succumbing to a boom/bust cycle. 19 Larger communities can often better absorb some of the adverse effects of development. The rate of development also matters, with a slower pace allowing the community to adapt to changes, as does the extent to which benefits are accrued and spent locally. 20

One important factor in a community’s long-term economic success is whether its economy becomes dependent upon the oil and gas industry. A study of the costs and benefits of fossil fuel extraction in the western United States showed that the counties that were more dependent on extractive industries (energy focusing) did not fare as well economically in the long term as their counterparts focused on other industries. 21 

A 2014 Duke University report reviewed the fiscal impacts of shale development on local governments in the top producing counties in eight states between 2007 and 2012. 22 It found that county and municipal governments have generally received net financial benefits from shale development in the recent boom, although there has been some regional variation. Notably, costs have thus far outweighed benefits for many local governments in rural areas where large-scale development has occurred rapidly (i.e., in the Bakken Shale region of North Dakota and Montana). 

Employment

The oil and gas industry can generate three types of employment – direct employment in the activities of well construction, drilling, development, and production or related industry services; indirect employment with suppliers or service industries stimulated by industry demand; or induced employment in jobs created by oil and gas employees spending their income on goods and services. 23 In the oil and gas industry, many of the jobs generated are initial construction jobs, with fewer long-term jobs available in the production phase. It is these long term positions, however, which are considered more important to the area’s long-term economic development. 24

In the exploratory drilling phase, many of the jobs do not require specialized skills (e.g., construction, truck driving) and the operator may hire locally for such positions. Given that the initial activity is limited to one or a few wells, the impact on the local economy is relatively modest at this stage. Work on the drilling rigs does require specialized skills and the operator tends to bring in outside workers to fill these positions. Locals may be hired into retail and service industries that are responding to the increased demand from the industry and new workers. 

Housing

A limited number of outside transient workers are moving to the area at this stage, and they tend to seek temporary housing in the community or in other towns within commuting distance. If there is a housing shortage in the area, companies sometimes build temporary housing for their crews on the pad site or in another location. Often referred to as man camps, these temporary housing facilities can be the locus of some social problems (see the Quality of Life – Social Impacts section below).   

Local Infrastructure and Services

Given that outside project workers are not too numerous at this point, they usually have a limited impact on local services, principally affecting law enforcement, emergency response, and road maintenance services. 25 The transport of equipment, supplies, water, and wastes to and from the drilling site can impact the quality of roads, bridges, and the local transportation network. Road maintenance and repair is the leading cost for most county governments in areas of oil and gas development. 26 

To handle oversight, permitting, and code enforcement for the new facilities and infrastructure installed for the project, local governments might need additional resources and staffing. State and local governments can collect revenues from shale development from a variety of sources, including property taxes, lease and royalty payments on publicly owned land, and fees for services. Some states impose severance taxes 27 on operators to offset costs, and some local governments institute fees in order to fund infrastructure maintenance. Additional sales taxes can be a main source of revenue for municipal governments as the population increases with development. Local governments might also receive in-kind donations from operators who help to maintain and repair local roads, perhaps by establishing road use agreements with them.

As mentioned above, the Duke University report observed that these revenues have tended to keep pace with or exceed costs associated with shale development for most local governments. In some areas, however, additional revenues might not be commensurate with the increased demand for services. Governments also might receive these revenues later than community needs accumulate, however, leading to a funding gap. 28 This gap might begin to materialize in the exploration phase, but could become more pronounced in the development phase when there can be heavy demands on local infrastructure and services.

Quality of Life – Social Impacts

Depending on the size and existing character of the host community, an influx of temporary workers can bring increased social problems. These workers are often male and generally live in cluster housing, geographically separated from family members. They have disposable income and leisure time with which to seek entertainment or distractions. These circumstances may contribute not only to substance misuse, but also to other problems like traffic accidents, disorderly conduct, violent behavior, unwanted pregnancies, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, there is evidence that illegal drug and gun trafficking, gambling, and prostitution can increase in the surrounding area. 29

As mentioned in the diseases section, it is unclear whether the increase in such social problems is proportionate to the population increase or is linked to the specific profile of the transient workers in the oil and gas industry. In any case, depending on the size and resources of the community involved, some communities can find their law enforcement, health care, and emergency response systems overwhelmed by this spike in demand. 30

Such issues may begin to emerge during the exploration phase and significantly increase during the development phase. Over time, however, as the industry matures to the production phase, the number of transient workers declines and more permanent workers fill the long-term development and production positions.

Quality of Life – Noise Impacts

Overview of the Effects of Noise

Excessive noise is not merely an annoyance, but also a health concern. Elevated noise levels can affect both hearing and speech comprehension, and can impact other physical and mental functions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recommended outdoor limits for noise at 55 A-weighted decibels (dB [A]), and indoor limits at 45 dB (A). The agency has also noted that a 24-hour exposure above 70 dB (A) may lead to permanent hearing impairment. 31

Prolonged exposure to elevated noise levels is associated with a range of health problems. It can activate the sympathetic and endocrine systems and contribute to cardiovascular disease, prenatal complications, and immunosuppression, as well as increased incidence of diabetes, mental disorders like anxiety, and general physical and mental fatigue. These health issues can occur even when people have become habituated to the noise and claim to no longer be disturbed by it. 32

One significant impact of noise is sleep disturbance. Uninterrupted sleep is a prerequisite for physical and mental health and well-being. For a good night’s sleep, sound levels should not exceed 30 dB (A), which corresponds with average nighttime noise levels of 25 to 30 dB (A) in quiet rural and suburban areas. 33, 34 Maintaining a quiet ambiance is important because even when individuals are not awakened by it, noise can cause detectable changes in heart and brain activity, as well as in next-day stress levels. 35

Smaller increases in the normal ambient sound levels can also be a stressor. Increases of only 6 dB (A) above ambient levels can be detected by the average person. 36, 37 Exposure to this level of noise can lead to complaints of annoyance, headache, and mental and physical fatigue. The effects can vary greatly, however, depending on individual sensitivities and circumstances. With prolonged irritating noise, people may experience feelings of aggression and declines in cognition and performance. 38

Noise and Shale Development Operations

With shale development operations often taking place around-the-clock – often in otherwise quiet rural areas, where nighttime sounds can be as low as 25 to 30 dB (A) – communities are frequently concerned about the noise from these operations. According to a study of a shale development site in West Virginia, noise from diesel-powered equipment and machinery such as drills, pumps, and compressors averaged 70 dB (A) at the periphery of the site. Noises above 55 dB (A) – the level at which sound begins to become a nuisance, according to WHO 39 – occurred frequently, with occasional short bursts of noise above 85 dB (A). 40

Once drilling and hydraulic fracturing begin, the level of ambient noise can increase by 37 to 42 dB (A). 41 Well pad sites are noisiest during the phases of road and pad construction; drilling and hydraulic fracturing; and well completion. This entire process can extend intermittently over several weeks to months for the first well. When water for hydraulic fracturing is not piped to the site or recycled, large numbers of truck trips are required – up to 1,148 one-way heavy truck trips and 831 one-way light truck trips in the early phase of well development, according to one estimate. 42  A study in Colorado found that water haulage trucks emit 88 dB (A) at 50 feet and 68 dB (A) at 500 feet. 43, 44

Activities that can generate noise during the exploratory drilling phase and beyond include:

  • the construction of access roads and well pads, requiring earth-moving equipment and gravel deliveries
  • multiple truck trips to and from the site 45 
  • the drilling and hydraulic fracturing of each well, which often proceed 24 hours a day 46   
  • venting or flaring during well completion, both of which can occur around the clock for several days 47

There are a number of measures that can be taken to reduce or avoid the impacts of noise from shale development projects. These are described in the “What Can Be Done?” section below.

