Citation
A Summary report of perceptions of the politics and regulation of unconventional shale development in Texas

Material Information

Title:
A Summary report of perceptions of the politics and regulation of unconventional shale development in Texas
Creator:
Gallaher, Samuel
Pierce, Jonathan
Weible, Christopher M.
Kagan, Jennifer
Heikkila, Tanya
Blair, Benjamin
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
University of Colorado Denver
School of Public Affairs
July 2014
A Summary Report of Perceptions of the Politics and Regulation of Unconventional Shale Development in Texas

Produced by the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Authors Sam Gallaher, Doctoral Candidate Jonathan Pierce, Post-Doctoral Scholar Chris Weible, Associate Professor Jennifer Kagan, Graduate Assistant Tanya Heikkila, Associate Professor Benjamin Blair, Research Associate
1


Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the individuals in Texas who volunteered their time to participate in this study. This research was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, though the research design and results are the authors' alone.
Citing this Summary Report
Gallaher, Samuel, Pierce, Jonathan J., Weible, Christopher M., Kagan, Jennifer, Heikkila, Tanya, and Blair, Benjamin. 2014. "A Summary Report of Perceptions of the Politics and Regulation of Unconventional Shale Development in Texas." Published July 10, 2014 by the School of Public Affairs University of Colorado Denver.
Questions, Comments, and Requests for More Information
For questions, comments, concerns, and feedback regarding this survey and research project please contact the following:
Tanya Heikkila Associate Professor School of Public Affairs University of Colorado Denver 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80217 Phone: 303-315-2269 Fax: 303-315-2229
Email: Tanya.Heikkila@ucdenver.edu
Chris Weible
Associate Professor
School of Public Affairs
University of Colorado Denver
1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80217
Phone: 303-315-2010
Fax: 303-315-2229
Email: Chris.Weible@ucdenver.edu
2


Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................4
Introduction.............................................................................6
Brief Overview of Unconventional Shale Development in Texas..............................8
Survey Methodology and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents.......................10
Objective 1: To identify respondents' general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in unconventional shale development in Texas...............................................12
Objective 2: To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development...............................14
Objective 3. To assess respondents' evaluation of recent rules and their preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development.......................................17
Objective 4: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward unconventional shale development.............20
Conclusions.............................................................................25
References..............................................................................29
Appendix. Survey Questions..............................................................32
3


Executive Summary
This report presents the findings from a survey conducted in the spring of 2014 of people directly or indirectly involved in the politics and regulation of oil and natural gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Texas. A total of 324 people were administered a survey and 78 people responded representing 61 organizations. These respondents include people from local, state, and federal governments, oil and gas service providers and operators, industry associations, environmental and conservation groups, local citizen groups, academics and consultants, and members of the news media.
Four key objectives guided this study. The objectives and the main survey findings related to each objective are summarized immediately below.
Objective 1: To identify respondents' general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in unconventional shale development in Texas. The findings show that respondents can be grouped according to their position about whether hydraulic fracturing should be stopped or limited (n = 35) or continued at the current rate or expanded (n = 43). These two position groups are used to guide the analysis for the remaining objectives. The majority of environmental and all of the organized citizen groups are a part of the stop or limit group. In contrast, the oil and gas industry and state and local governments make up the majority of respondents in the continue or expand group. Academics, consultants, and members of the news media are split between the two groups.
Objective 2: To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development. Potential problems related to pollution, health risks or environmental degradation, and politics are perceived as more severe by the stop or limit group than by the continue or expand group. In addition, the two groups have different views of the potential benefits of unconventional shale development. The continue or expand group agrees that there are economic and environmental benefits from unconventional shale development, while the stop or limit group neither agrees nor disagrees about the economic benefits and perceives environmental risks.
Objective 3: To assess respondents' evaluation of recent rules and their preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development. The stop or limit group is unsatisfied that the 2011 chemical disclosure and the 2013 well casing rules resolved the issues they were intended to address. In contrast, the continue or expand group is satisfied with these two rules. However, one issue both groups agree that has not been resolved by these rules is public distrust of the oil and gas industry. The majority of both position groups support regulation in some form. There is also general agreement that local governments should regulate setback distances and public nuisance issues. However, the continue or expand group on most issues supports state government regulation of unconventional shale development, but the stop or limit group tends to prefer federal regulation.
4


Objective 4: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward unconventional shale development. The political activities that respondents most frequently engage in to influence politics and policy related to unconventional shale development are communicating with the news media, generating and disseminating research and reports, and participating in public meetings. Across almost all activities, respondents from the stop or limit group are more politically active. The resource that respondents of both groups have the greatest capacity to utilize is financial resources. The stop or limit group's reports moderate capacity for most resources and the continue or expand group reports limited capacity for most resources. The two position groups most frequently collaborate with interest groups that share their position and least frequently with courts and the Texas Governors' Office. The most important attribute for selecting with whom to collaborate with by both position groups are professional competency and trust. The least important characteristic sought in a collaborator by the respondents is financial resources.
5


Introduction
This report summarizes a survey administered in the spring of 2014 to individuals who are directly or indirectly involved with the politics, policies, and rulemaking concerning oil and natural gas development that utilizes hydraulic fracturing in Texas. Oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in shale formations is commonly called "unconventional shale development". From this point on we will refer to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling inclusive of oil and gas development as unconventional shale development. The survey was conducted through the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver and funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
The goal of this report is to provide an understanding of the politics surrounding the issue largely focused on the process of unconventional shale development. We recognize that people relate to this issue from a variety of viewpoints that are impossible to describe entirely in a single report. Instead, this summary report provides a description of the opinions and perceptions of a sample of individuals who are actively involved in unconventional shale development in Texas. These individuals come from diverse professional and organizational affiliations including all levels of government, the oil and gas industry, businesses and trade associations, nonprofits, environmental groups, academia, consulting groups, local citizen organizations, and the news media.
In surveying this politically active population, we were guided by four objectives.
Objective 1: To identify respondents' general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in unconventional shale development in Texas.
Objective 2: To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development.
Objective 3: To assess respondents' evaluation of recent rules and their preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development
Objective 4: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward unconventional shale development.
In providing an understanding of the politics and regulations of unconventional shale development, the survey asks respondents to answer several value-oriented questions. We asked such questions not to push a political agenda or a position about hydraulic fracturing, but instead to measure the perceptions of the respondents and to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Our hope is that through soliciting the perceptions of those actively involved in the issue, we might assist people inside and outside of government in understanding the differences in their positions and potentially find shared understandings that may be used to inform the governance of unconventional shale development in Texas and elsewhere.
6


This Texas survey is part of a larger research project that includes work in Colorado and New York. In each state, researchers from the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver explore the politics of unconventional shale development through interviews, surveys, and document analysis.
7


