• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ohio University's Ohio Shale Development Community Impact Survey Results
 

Ohio University's Ohio Shale Development Community Impact Survey Results

on

  • 618 views

The results of a survey conducted by Ohio University's Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs in summer 2013. The survey asked local elected officials in eastern Ohio counties that have ...

The results of a survey conducted by Ohio University's Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs in summer 2013. The survey asked local elected officials in eastern Ohio counties that have seen Utica Shale drilling to respond to a series of questions gauging their perceptions of the impacts Utica drilling has had in their respective locales. It is an intriguing look at the perceptions of how Utica drilling has affected local residents in Ohio.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
618
Views on SlideShare
274
Embed Views
344

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

5 Embeds 344

http://the-daily-digger.blogspot.com 312
http://marcellusdrilling.com 29
http://www.the-daily-digger.blogspot.com 1
http://the-daily-digger.blogspot.co.uk 1
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Ohio University's Ohio Shale Development Community Impact Survey Results Ohio University's Ohio Shale Development Community Impact Survey Results Document Transcript

    •     OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY             PRIMARY FINDINGS FROM THE 2013 SURVEY             
    •                             For more information on the survey instrument, methodology, or how to join  Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs   with ongoing shale activity research, please visit     http://www.ohio.edu/ce3/research/shale/shaleimpactsurvey.cfm   OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY 
    •  OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY 
    • OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  PRIMARY FINDINGS FROM THE 2013 SURVEY  The Shale Development Community Impact Survey captured shale activity in 17 counties (see map).  Three types of local officials (N=227) were asked to “indicate the impact shale development has had” on  the area they serve. A total of 36 respondents were eliminated from all data because they did not  indicate which shale activities were occurring in their area, leaving 66 Mayors and City Managers (34.6%  of all respondents), who answered for their city or village; 16 County Commissioners (8.4% of all  respondents), who provided answers for their county; and 109 Township Trustees (57.1% of all  respondents), who responded for their township. Of the 191 remaining respondents, 99 reported two or  more ongoing shale development activities in their service area, while 56 indicated no activity in their  service area.   Survey results were analyzed in three ways: 1) By the type of shale development activity reported to be  taking place (horizontal shale well drilling, injection well construction, pipeline construction, shale  supply yards/other staging areas, worker camps, refinery development, and no activity). In these  analyses, respondents can be counted more than once, depending on how many activities they reported  in their service area. 2) By respondent’s reported local official position (mayor/city manager, county  commissioner, township trustee). 3) By collapsing across all respondents. In the last two types of  analyses, respondents were counted only once.  In the current report, “moderate increase” and “significant increase” responses were combined. All  charts, unless otherwise specified, depict the percent of respondents who reported an increase in their  service area.      • •   According to the majority of local  officials, the impact of shale activity has  generally been positive.  Across all local officials, 61.4% reported  positive impacts, 25.7% reported that  shale had resulted in no change to their  service area, and only 7.8% indicated  that the impact had been negative.    100% IMPACT OF SHALE ON AREA SERVED BY RESPONDENT 81.3% City Manager/Mayor 80% 61.9% Commissioner 60% 56.1% 40% 27.3% 27.8% 12.5% 20% 6.3%   0% 10.6% 5.2% 6.1% 5.2% 0.0%       For full survey methodology, please visit http://www.ohio.edu/ce3/research/shale/shaleimpactsurvey.cfm  OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  1
    • POPULATION, HOUSING, AND PUBLIC SAFETY  The impact of shale development was investigated to determine how population was influenced and the  effect it has had on local housing and public safety.    • • •     Counties with shale activity of all kinds  have seen increases in population.   Among counties with reported shale  activity, the percentage of respondents   indicating a population increase related  to shale development range from 42.9%  (horizontal shale well drilling and  injection well construction) to as high as  85.7% (refinery development).  In counties without shale activity, more  than ten percent (10.4%) of  respondents report that population has  increased due to shale development.    POPULATION 100% 85.7% 80% 61.5% 60% 42.9% 42.9% 59.3% 48.4% 40% 20% 10.4% 0%       PROPERTY/LAND COSTS   • • •     The cost of property and land has been  reported to be on the rise in counties  with and without ongoing shale activity.  Property and land costs have increased  in counties with shale activity according  to the majority of respondents, with  54.8% (injection well construction) to  90.5% (refinery development) of  respondents reporting moderate or  significant increases.  More than a third (38.8%) of  respondents in counties with no activity  report that shale development has led  to increases in property and land costs  in their area.  100% 90.5% 77.3% 80% 63.2% 60% 75.0% 68.0% 54.8% 40% 38.8% 20% 0%        OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  2