Quality of Life – Visual Impacts

Much shale development takes place in rural areas, with their mix of natural landscape, forests, agricultural vistas, and small communities. For communities reliant on sectors such as agriculture, tourism, and recreation, the installation of industrial infrastructure can negatively impact natural and visual resources. Surveys indicate that residents and visitors in these regions are concerned about the potential for development to diminish aesthetics, property values, tourism, and public enjoyment. 48 From a health perspective, whether in a rural or another setting, residents can experience distress as changes to their environment materialize, contributing to anxiety, depression, or anger. 49 

With shale development, multiple wells are often located on a single pad; according to industry estimates, for instance, over 90% of shale gas wells in the Marcellus Shale region will be located on multi-well pads. 50 This impacts a larger area per site compared to single-well pads, although fewer well pads overall are distributed throughout an area and require fewer access roads. Infrastructure that could have visual impacts includes the well pad site itself, fluid retention basins, access roads, and utility corridors (electric service, water pipelines, and gas-gathering pipelines). Off-site storage facilities and centralized water impoundments (often covering up to 5 acres), as well as increased population density and accompanying traffic can also cause changes to the viewshed. In addition, compressor stations, which remain in place throughout the productive life of the wells, are generally installed every 50 to 100 miles. 51, 52

As with noise, the greatest visual impacts occur during the exploratory drilling and development phases, due to the disruption of the landscape and installation of the well pad and its associated infrastructure. Although estimates vary, overall site disturbance during this phase averages 7.4 acres for a multi-well pad, and 4.8 acres for a single well pad (both estimates include portions of access roads and utility corridors). 53 The well pad alone averages 3.5 acres of disturbed land during the drilling and fracturing phase for a multi-well pad, although this can vary significantly. For example, in the Fayetteville Shale region, multi-well pad disturbance ranges from 1.7 acres to 5.7 acres. 54

Access roads add to site disturbance and may also have the requisite utility corridors running alongside. The roads are often 20 to 40 feet wide and average 400 feet in length (again, there is variation – they have been permitted for up to 3,000 feet in the Marcellus shale region 55). The installation of roads and utility corridors generally creates a linear visual disturbance in the landscape and may cause the fragmentation of wildlife habitat.

In addition to the infrastructure, numerous tanks, trucks, diesel-powered equipment, personnel sheds, and rigs for drilling (up to 100 or more feet high) and fracturing (up to 150 feet high) can contribute to the visual footprint of the site. 56 Depending on topography and any screening methods employed, daytime visual impacts are greatest up to a half mile away. Furthermore, work can take place around the clock during active well development. The lights used at night for safety purposes can disturb residents close to the site and generate an ambient sky glow. If flaring is conducted, the open flame can also be seen at a distance. 57 

PA Gas Well. Photo by Sara Gillooly, Tyler Rubright, Samantha Malone

Quality of Life – Psychological Impacts

In addition to these physical changes in a community after shale energy development begins, shifts in quality-of-life perceptions can also occur, depending on the character of the community. In smaller communities with a strong sense of community character, residents may describe no longer having a sense of peace, psychological refuge, or a rural quality of life. 58 These feelings do not necessarily correlate with actual damage or direct health impacts, but can nonetheless create stress that sometimes leads to physical illness. 59 Such feelings can become much more acute with the accelerated and cumulative changes in the development phase. Reactions to the changes brought by development can vary, however. In economically depressed areas, some residents may welcome newcomers and a sense of revitalization that development brings to their area. 60

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

Collaborative Activities

Quality of Life – Economic Impacts

In some areas, local governments, educational institutions, and companies have collaborated on designing and delivering educational and job skills training programs to equip local residents with the knowledge and skills needed to work in the oil and gas industry (see Box 10. Examples of Education and Training Programs).

Local Infrastructure & Services: To maintain local roads and infrastructure, companies and local governments can develop road use agreements that set forth parameters for the industry such as hours of usage, route selection, and upgrades. Given that much of the truck traffic to a shale development site is for the transport of water and other liquids (over 90%, according to one study 61), exploring alternatives to trucking, such as pipelines and onsite waste treatment and disposal, could be worth considering. For an overview of the issues related to pipelines, see Appendix E.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

Industry Representatives

Quality of Life – Noise

The impact of noise on nearby residents can be reduced in several ways – by increasing the distance between the source of the sound and person hearing it (the receptor); by directing the noise away from the receptor; and by altering the time of day that the sound is produced. 62 It is important for the operator to be aware of the noise levels generated in order to help take appropriate corrective actions when needed; installing sound meters on the well pad to monitor sound levels 24 hours a day can therefore be useful. Residents can also monitor sound levels in their homes. 

When considering how to best mitigate noise impacts, it is important to take into account:

  • the combined effects of various sources of noise
  • the time of day when people are exposed
  • vulnerable groups, including people with medical problems or disabilities such as blindness or hearing impairment; those managing complex cognitive tasks; those in learning environments; fetuses; children, particularly during the stage of language acquisition; and the elderly
  • low frequency sounds, which are often experienced as vibrations or pressure sensitivity, and are extremely bothersome to certain individuals 63
  • distinctive sounds or those generated by an impact, particularly when they are intermittent or unpredictable
  • effects of noise on wildlife and livestock, which can also affect livelihoods

Measures that operators can undertake to reduce noise impacts in the exploratory drilling and development phases include:

  • erecting sound barriers like those used on highways around the site, or arranging infrastructure like storage tanks and other onsite materials (trucks, hay bales, topsoil) to serve as sound barriers
  • using rubber hammer covers
  • installing high-grade noise reduction baffles on equipment and air-relief lines

Quality of Life – Visual Impacts

During the construction of well pad facilities, following some basic principles may help to reduce the potential visual impacts of the site:

  • reducing the height of facilities and equipment when possible
  • placing equipment so that it is screened from view by topographical features or vegetation
  • painting equipment to blend with the surroundings
  • avoiding the use of reflective surfaces
  • ensuring the site is clean and well-kept

With regard to the potential disturbance caused by nighttime work, lighting should be used for safety purposes only and turned off when not in use. Operators can also use energy-efficient lighting and shielded light fixtures, as well as angle light paths downward rather than horizontally (see Box 11. Case Study:  West Texas Dark Sky Reserve). Nearby residents may need to use window coverings at night so that the light from the well pad does not disturb sleep or affect melatonin production and circadian rhythms. 64

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.

What resources can provide further information?

