The Facts on Fracking (Part 2)


Published on

Originally Aired: July 19 - The Economics of Fracking

The second webinar will discuss the economic realities of fracking including economic costs, long term implications of resource extraction, and a summary of interviews covering economic impacts in the gaslands of Ohio (Carroll County).


Melanie Houston of the Ohio Environmental Council
Amanda Weinstein of the Ohio State University
Amanda Woodrum of Policy Matters Ohio

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • EPA:
  • Kleinhenz and Associates: Ohio’s Natural Gas and Crude Oil Exploration and Production Industry and the Emerging Utica Gas Formation, September 2011Reuters:
  • “The link between Utica Shale and manufacturing's holy grail,” Jeff Hedrich and Vince Bevacqua
  • Swank Program meeting – community members seeing growing interest in shale development in Ohio asked do some research. 2 Policy Briefs “The Economic Value of Shale Natural Gas in Ohio.” and “Making Shale Development Work for Ohio.” Working on the 3rd examining the impact on housing.Dissertation Paper “Local Labor Market Restructuring in Shale Booms”
  • -Focusing a bit more on handling Ohio’s economic expectations in terms of the employment and earnings
  • Opened up shale plays that were previously deemed uneconomicalThe U.S. is expected to be the world’s largest natural gas producer in 2015 and the world’s largest oil producer by 2017 (Rosenthal, 2012)
  • -Ethane cracker – convert “crack”  ethane (products in hydraulic fracturing) into ethylene, which is used to make plasticsNeed to analyze shale development through the scope of BCA not just jobsOhio lucky not the first mover: Lessons learned from PA
  • Shale plays - An area comes into play when it is generally recognized that there is an economic quantity of oil or gas to be found. The largest shale plays in terms recoverable oil are the Monterey, Bakken, and Eagle Ford.The largest shale plays in terms of recoverable gas are the Marcellus (410.3 trillion cubic feet, 55% of the total), Haynesville, and Barnett.Utica – may have more “wet gas” with liquids such as ethane, propane, and butane used as a chemical feedstock or additives in gasoline, with low natural gas prices more valuable
  • Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources – may have more “wet gas” with liquids such as ethane, propane, and butane used as a chemical feedstock or additives in gasoline, with low natural gas prices more valuable.
  • experiencing some significant shale development: Carroll County, Harrison
  • Most prominent impact of shale development is the Bakken – North Dakota around WillistonU.S. EIA (June, 2012)
  • Ohio production didn’t start until 2012.U.S. EIA (June, 2012)
  • A boom in employment has accompanied the boom in productionBaseline at 2005 U.S. BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. 21111-Oil and gas extraction 213111 - Drilling Oil and Gas Wells 213112 - Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations 541360 - Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services 238912 - Nonresidential Site Preparation Contractors 333132 - Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 486210 - Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas 237120 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Construction
  • U.S. EIA
  • The most notable example is North Dakota6.5 times the number of oil and gas workers in less than 10 years
  • Note: discuss multipliers. For every 1 mining jobs 4.2 were created in other sectorsPennsylvania’s total direct natural gas extraction employment was just under 26,000 in 2010 after adding approximately 5,000 shale development jobs Kelsey et al. (2011) perform and impact study using IMPLAN and estimate the economic impact of shale development in Pennsylvania was more moderate at just over 23,000 jobs and more than $3.1 billion in spending (during 2009).
  • Why PA is a good estimate for Ohio the additional year of data since the study was released, the total employment impact from 2004 to 2011 is over 38,000 (still notably smaller than the impact study estimates for Pennsylvania).
  • Considine et al. (2011) suggests that shale natural gas extraction was associated with 140,000 Pennsylvania jobs during 2010. These estimates though large, pale in comparison to a recent study that finds California’s Monterey shale play could create up to 2.8 million jobs by 2020 (USC Global Energy Network, 2013; Vekshin and Nash, 2013).Also often rely on what the industry says they will do not what they have actually done
  •’t be relying on this industry to be the savior of Ohio’s economyAlso not fair to that industry to put the weight of Ohio’s economy squarely on its shoulders“The 36,000 jobs specifically created to drill for oil and gas… came in well below direct hiring in other industries.” (CNN Money, April 25, 2012)The construction industry created 69,000 in 2011
  • Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources , Ohio Shale Coalition (2012), and Utica Shale Ohio*Includes all wells classified as drilling, drilled, producing, and completed
  • There are more examples of underperforming (Venezuela, WV) than over performing energy economies (Norway)
  • Looking at previous natural resource shocks it appears that the long run impact are also negligible or negative
  • Kasich has proposed raising severence taxes which will be disbursed to taxpayers in the form of a rebate or lower taxes proposal would raise the severance tax to about 2.7% of the market value of oil or gas, depending on the type of well. As the industry matures and production peaks, the tax would on present price trends raise between $459 million and $547 million each year, equivalent to a 5% across-the-board tax cut for each of Ohio's nine brackets.
