the natural gas revolution - ohio state universitycertain.osu.edu/files/krupnick-7sep2016.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
The Natural Gas Revolution:Critical Questions for a
Sustainable Energy FutureAlan Krupnick
Co-Director, Center for Energy and Climate Economics
SERC Shale Energy and Environment Leadership workshop
OSU, Columbus
September 7, 2016
Critical questions
• What are the key market economics questions?• What are the health and environmental
consequences of shale gas development?• What are the net costs and benefits to
communities?• How should regulations be changed (if at all)?
What is the best mix of regulatory, best practice (voluntary) and liability approaches to reducing risk?
• How (if at all) should federal-state and state-local power allocations be changed?
• How can public trust be gained?
Key Market Questions
Demand• Electricity: How much will natural gas displace coal
and renewables?• Manufacturing: Will natural gas cause a renaissance in
manufacturing in the U.S.?• Residential/commercial: Will New England’s gas
shortage be relieved?• Transportation: How much will natural gas vehicles or
gas used as feedstock displace oil?Supply• Will price volatility be lower (is the supply curve
flatter) than historically?
Newell, et al. 2016. Trophy Hunting vs. Manufacturing Energy: The Price Responsiveness of Shale Gas. RFF DP-16-32 (August).
Texas
Health and Environmental Consequences
• Effects on critters and humans
• Water quantity and quality
• Induced seismicity
• Legacy
• Fugitive methane
• Habitat fragmentation
Low Birth Weight Incidence Near Shale Gas Wells
Source: Elaine Hill. “Shale Gas Development and Infant Health: Evidence from Pennsylvania.” Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, 2012. Working Paper 2012-12.
Wastewater destination time trends for PA
USGS
Induced Seismicity
• Seismicity from fracking NOT a problem?• Deep well injection: 40,000 wells taking oil and gas
liquid wastes. Growth in earthquakes > 3.0 since 2009, “coincident with” oil and gas waste injections.” In CO, TX, OH, ARK, OK. A few “caused by.”
• 1/5th of all quakes in Oklahoma linked to four DIWs that are most relied on
• Better than pits, which leak; better/cheaper than CWTs which can’t treat produced water
• Can it be managed?• Industry cutting water flows through recycling, using
less liquids
Community Costs and Benefits
Local Public Finance (Newell and Raimi)
• Property taxes are effective for raising local revenues commensurate with shale gas development, but not all states give locals the authority. If not, they rely on revenue sharing (and in-kind contributions)
• Major costs are for road repair, sewer and water, police, fire, government wage increases
15
Source: Raimi and Newell, 2016. Map source: Drilling Info 2.0. Heat map data represents drilling permits issued in the 90 days leading up to Feb. 20, 2015. Permit data not available for Alaska.
Summary of net local government fiscal effects: 2013-2015
Marcellus
Fayetteville
Haynesville
Eagle Ford
Permian
Barnett
Green
River
Denver-
Julesburg
San Juan
Uintah
North Slope
Kenai
Peninsula
Kern County
Woodford
Hugoton
Uniformly net positive
Mixed positive/neutral
Mixed positive/negative
Mostly net negative
Utica
Piceance
Los Angeles
Anadarko
Miss. Lime
Bakken
16
Truck Traffic Accidents in Pennsylvania by Well Activity
05
00
100
01
50
02
00
0
No. W
ell
Pad
s
.00
06
.00
07
.00
08
.00
09
.00
1
Avg
. N
o. of A
ccid
ents
/Po
pu
lation
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012Year
Accidents in counties with more than 20 wells
Accidents in counties with less than 20 wells
Well pads drilled
Sample State - Colorado
Dropout Rate – A short-lived spike occurred in top producing counties, but ultimately disappeared.
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
-
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013C
om
ple
tio
ns
Dro
po
ut
Rat
e
Top Producing Counties
Control Counties
Completions in Prod. Co.
Initial Musings from Garfield County Case Study
• Broaden study to consider local and county government interactions
• Development of several hypotheses and evidence e.g.:
– Are bigger companies “better behaved” than smaller companies?
– Are direct negotiations better than indirect?
– Does hiring local by companies for their community liaison matter?
– How important is information provision from the companies to communities?
Gaining the public trust
Latest news on banning “fracking”
• Banning initiatives in CO fail to get enough signatures for the ballot amid charges of forgeries.