Quality of Life – Economic impacts

Quality of Life – Noise impacts

  • Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door? A Landowner’s Guide to Oil and Gas Development” (Durango, Colorado:  Oil and Gas Accountability Project, 2005)http://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/oil_and_gas_at_your_door_2005_edition#.UxjPSj9dWSo. The effects of noise are covered on pp. I-45 – I-49. For a useful illustration of noise impacts  from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads; see chart, p. I-45.
  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement Documents”   (Albany, New York:  April 2015), http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html. New York’s Final SGEIS covers a wide variety of potential issues resulting from shale gas development. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see pp. 6-295 to 6-297. For composite noise levels of other well pad activities, see pp. 6-292 and 6-293. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see p. 6-299.
  • The Noise Pollution Clearing House (http://www.nonoise.org/index.htm) is a national non-profit organization with extensive noise-related resources. Its mission is to raise awareness about noise pollution, strengthen laws, and assist activists in order to “create more civil cities and more natural and rural wilderness areas by reducing noise pollution at the source.” To aid in their efforts, they maintain a database for noise regulations and ordinances in cities, counties, and towns within the United States:  http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/cities/cities.htm.
  • The Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project, a nonprofit environmental health organization that provides assistance to local residents concerned about the health impacts of shale gas development, has guidance for monitoring noise levels in homes using smartphone apps:  http://www.environmentalhealthproject.org/health/noise-light/ .

Quality of Life – Visual Impacts

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.

Stage 4: Development & Production

What health considerations are there?

Health-Related Quality of Life

With regard to socioeconomic impacts, the phases of development and post-development production can have very different effects on the community’s health and quality of life. As mentioned above, the influx of outside workers in the development phase often leads to a number of boomtown effects that can put stress on the community’s infrastructure, housing, services, community character, and the psychology of its residents. The extent to which these pressures negatively affect the community depends upon its size, the magnitude and pace of development, the area’s capacity to absorb a population increase (e.g., nearby towns with available worker housing), and the predisposition of residents to development.

Quality of Life—Economic Impacts

Development

During exploration and the early phase of development, many of the jobs require specialized skills, prompting companies to bring in temporary outside workers to fill those positions. As development expands in the area, more direct and indirect opportunities for local employment may become available, particularly in businesses involved in trucking and construction. Such an increase in development can lead to a rise in incomes and increased economic activity in the area.

In addition to stimulating some businesses, the oil and gas industry can come into competition with other local businesses and local government for workers, which can put upward pressure on wages. If the local labor supply is limited, the industry may draw increasing numbers of outside workers to the area. This population influx can increase local demand for food, fuel, and housing, which drives up prices. For some local businesses—often those already on the margin—rising costs for items such as wages, fuel, and transport could cause them to fail, decreasing the economic diversity of the community (a phenomenon known as crowding out). 

Depending on the size of the community and its proximity to other towns with available housing, the arrival of project workers can put a strain on the community’s housing supply. Housing shortages can be acute in small communities without existing construction capacity. Oil and gas workers can often afford to pay higher rental prices than other workers, thereby reducing the availability of affordable housing. This can result in the displacement of some long-term residents, particularly renters and the elderly, who are forced to leave the area to seek lower-cost housing elsewhere. 

As mentioned in Stage 3, if there is a gap between additional local government revenues (from taxes, leases, and royalty payments) and the demands on community services and infrastructure, it may be particularly pronounced at this stage of heavy development. A rapid influx of project workers and their families can put a strain on local infrastructure and services. Affected services can include the following:

  • transportation infrastructure
  • water
  • sanitation
  • waste management
  • power generation
  • emergency response system
  • police
  • traffic control
  • schools
  • communications networks
  • recreational facilities
  • health care system

A 2014 Duke University report found that the highest costs to county governments due to shale development have been road maintenance and repair, followed by increased staffing costs needed to respond to growing service demands (such as law enforcement and emergency services). 65 For municipal governments, the highest costs have tended to be upgrading sewer and water infrastructure, followed by greater staffing costs. 66 As noted in Stage 3, the study found that while local governments have financially benefitted from the advent of shale development overall, in certain regions (the Bakken Shale in particular) where large-scale development has occurred at a rapid pace, governments have struggled or failed to keep pace with increased costs.

Production

Over time, as the industry matures to the post-development production phase, the number of transient workers declines and workers that are more permanent fill the long-term development and production positions. These permanent employees are either transplants who choose to relocate with their families or locals who have acquired the skills and training needed to compete for jobs. As community residents, they spend a significant part of their income locally, contributing to the area’s long-term economic activity. Companies also continue to buy some goods and services locally, generating indirect and induced employment opportunities and further contributing to economic growth. 

Some communities in the western United States, which have long been host to oil and gas development, have seen the benefits of oil and gas development begin to materialize as development enters the production phase. At this point, revenues tend to exceed the costs of natural resource development from a fiscal standpoint. These revenues can be used to fund improvements in community services and infrastructure or to provide tax relief to communities. 67 At the same time, it is important for governments to be wary of becoming too dependent on these revenues, as they typically decline with the end of production and may fluctuate with oil and gas prices. 68 

Quality of Life—Social Impacts

The size and character of the community, as well as the views of its residents on shale development, can play significant roles in how a community experiences the changes accompanying development. In economically depressed areas, many residents may welcome the economic activity and opportunities brought by shale development. In rural communities that are focused on agriculture or tourism, however, industrial development can be seen as a threat to livelihoods and community character.

In many towns experiencing an economic boom, the benefits and costs of development are not distributed equally among residents, which can lead to social friction. While some residents may receive royalties from leasing land to developers, their neighbors may not enjoy these rewards. Some may feel they are experiencing the negative impacts of rapid industrialization and population growth (e.g., strained municipal services, widespread construction, and unfamiliar social issues) but are not receiving any benefits. In a recent survey of residents from areas experiencing shale development, those not holding leases or receiving gas royalties describe the area as “worse” or “much worse” as a result of energy development, while those with income from wells describe their area as “much better.” 69

As mentioned in the economic impacts section above, some local businesses may thrive but others may suffer, particularly agricultural, recreational, and tourism-based enterprises. Housing prices may increase, creating higher income for property owners and capital gains for those selling real estate; yet low-income individuals may no longer be able to afford to live within the community. These economic divisions may result in increased tensions; mistrust; overt conflict and even litigation; and generally diminished cohesiveness in the social fabric.

As development moves into the production phase, many communities eventually adapt to the changes, especially if new local jobs are created, the economy expands, and the number of transient workers decreases. 70

Quality of Life—Psychological Impacts

As noted in the social impacts section above, several factors can play into whether community residents feel positively or negatively about the changes in their communities. Certainly, people may welcome some changes while feeling concerned about others. When the arrival of shale development brings significant change, in particular to a small community or one that is unfamiliar with industrial development, the scale and pace of changes in the development phase can be overwhelming to some residents. Community members may find it difficult to manage the cumulative impacts of population influx and industrial development, which can potentially include increases in traffic, a rise in crime, overcrowded schools, and stressed local infrastructure and services.

The psychosocial stress on some individuals as they experience the cumulative impact of the many changes in their communities may contribute to physical illness, 71 addiction, and mental illness. 72 The increased occurrence of other physical symptoms should be considered in the context of possible air and water quality impacts (see the air quality and water quality sections in Stage 3).  