  • Economic benefits may be only short term
  • the U.S.
  • Thus, using the additional year of data, the total employment impact from 2004 to 2011 is over 38,000 (still notably smaller than the impact study estimates for Pennsylvania).
  • U.S. EIA
  • U.S. EIA
  • Dewan, Shaila. ―Tennessee Ash Flood Larger than Initial Estimate.‖ The New York Times (Dec. 26, 2008).
  • ProPublica
  • The Facts on Fracking (Part 2)

    1. 1. Economics of Fracking July 19, 2013 Thank you for joining us. We will begin in a moment. Please check your speakers/phone connection. If you experience any problems, please let us know by typing in the chat box. Follow the OEC on Twitter: @OhioEnviro. The hashtag for this webinar is #OECwebinar
    2. 2. Amanda Woodrum Policy Matters Dr. Amanda Weinstein The Ohio State University Economics of Fracking July 19, 2013 Melanie Houston Ohio Environmental Council
    3. 3. Ohio Environmental Council The OEC is the Ohio‘s most comprehensive, effective and respected environmental advocate for a healthier, more sustainable Ohio. Our experts work daily to restore, protect, and strengthen the quality of life for families and communities—from the air we breathe and the water we drink to the food we eat and natural resources we enjoy. Please join us! OEC members:  Receive great benefits  Become part of the community working to restore, protect, and strengthen the quality of life for families and communities in Ohio. Become a member today at
    4. 4. What is Hydraulic Fracturing? ―Hydraulic Fracturing is a well stimulation process used to maximize the extraction of underground resources‖ (EPA) Fracking is the process of using explosive charges, followed by the injection of millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals to break up rock miles beneath the surface of the earth. Horizontal drilling allows shale gas or shale oil to be extracted and pumped to the surface, along with the fluid used in the drilling operation. (University of Connecticut)
    5. 5. General oversight and regulation  Notification and reporting requirements during cementing, well completion, well stimulation and well production (ODNR)  Site restoration is required for urban and non-urban area well sites (ODNR)  Water withdrawal: the law requires registration if a facility has the capacity to withdraw 100,000 gallons per day (ODNR)  Air: permit-to-install and operate required for units or activities that emit air pollutants (Ohio EPA)  Radioactivity: solid waste disposal (ODNR, Ohio EPA, ODH) *Source of information: Ohio‘s Regulations: A Guide for operators drilling in the Marcellus & Utica Shales. Ohio EPA. March 2012.
    6. 6. What‘s the true economic story?  Industry study (2011) by Kleinhenz and Associates predicted 200,000 jobs+ created in Ohio by 2015 and ―economic output will increase by over $22 billion and wages by $12 billion by 2015‖  Reuters reports(June 14, 2013): ―state employment data, academic research and a week-long tour of half a dozen factories in Ohio suggests the shale gas revolution has been a disappointment when it comes to job creation‖
    7. 7. Shale boom over-hyped? Recent headlines (through 2013):  "Utica Shale results not as big as expected" Youngstown Vindicator (June 1, 2013)  ―Utica shale boom talk not as loud" Columbus Dispatch (May 19, 2013)  "Utica shale gas production ramping up slowly, Ohio report shows‖ The Plain Dealer (May 16, 2013)
    8. 8. By Amanda Weinstein Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy OEC Webinar July 19, 2013 The Economic Value of Shale in Ohio
    9. 9. Outline  Introduction  The Shale Boom  Realistic Economic Expectations for Ohio Shale Development  The Long Run  Steps to Avoid a Bust  Conclusion
    10. 10. Motivation  Innovations in oil and gas extraction along with rising oil and gas prices have led to shale development across the U.S.  Dramatically reversed trends in U.S. oil and gas markets as imports are now decreasing  Various impact studies have estimated large employment effects for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other areas  Commenting on shale energy development, Aubrey McClendon CEO of Chesapeake Energy of Oklahoma was quoted in the Columbus Dispatch saying, ―This will be the biggest thing in the state of Ohio since the