Brief Overview of Unconventional Shale Development in Texas
The recent oil and gas boom in the United States began in Texas due to the refinement of two unconventional techniques horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing and the discovery of shale and other porous deposits holding hydrocarbons (Railroad Commission of Texas August, 2013; Railroad Commission of Texas, February 2014; National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2013). These unconventional techniques increased extraction efficiencies and unlocked trillions of dollars' worth of oil and gas (Rahm, 2011). A key component to unconventional shale development, hydraulic fracturing (also referred to as fracking or hydrofracking) is a process used to release hydrocarbons from porous substrates. The process of hydraulic fracturing includes pumping a mixture of water, sand or similar material, and chemical additives, under high pressure, into vertically or horizontally drilled wells. The process fractures rock formations thousands of feet underground to release oil and natural gas. Hydraulic fracturing was developed by Mitchell Energy in the 1940s, but more recently its use has increased dramatically (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2013) as it is estimated to be required in up to 90% of onshore natural gas and oil wells in the United States (Halliburton, 2014). The practice is raising questions about whether it improves the economy, employment, energy independence and national security, as well as the degree to which it may harm the environment and public health (de Melo-Martin et al., 2014). The lack of knowledge and consensus about the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing have filtered into debates about the best way to regulate the practice at the local (Kriesky et al., 2013), state (Warner & Shapiro, 2013), and national (Boudet et al., 2014) levels of government.
Texas plays a major role in the recent U.S. oil and gas boom. In 2012, 35% of natural gas from shale deposits produced in the United States came from Texas (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014a). As of 2014, Texas crude oil production accounted for 36% of all crude oil produced in the United States, a majority of which came from shale deposits (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014b). Approximately 50% of all drilling rigs in the United States were active in Texas as of May, 2014 (Railroad Commission of Texas, May 2014). In 2011, 2012, and 2013 the Texas Railroad Commission issued approximately 22,000 drilling permits annually, most of which were in one of the four major shale play formations: Barnett Shale, Haynesville/Bossier Shale, the Wolfcamp Shale in the Permian basin, and the Eagle Ford Shale (Railroad Commission of Texas, n.d.). According to the Texas Oil and Gas Association (Texas Oil and Gas Association, 2013), the oil and gas industry paid over $12 billion in taxes and royalties to the state of Texas in 2012. Furthermore, the same report shows that in 2012 the oil and gas industry provided 369,000 jobs accounting for $44 billion in wages and salary in Texas (Texas Oil and Gas Association, 2013).
Unconventional oil and gas development has brought the oil and gas industry to new areas of Texas, including metropolitan and rural communities unfamiliar with this industrial activity (Rahm, 2011). As a result, Texas, like other parts of the United States with surging unconventional oil and gas development, is experiencing conflicts between industry, property rights owners, citizens, regulators, and environmental organizations. These various parties are concerned over a myriad of oil and gas development-related issues such as water use and
8


pollution (Nicot et al., 2011; Nicot et al., 2012; Freyman, 2014), air pollution (Crossette, 2014), and induced seismic activity (Frohlich, 2012; Connelly et al., n.d.). In many cases, the industry refutes the legitimacy of these issues (Pioneer, n.d.; Encana, 2011; Energy In Depth, n.d). In response to increasing negative public perception of its practices, the oil and gas industry responded in 2011 by organizing opportunities for public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The Texas state legislature passed one of the first bills concerning the disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids in May of 2011, and the Railroad Commission of Texas promulgated the disclosure rule shortly thereafter.
Local governments in Texas are also actively debating unconventional shale development and creating local policy to regulate the industry. In addition to environmental and health concerns, discussions at the local level involve various issues ranging from socioeconomics (Henry, 2013; Prior, 2012) to property rights (Blons, 2014) and infrastructure (Campoy, 2012). Road damage is one of the most prominent issues for local governments, and in 2013 a coalition of Texas counties led by County Judge Daryl Fowler facilitated the passage of legislation to create a grant program for local governments to help pay for road maintenance (Batheja and Satija, 2013). Many of these debates are contentious and result in protests against development or cities passing ordinances to reduce development activity in their jurisdiction.
Scientists and researchers from Texas and elsewhere have approached many of these issues, but to-date few have systematically addressed the perceptions of individuals active in the politics of unconventional shale development in Texas. As a result, many unexplored questions remain. What are the areas of disagreement on these issues? Are there areas of agreement? How should unconventional shale development be regulated? How are those active in the politics and governance of unconventional shale development working with each other? To what extent are these individuals satisfied with recent Texas Railroad Commission regulations? While a single report cannot offer unqualified answers to these questions, our hope is to provide insight into the politics and positions on this issue.
9


Survey Methodology and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The content of the questions and answer categories are informed by information acquired from 12 interviews with experts representing various organizations and positions in Texas. The survey consists of 20 questions with several subparts. A copy of the survey is available in the Appendix.
Survey respondents were identified through multiple sources including: interviews with experts; commenters from Texas Railroad Commission rule-making processes related to oil and gas development since 2011; lists of those present or testifying at legislative hearings on bills related to oil and gas development since 2011; attendees and presenters at academic, government, environmental, and industry sponsored conferences and meetings; organizers of public protests; and news media and online media covering events related to unconventional shale development in Texas. In total, the survey was emailed to 324 individuals and was completed by 78 people, resulting in a response rate of 24%. Out of the total sample surveyed per organizational affiliation type, the response rates are the following: federal government (100%), environmental and conservation groups (52%), local government (50%), academics (32%), organized citizen groups (34%), industry and professional associations (18%), news media (17%), state government (14%), oil and gas service providers and operators (10%), regional government (0%) and other (0%). Some respondents included in this report did not respond to all the survey questions. Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic information for respondents.
10


Table 1. Demographic Summary Information for Respondents
Summary Responses
Highest level of formal education
High School or Some college 5%
Bachelor's degree 39%
Master's or professional degree 37%
Ph.D. or M.D. 18%
Age distribution
18 to 29 1%
30 to 39 16%
40 to 49 11%
50 to 59 39%
60 or older 32%
Percent male and female
Male/Female 68%/32%
Organizational affiliation
Local Government 13%
State Government 7%
Federal Government 1%
Oil and Gas Service Providers and Operators 22%
Industry and Professional Associations 7%
Environmental and Conservation Groups 15%
Organized Citizen Groups 18%
News Media 6%
Academics and Consultants 11%
Years involved in unconventional shale development issues
0 to 1 years 7%
2 to 4 years 37%
5 to 9 years 36%
10 to 20 years 19%
21 or more years 1%
Hours spent per week on related unconventional shale
development issues
9 hours or less 47%
10 to 20 hours 20%
21 to 30 hours 9%
31 to 40 hours 11%
41 or more hours 14%
Hours spent per week on policy/politics related
unconventional shale development issues
9 hours or less 66%
10 to 20 hours 20%
21 to 30 hours 6%
31 to 40 hours 9%
11


Objective 1: To identify respondents' general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in unconventional shale development in Texas.
In order to identify respondents general positions about hydraulic fracturing we asked them whether their current position is most closely align with the belief that the practice in Texas should be stopped, limited, continued at its current rate, expanded moderately, or expanded extensively. The results are shown below in Figure 1. The average respondent supports continuing development at its current rate.1
Stopped Limited Continued at Expand Expand
Current Rate Moderately Extensively
Figure 1. General positions regarding hydraulic fracturing (n = 78)
Based on the results of Figure 1 above, we categorize respondents in reporting the results for other survey questions by dividing respondents into two position groups: a stop or limit group (n = 35, 45%) and a continue or expand group (n = 43, 55%).
Each of these two position groups includes respondents representing various organizational affiliations. Figure 2 shows the distributions of these organizational affiliations for each position group. State and local government, as well as academics and consultants are in both position groups with the majority in the continue or expand group. Respondents from oil and gas service providers and operators, industry and professional associations, and the federal government are only in the continue or expand group. All respondents from organized citizen groups believe that development should be stopped or limited, and they comprise 40%
1 The mean was calculated by assigning numerical values to responses (1 indicates a belief that development should be stopped; 3 that development should continue at its current rate; 5 indicates a response that development should be expanded extensively). The mean response among respondents was 2.82, indicating an average response that development should continue at its current rate.
12


of the stop or limit group. Eighty-six percent of environmental organizations are in the stop or limit group and make up 34% of that group2, but 16% of the environmental organizations belong to the continue or expand group. Finally, a majority of respondents from the media also belong to the stop or limit group.
Oil and Gas Industry (n=ll)
Industry and Professional Associations (n=6)
Environmental Organizations (n=14)
Organized Citizen Groups (n=14)
Federal Government (n=l)
State Government (n=5)
Local Government (n=13)
Academics and Consultants (n=ll)
News Media (n=3)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Stop/Limit n = 35 Continue/Expand n = 43
Figure 2. Organizational affiliations by position group (n=78)
2 Two respondents from environmental or conservation groups out of fourteen stated they believe hydraulic fracturing should continue at the current rate.
13