Quality of Life—NoisE ImPACTS

In the development phase, the operator often installs multiple wells per pad, prolonging the period when the project is generating noise (see Stage 3 for an overview of the effects of noise). During the longer production phase, the operator may occasionally re-stimulate or perform workovers on the well, which entails noise at the site and additional truck traffic transporting materials to and from the site. Workovers are, however, infrequent throughout the life of a producing well.

Quality of Life—Visual Impacts

The effects on the local viewshed are the most dramatic in the development phase as multiple wells are constructed on the pad. Once the operator has completed drilling and hydraulic fracturing and the site moves into post-development production, however, the company can undertake interim reclamation of the site. 73 In this period, the footprint of staging and storage facilities, water impoundments, and truck traffic should all diminish. 

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

Industry Representatives

Quality of Life

There are numerous ways to ease the transition within a community experiencing rapid shale gas development. For example, communities could create a task force to identify and anticipate social issues, tap into regional resources for information on how to respond to changes, and maintain ongoing engagement with industry representatives. Part of the task force’s role could be to anticipate the recreational needs of temporary workers and facilitate their participation in community activities and programs. 

Beginning in the development phase, API’s Community Engagement Guidelines suggest that operators support local activities and nonprofit organizations seeking to address local challenges. The guidelines emphasize the importance of working with local officials and other stakeholders, being responsive to community concerns, and maintaining and continuously improving high industry standards for road and traffic safety, among other considerations.

Furthermore, employee assistance personnel and project managers can be engaged in discussions of how to address substance misuse, given that it is not only a medical and public health problem, but also an issue of workplace safety. 74 In one example, when methamphetamine addiction emerged as a serious health problem in Gillette, Wyoming, Marathon Oil Company undertook an educational awareness campaign to combat the problem (see Box 15. Case Study:  Meth Education Program).

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES

Quality of Life—Noise

In addition to the management options described in Stage 3, here are some additional measures to help reduce noise during the phases of development and production:

  • erecting sound barriers around engines and/or adding mufflers to them
  • enclosing compressors and other noisy equipment in sound-proofed buildings, particularly when in proximity to residences, schools, or places of assembly
  • to the extent possible, monitoring the site remotely during the production phase to reduce traffic to the site

Quality of Life—Visual Impacts

During interim reclamation, much of the infrastructure and equipment used during development can be removed. The wellhead will be visible above ground; small brine storage tanks (often painted green to blend with the surroundings) and a metering system remain at the site. The size of the pad and surrounding land disturbance can be reduced by replanting much of the site with appropriate vegetation. There is also the option of adding a landscaped earth berm to enhance visual screening. Access roads can be shrunk to 10 to 20 feet wide and revegetated. On average, a multi-well pad can be reduced to 5.5 acres, and a single-well pad to 4.5 acres, with even smaller footprints possible. 75

A partially reclaimed single-well site in Chemung County, New York. The footprint of the drill site was 3.2 acres, reduced to a fenced area of 0.45 acres. Photo credits: Henkel, 2002 and 2009. Used with permission. Source: NY Draft SGEIS 2011, p. 6–336.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

Local Officials

Quality of Life—Economic Impacts   

If your community is experiencing housing shortages brought about by project-related population influx, one option is to consider reaching out to the operators to identify mutually beneficial solutions (see Box 16. Case Study:  Employee Housing). Other potential options for maintaining an adequate supply of affordable housing in the context of shale development were offered in a 2011 study by the Institute for Public Policy and Economic Development at Wilkes University. 76 According to the institute, local officials could work with local, state, and regional stakeholders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, to consider establishing or promoting:

  • rental ordinances requiring rental registrations and rent stabilization programs.
  • land banking, or a public- or privately-funded effort to purchase foreclosed, run down, or abandoned properties; rehabilitate; and resell them. This effort would ideally take place across several counties and would aim to maintain property values and a supply of affordable housing, among other goals.
  • housing trust funds to provide financial assistance to low-income homebuyers or renters.
  • community development corporations, or nonprofit organizations that pool funding from multiple public and private donor sources and apply it to local housing problems. Strategies can include purchasing, developing, and renovating residential and commercial properties as affordable housing units and/or offering loan assistance to low-income families.
  • zoning codes that encourage affordable housing development (e.g., mixed use development/redevelopment/infill, high-density development, and inclusionary zoning).  

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).

What resources can provide further information?

Quality of Life—Economic Impacts

  • NeighborWorks America, a nonprofit organization providing support to community development corporations nationwide, has information and resources on community development and expanding affordable housing opportunities on its website

Quality of Life—Social Impacts

  • International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) and International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), “Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry,” OGP Report No. 445 (London, UK:  2010). Produced by IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues, and OGP, this guide for managers in the oil and gas industry focuses on substance misuse prevention techniques applicable to the workplace.

A pumper jack. Photo provided by Shell Oil Company.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).

Stage 5: Project Closure & Land Restoration

What health considerations are there?

Quality of Life—Economic Impacts

As mentioned above, the local economy can undergo a contraction after the project closes; economic opportunities accompanying the project dwindle, and project workers and employees in associated industries leave the area. The community can suffer a corresponding loss of revenue for infrastructure and critical services, such as public health departments and policing.

Quality of Life – Noise Impacts

In the decommissioning phase, there can be temporary noise impacts from construction and earth-moving equipment and some truck traffic as the operator removes all equipment, grades the site, spreads topsoil, and restores vegetation in the area.  

Quality of Life – Visual Impacts

As described above, in many cases the land can be restored to the condition specified in surface use agreements or in accordance with state and/or regulatory requirements. In some areas of the country, however, significant deforestation can persist for many years after decommissioning. For example, in Pennsylvania, 64% of projected well locations are on forested lands; as a result, 34,000 to 82,000 acres of forest may be cleared by 2030. 77

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

Collaborative Activities

From the beginning of the development process, it is important that local officials, company representatives, and other local stakeholders plan for project closure in order to minimize the impacts of the company’s withdrawal and counteract a potential bust. Such planning could focus on building long-term community assets, establishing “rainy day” funds, diversifying the local economy, and avoiding unsustainable investments in infrastructure that would require ongoing revenue to maintain. Finally, holding community meetings focused on the decommissioning phase can help to clarify the company’s activities and timeline and identify any issues or concerns.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES

In addition to making an effort to restore the land as close as possible to its original state per the API guidelines, the company can maintain a dialogue with local officials and community members to get their input during the decommissioning process. It can anticipate safety and environmental risks that could arise from the site and strive to reduce or eliminate those risks. The API guidelines recommend adopting a “consistent and forward-looking focus on safety and the environment.” 78

STATE OFFICIALS

State officials have a role in ensuring that wells are properly plugged and abandoned. At this stage, any surface use agreements that were signed prior to site development can help to guide the site restoration.

LANDOWNERS

Property owners can work with the operator to make sure that the site is properly restored to the specifications in the surface use agreement.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.

Appendices

Appendix E: Pipelines—Transporting Shale Gas to Markets

What health considerations are there?

Quality of Life – Economic Impacts

Eminent domain is a legal process by which a state, municipality, private person, or corporation can acquire rights to private property for public use. Allowed under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and referenced in most state constitutions, eminent domain is specifically granted for interstate natural gas transmission pipelines under the 1938 Natural Gas Act. Good faith negotiations should precede the exercise of eminent domain, and property owners should receive just compensation.