    11. 11. Implications  Policy makers and the energy industry itself have used these job numbers to justify supporting the industry through tax breaks, favorable regulations, and other measures  Pennsylvania spent $1.7 Billion in subsidies to entice a Shell ethane cracker facility to locate in Beaver County, PA (near Pittsburgh)  With an average employment of 400 in these types of facilities, that amounts to $4.125 Million per job  To have a meaningful discussion weighing all of the benefits and costs of shale (including environmental), the economic benefits to local
    12. 12. Ohio Marcellus and Utica Shale
    13. 13. Marcellus Wells in Ohio
    14. 14. Utica Wells in Ohio
    15. 15. Tight Oil production
    16. 16. Shale Gas Production
    17. 17. The Employment Boom Source: U.S. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
    18. 18. Prices - Booms and Busts Source: U.S. EIA
    19. 19. North Dakota  North Dakota oil and gas employment has shot up from holding steady at about 1,800 in 2004 to11,700 in 2011. Source: U.S. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
    20. 20. Impact Studies  140,000 jobs created in just 1 year (2010) in Pennsylvania (Considine et al., 2011)  Total direct natural gas extraction employment was just under 26,000 in 2010 (after adding approximately 5,000)  Implied multiplier: 28  Economists generally find multipliers closer to 2 for this sector  North Dakota  From 2003-2013, the total nonfarm employment increased by 110,000  Mining employment increased by 21,000 in these 10 years  Even if all 110,000 jobs directly or indirectly from shale development (highly unlikely), this implies an economic multiplier of 5.2
    21. 21. Implications for Ohio  Based on the Considine report, Kleinhenz & Associates (2011) estimated 200,000 jobs would be created in Ohio by 2015  Using actual natural gas extraction data from Pennsylvania (and a multiplier of 2), we estimate the total jobs created was closer to 20,000 in this timeframe which better estimates the impact Ohio should expect  Output multiplier for natural gas in Pennsylvania may be closer to a range between 1.86 to 1.90 (Kelsey et al., 2009)  Forthcoming journal paper finds the U.S. multiplier is closer to 1.3
    22. 22. Why the Difference?  ‗Impact studies‘ that estimate direct and indirect effects are over-estimates of new job creation and serious regional economists have not viewed them as best practice for decades  At best, a well done impact study should tell you how many jobs are ‗supported‘ by an industry, not how many jobs it ‗created.‘  At worst, the economic effects can be double counted and unrealistic assumptions applied to the model to increase estimates  Don‘t account for displacement effects and other negative effects of drilling  Rely on a computer model not actual employment data
    23. 23. What about the local area?  Even small employment gains may be big for rural and remote counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania  Match drilling counties with similar non-drilling counties in PA (the counterfactual) and find modest employment effects and more significant earnings impact  Statistical regressions on counties in PA and the U.S. show employment impacts are modest and the earnings impact is about double, but that impact decreases over time  Every $1 million in shale gas production results in just 2.35 jobs within counties in TX, CO, and WY
    24. 24. Economic Theory  The modest impact on jobs is not surprising  More capital intensive than labor intensive  Displacement effects – coal industry, tourism,‗Dutch Disease‘  Even with impressive growth rates, the energy sector is still a small share of the total Ohio economy at 5.34 million in Apr. 2013 (U.S. BLS) at approximately 0.3%  Leakage in the economic benefits  37% of Marcellus PA employment has gone to non- residents (Kelsey et al., 2011)  55% of royalty/leasing money saved (Kelsey et
    25. 25. Major Holders of Utica Shale Right in Ohio (April 2012)  Major Holders of Utica Shale Right in Ohio (April 2012)
    26. 26. Displacement Effects  ―Among the inconveniences the boom has caused for locals -- including a higher cost of living, more traffic and higher turnover rates among businesses that lose employees to the oilfields -- there's a Sign in front of Taco John‘s in North  Displacement effects and effects on other industries (‗Dutch Disease‘) reduce the employment effects  The effect on the coal industry and tourism  The impact of bid up wages on industries that rely on low wages