Objective 2: To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development.
Potential problems
The political debates about unconventional shale development are informed by perceptions of the potential problems related to the practice. To understand the perceptions of respondents about political issues related to unconventional shale development, we asked them to what extent they agree such issues are problems. Four political issues were identified based on interviews and primary sources. Respondents are asked to identify the extent that they agree the issues are problems on a 1 to 5 scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
The results in Table 2 show that the stop or limit group and the continue or expand group differ in their perception of all four potential political issues. The political issue with the greatest amount of agreement is that "Public distrust of the oil and gas industry" is a problem. The stop or limit group agrees that this political issue is a problem and the continue or expand group have a relatively neutral view of this issue.
The two position groups have statistically significant differences on all four issues. On three of these political issues the difference is between a neutral position by the continue or expand group, and a position of either agree or strongly agree by the stop or limit group. The issue with the greatest disagreement between the position groups is on "Scare tactics and demonizing of hydraulic fracturing by those who oppose the practice". The stop or limit group disagrees that this is a problem, but the continue or expand group agrees that this issue is a problem. It is evident that both position groups agree that there are some political problems in relation to unconventional shale development in Texas.
Table 2. Mean perceptions about the extent of potential political issues related to unconventional shale development by position groups
Stop or Limit n = 35 Continue or Expand n = 43 Absolute Difference
Insufficient capacity by state agencies for regulation 4.7 2.7 2.0
Conflict between landowners and their neighbors 4.1 2.5 1.6
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry Scare tactics and demonizing of hydraulic fracturing by 3.9 3.1 0.8
those who oppose the practice 2.3 3.7 1.4
Total Means for Political Issues 3.8 3.0 0.8
1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly agree.
Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
14


To understand the perceptions of respondents on potential environmental and public health issues related to unconventional shale development, we asked them to identify the extent to which they agree six potential issues are problems on a scale of 1 to 5 (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
The results in Table 3 show that the two position groups differ on each of the six potential issues. On five of these issues the continue or expand group has a neutral position, but the stop or limit group either agrees or strongly agrees that these issues are potential problems. On the issue of "Contamination of ground and surface water supplies from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids" the two position groups have opposing views. The stop or limit group agrees that this is a potential problem, but the continue or expand group disagrees. The differences are statistically significant for all six of the potential environmental and public health issues. The two position groups do not agree on the risk posed to the environment or public health by unconventional shale development.
Table 3. Mean perceptions about the extent of potential environmental and public health issues related to unconventional shale development by position groups
Stop or Limit n = 35 Continue or Expand n = 43 Absolute Difference
Disposing or treating produced water 4.7 2.9 1.8
Degradation of air quality from flaring, diesel exhaust, and dust from well site operations 4.6 2.6 2.0
Competition over available water supplies 4.5 3.4 1.1
Nuisance to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations 4.4 3.0 1.4
Contamination of ground and surface water supplies from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids 4.3 1.8 2.5
Induced seismic activity 4.1 2.6 1.5
Total Means for Environmental and Public Health Issues 4.4 2.7 1.7
1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly agree.
Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
Potential benefits
To understand the perception of potential benefits from unconventional shale development, respondents are asked the extent that five issues could be potential benefits. These issues were identified based on interviews and secondary sources. Respondents are asked the extent that they agree each of these issues are benefits on a scale of 1 to 5 (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
15


The results in Table 4 demonstrate that the two position groups are not in agreement about the potential benefits of unconventional shale development in Texas. For each of the five issues the differences between the position groups are statistically significant. On three of the issues the differences are between disagree by the stop or limit group and agree by the continue or expand group. On two of the issues, "Growth of the Texas economy through jobs and tax revenue" and "National energy independence" the stop or limit group perceives the effect of unconventional shale development as neutral, but the continue or expand group either agree or strongly agree that these issues are benefits.
Table 4. Mean perceptions about the extent of potential benefits related to unconventional shale development by position groups
Stop or Limit n = 35 Continue or Expand n = 43 Absolute Difference
Growth of the Texas economy through jobs and tax revenue 2.8 4.6 1.8
National energy independence 2.5 4.1 1.6
A bridge toward renewable energy sources from the natural gas produced 1.9 3.8 1.9
Benefits to local landowners in Texas 1.9 4.3 2.5
Mitigation of climate change from the natural gas produced 1.7 3.6 1.9
Total Means for Potential Benefits 2.1 4.1 1.9
1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly agree.
Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
Three trends are seen in the results from Tables 2, 3, and 4 about potential problems and benefits related to unconventional shale development in Texas. First, both groups do recognize that there are some political problems. Second, the continue or expand group tends to have moderate perceptions of problems, and in contrast the stop or limit group tends to view problems as more severe. Third, the stop or limit group is more pessimistic about the environmental and economic benefits of unconventional shale development than the continue or expand group. Therefore, there are significant different patterns of perception in terms of the problems and benefits of unconventional shale development based on position group.
16


Objective 3. To assess respondents' evaluation of recent rules and their preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development.
Evaluation of recent rules
In order to assess respondents' evaluation of recent rules they are asked whether two recent rule changes by the Texas Railroad Commission resolved various issues. The two rules that questions are asked about are the chemical disclosure rule of 2011 and the well casing, cementing, drilling, and completion requirements rule of 2013. To identify the issues these rules sought to resolve we reviewed documents from the Texas Railroad Commission as well as conducted interviews with those involved in the rulemaking process. Respondents are asked to identify the extent that they agree the issues were resolved by each rule on a 1 to 5 scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
The results in Table 5 show that respondents from the stop or limit group disagree or strongly disagree that the 2011 disclosure rule resolved any of the identified issues. In contrast, the continue or expand group agrees that four of the five issues are resolved by the rule with the only exception being "Public distrust of the oil and gas industry" which is neutral. There is a clear contrast in the evaluation of this rule between the two position groups and these differences are statistically significant for each issue.
Table 5. Mean perceptions of issues being resolved by the 2011 disclosure rule by position groups
Stop or Limit n = 34 Continue or Expand n = 40 Absolute Difference
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry 2.1 3.0 0.9
Accessibility of chemical information to the public 1.9 4.1 2.2
What chemical information must be disclosed 1.9 4.0 2.1
How trade secrets are protected and challenged 1.9 3.8 1.9
Groundwater protection 1.4 3.6 2.2
Total Means for Resolution of Issues 1.8 3.7 1.9
1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly agree.
Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
The second rule that respondents are asked to evaluate is the Texas Railroad Commission's well casing, cementing, drilling, and completion requirements rule of 2013 with the results in Table 6. Respondents are asked to evaluate the extent that four different issues are resolved by this rule. Similar to the evaluation of the 2011 disclosure rule, the stop or limit group disagree that any of the issues are resolved. In contrast, the continue or expand group agree that the rule resolved three of the issues but did not resolve "Public distrust of the oil and gas industry" which again is neutral. The two position groups have statistically significant different evaluations of these two rules.
17