    •   HOUSING RENTAL COSTS   • • • In counties with shale activity, nearly  two‐thirds or more of respondents  indicate an increase in housing rental  costs due to the impact of shale  development.  The activity with the highest percentage  (90.0%) of respondents indicating shale  development has increased housing  rental costs is refinery development.  In counties with no activity, a  considerable proportion of respondents  (31.3%) report that shale development  has increased housing rental costs.    100% 80% 86.2% 66.7% 61.9% 82.1% 90.0% 69.8% 60% 31.3% 40% 20% 0%             PUBLIC SAFETY   • 100% Across all respondents, only a small  percentage indicated the following  crimes have increased due to shale  development: alcohol‐related offenses  (13.3%), drug‐related offenses (12.4%),  assaults (6.2%), property theft (11.2%),  and prostitution (2.8%).    80% 60% 40% 20% 13.3% 12.4% 11.2% 6.2% 2.8% 0%                            OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  3
    • INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT The impact of shale development on local infrastructure and the environment was explored.      TRAFFIC VOLUME   • • In counties with ongoing shale  development activities, the majority of  respondents across activities, ranging  from 75.6% (injection well construction)  to 100% (refinery development),  indicate shale development has  increased traffic volume.   Nearly half (44.9%) of respondents in  counties with no shale development  activities reported that shale  development has increased traffic  volume.    100.0% 100% 84.8% 80% 75.6% 86.5% 87.9% 85.2% 60% 44.9% 40% 20% 0%           • • NEED FOR PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE Among counties with ongoing shale  development activities, 61.0% (injection  well construction) to 95.2% (refinery  development) of respondents indicate a  need for public road maintenance.   In counties without ongoing shale  development activities, over a third of  respondents (36.7%) report a need for  public road maintenance due to the  impact of shale development.  95.2% 100% 80% 79.2% 77.1% 80.3% 61.0% 70.4% 60% 40% 36.7% 20% 0%                          OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  4
    •   • • BRIDGE MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION NEED In counties with ongoing shale  development, more than half of  respondents across all activities report  shale development has increased the  need for bridge maintenance and  inspection.  Nearly a quarter (24.5%) of respondents  in counties with no shale activity  indicated that shale development has  increased the need for bridge  maintenance and inspection.  100% 80% 60% 57.5% 52.4% 56.7% 63.6% 64.3% 66.7% 40% 24.5% 20% 0%             NOISE POLLUTION • • • In counties with some sort of ongoing  shale development activity, nearly a  third or more respondents report  moderate or significant increases in  noise pollution related to shale  development.  Reports of increased noise pollution  were highest in counties with refinery  development, with 71.4% of  respondents reporting an increase.  In counties with no reported activity,  14.3% of respondents indicated that  shale development has increased noise  pollution.  100% 80% 60% 40% 71.4% 43.4% 42.3% 50.0% 46.4% 31.0% 20% 14.3% 0%       Respondents reporting refinery development in their area were more likely to report increased traffic  volume, need for road and bridge maintenance, as well as increased noise pollution compared to any  other shale development activity.       OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  5
    • RUMAS   Road Use Maintenance Agreements (RUMA) are a contractual agreement between a shale company  and a local governing body stating that the company will take on maintenance, repair, and potential  upgrading of specified bridges and roadways1. When asked, more than half (61.4%) of county  commissioners and township trustees indicated that RUMA agreements had been signed in their service  area.    • •     Overall, reports of environmental harm  have been limited. Across all  respondents, some (12.8%) report an  increase in storm water runoff. A similar  percentage of respondents (14.4%)  indicate that shale development has  increased erosion. Some respondents  (17.8%) also indicate that light pollution  has increased due to shale  development, with the majority of  these reports coming from respondents  in areas with ongoing horizontal shale  well drilling, pipeline construction, and  shale supply yards or other shipping  areas.   Respondents also report that shale  development has increased the demand  for water (48.1%) and water disposal  (25.7%) to a considerable degree.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 100% 80% 60% 48.1% 40% 20% 25.7% 14.4% 12.8% 17.8% 0%                         1 http://www.ceao.org/aws/CEAO/pt/sp/layout_details?get_content_from_session=1&suppress_tcsshare=1    OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  6