    27. 27. In the Long Run  Economists have 150 years of evidence on natural resource booms and the evidence is often negative.  A number of studies have shown that countries are actually hindered and not helped by their resource abundance in terms of economic growth termed the ‗natural resource curse‘  A similar trend has been shown for U.S. states and counties  The Natural Resource Curse Causes  Volatile energy prices can lead to booms and busts  Dutch Disease crowding out other economic activity
    28. 28. Previous Natural Resource Shocks 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Employment Growth Dallas, TX Houston, TX Tulsa, OK Casper, WY Williams, ND US Source: U.S. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
    29. 29. Steps to Avoid the Bust and the Curse  Shouldn‘t rely on short term benefits in employment and earnings  Address the short term and long term costs to communities Infrastructure and public services Environmental amenities Replacing the permanent loss of physical capital by investing in human capital  Taxes set appropriately to cover these costs
    30. 30. Severance Taxes (Oil)
    31. 31. Effective Natural Gas Tax Burden
    32. 32. Conclusion  The real question of shale investment is not job creation, but net benefits vs. costs (including environmental costs)  Having an accurate estimate of the economic benefits of shale development allows us to better weight the benefits and costs  In this question for the Marcellus shale in PA and OH, natural gas should be compared to coal, the true alternative  Shale natural gas is lower cost, less carbon, and like coal has local pollution impacts. Shale natural gas will also reduce natural gas imports  Ohio should consider higher severance taxes to
    33. 33. Amanda Weinstein Research Associate for the Swank Program in Rural- Urban Policy Dept. Agricultural, Environmental & Development Economics The Ohio State University ( Thank You 34
    34. 34. Extra Slides The following slides may be helpful in answering questions.
    35. 35. Environmental Impact  A bridge to more environmentally friendly energy production  Carbon benefits may be slightly less due to the trucking requirements, but carbon emissions remain significantly less than coal
    36. 36. A Small Share of Total Employment  Even with impressive growth rates, the energy sector is still a small share of the total Ohio economy at 5.34 million in Apr. 2013 (U.S. BLS) Ohio and Pennsylvania Direct Oil and Gas  ―The 36,000 jobs specifically created to drill for oil and gas… came in well below direct hiring in other industries.‖ (CNN Money, April 25, 2012)  The
    37. 37. Energy Price Comparison
    38. 38. Actual and Projected Production
    39. 39. Actual and Projected Production (EIA)
    40. 40. Perspective on Environmental Impact  Coal ash spill –  In 2008, the New York Times reported that experts called the Tennessee ash flood that dumped over 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash waste ―one of the largest environmental disasters of its kind‖  2011 Coal ash spill in Lake Michigan
    41. 41. Source: U.S. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
    42. 42. Hydraulic Fracturing
    43. 43. Fracking Economics Costs and Benefits to Local Communities
    44. 44. Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative • PA: Keystone Research Center, Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center • NY: Fiscal Policy Institute • Virginia: Commonwealth Institute • West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy • Policy Matters Ohio • Advisory Group: Academics and Experts
    45. 45. Economic Impact: Costs v. Benefits • We‘ve heard much about the job benefits of fracking, some about potential long-term environmental and health impacts. This is only part of the story. • Net Benefit or Net Cost: The overall local economic impact - positive or negative – will largely be determined by: 1. No. of Jobs & who gets them, temporary or permanent? 2. Local economic activity & how many of the dollars stay in the community 3. Royalties & the local share of them, and 4. Costs to the community, in the short run and the long term.
