Social sustainability assessment of shale gas in the UK

Highlights

• Social sustainability of shale gas has been evaluated for 14 indicators.

• They include employment, public perceptions, local communities and infrastructure.

• Shale gas is compared to other fossil, nuclear and renewable fuels.

• It would generate modest employment and financial benefits for local communities.

• It would not improve energy security and would worsen other social issues.

Abstract

The majority of shale gas studies so far have focused on environmental impacts with few considering societal aspects. This paper presents a first and most comprehensive assessment of the social impacts of shale gas production and utilisation for electricity generation, focusing on the UK context. The assessment has been carried out based on 14 indicators, addressing the following social sustainability issues: employment, health and safety, nuisance, public perceptions, local communities, infrastructure and resources. Shale gas is compared to a range of other electricity options, including other fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables. Where appropriate and possible, the social impacts are evaluated on a life cycle basis. The results suggest that extraction and utilisation of shale gas would lead to a range of benefits, including employment opportunities and financial gains by local communities. However, these are limited and countered by a number of social barriers that need to be overcome, including low public support, noise, traffic, strain on infrastructure (e.g. wastewater treatment facilities), land use conflict and availability of regulatory resources. Furthermore, shale gas does not present a notable opportunity for increasing energy security, unless its production increases significantly above current predictions. These findings can be used by policy makers, operators and other shale gas stakeholders with an interest in the social impacts of shale gas development. The results can also be useful for other countries planning to exploit their shale gas reserves.

Introduction

Shale gas is a controversial topic for various reasons, including the potential for water contamination, earthquakes and greenhouse gas emissions, which have fuelled opposition against its development (Cooper et al., 2016). Despite this, many nations are either producing it on a small scale or are in the early exploration stage because they wish to replicate the reduction in energy prices and improvement in energy security experienced in the US as a result of shale gas production. However, it is uncertain whether the US experience can be replicated, as environmental, economic and social impacts of shale gas in other countries are ambiguous or unknown. Social impacts are particularly underexplored, with most studies so far based in the US (e.g. Evensen et al., 2014; Hartley et al., 2015 Zirogiannis et al., 2016). As discussed below, these have considered issues such as employment, health and safety, nuisance, public perceptions, impact on local communities, infrastructure and resources.

Studies of employment have found that the development of shale gas can create a significant number of direct, indirect and induced jobs Fullenbaum et al. (2011), Hartley et al. (2015). However, the financial gains to local communities are limited as workers are often outsiders, particularly in the US, staying in the area only temporarily. Furthermore, most direct jobs are in the pre-development stage and are thus short term.

Health and safety studies have focused on surveys of self-reported ailments experienced by residents living in shale gas-producing areas Adgate et al. (2014), Rabinowitz et al. (2014), Steinzor et al. (2013). These include dizziness, headaches, eye and respiratory irritation HSE (2015), MDH (2015), United States Department of Labor (2015). It has also been suggested that those who live closer to well sites are more likely to experience ill-health (Rabinowitz et al., 2014). The causes of ill-health have been linked to wastewater pits (toxic chemicals becoming airborne during water evaporation), emissions from diesel equipment and exhaust fumes from trucks used to bring in equipment and materials. However, it should be noted that no professional medical diagnoses accompanied these illnesses self-reported in the surveys.

Studies on nuisance to humans and wildlife related to shale gas include traffic, noise and the presence of equipment. The increase in traffic volume has been linked to increased road accidents (Graham et al., 2015) and emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter (Goodman et al., 2016). It has also been found that noise exposure near exploration sites can have adverse effects on human hearing (Hays et al., 2016) and can affect animal behaviour Barber et al. (2010), Barber et al. (2011). There have been no studies on whether the noise has any impact on the health of birds but some studies found no adverse effect on population numbers Barber et al. (2010), Barber et al. (2011). Similarly, the presence of equipment does not appear to have adverse effects on local wildlife or biodiversity (Jones et al., 2014). However, land transformation, in particular if it leads to forest fragmentation, can affect local biodiversity (Haddad et al., 2015).

A large number of studies have analysed public perceptions of shale gas and how they are influenced. Factors, such as demographics, risk perception, area of residence and political views, have been found to have a strong influence on people’s attitudes towards shale gas Israel et al. (2015), Theodori (2012), Upham et al. (2015). Gender and education also appear to have an impact on perceptions Boudet et al. (2013), Mukherjee and Rahman (2016). A further influencing factor is how shale gas is represented in the media Ashmoore et al. (2016), Jaspal and Nerlich (2013), Jaspal et al. (2014). For example, when framed in the context of economic benefits and job generation, survey participants showed a positive attitude towards shale gas, but when framed in terms of climate change and environmental impacts, the attitudes tended to become negative (Christenson et al., 2017).

The impact on local communities has been evaluated in the literature considering community benefits, such as charters, benefit agreements and compensation schemes to offset damages caused by activities related to development. Most authors argue that there is a need for compensation and insurance schemes against environmental damage caused by shale gas development Behrer and Mauter (2017), ter Mors et al. (2012), Wetherell and Evensen (2016). This is important as damage to the environment can affect the livelihoods of residents, such as ill-health and property value. However, US-based studies found that the latter is largely unaffected by shale gas development, with the exception of dwellings that rely of private wells for their water supply (Muehlenbachs et al., 2013). However, others have argued that the development of shale gas “urbanises” the countryside (Evans, 2016) which could affect property values in rural areas.

A further impact on local communities is migrant workers who tend to commute to work (sometime hundreds of miles, particularly in the US), resulting in an increase in housing rental prices and strain on local services Jacquet (2014), Muehlenbachs et al. (2015), Schafft et al. (2014). However, the influx boosts the local economy, although this dwindles as gas production matures and well productivity declines Schafft et al. (2014), Tsvetkova and Partridge (2016).

Another social aspect related to shale gas discussed in the literature is the impact on infrastructure and resources. The infrastructure required for the extraction of shale gas necessitates the use of equipment, materials, chemicals and labour Adamus and Florkowski (2016), Cooper et al. (2016). It also produces large amounts of wastewater (with high salinity, dissolved solids and radioactive elements) which needs to be treated, putting strain on existing water treatment facilities and potentially affecting local communities (Cooper et al., 2016). On the other hand, shale gas is a valuable resource and could contribute towards improved national energy security Adamus and Florkowski (2016), Cooper et al. (2016), IEA (2011).

In addition to being US focused, the above-mentioned studies have only considered social impacts of the extraction and production of shale gas, omitting its utilisation. The latter is important for a better understanding of how to minimise adverse social impacts while maximising any gains that could be derived from the use of shale gas. It is also important to understand how the social impacts of shale gas compare to other energy sources, both during the production and use stages. Therefore, this paper evaluates social impacts of both shale gas production and utilisation for electricity generation and compares it to a range of other electricity options. As far as we are aware, this the first study of its kind internationally, also representing the most comprehensive assessment of the social sustainability of shale gas. The study focuses on the UK, one of the countries posed to commence commercial exploitation of shale gas. The main area of interest for exploitation is the Bowland-Hodder shale play in England, where around 4000 shale gas wells are expected to be drilled over the next 15 years (Lewis et al., 2014). However, at the time of writing, only one well has been hydraulically fractured and another approved for hydraulic fracturing Cuadrilla Resources (2017), Gosden (2016), Third Energy (2016). Therefore, this study is timely and its findings can be used to inform developers, policy makers and the public on key social issues and how they could potentially be addressed. The results can also be useful for other countries planning to exploit their shale gas reserves.