Other types of pipelines — intrastate, gathering, and distribution — may or may not fall under eminent domain, depending on the constitution of the state involved. States vary significantly in their application of eminent domain to natural gas pipelines, in granting private companies the privilege to use eminent domain, and in what is considered just compensation to property owners. 

In terms of potential benefits to communities, pipeline companies pay taxes to the municipalities in which they operate. A pipeline construction project also generates temporary economic activity for a community and could create a few permanent jobs. In some cases, natural gas may be made available to communities along the pipeline route if they are not presently being serviced by a gas utility company.

Research suggests that real estate values and insurance rates are generally not affected by the presence of a natural gas pipeline on or near the property. 79 Property owners receive financial compensation (or an easement), in the form of an up-front payment per linear foot, with a signing bonus added on occasion; property owners continue to pay taxes on the easement unless they can show cause for tax abatement. If the easement is in an agricultural area, farming can continue to take place, but other activities may be restricted (e.g., cattle grazing may require fencing and arrangements for access by the pipeline operator).

Quality of Life – Psychological Impacts

When communities and property owners first learn about a proposed natural gas pipeline, they often have concerns about the project. Their concerns tend to cluster around issues of land value, eminent domain, and the safety of living near a natural gas line. The company and FERC invite potentially impacted landowners to public meetings for clarification and input on the process. FERC and the operator may take certain environmental or safety concerns raised by community members into consideration (e.g., land subsidence over abandoned mine sites), which can result in the alteration of the proposed route. 80

Quality of Life – Visual Impacts

During construction, the right-of-way for a transmission line may be 75 to 100 feet or more, depending on soil conditions and topography. Trees are cut and vegetation is removed. While grassy vegetation is planted after construction is complete, no trees are permitted for fear of tree roots damaging the pipeline, as well as to allow for aerial inspection of the route. The permanent easement is usually 50 feet wide, which the operator maintains. Above-ground components such as valves may remain visible. 81

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.
  79. William N. Kinnard, Jr., Sue Ann Dickey, and Mary Beth Geckler, “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Study of Two Market Areas,” International Right of Way Association (June/July 1994), https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/0604d.pdf.
  80. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “An Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline on My Property? What Do I Need to Know?” updated August 2013, http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf.
  81. Pennsylvania State University Extension Agency, “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” accessed December 6, 2014, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/publications/negotiating-pipeline-rights-of-way-in-pennsylvania.

Appendix E: Pipelines—Transporting Shale Gas to Markets

What can be done to address health concerns? What have others done?

QUALITY OF LIFE

Property owners:  If your property might be impacted by the construction of an interstate pipeline – and thereby be subject to eminent domain – you will receive information on the process from FERC and from the pipeline operator, and will have the opportunity to participate in informational meetings to learn more about the proposed pipeline. Residents and municipalities can inform themselves about their options during the permitting process, and landowners can learn about negotiating an easement with the company (see the resources section below).

When eminent domain does not apply to the proposed pipeline, as with gathering lines in many states, property owners can accept or deny easement rights, with a certain amount of leverage in negotiating terms. Given the concerns about state capacity to regulate most gathering lines, property owners should carefully attend to matters of construction, inspection, and safety.  

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.
  79. William N. Kinnard, Jr., Sue Ann Dickey, and Mary Beth Geckler, “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Study of Two Market Areas,” International Right of Way Association (June/July 1994), https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/0604d.pdf.
  80. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “An Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline on My Property? What Do I Need to Know?” updated August 2013, http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf.
  81. Pennsylvania State University Extension Agency, “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” accessed December 6, 2014, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/publications/negotiating-pipeline-rights-of-way-in-pennsylvania.

Appendix E: Pipelines—Transporting Shale Gas to Markets

What resources can provide further information?

QUALITY OF LIFE

Gathering pipeline construction, PA. Photo by Bob Donnan, 2014.

 

Construction of oilgas pipeline in ND. Photo by the National Parks Conservation Association, 2014.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.
  79. William N. Kinnard, Jr., Sue Ann Dickey, and Mary Beth Geckler, “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Study of Two Market Areas,” International Right of Way Association (June/July 1994), https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/0604d.pdf.
  80. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “An Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline on My Property? What Do I Need to Know?” updated August 2013, http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf.
  81. Pennsylvania State University Extension Agency, “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” accessed December 6, 2014, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/publications/negotiating-pipeline-rights-of-way-in-pennsylvania.

Case Studies

Box 3. Case Study: Health Impact Assessment

Box 3. Case Study:  Health Impact Assessment

Oil drilling has taken place in Alaska since 1967. With the expansion of the industry in recent decades, some development activities began to occur near rural Alaskan native communities in the North Slope region, where some residents began expressing health concerns. In 2006, local tribal leaders and the borough government responded with a decision to jointly conduct the region’s first HIA. The project’s goals were to address community concerns and bring a more systematic, evidence-based approach to integrating public health data into the oil and gas planning and regulatory process. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agreed to integrate the HIA into an existing environmental impact statement (EIS) process for proposed oil and gas leasing near several local villages.

The study produced some significant findings. The HIA highlighted potential impacts on regional fish and wildlife populations, which would have consequences for local diet and nutrition. It also recognized potential social changes that the anticipated large increase in population would bring to the region. Finally, the HIA acknowledged the potential benefits for local communities, such as increased revenues to support police and emergency services, education, and public health programming.

As a result of the HIA’s identification of specific risks to the community, preventative measures were taken to prepare the community for the expected changes, including:

  • new BLM requirements for monitoring contaminants in locally-harvested fish and game
  • air quality modelling for large industry facilities located near villages
  • water quality monitoring
  • worker education programs on drug and alcohol use and sexually transmitted diseases

The HIA process also led to a new level of collaboration between state and tribal public health authorities; state and federal regulators; and industry. The state subsequently established an HIA program and now conducts HIAs for large projects throughout Alaska.

Sources:  Aaron Wernham, “Inupiat Health and Proposed Alaskan Oil Development:  Results of the First Integrated Health Impact Assessment/ Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Oil Development on Alaska’s North Slope,” EcoHealth 4 (2007), 500513; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Case Study: Oil Development, North Slope of Alaska” (December 30, 2006)

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.
  79. William N. Kinnard, Jr., Sue Ann Dickey, and Mary Beth Geckler, “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Study of Two Market Areas,” International Right of Way Association (June/July 1994), https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/0604d.pdf.
  80. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “An Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline on My Property? What Do I Need to Know?” updated August 2013, http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf.
  81. Pennsylvania State University Extension Agency, “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” accessed December 6, 2014, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/publications/negotiating-pipeline-rights-of-way-in-pennsylvania.

Box 10. Examples of Education and Training Programs

Box 10. Examples of Education and Training Programs

San Antonio, TX (Eagle Ford Shale) – Educators in San Antonio, Texas are collaborating with energy firms to create a program that would give middle school and high school age students the opportunity to build a skillset that would prepare them for working in the oil and gas industry. By creating educational programs in communities affected by the increased presence of oil and gas development, the residents of those areas are given the opportunity to have a leg up in that job market. Local hiring would reduce the number of transient workers that would have to be hired from out of town. It will be an optional field of study meant to spark students’ interest in work in the energy field or college courses in related fields. As of April 2014, this project was in the planning stages, with the goal of having information about the project disseminated throughout the school system in the following months. 