    46. 46. Project Goals 1. Develop and disseminate factual information on social, economic and fiscal impacts of natural gas drilling 2. Improve understanding about the size and character of social impacts 3. Help local officials anticipate, plan for, or avoid negative drilling related impacts 4. Improve capacity to factor actual costs and impacts into decision making
    47. 47. Phase I • Review of literature on local impacts • Studies in regions where industry more developed Phase II • Case Studies • Ohio – Carroll County Phase III • Policy Development • Discussions, Best Practices
    48. 48. Economic Context • Fracking is occurring largely in rural communities • Struggling economically for decades • Population stagnating, young people leaving • Hard hit by the recession  Fracking has been ―a shot in the arm‖
    49. 49. Mineral rights: Signing Bonuses, Royalties Benefits • Now, can get more than $3000/acre signing bonus, as high as $6,000/acre + 20% royalties. Stories of new millionaires • Signing bonuses spent locally, generating local economic activity • Farmers are using signing bonuses to modernize their equipment, invest in farms • Government leasing of mineral rights. Covers reduction in school funding Costs / Negatives • Not everyone got such good deals. Some folks locked in 100 year old oil & gas leases. # of citizens underestimated the opportunity and signed ―bad‖ deals. Told ―should have gotten a lawyer.‖ • Mandatory pooling, pressure • Citizens have yet to see much in the way of royalties. Some previous experience suggests fracking wells tend to taper off dramatically, so royalties may be fleeting
    50. 50. Local Economic Activity Benefits • Oil & Gas industry folks try to buy local. Local businesses selling trucks, equipment, and gear (some of which is made in Ohio) • Hotel is full, restaurants busy, gas stations selling more gas • With signing bonus, money for home and farm repairs, modern and more efficient farm equipment • Increased sales tax revenue – ie courthouse renovations Costs / Negatives • Oil and gas industry is largely out- of-state companies, profits leaving state. • No real value-added facilities in community. • Water & sewer infrastructure limitations for development • Fracking waste water • Housing crunch • Road & traffic impacts • Hard to predict future activity levels– hard to plan for it
    51. 51. Jobs Benefits • Oil & Gas industry jobs created. These jobs pay good wages. • Jobs in supportive industries. Local jobs created in truck driving, concierge services, cleaning, resta urant jobs, mechanics Costs / Negatives • Questions about the number of jobs that will actually be created • Most of these jobs, however, are not going to local workers. They are also largely temporary in nature, and follow the industry. • Worker safety is an issue. These are hard jobs, some injuries, even fatalities. • Support jobs don‘t pay nearly as well • Some workers bring families, enroll children in school temporarily. ESL instruction is increasingly needed.
    52. 52. Related Studies • Industry studies on Ohio jobs potential inflated: 20,000 not 200,000 jobs, negative impacts on other industries like tourism (OSU study, Partridge/Weinstein, 2011) • Economic activity increased significantly in shale gas regions of Ohio but employment numbers haven‘t increased at the same rate, possibly indicative of employment of out-of-state workers (CSU study,Thomas, 2013) • Penn State study estimates between 25 & 35 percent of new hires in gas companies and related industries are non-state residents who likely send some earnings home (Brundage, 2011). • 12 County survey of local officials in PA – only 4% of respondents reporting gas activity reported increases in income tax (Kelsey 2011) • Penn State study suggests costs to local government may be greater than revenues. Urban areas like Fort Worth, Texas with mature industry better able to absorb costs and take advantage of benefits than rural areas (What Local Governments Need to Know)
    53. 53. Housing Market Benefits • Increased demand for rental housing, rental income vastly increasing • Work for rental agent • Rehab of properties for rental market, business at local hardware store • Market for second-hand furniture developed • Investment properties go quickly, when on market Costs / Negatives • Fast turnover of rental properties • Rental prices rise dramatically, locals have trouble with higher rents • Locals fear eviction, and lower quality housing if have to move • Cloud over residential properties near drilling
    54. 54. Related Studies • Sublette County, Wyoming (Ecosystems Research Group, 2009). Large population increases, boosted housing prices, shortage of housing. • Headwaters study of counties in Colorado, difficulty of non energy industry employers recruiting workers because of sharp rise in housing • Two studies in Pennsylvania found value of homes located near drilling activity were negatively impacted (well water, 4%; agricultural lands, 7.2%)
    55. 55. • Traffic • Road Damage & Repair • Traffic accidents • Increased traffic congestion, increase in heavy and overweight trucks • Increased wear and tear on roads from heavy trucks, costs for road repair, need for large-scale road improvements • Increase in traffic-related accidents involving large trucks, related injuries and some fatalities, • Damage to roads, guardrails, signage. Traffic, Roads  Roadway Use & Maintenance Agreement (RUMAs): includes travel routes for heavy trucks, Addresses some of the road impact costs  Chesapeake contributed $1 million toward road widening and resurfacing project in Carroll County
    56. 56. Other issues looked for, but did not find in Ohio • Crime has been issue in other areas, not found evidence of issue in Ohio – Ecosystems (2009): increased crime, need for law enforcement personnel, EMS runs, arrest grew faster than population – Headwaters study (2009): sharp increase in crime. Chief of Rock Springs Policy – narcotics arrests rose from 90 to 450. Caseloads for judges quadrupled. • Increase in uncompensated health care from patients without health insurance – – A community-owned hospital in PA estimated loss of ¾ of a million dollars from uncompensated care for subcontractors working on drilling operations
    57. 57. Phase II & III • Case Study of Counties in respective states • Conducted interviews, looking through data, possible focus groups • Shooting for August-September series of releases • Fall 2013 Legislative Caucus to discuss policy implications
    58. 58. Amanda Woodrum Researcher
    59. 59. Any Questions?