Table 6. Mean perceptions of issues being resolved by the 2013 casings rule by position groups
Stop or Limit n = 34 Continue or Expand n = 40 Absolute Difference
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry 2.3 3.1 0.8
Effective control of the well by the operator at all times 1.9 4.1 2.2
Long-term well integrity 1.7 4.0 2.3
Groundwater protection 1.7 3.8 2.1
Total Means for Resolution of Issues 1.9 3.7 1.8
1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly agree.
Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
Preferences for the Role of Government
To assess the respondents' preferences for the role of government in the regulation of unconventional shale development we asked the following question: "If you were to select only one level of government to regulate the following issues related to natural gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing, which would you prefer, if any?" The respondents had four levels of government to choose from and an option of no regulation (no regulation, municipal government, county government, state government, and federal government). Respondents are asked their preferences on a battery of 11 issues that include many of the environmental and political issues from Table 3 as well as other issues recently debated in Texas. The results by position group are reported in Figure 3.
Figure 3 demonstrates a couple of issues where there is agreement on the level of government regulation between the position groups. The majority of both position groups support regulation for all 11 issues with very few respondents favoring no regulation. A majority of respondents from both position groups prefer that local government should not regulate most of the issues related to unconventional shale development rather it should be regulated by either the state or federal government. There are two divergent cases where respondents from both position groups favor local government regulation (either municipal or county governments): "Setback distances of wells from occupied buildings or natural features" and "Mitigating risks and nuisances to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations". Also, respondents from both position groups prefer that the federal government have a role in the regulation of "Safety of the operators at the well site".
While Figure 3 demonstrates some agreement between the position groups about regulation of unconventional shale development, there are also multiple issues where there is disagreement. On eight of the issues the continue or expand group clearly prefers state government regulation. In contrast, the stop or limit group prefers federal government regulation on seven of the issues. Therefore, while there is agreement that these issues should be regulated, the level of government regulation remains contentious.
18


Stop or Limit Group n = 35
Mitigating risks and nuisances to the public Setback distances of wells from buildings Constructing well pads Volume of water used in fracture treatments Safety of operators at the well site Monitoring of water quality Designing and constructing well casings Monitoring of air emissions Disposing or treating produced water Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity Disclosure of chemicals in fracture fluids
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
No Regulation Municipal Government County Government
State Government Federal Government
Continue or Expand Group n = 41
Mitigating risks and nuisances to the public Setback distances of wells from buildings Constructing well pads Volume of water used in fracture treatments Safety of operators at the well site Monitoring of water quality Designing and constructing well casings Monitoring of air emissions Disposing or treating produced water Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity Disclosure of chemicals in fracture fluids
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
No Regulation Municipal Government County Government
State Government Federal Government
Figure 3. Preferences regarding level of government regulation by position group (n = 76)
19


Objective 4: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward unconventional shale development.
Political Activities
To understand political advocacy in Texas, we asked respondents to indicate how frequently they engage in 13 different political activities. These political activities were identified through interviews with those directly and indirectly involved in the politics of unconventional shale development in Texas as well as secondary literature on advocacy. Respondents are asked to identify the frequency that they engage in the various political activities on a 0 to 4 scale (from 0 = never to 4 = weekly). The results are reported as the mean frequency for each position group and absolute differences between the groups in Table 7.
Table 7. Frequency of political activities by position group
Stop or Continue
Limit or Expand Absolute
n = 34 n = 39 Difference
Communicating with the news media 2.9 1.9 1.0
Posting information or advocating online 2.7 1.4 1.3
Forming and maintaining a coalition with allies 2.2 1.7 0.4
Generating and disseminating research and reports 2.1 1.2 0.9
Participating in or organizing public meetings 2.0 1.2 0.8
Developing policy at the county or municipal levels Providing written comments in response to state agency 1.9 1.0 1.0
notices 1.7 1.1 0.6
Lobbying elected officials 1.5 1.1 0.4
Formal complaining to regulatory commissions 1.5 0.5 1.0
Organizing or participating in public protests or rallies 1.5 0.1 1.4
Testifying at state legislative or agency hearings 1.2 1.1 0.2
Participating in regulatory negotiations 0.9 1.2 0.3
Taking legal action (e.g. lawsuits) 0.5 0.4 0.1
Total Means for Frequency of Political Activities 1.7 1.1 0.7
0 = Never; 1 = Annually; 2 = Quarterly; 3 = Monthly; 4 = At least weekly
Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
A majority of respondents from both position groups engage in 10 of the 13 political activities at least annually. The exceptions are "Formal complaining to regulatory commissions", "Organizing or participating in public protests or rallies", and "Taking legal action (e.g. lawsuits)". This demonstrates that members of both position groups are politically active in seeking to achieve their objectives in relation to unconventional shale development. In addition, the position groups share three of the most frequent political activities
20


"Communicating with the news media", "Posting information or advocating online", and "Forming and maintaining a coalition with allies". While the position groups engage in these activities in different frequencies, these are the most frequent political activities of both position groups.
In comparing the two position groups, the stop or limit group engages in all activities at a frequency greater than or equal to the continue or expand group, except for "Participating in regulatory negotiations" which is not significantly different. For eight of the political activities the stop or limit group engages in the activity either monthly or quarterly in comparison to the continue or expand group which engages in the activity either quarterly or annually. In addition to this qualitative difference there is also a significant statistical difference in the frequency that respondents from the two position groups engage in these eight political activities. Therefore, while respondents from both position groups engage in a diverse spectrum of political activities, the stop or limit group consistently more frequently engages in such activities.
Organizational Capacity
In order to better understand the resources that respondents have they we asked about the capacity of their organizations to use or mobilize nine organizational resources for achieving their objectives related to unconventional shale development in Texas. These resources were identified through interviews with those directly and indirectly involved in the politics of unconventional shale development in Texas as well as secondary literature. Respondents are asked to identify the capacity that their organizations' have to utilize or mobilize these nine resources on a 0 to 3 scale (from 0 = no capacity to 3 = substantial capacity). The results are reported as the mean capacity for each position group and absolute differences between the groups in Table 8.
21


Table 8. Mean organizational capacity by position group
Stop or Limit n = 34 Continue or Expand n = 36 Absolute Difference
Financial resources for paying staff 1.9 1.1 0.8
Financial resources for lobbying 1.9 1.0 0.9
Support from people with a different position on unconventional shale development 1.7 0.9 0.8
Support from the media 1.4 1.2 0.2
Support from government officials 1.4 0.9 0.5
Support from members of the general public 1.2 1.1 0.1
Support from members of the organization 1.2 1.0 0.2
Support from people with a similar position on unconventional shale development 1.2 1.0 0.2
Scientific and technical expertise 1.2 0.9 0.3
Total Means for Resources 1.5 1.0 0.5
0 = No capacity, 1 = Limited capacity, 2 = Moderate capacity, 3 = Substantial capacity Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
Both of the position groups report that they have a limited capacity to use or mobilize at least six of the nine resources. This demonstrates that both position groups report that they have relatively the same limited capacity to achieve their objectives. In addition, both groups have little variance in terms of their capacity in relation to use these various resources as the stop or limit group has a range of responses from 1.2 to 1.9 (difference of 0.7) and the continue or expand group has a range of responses from 0.9 to 1.2 (difference of 0.3).
In comparing the two position groups, the stop or limit group has relatively greater capacity to utilize or mobilize every resource, but these differences are only statistically significant for four of the nine resources. Also, in qualitative terms the stop or limit group reports have a moderate capacity in comparison to the limited capacity of the continue or expand group for the following three resources: "Financial resources for paying staff", "Financial resources for lobbying", and "Support from people with a different position on unconventional shale development". The stop or limit group reports that they have significantly greater capacity to utilize financial resources in comparison to the continue or expand group. However, it is important to note that this represents relative capacity to utilize such resources, and is not a comparison of absolute financial or other resources between the position groups.
Collaborative Networks
To understand the collaborative networks of actors in Texas, we asked respondents to indicate how frequently they collaborate with 13 different types of organizations in order to achieve their objectives related to unconventional shale development in Texas. This list of
22


