IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i8p4811-d795730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Consideration of Wildlife in the Benefit-Costs of Hydraulic Fracturing: Expanding to an E3 Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer A. Caldwell

    (Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, 531 South College Ave., 261 Townsend Hall, Newark, DE 19716, USA)

  • Christopher K. Williams

    (Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, 531 South College Ave., 261 Townsend Hall, Newark, DE 19716, USA)

  • Margaret C. Brittingham

    (Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Pennsylvania State University, 204 Forest Resources Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA)

  • Thomas J. Maier

    (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Ret.), Pittsburgh District, Planning & Environmental Branch, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA)

Abstract

High-volume hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale (underlying about 24 mil ha in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, and Virginia) has become a politically charged issue, primarily because of concerns about drinking water safety and human health. This paper examines fracking in the Marcellus region, and the tradeoffs between the energy and economic potential of natural gas extraction and the environmental impacts on wildlife. Therefore, we introduce a new E3 analysis that combines the costs and benefits as regards energy, economics, and the environment. The Marcellus Shale has the most proven reserves of natural gas of any basin in the United States, at 129 trillion cubic feet. Income from natural gas development comes primarily from direct and indirect jobs, and induced jobs (those created when direct workers spend their earnings in a community), taxes and fees, and royalty and lease payments to rights holders. Fracking, however, has detrimental effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Terrestrial habitat effects are primarily due to landscape fragmentation from the clearing of land for pipeline and well pad development, which often removes mature forest and creates open corridors and edge habitats. An increase in forest edge and open corridors is associated with shifts in the bird community, as generalist species that do well around people increase in abundance, while forest specialists decline. Invasive plants associated with disturbance further degrade forest habitats. Aquatic habitats are also affected, both directly and indirectly. Hydraulic fracturing requires up to 20 mil L of water per well fracture, most of which comes from surface water sources in the Marcellus region. The removal of water, especially in smaller headwaters, can increase sedimentation, alter water temperature and change its chemistry, resulting in reductions in aquatic biodiversity. Given the reality that hydraulic fracturing will continue, there is a need to develop practices that best minimize negative impacts on terrestrial and aquatic habitats, as well as policies and the resolve to enforce these practices. To achieve a more sustainable balance between economic, energy, and environmental costs and benefits, we recommend that industry, scientists, non-governmental organizations, mineral rights holders, landowners, and regulators work together to develop a set of best management practices that represent the best knowledge available.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer A. Caldwell & Christopher K. Williams & Margaret C. Brittingham & Thomas J. Maier, 2022. "A Consideration of Wildlife in the Benefit-Costs of Hydraulic Fracturing: Expanding to an E3 Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4811-:d:795730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4811/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4811/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marty L. Leonard & Andrew G. Horn, 2008. "Does ambient noise affect growth and begging call structure in nestling birds?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(3), pages 502-507.
    2. Mei Li & Gregory Trencher & Jusen Asuka, 2022. "The clean energy claims of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell: A mismatch between discourse, actions and investments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-27, February.
    3. Tom Wigley, 2011. "Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 601-608, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Camilo Andrés Guerrero-Martin & Alexandre Szklo, 2024. "Analysis of Potential Environmental Risks in the Hydraulic Fracturing Operation in the “La Luna” Formation in Colombia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-35, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeffrey C. Peters & Thomas W. Hertel, 2017. "Achieving the Clean Power Plan 2030 CO2 Target with the New Normal in Natural Gas Prices," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 5).