• Local governments have been barred from banning or limiting shale development activities: Broadview Heights, OH; Denton, TX; Longmont and Fort Collins, CO; Fayette County, WV
20
How Do Messages Affect Support?
14%21%
14%8%
29% 21%25% 41%
56% 58% 60%51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Industry Neutral NGO
Same
More Opposed
More Supportive
Research Priorities for the Future
• Net benefits to communities of SGD
• Best protocols for industry-local interactions
• Mental health effects of SGD; Low Birth Weight effect
• Habitat fragmentation modeling
• Wastewater handling policies/incentives
• Fugitive Methane: emissions quantification, monitoring issues, regulatory issues
• All kinds of regulatory issues: federalism; more harmonized regulations across states; use of non-regulatory instruments
Sample State - ColoradoInstructional Expenditures - Despite an oil and gas boom, top producing counties lag control counties and have experienced a net decline since 2000.
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
$5,000
$5,200
$5,400
$5,600
$5,800
$6,000
$6,200
$6,400
$6,600
$6,800
$7,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013M
illio
n M
CF
20
14
Re
al D
olla
rs
Top Producing Counties
Control Counties
Gas in Top Counties
USGS map of earthquake swarm in Oklahoma
25
Does the Public Support Shale Gas Development?
9
6
7
11
21
18
17
10
4 4
7
12
19
2120
12
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No opinion
PA TX
1=not supportive, 7=extremely supportive
26
How Much Are People WTP for Risk Reductions? ($/household/year)
31
4 43
15
25
19
4 4
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Groundwater(1,000 wells w/
problems)
Surface Water (%water bodies w/
problems)
Air Quality (days ofstandard violation)
Traffic Congestion(% time loss)
Wildlife Habitat (%habitat
fragmented)
PA TX
New Developments GET FROM ISABEL
• CA: Requiring a GW monitoring plan
• ND: Enforcing the recent flaring reduction plan (74%) – curtailment of oil production
• NY: Towns can ban O&G activities
• In PA, EQT giving $50K to landowners who agree not to sue companies for damages
New Regulatory Developments
• Banning initiatives in CO fail to get enough signatures for the ballot amid charges of forgeries.
• MD: Will begin issuing permits in Oct. 2017; Hogan administration weakening some regulations (wells can be closer to homes, less environmental testing needed). Guidelines will be adopted by Oct. 1.
• Local governments have been barred from banning or limiting shale development activities: Broadview Heights, OH; Denton, TX; Longmont and Fort Collins, CO; Fayette County, WV
• ND regulators finalized and adopted new spill prevention rules, though they can still be blocked.
• CA ARB released a proposed rule that would require almost all oil and gas facilities to test for and control methane leaks
• EPA: banned disposal of fracking wastewater at public treatment plants.
• BLM: Recent battle over whether BLM can regulate fracking on federal and Native American lands after Wyoming federal judge struck down Obama’s fracking regulations
• Critical Questions
• What are the net costs and benefits to communities?
• What are the national economic benefits?
• What will future trade patterns look like?
Revenue flows from oil and gas production to local governments vary by state
31
FY 2013 Local government revenue from oil and gas production in North Dakota ($ millions)
Source: Raimi and Newell 2016, Local government revenue from oil and gas production
32
FY 2013 Local government revenue from oil and gas production in 16 states ($ millions)
Source: Raimi and Newell 2016, Local government revenue from oil and gas production
Revenue source
Revenue
recipient Total
Share of
production value
478
293
640
2,380
2,393
5,206
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.9%
0.9%
1.9%
Federal lands
State lands
Property
Severance/
PA Impact Fee
Other local gov’t
Local grants
Municipalities
Counties
School trust fund
School districts
11,610 4.3%Total local gov’t
Regulations: The state of state shale gas regulation
• Researchers: N. Richardson, M. Gottlieb, A. Krupnick, H. Wiseman
• 25 regulatory elements common to shale gas development across 31 states with current or potential development.
Water Management Plan required
Economic impacts: National and Local
- Issues regarding measurement of economic benefits:-Input-Output versus ex-post-Local benefits difficult to parse out
- Examples:- Considine (2010), using IMPLAN, found the 2009 PA employment impact to be above 43,000.-Kelsey et al. (2011), using IMPLAN with supplemented info, this impact to be below 24,000.- Weber (2012), using ex-post data, found this impact to be closer to 2,200.