organizations was developed through interviews. Respondents are asked to identify the frequency that they collaborate with each type of organization on a 0 to 3 scale (from 0 = never to 3 = weekly). The results are reported as the mean frequency for each position group and absolute differences between the groups in Table 9.
Table 9. Mean collaboration frequency of each position group by type of organization
Stop or Limit n = 32 Continue or Expand n = 36 Absolute Difference
Environmental Organizations 2.3 1.2 1.1
Media 2.2 1.3 0.9
Organized Citizen Groups 2.2 0.7 1.5
Municipal Governments 1.7 0.9 0.8
Railroad Commission of Texas 1.3 1.5 0.2
Oil and Gas Industry 1.2 2.0 0.8
Texas House of Representatives 1.2 0.9 0.3
Texas State Senate 1.1 1.0 0.1
Mineral Rights Owners 1.0 1.2 0.2
Federal Government 1.0 0.8 0.2
County Commissioner Courts 0.4 0.6 0.2
Texas State Courts 0.3 0.4 0.1
Texas Governor's Office 0.3 0.4 0.1
0 = Never; 1 = Annually; 2 = Monthly; 3 = Weekly.
Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
The two position groups have multiple common patterns in terms of which organizations they do and do not collaborate with. Both position groups tend to collaborate most frequently with organizations of interest groups that belong to their position. In other words, the stop or limit group collaborates with environmental organizations and organized citizen groups, but the continue or expand group collaborates with the oil and gas industry. The two position groups collaborate at relatively the same frequency with organizations that have authority to regulate unconventional shale development in Texas (for example: Railroad Commission of Texas, and Texas State Legislature). Therefore, both position groups collaborate most frequently with interest groups that have a similar position, and they collaborate at relatively the same frequency with government organizations.
In comparing the frequency of collaboration between the two position groups, there are statistically significant differences for five of the 13 organizations. These include organizations representing competing interest groups as well as the media and municipal governments. In each case, the differences in the frequency of collaboration between the position groups are monthly and annually. It is important to note that the stop or limit group more frequently collaborates with the media and municipal governments compared to the continue or expand group. The rational for this may warrant further investigation.
23


Important attributes of collaborators
To further investigate collaboration among respondents, we asked them what factors are important in selecting which organizations you collaborate with to achieve your objectives related to unconventional shale development in Texas. This list of factors was developed based on secondary sources and past surveys. Respondents are asked to identify the importance of each of the eight factors on a scale of 0 to 4 (from 0 = never to 4 = extremely important). The results are reported as the mean rational for each position group and absolute differences between the groups in Table 10.
Table 10. Mean reported reasons for collaboration by position groups
Stop or Limit n = 32 Continue or Expand n = 38 Absolute Difference
They are professionally competent 3.3 3.4 0.1
1 trust them to keep their promises 3.1 3.0 0.1
They share my position about major issues 2.3 1.6 0.7
1 have worked with them in the past 2.0 1.7 0.3
They have access to human resources 2.0 1.5 0.5
We share a common opponent 2.0 0.8 1.2
They have political influence 1.9 1.6 0.3
They have access to financial resources 1.6 1.1 0.5
0 = Not important, 1 = Somewhat important, 2= Moderately important, 3= Very important, 4 = Extremely important.
Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.
The two position groups report the same two reasons as the most important for collaborating with other organizations. These are: "They are professionally competent" and "I trust them to keep their promises". Therefore, being competent and trustworthy as an organization is very important for collaboration. In addition, both position groups report that relatively having financial and political resources are the least important factors when determining whether to collaborate with an organization.
In comparing the two position groups there are few differences in their rationale for collaboration. The factors that are statistically different are: "They share my position about major issues", "We share a common opponent", and "They have access to financial resources". The greatest difference between the position groups is about having a common opponent. This factor is moderately important for the stop or limit group, but only somewhat important for the continue or expand group. It is evident that beliefs about unconventional shale development are a more important factor for the stop or limit group than beliefs are for the continue or expand group.
24


Conclusions
This report presents the findings of a 2014 survey administered to people directly and indirectly involved in unconventional shale development in Texas. It focuses on four objectives related to the beliefs and strategies of the respondents. The findings in relation to each objective are summarized below.
Objective 1: To identify respondents' general positions about hydraulic fracturing used in unconventional shale development in Texas. The findings show that respondents can be grouped according to their position about whether hydraulic fracturing should be stopped or limited (n = 35) or continued at the current rate or expanded (n = 43). These two position groups are used to guide the analysis for the remaining objectives. The majority of environmental and all of the organized citizen groups are a part of the stop or limit group. In contrast, the oil and gas industry and state and local governments make up the majority of respondents in the continue or expand group. Academics, consultants, and members of the news media are split between the two groups.
Objective 2: To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development. Potential problems related to pollution, health risks or environmental degradation, and politics are perceived as more severe by the stop or limit group than by the continue or expand group. In addition, the two groups have different views of the potential benefits of unconventional shale development. The continue or expand group agrees that there are economic and environmental benefits from unconventional shale development, while the stop or limit group neither agrees nor disagrees about the economic benefits and perceives environmental risks.
Objective 3: To assess respondents' evaluation of recent rules and their preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development. The stop or limit group is unsatisfied that the 2011 chemical disclosure and the 2013 well casing rules resolved the issues they were intended to address. In contrast, the continue or expand group is satisfied with these two rules. However, one issue both groups agree that has not been resolved by these rules is public distrust of the oil and gas industry. The majority of both position groups support regulation in some form. There is also general agreement that local governments should regulate setback distances and public nuisance issues. However, the continue or expand group on most issues supports state government regulation of unconventional shale development, but the stop or limit group tends to prefer federal regulation.
Objective 4: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward unconventional shale development. The political activities that respondents most frequently engage in to influence politics and policy related to unconventional shale development are communicating with the news media, generating and disseminating research and reports, and participating in public meetings. Across almost all activities, respondents from the stop or limit group are more politically active. The resource that respondents of both groups have the greatest capacity to utilize is financial resources. The stop or
25


limit group's reports moderate capacity for most resources and the continue or expand group reports limited capacity for most resources. The two position groups most frequently collaborate with interest groups that share their position and least frequently with courts and the Texas Governors' Office. The most important attribute for selecting with whom to collaborate with by both position groups are professional competency and trust. The least important characteristic sought in a collaborator by the respondents is financial resources.
Table 11 summarizes the areas of substantial agreement and disagreement between the two position groups. In general, the areas of disagreement are about the potential political, environmental and public health problems related to unconventional shale development, except forthe agreement that public distrust of the oil and gas industry is an issue. There is also disagreement about the potential benefits of the practice. Therefore, those who oppose the practice believe it is harmful forthe environment and public health, while those who support the practice believe it is not harmful and may possess potential economic and environmental benefits.
Another area of disagreement between the two positions was whether the 2011 disclosure and the 2013 well casings rules resolved various issues. The two groups disagree on whether these two rules resolved the issues they were supposed to address except for distrust of the oil and gas industry, which both groups agree continues to be an issue. They agree that unconventional shale development should be regulated, but for the majority of issues the two groups do not agree which level of government should be regulating the practice. Both sides prefer local government regulation for setback distances and public nuisance issues, and both support a role for the federal government in ensuring the safety of operators at well sites. However, there is disagreement about the role of state regulation on other issues as opponents of unconventional development tend to favor federal regulation of the practice. In the final analysis, the two positions in relation to unconventional shale development in Texas diverge on their beliefs in general about the potential problems, benefits, evaluation of past regulations, and preferences on level of government regulation, but they do have some specific areas of common ground.
26