    • LOCAL EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY  The impact of shale development on local employment and existing businesses was investigated. Across  all respondents, the majority (57.5%) indicated that employment of area residents has increased due to  shale development.      • • •   Workforce migration increased due to  shale development in counties with and  without reported shale activity.  An increase of workforce migration due  to shale development was reported by  all (100%) of respondents in counties  with refinery development, and nearly  all respondents in counties with worker  camps (92.9%) and supply yards/staging  areas (90.8%).   Over a quarter (29.2%) of respondents  with no activity in their area reported  an increase of workforce migration  related to shale development.  WORKFORCE MIGRATION 100% 80% 81.3% 72.4% 90.8% 100.0% 92.9% 61.9% 60% 40% 29.2% 20% 0%             • • RESTAURANT ACTIVITY In counties with reported shale activity,  the range of respondents who indicated  an increase in restaurant activity  related to shale development was  70.8% (horizontal shale well drilling) to  90.5% (refinery development).   One fifth (20.4%) of respondents in  counties with no activity report an  increase in restaurant activity due to  the impact of shale development.  100% 80% 84.8% 70.8% 76.2% 85.7% 90.5% 77.3% 60% 40% 20.4% 20% 0%        OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  7
    • • •   Among counties with ongoing shale  activity, the percentage of respondents  indicating an increase in other retail  activities ranged from 65.7% (horizontal  shale well drilling) to 90.5% (refinery  development).  In counties with no activity, nearly a  fifth (18.4%) of respondents reported  an increase in other retail activity due  to shale development.  OTHER RETAIL ACTIVITY 100% 80% 84.6% 65.7% 68.3% 71.9% 90.5% 77.8% 60% 40% 18.4% 20% 0%           HOTEL OCCUPANCY   • • • Hotel occupancy has increased in  counties with shale activity, according  to the majority of respondents in  counties with some sort of ongoing  shale development.   In counties with horizontal shale well  drilling, 51.5% of respondents report an  increase in hotel occupancy due to the  impact of shale development. In  counties with injection well  construction, increases in hotel  occupancy was reported by 71.4% of  respondents.  In counties with no activity, 10.6% of  respondents indicate an increase in  hotel occupancy due to shale  development.  100% 80% 60% 71.4% 65.6% 58.1% 59.3% 65.0% 51.5% 40% 20% 10.6% 0%                      OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  8
    • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Local officials – city managers and mayors, county commissioners and township trustees – reported that  the influence of shale development on local economic growth was primarily positive.   • • •     Across all local officials, only 35.6%  indicated that local tax revenues had  increased due to the impact of shale  activity. However, considerable  differences were seen between the  types of local officials.  Nearly half (43.1%) of city managers  and mayors reported an increase in tax  revenue. The majority (87.5%) of county  commissioners reported an increase in  tax revenues, while only 22.2% of  township trustees indicated shale  development had increased tax  revenues.  Local tax revenue is the only economic  survey item where major differences  were seen among the local official  positions.2  LOCAL TAX REVENUES City Manager/Mayor 100% 87.5% Commissioner 80% 62.6% 60% Township Trustee 50.8% 43.1% 40% 22.2% 20% 12.5% 1.5% 0% 2.0% 0.0% 13.1% 4.6% 0.0%               • • Collapsing across respondent positions,  the majority of respondents (51.1%)  indicated that shale development had  led to an increase in the development  of businesses that serve the shale  industry.  The remainder of respondents reported  that either no change had occurred in  the development of businesses serving  the shale industry or that they did not  know.  DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESSES SERVING SHALE INDUSTRY 100% 80% 60% 51.1% 41.8% 40% 20% 7.1% 0.0% 0%       2 This study did not differentiate between different sources of taxation amongst various levels of government.      OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  PAGE 9
    •   COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SPACE DEMAND   • • • Nearly half of all respondents (43.9%)  reported that the demand for  commercial and industrial space has  increased due to the impact of shale  development activities.  A similar proportion of respondents  (49.4%) reported that the demand for  commercial and industrial space had  not changed.  Among the different shale activities, the  range of respondents indicating an  increase in the need for commercial  space fell between 85.7% (refinery  development) and 57.1% (injection well  construction).          100% 80% 60% 43.9% 49.4% 40% 20% 6.7% 0.0% 0%         • • HOTEL CONSTRUCTION More than a quarter (27.5%) of all  respondents reported that there has  been an increase in hotel construction  due to the impact of shale  development.  The majority of respondents (65.2%)  indicated that no change has occurred  in hotel construction.  100% 80% 65.2% 60% 40% 27.5% 20% 7.3% 0.0% 0%           OHIO SHALE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IMPACT SURVEY  PAGE 10