The capacity of states to govern shale gas development risks.

The development of natural gas and oil from unconventional formations in the United States has grown substantially in recent years and has created governance challenges. In light of this recent growth, and increasing attention to global shale gas resources, the successes and failures of governance efforts in this country serve as important lessons for other nations that have their own unconventional petroleum resources and are beginning to move forward with development, thus calling for a more in-depth examination of the laws governing shale gas development and their implementation. Governance includes both the substance of laws and the activities of entities that implement and influence laws, and in the case of oil and gas, states are primarily responsible for risk governance. Nongovernmental actors and industry also work with states to shape and implement regulations and standards. This Policy Analysis introduces the role of various actors in U.S. shale gas governance, explaining why the states are primarily responsible for risk governance, and explores the capacity of states to conduct governance, examining the content of their laws and the strength of their regulatory entities. The Analysis concludes that states are, to a degree, addressing the changing risks of development. Gaps remain in the substance of regulations, however, and many states appear to lack adequate support or policies for training industry in compliance matters, monitoring activity at sites, prioritizing certain types of regulatory violations that pose the highest risks, enforcing laws, and ensuring that the public is aware of inspections and enforcement and can therefore monitor state activity.

[1]  R. Jackson,et al.  Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  L. Kump,et al.  Geochemical evaluation of flowback brine from Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania, USA , 2013 .

[3]  H. Wiseman Remedying Regulatory Diseconomies of Scale , 2013 .

[4]  Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Armstrong and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010 , 2013 .

[5]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis , 2010, Environmental Conservation.

[6]  James Thomas,et al.  Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  James J Winebrake,et al.  Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  J. Abad,et al.  Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality , 2013, Science.

[9]  Brian W. Stump,et al.  The Dallas-Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009 , 2011 .

[10]  Christiane Hertz-Fowler,et al.  Antigenic diversity is generated by distinct evolutionary mechanisms in African trypanosome species , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  G. Abers,et al.  Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence , 2013 .

[12]  R. Jackson,et al.  Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Mark Engle,et al.  Discharges of produced waters from oil and gas extraction via wastewater treatment plants are sources of disinfection by-products to receiving streams. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[14]  Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. , 2022 .