Table 11. Areas of substantial agreement and disagreement between position groups
Areas of Substantial Agreement Areas of Substantial Disagreement
Potential Environmental and Public Health Problems
None Contamination of ground and surface water, degradation of air quality, disposing or treating produced water
Potential Political Problems
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry Scare tactics used by those who oppose the practice Insufficient regulatory capacity by the state Conflict between landowners and their neighbors
Potential Benefits
None Benefits to local landowners Natural gas is a bridge towards renewable energy Mitigation of climate change from natural gas
Evaluation of resolution of issues by 2011 Chemical Disclosure Rule
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry continues What chemical information must be disclosed Accessibility of chemical information to the public How trade secrets are protected and challenged Groundwater protection
Evaluation of resolution of issues by 2013 Well Casings Rule
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry continues Groundwater protection Effective control of the well by operator at all times Long-term well integrity
Preferred Level of Government Regulation
Local government regulation of setback distances and mitigating public nuisance issues Federal government regulation for ensuring safety of operators at well site Federal versus state government regulation of several items: risks from induced seismic activity, constructing well pads, disposing of treated water, constructing well casings, disclosure, monitoring air and water contamination
The goal of this study is to help clarify the positions, beliefs, preferences, strategies, resources and collaborative ties of a diverse range of actors in Texas. This survey offers only a
27


partial representation of the politics and policy process of unconventional shale development at a specific point in time and it does not extrapolate to the beliefs and preferences of the general public in Texas. However, we hope to offer interested individuals and organizations a better understanding of one of the most controversial and intractable energy and environmental debates in Texas and nationally.
28


References
Batheja, A., Satija, N. December 12, 2013. Road funding figures surprise some counties. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/12/road-funding-surprises-some-better-or-worse/.
Blons, S. March 6, 2014. Battle over fracking in Dallas continues with taking lawsuit. Energy Center: University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/law/centers/energy/blog/2014/03/battle-over-fracking-in-dallas-continues-with-takings-lawsuit/.
Boudet, Hilary, Christopher Clarke, Dylan Bugden, Edward Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf,
Anthony Leiserowitz. 2014. "Fracking" controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65: 57-67.
Campoy, A. July 26, 2012. Drilling strains rural roads: Counties struggle to repair damage from heavy trucks in Texas energy boom. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.eom/news/articles/SB100008723963904448401045775512238605694 02.
Connelly, K. Barer, D., and Y. Skorobogatov. n.d. How oil and gas disposal wells can cause earthquakes. State IMPACT Texas, National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/earthquake/.
Crossette, A. March 27, 2014. Air pollution and hydraulic fracturing: Better monitoring, planning and tracking of health effects needed in Texas. University of Austin Texas. Retrieved from /7ttp://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/03/27/hydraulic-fracturing-texas/.
de Melo-Martin, Inmaculada, Jake Hays, Madelon L. Finkel. 2014. The role of ethics in shale gas policies. Science of the Total Environment, 470-471, 1114-1119.
Encana. December 12, 2011. Why Encana refutes U.S. EPA Pavillion groundwater report. Encana news releases. Retrieved from http://www.encana.com/news-stories/news-releases/index.html?2011.
Energy In Depth, n.d. Just the Facts. Retrieved from http://energyindepth.org/iust-the-facts/.
Freyman, M. 2014. Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Water Demand by the Numbers. A Ceres Report. Retrieved from http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/hydraulic-fracturing-water-stress-water-demand-by-the-numbers/view.
29


Frohlich, C. 2012. Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection well locations in Barnett Shale, Texas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS Early Edition. Retrieved from www.pnas.ora/cai/doi/10.1073/pnas.1207728109.
Halliburton. 2014. Hydraulic Fracturing 101. Retrieved from
http://www.halliburton.com/public/proiects/pubsdata/Hydraulic Fracturing/fracturing 101.html.
Henry, T. September 10, 2013. How the West Texas drilling boom could go bust. Again. State IMPACT Texas, National Public Radio. Retrieved from
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/09/10/how-the-west-texas-drilling-boom-could-
go-bust-again/.
Kriesky, J., B.D. Goldstein, K. Zell, S. Beach. 2013. Differing opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity. Energy Policy, 58, 228-236.
National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2013. Modern shale gas development in the United States: An Update. U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from
http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Librarv/Research/Oil-Gas/shale-gas-primer-update-
2013.pdf.
Nicot, J., Hebei, A., Ritter, S., Walden, S., Baier, R., Galusky, P., Beach, J., Kyle, R., Symank, L. and C. Bretaon. 2011. Current and projected water use in the Texas mining and oil and gas industry. Bureau of Economic Geology. Retrieved from
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/contracted reports/doc/090483093 9 MiningWaterUse.pdf.
Nicot, J., Reedy, R. Costley, R. and Y. Huang. 2012. Oil Pioneer Resources, n.d. Current Issues. Pioneer Resources. Retrieved from http://www.pxd.com/about/our-industry/current-issues.
Prior, J. September 6, 2012. Rural affordable housing struggles with oil and gas boom.
Howsingwire. Retrieved from http://www.housingwire.com/articles/rural-affordable-housing-struggles-oil-and-gas-boom.
Rahm, D. 2011. Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2974-2981.
30


Railroad Commission of Texas. August 9, 2013. Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick Tells ALEC "Hydraulic Fracturing Responsible for Unleashing American Energy Colossus". Railroad Commission of Texas News. Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/commissioners/craddick/news/080913//
Railroad Commission of Texas. February 2, 2014. Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick Tells NAPE "Education Is Key to World Energy Abundance". Railroad Commission of Texas News. Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/commissioners/craddick/news/020514//
Railroad Commission of Texas. May 27, 2014. RRC production statistics and allowables for June 2014. Railroad Commission of Texas News. Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/news/052714b/.
Railroad Commission of Texas, n.d. Major Oil & Gas Formations (Data files). Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/maior-oil-gas-formations/.
Texas Oil and Gas Association. 2013. Economic Impact. Retrieved from http://www.txoga.org/resources/economic-impact/.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014a. Natural gas gross withdrawals and production (Data file). Retrieved from
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng prod sum dcu nus m.htm.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014b. Texas field production of crude oil (Data file). Retrieved from
http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPTXl&f=M.
Warner, B. & J. Shapiro. 2013. Fractured, fragmented Federalism: A study in fracking regulatory policy. Publius: The Journal or Federalism, 43(3), 474-496.
31


Appendix. Survey Questions
1. Please indicate to what extent you perceive the following issues to be potential benefits of unconventional shale development.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
National energy independence O O O O O
Growth of the Texas economy through jobs and tax revenue O O o o O
A bridge toward renewable energy sources from the natural gas produced o o o o o
Mitigation of climate change from the natural gas produced o o o o o
Benefits to local landowners in Texas o o o o o
2. Please indicate to what extent you perceive the following issues as potential problems related to unconventional shale development.
Not a Minor Moderate Serious Severe
Problem Problem Problem Problem Problem
Insufficient capacity by state agencies for regulation O o o o o
Conflict between landowners and their neighbors O o o o o
Contamination of ground and surface water supplies from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids o o o o o
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry o o o o o
Degradation of air quality from flaring, diesel exhaust, and dust from well site operations o o o o o
Nuisance to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations o o o o o
Scare tactics and demonizing of hydraulic fracturing by those who oppose the practice o o o o o
Competition over available water supplies o o o o o
Disposing or treating produced water o o o o o
Induced seismic activity o o o o o
32