ShaleNet: Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia (Marcellus and Utica Shales) – The ShaleNet program was developed in 2010 by members of Westmoreland County Community College in Youngwood, Pennsylvania with the goal of meeting specific demands of the oil and gas job market. The program received funding through a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. With that financial support, the college developed a job training program to prepare a new corps of workers for high-demand jobs in the oil and gas industry. The program offers a range of credentials, including training courses that are several weeks long, one- or two-year degree certificates, associates degrees, and a bachelor’s degree in Technology Management. The program partners with educational institutions to provide the training and education programs and works with industry partners to connect learners to upstream, midstream, and downstream careers in the oil and gas industry. It serves as a way for people with an interest in working in the oil and gas industry to obtain the required knowledge and skillsets for the job they want. By June 2013, the program had 20 training providers across 4 states, and had trained 5,000 people, connecting 3,400 of them with jobs. For more information on the program, contact a ShaleNet career counselor.

Shale Education and Training Center (ShaleTEC): Pennsylvania (Marcellus and Utica Shales) – A collaboration of the Pennsylvania College of Technology and Penn State Extension, the Shale Training and Education Center offers courses in applied technology, such as heavy equipment operation and civil engineering, as well as community-focused topics such as land and leasing; environment and water quality; and first responder training. The Pennsylvania College of Technology is the lead implementing partner in the ShaleNet program. The ShaleTEC program was created with the goal of building an “educational pipeline” of skilled technicians that would feed into the energy industry. Since the program’s creation in 2008, over 8,500 people have participated in its oil and gas-related courses. 82 

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.
  79. William N. Kinnard, Jr., Sue Ann Dickey, and Mary Beth Geckler, “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Study of Two Market Areas,” International Right of Way Association (June/July 1994), https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/0604d.pdf.
  80. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “An Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline on My Property? What Do I Need to Know?” updated August 2013, http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf.
  81. Pennsylvania State University Extension Agency, “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” accessed December 6, 2014, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/publications/negotiating-pipeline-rights-of-way-in-pennsylvania.
  82. Renamed ShaleTEC Reflects Growing Opportunities,” PCT Today, last updated October 4, 2012.

Box 11. Case Study: West Texas Dark Sky Reserve

Box 11. Case Study: West Texas Dark Sky Reserve 

When the Permian Basin in West Texas experienced a fivefold increase in number of oil rigs, Bill Wren at the University of Texas McDonald Observatory began to educate both private companies and the public and the on the adverse effects too much light can have on a community. Lights that stay on 24 hours a day can be detrimental to organizations such as the McDonald Observatory that depend on a dark sky at night. Additionally, in places known for their beautiful night skies, too much light can mean the loss of a viewshed of great value to the community. Concerned about this potential loss, Wren has given several presentations and demonstrations to educate people about ways to enhance the efficiency of light fixtures while protecting the sky from the light pollution.

Rather than demand that companies turn off the bright lights, Wren and the McDonald Observatory have shown businesses that installing dark sky-friendly fixtures can improve light efficiency and save them money. 83 Both visibility and security are improved when measures are taken to prevent light pollution. Overall, it is estimated that $1.74 billion is wasted in the United States every year on energy for light shining directly upward. 84 By switching to shielded light fixtures for street lighting, the Canadian city of Calgary saved an estimated $1.7 million per year on energy costs. 

In an effort to help restore dark skies in West Texas, Wren reached out to Stacy Locke, the CEO of Pioneer Energy Services in San Antonio, and together they implemented a trial of new fixtures. Although Locke and Pioneer were initially unaware of the issue, once approached, they were open to implementing the changes. 85

Wren suggested that Pioneer direct their lights downward rather than horizontally, which reduces the amount of light lost into the sky. 86 Aiming the lights in this way creates a more efficient light and, saves the company money due to decreased energy costs. This change has also provided companies with a safer working environment because the downward-pointing light does not cause glare like horizontally aimed lights do. Workers are better able to see instrument controls, which creates a safer and more efficient workplace. 87 

Wren’s work has now also expanded beyond Texas, and he has collaborated with the National Park Service to develop these light managing techniques in Utah. 88 According to Wren, it is critical to educate people about the problems associated with too much light in order to implement needed changes.

Wren has also been at the forefront of the movement to create legislation to reduce lights that are adversely affecting the night sky. As a result, a light ordinance was implemented in the seven counties surrounding the Permian Basin in 2011. Each county is responsible for writing and implementing its own ordinance to reduce light pollution in that area. This legislation will prevent more light pollution linked to an increasing population as oil and gas development in West Texas continues to grow. 89

For more information, contact Bill Wren, McDonald Observatory, University of Texas at Austin at wren@nexus.as.utexas.edu or (432) 426-3621.  

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.
  79. William N. Kinnard, Jr., Sue Ann Dickey, and Mary Beth Geckler, “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Study of Two Market Areas,” International Right of Way Association (June/July 1994), https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/0604d.pdf.
  80. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “An Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline on My Property? What Do I Need to Know?” updated August 2013, http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf.
  81. Pennsylvania State University Extension Agency, “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” accessed December 6, 2014, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/publications/negotiating-pipeline-rights-of-way-in-pennsylvania.
  82. Renamed ShaleTEC Reflects Growing Opportunities,” PCT Today, last updated October 4, 2012.
  83. Rachel Gleason, “Astronomers Look to Protect Earth’s Dark Skies,” last modified May 8, 2014.
  84. International Dark-Sky Association, “IDA Energy Brochure” (2008).
  85. Laura Petersen, “Public Lands: Drilling Boom Brings ‘Light Pollution’ to Southwest’s Pristine Night Skies,” E & E News, March 12, 2014.
  86. Petersen, “Public Lands.”
  87. Gleason, “Earth’s Dark Skies.”
  88. Petersen, “Public Lands.”
  89. Talk At Ten Interview: Bill Wren,” by Rachel Osier Lindley, Marfa Public Radio, May 24, 2012.

Box 13. Case Study: Economic Planning

Box 13. Case Study: Economic Planning

Communities in the Eagle Ford Shale region know from experience that an influx of oil and gas development can mean infrastructure updates, inflated housing prices, and an increase in traffic, among other impacts. In an effort to prevent the typical boom-bust cycle that occurs in many communities experiencing natural resource development, Shell Oil Company and the University of Texas—San Antonio (UTSA) have collaborated to develop community-based solutions in the region. With the goal of helping communities make the most of their existing resources, the UTSA launched a capacity-building training series. 90 The program aims to help communities plan for typical boomtown effects in a way that considers the long-term benefits to the community as a whole. For some of these communities, long-term planning to maximize the benefits of development has meant building strong collaborative relationships with their neighboring towns.