    2. Lueken, Roger & Klima, Kelly & Griffin, W. Michael & Apt, Jay, 2016. "The climate and health effects of a USA switch from coal to gas electricity generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1160-1166.
    3. Dr Barry Naughten, 2013. "Emissions Pricing, 'Complementary Policies' and 'Direct Action' in the Australian Electricity Supply Sector: 'Lock-in' and Investment," CCEP Working Papers 1304, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    4. J. Doyne Farmer & John Geanakoplos & Matteo G. Richiardi & Miquel Montero & Josep Perelló & Jaume Masoliver, 2024. "Discounting the Distant Future: What Do Historical Bond Prices Imply about the Long-Term Discount Rate?," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-25, February.
    5. Jaszczur, Marek & Hassan, Qusay & Palej, Patryk & Abdulateef, Jasim, 2020. "Multi-Objective optimisation of a micro-grid hybrid power system for household application," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    6. Faye Holder & Sanober Mirza & Namson-Ngo-Lee & Jake Carbone & Ruth E. McKie, 2023. "Climate obstruction and Facebook advertising: how a sample of climate obstruction organizations use social media to disseminate discourses of delay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Allison S Injaian & Lauren Y Poon & Gail L Patricelli, 2018. "Effects of experimental anthropogenic noise on avian settlement patterns and reproductive success," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 29(5), pages 1181-1189.
    8. Timo Busch & Michael L. Barnett & Roger Leonard Burritt & Benjamin W. Cashore & R. Edward Freeman & Irene Henriques & Bryan W. Husted & Rajat Panwar & Jonatan Pinkse & Stefan Schaltegger & Jeff York, 2024. "Moving beyond “the” business case: How to make corporate sustainability work," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 776-787, February.
    9. Barradale, Merrill Jones, 2014. "Investment under uncertain climate policy: A practitioners׳ perspective on carbon risk," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 520-535.
    10. Solomon Hsiang & Robert E. Kopp, 2018. "An Economist's Guide to Climate Change Science," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(4), pages 3-32, Fall.
    11. Leonel Prieto & Muhammad Ruhul Amin & Arman Canatay, 2022. "Examining Social Sustainability in Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-43, September.
    12. Makena Coffman & Paul Bernstein & Sherilyn Wee & Clarice Schafer, 2014. "An Economic and GHG Analysis of LNG in Hawaii," Working Papers 2014-10, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    13. Lim Ming Han & Zaiton Haron & Khairulzan Yahya & Suhaimi Abu Bakar & Mohamad Ngasri Dimon, 2015. "A Stochastic Simulation Framework for the Prediction of Strategic Noise Mapping and Occupational Noise Exposure Using the Random Walk Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-28, April.
    14. Wang, Jingfan & Ji, Jingwei & Ravikumar, Arvind P. & Savarese, Silvio & Brandt, Adam R., 2022. "VideoGasNet: Deep learning for natural gas methane leak classification using an infrared camera," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PB).
    15. Sajid, Muhammed & Zakkariya, K.A. & Suki, Norazah Mohd & Islam, Jamid Ul, 2024. "When going green goes wrong: The effects of greenwashing on brand avoidance and negative word-of-mouth," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Wang, Jingfan & Tchapmi, Lyne P. & Ravikumar, Arvind P. & McGuire, Mike & Bell, Clay S. & Zimmerle, Daniel & Savarese, Silvio & Brandt, Adam R., 2020. "Machine vision for natural gas methane emissions detection using an infrared camera," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    17. Hausfather, Zeke, 2015. "Bounding the climate viability of natural gas as a bridge fuel to displace coal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 286-294.
    18. Yang, Yan & Wang, Limao & Fang, Yebing & Mou, Chufu, 2017. "Integrated value of shale gas development: A comparative analysis in the United States and China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1465-1478.
    19. Ahamed, Sonya & Galford, Gillian L. & Panikkar, Bindu & Rizzo, Donna & Stephens, Jennie C., 2024. "Carbon collusion: Cooperation, competition, and climate obstruction in the global oil and gas extraction network," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    20. Alina Cherepovitsyna & Nadezhda Sheveleva & Arina Riadinskaia & Konstantin Danilin, 2023. "Decarbonization Measures: A Real Effect or Just a Declaration? An Assessment of Oil and Gas Companies’ Progress towards Carbon Neutrality," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-19, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4811-:d:795730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.