3. Please indicate what comes closest to your current position in relation to unconventional shale development that uses hydraulic fracturing. It should be...
O Stopped O Limited
O Continued at Current Rate O Expanded Moderately O Expanded Extensively
4. When you first became aware of unconventional shale development, what was your position on the following issues?
Strongly Disagreed Neither Agreed Disagreed
The potential economic benefits are significant O o o o o
The potential public health risks are severe O o o o o
The potential environmental risks are severe o o o o o
Local governments should be able
to decide if and where drilling occurs in their jurisdiction o o o o o
5. Today, what is your position on the following issues?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
The potential economic benefits are significant O O O O O
The potential public health risks are severe O O O o O
The potential environmental risks are severe o o o o o
Local governments should be able
to decide if and where drilling occurs in their jurisdiction o o o o o
33


6. If you were to select only one level of government to regulate the following issues related to shale development, which would you prefer, if any?
No Regulation Municipal Government County Government State Government Federal Government
Monitoring of water quality O O O O O
Monitoring of air emissions Disclosure of chemicals in O O O O O
hydraulic fracturing fluids Volume of water used in o o o o o
hydraulic fracturing treatments Setback distances of wells o o o o o
from occupied buildings or natural features o o o o o
Designing and constructing well casings o o o o o
Disposing or treating produced water o o o o o
Constructing well pads o o o o o
Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity Mitigating risks and nuisances to the general o o o o o
public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations o o o o o
Safety of operators at the well site o o o o o
Other o o o o o
34


7. In 2011 the Texas State Legislature enacted and the Railroad Commission of Texas promulgated a disclosure law and rule with the intention to address some of the following issues. To what extent do you agree that these issues have been resolved by the final Disclosure Rule of 2011?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
What chemical information must be disclosed O O O O O
Accessibility of chemical information to the public O O o o O
Groundwater protection o o o o o
How trade secrets are protected and challenged o o o o o
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry o o o o o
8. In 2013 the Texas Railroad Commission completed a rule making process to update Rule 3.13, relating to Casing, Cementing, Drilling and Completion Requirements. To what extent do you agree that the following issues have been resolved by the updated Rule 3.13
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Effective control of the well by the operator at all times O O O O O
Groundwater protection O O O o O
Long-term well integrity o o o o o
Public distrust of the oil and gas industry o o o o o
35


9. How often has your organization engaged in the following activities for achieving its objectives in
unconventional shale development in Texas?
At Least Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never
Communicating with the news media O O O O O
Formal complaining to regulatory commissions O o o o o
Lobbying elected officials o o o o o
Forming and maintaining a coalition with allies o o o o o
Posting information or advocating online o o o o o
Generating and disseminating research and reports o o o o o
Providing written comments in response to state agency notices o o o o o
Participating in or organizing public meetings o o o o o
Testifying at state legislative or agency hearings o o o o o
Participating in regulatory negotiations o o o o o
Taking legal action (e.g. lawsuits) o o o o o
Organizing or participating in public protests or rallies o o o o o
Developing policy at the county or municipal levels o o o o o
Other o o o o o
36


10. Since 2008, how influential has your organization been in politics and policy about unconventional
shale development in Texas?
O Not Influential O Somewhat Influential O Extremely Influential
11. To what extent does your organization have the capacity to use or mobilize the following resources to achieve its objectives in relation to unconventional shale development in Texas?
No Capacity Limited Capacity Moderate Capacity Substantial Capacity Not Applicable
Financial resources for lobbying O O O O O
Financial resources for paying staff O O O o o
Support from members of the organization o o o o o
Support from members of the general public o o o o o
Support from government officials o o o o o
Scientific and technical expertise Support from people with a different o o o o o
position on unconventional shale development Support from people with a similar o o o o o
position on unconventional shale development o o o o o
Support from the media o o o o o
Other o o o o o
37


12. In general, what factors are important in choosing which organization(s) you collaborate with on issues related to unconventional shale development in Texas?
Not Important Somewhat Important Moderately Important Very Important Extremely Important
They share my position about O O O O O
major issues 1 trust them to keep their promises O O O O O
They are professionally competent o o o o o
1 have worked with them in the past o o o o o
They have access to financial o o o o o
resources They have political influence o o o o o
They have access to human o o o o o
resources We share a common opponent o o o o o
Other o o o o o
38


13. Since 2008, please indicate how frequently you engage with the following organizations to achieve your political and policy goals related to unconventional shale development in Texas
Weekly Monthly Yearly Never
Federal Government O O O O
The Railroad Commission of Texas O o o o
Texas Governor's Office o o o o
Texas House of Representatives o o o o
Texas State Courts o o o o
County Commissioner Courts o o o o
Municipal Governments o o o o
Oil and Gas Industry o o o o
Environmental Organizations o o o o
Organized Citizen Groups o o o o
Mineral Rights Owners o o o o
Media o o o o
Texas State Senate o o o o
Other o o o o
39


14. The following statements reflect general attitudes. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each statement.
Strongly Moderately Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
It is not the government's business to try to protect people from themselves. O O O O
We need to dramatically reduce inequalities between the rich and the poor, as well as between men and women. O O O o
The government should do more to advance society's goals, even if that means limiting the freedom and choices of individuals. o o o o
It is not enough to provide equal opportunities; we also have to try to make outcomes more equal. o o o o
Sometimes government needs to make laws that keep people from hurting themselves. o o o o
Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth were more equal. o o o o
The government interferes far too much in our everyday lives. o o o o
The government should stop telling people how to live their lives. o o o o
Government should put limits on the choices individuals can make so they do not get in the way of what is good for society. o o o o
Most of the important things that take place in life happen by random chance. o o o o
No matter how hard we try, the course of our lives is largely determined by forces beyond our control. o o o o
For the most part, succeeding in life is a matter of chance. o o o o
40


15. Please indicate your gender.
O Male
O Female
16. Please indicate your age.
O 18-29
O 30-39 O 40-49 O 50-59 O 60 or older
17. Please indicate the highest level of education you have attained O Not a High School Graduate
O High School Graduate O Some College O Bachelor's Degree O Master's or Professional Degree O Ph.D. or M.D.
18. How many years have you been involved in unconventional shale development?
O 0-1 years
O 2-4 years O 5-9 years O 10-20 years O 21 or more years
19. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on issues related to unconventional shale development?
O Less than 9 hours O 10-20 hours O 21-30 hours O 31-40 hours O More than 40 hours
20. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on the policy and/or politics related to unconventional shale development?
O Less than 9 hours O 10-20 hours O 21-30 hours O 31-40 hours O More than 40 hours
41


21. If you have any additional thoughts, considerations, or opinions you would like to share with us about unconventional shale development please provide them below.
22. If you would like a copy of the final report, please provide your email. Your email will never be distributed or shared.
Thank you for your time and responses!
42


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 July 2014 A Su m m a ry Report of Pe r cepti o ns of t h e Polit i cs and Reg u lation of Unconventional Shale Development in Texas Pro d uced by t he School of P ub l ic Aff a i rs a t t h e Univ e rs i ty o f Colo r a d o D e nv e r Au t hors Sam Gallaher, Docto r al Can d i d ate J o nathan P i er c e, Pos t D octo r al Sc h olar C h r is Weible, A ssociate Pr of essor J e nnifer Ka g an, G r a d ua t e Assist a nt T an y a Hei kk ila, A ssociate P r o f essor Benjamin Blair, Research Associate