Shell has also funded a workshop series that focuses on how to build successful local businesses. The purpose is to develop realistic, achievable community vision plans with an emphasis on proactivity and preparing communities for the implementation of municipal improvement projects. For example, La Vernia, Texas has developed a unified plan for how to invest increased sales tax revenue. 91 Their overall goal is to invest in projects that will benefit the broader community and the town’s cultural environment. With this in mind, the city will be investing in downtown public spaces, not only to encourage business growth in the downtown area, but also to provide features that residents will enjoy. Local business owners plan to participate in this effort by using income from increased revenue to make updates and diversify their services. The city is also emphasizing strategic planning for long-term job creation.

While the training sessions are intended to help communities plan for their future, the program itself is temporary. It is designed to be adaptable, placing the importance of the desired outcomes in the hands of the community that will be affected. For the Eagle Ford Shale program, change is already afoot, due to Shell’s recent divestment of its acreage in the region. The effort is instead moving to the Permian Basin in West Texas, where development is booming.

For more information:  Small business development centers and/or community colleges can often help with similar planning efforts. For more information on the UTSA/Shell project, please contact RESOLVE at communityhealthguide@resolv.org.

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.
  79. William N. Kinnard, Jr., Sue Ann Dickey, and Mary Beth Geckler, “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Study of Two Market Areas,” International Right of Way Association (June/July 1994), https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/0604d.pdf.
  80. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “An Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline on My Property? What Do I Need to Know?” updated August 2013, http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf.
  81. Pennsylvania State University Extension Agency, “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” accessed December 6, 2014, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/publications/negotiating-pipeline-rights-of-way-in-pennsylvania.
  82. Renamed ShaleTEC Reflects Growing Opportunities,” PCT Today, last updated October 4, 2012.
  83. Rachel Gleason, “Astronomers Look to Protect Earth’s Dark Skies,” last modified May 8, 2014.
  84. International Dark-Sky Association, “IDA Energy Brochure” (2008).
  85. Laura Petersen, “Public Lands: Drilling Boom Brings ‘Light Pollution’ to Southwest’s Pristine Night Skies,” E & E News, March 12, 2014.
  86. Petersen, “Public Lands.”
  87. Gleason, “Earth’s Dark Skies.”
  88. Petersen, “Public Lands.”
  89. Talk At Ten Interview: Bill Wren,” by Rachel Osier Lindley, Marfa Public Radio, May 24, 2012.
  90. Pamela King, “Industry Initiative Helps Communities Embrace Boom-Time Opportunities,” E&E News, May 21, 2014. 
  91. Pamela King, “Texas Towns Consider Deep Makeovers to Prepare for Inevitable Oil Field Bust,” E&E News, May 20, 2014.

     


Box 15. Case Study: Meth Education Program

Box 15. Case Study: Meth Education Program 

In October 2006, Marathon Oil Company launched an educational awareness program intended to address the methamphetamines (meth) crisis taking place in Wyoming. Although the problem was not unique to Wyoming, Governor Freudenthal had expressed concern, citing it as one of the top social issues in the state. 92 With its long history in Wyoming, Marathon had not only witnessed the issue first hand, but was also in a unique position to do something about it. The company had found that the high incidence of meth use had become a concern for hiring and maintaining contractors for all operators in the area. In some locations, the issue had even begun to affect the company’s operations because its contractors were experiencing failed pre-employment drug testing, an increase in absenteeism, and shortages in the local workforce, leading to project delays. Marathon was also hearing that families, especially those with teenagers, were concerned about moving into the area for oil and gas industry jobs.

In response, Marathon designed an educational awareness program intended to start a discussion among its employees about the dangers of meth. After a weeklong presentation series attended by nearly 350 Marathon employees and contractors, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Many employees commented that their families, friends, and neighbors needed to see it as well in order to initiate an open community dialogue about the issue.

Amy Mifflin was manager of Marathon’s corporate social responsibility program when she took on the question of whether to bring the awareness program to the larger community. She was initially met with in-house skepticism about taking on an issue as significant as meth addiction that was seemingly unrelated to oil and gas development. After discussing the project internally to define its parameters, the company agreed on the value of an awareness-raising campaign that would serve as a resource to employees, their families, and potential employees, as well as build a strong relationship with the local community.

The first community workshop included a presentation by health, environment, and safety expert Eddie Hill about the dangers of meth; information from the local sheriff’s office and the mayor; and testimonies from people who had been directly affected by meth. According to Mifflin, the success of the initial workshops and subsequent presentations in other communities transformed many company skeptics into champions. For a relatively small investment, the program helped strengthen community relationships and build a positive reputation for the company. 

Brett Martin, a certified addictions practitioner, participated in the outreach and education campaign when it came to his hometown of Cody. He gave a presentation at the Marathon project’s events in Cody and on the nearby Wind River Reservation. In his role as an addictions counselor, he often speaks to audiences about his own struggle with meth addiction and his pathway to recovery. Due to Marathon’s reputation and standing in the area, he observed that the company was able to reach a larger and more diverse audience than the local health department could. Hundreds of people attended the presentation, including those in key leadership roles, such as city councilors, commissioners, and local mayors. The presentation was well received in the community and people even brought their families to see it—which, Martin said, indicated that the Marathon project was able to transcend the usual stigma. “It helped to show that we can talk about this and it doesn’t have to be about shame,” he said. “Marathon found a way to allow people to talk about it, to say ‘we’re all in this together.’”

Marathon’s meth education and awareness campaign ran from 2006–2009, reaching an estimated 75,000 people in 11 states. It was delivered free of charge at high schools and town community centers. There were workshops with state health departments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The company also filmed the presentation, producing a video for each community and distributing it free of charge. By the time the campaign was winding down, Mifflin was receiving requests from other oil and gas companies that wanted to do similar projects in communities where they were operating.

Asked about advice she might offer to others confronting similar challenges, Mifflin encouraged companies to engage in conversations with communities, even difficult ones. “It starts to alleviate tension with private sector industries, such as oil and gas,” she said, “and people begin to see you as an advocate for collaboration and actively engaged in solving the problem.”  

For companies considering undertaking a similar outreach project, Martin suggests finding ways to support continued conversations in affected communities. For example, the company could offer regular meeting space and resources for developing outreach materials to those who are inspired by the project and want to keep the conversation going.

For more information, contact Amy Mifflin at amy@global-collaborations.com. See below for a short video clip with an overview of the program, accessed November 30, 2014

Notes:

  1. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997)
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health-Related Quality of Life:  HRQOL Concepts,” last modified March 17, 2011.
  3. Programme on Mental Health, World Health Organization Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse, WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life (WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4, 1997), pp. 3-4
  4. American Petroleum Institute (API), Community Engagement Guidelines, ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014)
  5. API, Community Engagement, pp. 6.
  6. Bureau of Land Management, “Split Estate:  Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (2007), agency brochure. 
  7. API recommends that operators consult the Gold Book for guidance and best practices on communication and addressing the concerns of surface owners. American Petroleum Institute, “Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations and Leases,” API Recommended Practice 51R (July 2009), 6. 
  8. World Health Organization, “WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life” (1997). 1.
  9. Kyle J. Ferrar, Jill Kriesky, Charles L. Christen, Lynn P. Marshall, Samantha L. Malone, Ravi K. Sharma, Drew R. Michanowicz, Bernard D. Goldstein, “Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Impacts and Stressors Perceived to Result from Unconventional Shale Gas Development in the Marcellus Shale Region,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 19, no. 2 (2013):  104–12.
  10. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 110–111.
  11. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts.”
  12. Ferrar et al., “Health Impacts,” 109.
  13. American Petroleum Institute (API), “Community Engagement Guidelines,” ANSI/API Bulletin 100-3, first edition (July 2014).
  14. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices:  Lessons for State and Local Governments,” (November 2012), 3.
  15. See Cornell University study of modeling for the Cayuga Heights and Ithaca overlooks:  Sarita Rose Upadhyay and Min Bu, “Visual Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University (Fall 2010), 33-34.
  16. Richardson, Nathan, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman. “The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.” Resources for the Future (June 2013), 24-28.
  17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents” (April 2015), 7-134.
  18. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-71.
  19. David Kay, “The Economic Impact of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling:  What Have We Learned?  What Are the Limitations?” Working Paper Series:  A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: April 2011)
  20. Susan Christopherson and Ned Rightor, “How Should We Think About the Economic Consequences of Shale Gas Drilling?” Working Paper Series: A Comprehensive Economic Impact Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction in the Marcellus Shale (Cornell University: May 2011)
  21. Headwaters Economics, “Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy:  Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting?” (September 2008).
  22. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative Report (Durham, NC:  May 2014).
  23. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 11.
  24. Amanda L. Weinstein and Mark D. Partridge, The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio (The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, December 2011),  2 
  25. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 41-43.
  26. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 2.
  27. Taxes levied on the extraction of natural resources from the earth.
  28. Headwaters Economics, “Oil and Natural Gas Fiscal Best Practices: Lessons for State and Local Governments” (November 2012), 1-3.
  29. National Public Radio, “The Great Plains Oil Rush” (2014), radio broadcast.
  30. Food and Water Watch, “The Social Costs.”
  31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and Welfare,” updated May 20, 2015.
  32. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States:  Developing an Effective Public Health Response,” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:  115-119.
  33. World Health Organization Europe, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe,” (Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009), 108.
  34. Earthworks.  Oil and Gas at Your Door? I-45.
  35. Monica S. Hammer, Tracy K. Swinburn, and Richard L. Neitzel, “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  37. For a useful illustration of noise pollution from oil and gas development, a Colorado study recorded the average decibel levels of typical noises emanating from well pads (see chart Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door?, pp. I-45)
  38. Hammer et al., “Environmental Noise Pollution.”
  39. Earthworks, “Oil and Gas at Your Door?” I-45.
  40. See Michael McCawley, Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results for Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations, study for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (May 3, 2013) 
  41. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS: 2015 Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) Documents (April 2015), 6-301.
  42. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS, 6-305.
  43. Earthworks, Oil and Gas at Your Door? 
  44. For a chart of truck noise as a function of truck size and speed, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-299.
  45. Composite noise levels for these activities can be found in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (April 2015), 6-292 – 6-93.
  46. For composite noise levels for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015): pp. 6-295 – 6-297. 
  47. New EPA regulations, effective January 2015, ban venting and significantly restrict flaring.
  48. Tompkins County Council of Governments, “Community Impact Assessment: High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing” (December 2011) 62-63.
  49. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013).
  50. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2. 
  51. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, “Natural Gas Compressor Stations on the Interstate Pipeline”(November 2007).
  52. For photographs depicting visual impacts of shale gas development at various stages and from varying distances, see  Upadhyay, “Visual Impacts  of Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale Region,” Cornell University Study (2010). For charts summarizing “Generic Visual Impacts Resulting from Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Area of New York,” see New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015), 6-285 – 6-288.
  53. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-2.
  54. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-7.
  55. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 5-3. 
  56. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (2015), 6-273.
  57. As noted above, however, EPA regulations effective January 2015 restrict this practice.
  58. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23 (2013), 40.
  59. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography.”
  60. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 42.
  61. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Final SGEIS (April 2015), 7-134.
  62. See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015)
  63. Earthworks. Oil and Gas at Your Door?
  64. McCawley, Air Noise and Light Monitoring.
  65. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance:  Local Government Revenues and Costs Associated with Oil and Gas Development,” Duke University Energy Initiative report (Durham, NC:  May 2014), 2.
  66. Daniel Raimi and Richard G. Newell, “Shale Public Finance,” 3.
  67. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 20.
  68. Dutton and Blankenship, “Socioeconomic Effects,” 21.
  69. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks to Communities from Shale Gas Development,” Environmental Science and Technology, published electronically (March 13, 2014), PubMed Central.
  70. Roxana Witter, Lisa McKenzie, Meredith Towle, Kaylan Stinson, Kenneth Scott, Lee Newman, and John Adgate, Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado, University of Colorado School of Public Health (Denver, Colorado:  September 2010).
  71. Jeffrey B Jacquet, “Review of Risks.”
  72. S. L. Perry, “Using Ethnography to Monitor the Community Health Implications of Onshore Unconventional Oil and Gas Developments: Examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale,” New Solutions 23, no. 1 (2013), 33–53.
  73. While often mandated by state regulations, interim reclamation is not always enforced.
  74. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, Substance Misuse: A Guide for Managers and Supervisors in the Oil and Gas Industry (2010).
  75. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study suggested average production-phase pads of .5 to 1 acre in size.
  76. Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development, “Impact on Housing in Appalachian Pennsylvania as a Result of Marcelllus Shale” (Wilkes Barre, PA:  November 2011).
  77. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Study (April 2015).
  78. API, “Community Engagement Guidelines,” 9.
  79. William N. Kinnard, Jr., Sue Ann Dickey, and Mary Beth Geckler, “Natural Gas Pipeline Impact on Residential Property Values: An Empirical Study of Two Market Areas,” International Right of Way Association (June/July 1994), https://www.irwaonline.org/eweb/upload/0604d.pdf.
  80. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “An Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline on My Property? What Do I Need to Know?” updated August 2013, http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-gas.pdf.
  81. Pennsylvania State University Extension Agency, “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” accessed December 6, 2014, http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/publications/negotiating-pipeline-rights-of-way-in-pennsylvania.
  82. Renamed ShaleTEC Reflects Growing Opportunities,” PCT Today, last updated October 4, 2012.
  83. Rachel Gleason, “Astronomers Look to Protect Earth’s Dark Skies,” last modified May 8, 2014.
  84. International Dark-Sky Association, “IDA Energy Brochure” (2008).
  85. Laura Petersen, “Public Lands: Drilling Boom Brings ‘Light Pollution’ to Southwest’s Pristine Night Skies,” E & E News, March 12, 2014.
  86. Petersen, “Public Lands.”
  87. Gleason, “Earth’s Dark Skies.”
  88. Petersen, “Public Lands.”
  89. Talk At Ten Interview: Bill Wren,” by Rachel Osier Lindley, Marfa Public Radio, May 24, 2012.
  90. Pamela King, “Industry Initiative Helps Communities Embrace Boom-Time Opportunities,” E&E News, May 21, 2014. 
  91. Pamela King, “Texas Towns Consider Deep Makeovers to Prepare for Inevitable Oil Field Bust,” E&E News, May 20, 2014.

     

  92. Amy Mifflin (Global Collaborations, Inc.), interview by Erica Bucki and Dana Goodson, June 2014.