Study Employment
Multiplier
Methodology
Deck et al. (2008) 2.5-2.64 Input-Output model predicts Arkansas shale employment, 2008-12.
Considine et al. (2010) 2.02 Input-Output model estimates 2009 Marcellus impacts for Pennsylvania.
Considine et al. (2011) 2.07 Input-Output model estimates 2010 Marcellus impacts for Pennsylvania.
IHS (2012) 5 Input-Output model predicts US employment from oil and gas 2012-35.
Weber (2014) 1.4 Analyzes non-metropolitan counties in AR, LA, OK, TX from 1995-2010.
Weinstein (2014) 1.3 County-level analysis of shale boom in lower 28 states from 2001-11.
Brown (2014) 1.7 County-level analysis of natural gas boom in 9 Central US states, 2001-11.
Tsvetkova & Partridge (2015) 1.26 Examines oil and gas specialization in 6 Western states, 1980-2011.
Munasib & Rickman (2015) 1.77 in AR;
3.37 in ND
Estimates impact of shale in North Dakota, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania,
2000-11.
38
Major gas trade movements 2012 Trade flows worldwide (billion cubic metres)
39
Purpose and contents
• Motivation: Rapid development of shale gas plays has been great for the U.S., but many economic, environmental geological, engineering, political questions remain to be answered if this growth is to be sustainable.
• Purpose: Conflicting studies, unavailable data, evolving regulatory landscape, public concerns, challenging economics requires comprehensive stock taking of the literature and development of critical research needs to keep the ball rolling
• Approach: Convening; extensive literature review in seven areas; review by experts; identification of 24 critical research questions and a top question in each area (based on our assessment of its value of information).
• Social science focus, but not exclusively
40
Moving Forward
• Plan to raise money to follow through on critical questions
• Series of discussions (NY, DC, Houston) to take new/modified ideas; greater granularity. Not just for us.
• Thanks to those in audience who helped us already
• We plan to continue to capture literature
41
• Areas
1. supply; demand
2. environmental (and public health) impacts; climate interactions and impacts; regulation and other approaches to reduce risks
3. economic impacts; international implications
• Expert reviews
• David Goldwyn (President)
• Jeff Burleson (Southern)
• Francis O’Sullivan (MIT)
• Rod Nelson (Schlumberger)
• GS
43
RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas developmentComparison of Naturally Occuring Radioactive Materials
(NORM) in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste
• Supply and Demand
Supply
• Supply curves and elasticities
• Shifters
45
Natural Gas Consumption by Sector (tcf)
• Critical Questions
• What are the short, medium and long-term supply elasticities?
• How will government regulation and technology shift these curves?
• What effect will the shale gas revolution have on the electricity sector?
• How will the Phase II truck CO2 standards affect the demand for natural gas?
• Is there a future for natural gas in the light-duty sector?
• Will the residential/commercial sector remain flat?
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Global Energy Use (exajoules)Business as Usual
Biofuels Coal Gas
Hydroelectric Nuclear Oil
Traditional Biomass Wind & Solar
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Global Energy Use (exajoules)535 ppm Concentration Goal
Backstop Biofuels Coal
Gas Hydroelectric Nuclear
Oil Traditional Biomass Wind & Solar
• Federal Multi-Agency Research Strategy
• Mandate: timely policy-relevant science; produce results that support sound policy decisions and prudent development
• Seven areas for research on unconventional oil and gas development to increase understanding and mitigate risks- Supply- Water quality- Water quantity- Air quality and GHGs- Human health- Ecological effects- Induced Seismicity
• Priorities
• 31 priorities. Covers obvious research strategies, e.g., review literature, data sources to evaluate impacts of UOG on habitats, endangered species, etc., to toxicity assessment and vulnerability assessments, and lifecycle impact assessments
• Some highlights- Investigate link between reservoirs and geology and impact on human
health and environment- Investigate link between development and CCS- Develop AOR for horizontal wells- Collect water flow information before, during and after UOG operations
water budgets- Identify sources of lower quality water to be used instead of fresh- Develop predictive tool for water used and produced- Costs of control strategies (curiously only mentioned for air emissions!)- Conduct health studies in the vicinity of UOG sites- Develop models for assessing the likelihood of induced seismic events
• Six Flagship projects
• New tools to assess future water availability with future UOG activity
• Follow-on to EPA drinking water study• Tools, assessments, etc. for understanding effects on
water quality more broadly• Use source and remote emissions measurement
methods to qualify air emissions and control technology effectiveness
• Tools, assessments, etc. for understanding effects on ecosystems
• Understand key relationships leading to seismic events at deep injection sites
• Critique
• A year and a half late• Did not “analyze and synthesize state of knowledge”• Many important gaps. • Entirely natural and physical science-based Virtually no social science research was
mandate met?• Too broad and non-specific. Not “research questions”• Are interagency processes capable of doing any better?• Mea culpa: We were not on the webinar (we were not invited) and did not seek out the
group (but our visibility on these topics is apparent.• Nothing on:
- developing databases for disclosure/transparency/outside use purposes- fracking fluid disclosure- siting- fugitive methane, per se- solid waste disposal- community impacts (congestion, accidents, property values, crime)- regulation (even at the state level)- local-industry protocols
• Finally, will the agencies set aside funds to support research? Develop a new interagency funding program? Give targeted funds to NSF? No word on this important action item.
Change in Electricity Price,
High Shale Gas Case vs. Low Shale Gas Case
Source: Author calculations based on EMF 26 Report. 2013. Changing the Game?: Emissions Markets and Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies.
-20.0%
-18.0%
-16.0%
-14.0%
-12.0%
-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
LIFT
US-REGEN
NEMS
MRN-NEEM
ADAGE
CIMS-US
ENERGY2020
EPA-IPM
53
US LNG Export Terminals
Source: API. Red are federally approved LNG sites (7)
Pre-Well Bonding Requirements($1,000s)
55
57
RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development
Compare Concentrations to Standards/Criteria
Primary environmental public health concerns:
Parameter NOB MedianStandard
(mg/L) Note
Barium 180 431 2 EPA MCL
Barium 180 431 10 PA wastewater effluent standards
monthly average
Bromide 164 491 0.1 General agreed level in fresh water sources
Strontium 175 1080 4EPA recommended limit for finished
municipal drinking water
Strontium 175 1080 10PA wastewater effluent standards
monthly average
Benzene 61 0.03 0.005 EPA MCL
Ecological and secondary drinking water concerns:
Chlorides 175 46500 250EPA SMCL, PA wastewater effluent
standards
Magnesium 172 526.5 0.05 EPA SMCL
TDS 175 82600 500EPA SMCL, PA wastewater effluent
standards
Sulfate 90 61.05 250 EPA SMCL
Residential property sales in Washington County, PA
300-1,500
0.28
0.28
100
600
500
Supply Uncertainty
Full Cycle Breakeven Price
For 17 Unconventional Gas Plays in North America
Source: Multiple model runs of RFF-NEMS, AEO 2009 and modified for PGC resources
Demand and Supply of Natural Gas in 2030
Economic impacts: National and Local
69
Change in Real GDP, High Shale Gas Case vs. Low Shale Gas Case
Source: Author calculations based on EMF 26 Report. 2013. Changing the Game?: Emissions Markets and Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies.
2009 2013
Sales Tax $4,388,670 $16,428,510
Hospitality Tax $554,009 $1,060,639
Occupancy Tax $256,331 $597,266
Property Tax (Net) $2,886,383 $3,462,321
Enterprise $6,676,027 $11,373,655
Debt $2,630,497 $65,000,000
City Operating Budget $7,522,143 $13,550,120
Capital Budget $1,677,974 $132,000,000
State Support $12,300,000
Dickinson, ND Financial Statistics
Source: Shawn Kessel, City Administrator, 2014
Barnett Shale
Fu et al. (AAPG Bulletin, 2014) Ikonnikova et al. (SPE-RE)
OGIPfree Productivity
72
Natural Gas Supply Elasticities
Source: EMF 26 Report. 2013. Changing the Game?: Emissions Markets and Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies.
Source: Multiple model runs of RFF-NEMS, AEO 2009 and modified for PGC resources
S2 reg cost
S2 tech change
Demand and Supply of Natural Gas in 2030