PAGE 2

2 Ac k n o w l e dgem e n t s We are gra t e ful f or the i ndivi d uals i n Texas w ho vo l u n tee r ed t h eir ti m e to pa r ti c i p a te in this study. This resear c h w as f u nd e d by t he Al f r ed P. Sloan F o u nd a tio n t hou g h t he resear c h desi g n a n d resu l ts are t he a u t h o alo n e. Ci t i ng th i s S umm a ry Rep o rt Gallaher, Samuel, Pi e rce, J on a th a n J., Weible, Christopher M., Kag a n, J e nn i fer, H eik k ila, Ta n ya, a n d Blair, Benjamin 2 0 1 4 A S um m ary Repo r t o f P e rce p ti on s of t h e P oli t i c s a nd Reg u la t ion o f Unconventional Shale Development in Texas P u bli s hed Ju ly 10 2 0 1 4 by t he School of P u b lic A f fa i rs Unive r s i ty o f Colora d o D e nver. Quest io n s C omm e n t s, and R e q ue s ts f or M ore In f or m at i on For q ues t i ons, c o mme nt s, co n c er n s, a n d f ee d ba c k regar d i n g t his sur v ey a nd r esearch pr o je c t please c o nta c t t he fol l ow i n g: Tanya Heikkila Associate Professor School of Public Affairs University of Colorado Denver 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80217 Phone: 303 315 2269 Fax: 303 315 2229 Email: Tanya.Heikkila@ucdenver.edu Chris Weible Associate Professor School of Public Affairs University of Colorado Denver 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80217 Phone: 303 315 2010 Fax: 303 315 2229 Email: Chris.Weible@ucdenver.edu

PAGE 3

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 4 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 Brief Overview o f Unconventional Shale Development in Texas ................................ ................... 8 Survey Methodology and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ................................ .... 10 unconventional shale development in Texas. ................................ ................................ .............. 12 Objective 2: To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventiona l shale development. ................................ .................... 14 of gover nment in unconventional shale development. ................................ ............................... 17 Objective 4: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relation ships of respondents based on their position toward unconventional shale development. .................... 20 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 25 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 29 Appendix. Surv ey Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 32

PAGE 4

4 Executive Summary This r e po r t pres e nts t h e fi n d i ngs from a sur v ey c o ndu c ted in t he s p ri n g of 2014 of pe o p l e direc t ly or i ndi r ectly i n volv e d i n the po l i t i c s a n d regu l a t i o n o f oil a n d n a tu r al gas devel o pment th a t util i z e s hydr a ulic f r actur i ng i n Texas A t o tal o f 3 24 pe o p l e w ere a d mini s ter e d a survey an d 7 8 pe o ple r es p o n d e d representing 61 organizations T hese r es p o nd e nts i n c l ude p e op l e f r om local, st a te, a nd f e deral g over n m e nts, oil a nd gas servi c e prov i ders a nd o p erators i ndu s try associa t io n s, e n vi r onm e ntal a n d c ons e rva t i o n g r oups, local c i t i z e n gr o up s acad e mics a n d c onsul t a nts and members of the news media Four k ey obje c tives g u i d e d t his s tudy. T h e o bje c t i ves a n d t he m ain s urvey fi n d i ngs rela t e d to ea c h o bje c ti v e are s ummar i zed imm e d i a t ely b el o w Obj e c t ive 1: unconventional shale d e v e lo p m e nt i n Texas T h e f i nd i ngs s h ow th a t respo n d e nts c a n b e gr ou ped ac c or d i n g t o t heir p osition a b o u t w h e th e r h ydra u lic fract u ri n g s hou l d be s to p ped or l i mi t e d ( n = 35 ) or c ont i nu e d a t the c ur r e n t r a t e or ex p a n d ed ( n = 43 ). The s e two position gr o ups a re us e d to g ui d e t he a n a l y s is for the rema i ni n g o b je c t i ves. The majority of envir o nmental a nd all of the orga n i zed c i t i zen gr o ups a r e a part of t he s t o p o r limit gr o u p I n c o n tras t t he oil a n d gas i ndustry and state and local governments m a k e up the major i ty o f re s p o nd e nts i n the continue or expand group Academics, consultants, and members of the news media are split between the two groups. Obj e c t ive 2 : To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development Potential p roblems related to pollution, health risks or environmental degradation and politics are perceived as more s evere by the stop or limit group than by the continue or expand group. In addition, the two groups have different views of the potential benefits of u nconventional shale development. T he continue or expand group agrees that there are economic and environmental benefits from unconventional shale development while the stop or limit group neither agrees n or disagrees about the economic benefits and perceives environmental risks Obj e c t ive 3 : evaluation of recent rules and their preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development The stop or limit group is unsatisfied that the 2011 chemical disclosure and the 2013 well casing rule s resolved the issues they were intended to address. In contrast, the continue or expand group is satisfied with the se two rules. However, one issue b oth groups agree that has not been resolv ed by these rules is public distrust of the oil and gas industry The majority of both position groups support regulation in some form. There is also general agreement that local governments should regulate setback distances and public nuisance issues. How ever, t he continue or expand group on most issues supports state government regulation of unconventional shale development but the stop or limit group tends to prefer federal regulation

PAGE 5

5 Obj e c t ive 4 : To u nd e r s tand t h e p o l i tic a l a ctiv i t i e s, r e so u rce s a nd n e two r k r e l a tio n s h i ps of r e spo n d e n ts b a sed on t h e ir pos i t i o n t o w a r d unconventional shale development The political activities that respondents most frequently engage in to influence politics and policy related to unconventional shale development are c omm u n i c a t i n g w i t h the news m e dia ge n e r a ti n g a nd dissem i na t i n g r esearch a nd re p or t s and p ar t i c i p a t i n g in p u blic m e e t i n gs. Across almost all a c t ivities, re s po n d e nts from the s t o p or limit group are more politically active. T he res o urce t hat respo n d e nts of both groups have t h e g r eatest c a p acity to u tili z e is financial resources. T he stop or limit reports moderate capacity for most resources and the continue or expand group reports limited capacity for most resources. The two position groups most frequently collaborate with interest groups that share their position and least frequently with courts and the Texas T he m ost im p o r ta n t attribute f or selecting with w hom to c olla b or a te with by both position groups are pr o f e ssio n al c o m pe t e n c y and trust The least important characteristic sought in a collaborator by the respondents is financial resources.

PAGE 6

6 Introduction This r e po r t s ummar i zes a survey a dmi n i s ter e d i n t he s p ri n g of 2014 to i n d i viduals w ho are d i re c tly o r i n dire c tly i nvolved w i t h t h e p oli t i c s, poli c ies, a n d r ulema k i n g c on c er n i ng oil a n d na t ural gas deve l opm e nt that utilizes hydraulic fracturing i n Texas Oil and gas development that uses hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in shale formations is commonly called unconventional shale development From this point on we will refer to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling inclusive of oil and gas development as unconventional shale development Th e survey w as c ond u c ted t hrou g h the S c hool o f Public A f fairs a t the Unive r s i ty of Color ad o D e nver a n d f u n ded by t he A l fr e d P. Sloan F o und a ti o n. The g oal o f this re p ort is to provi d e a n u n d ers t a n d i n g of t h e p oli t i c s s urr o und i ng the issue largely focused on the process o f unconventional shale development W e re c o g ni z e th a t p e o p l e re l a t e to t his issue from a var i e t y o f v i ewpoi n ts t hat are im p o s sible to describe e n ti r ely in a s i ngle r e p o r t Inst e a d this summary repo r t provi d es a descri p tion of t he op i nio n s a n d perc e pti o ns o f a s a m p le of i ndiv i duals w ho are actively i n volv e d i n unconventional shale development in Texas Th ese i n divi d uals c ome f r o m diverse p r ofessi o nal a n d orga n i za t i onal a f fili a tio n s i n c l u di n g all lev e ls of gov e r n m e nt, t he oil a nd gas i n dus t ry, busi n esses a n d trade as s o c ia t io n s n o np r of i ts, en viro n m e ntal gro u p s ac a demia, c o nsu l ti n g groups, local c i t i z en orga n i z a t i o ns and the news media In surveying t his p oli t i c a l ly active p o p ula t i on, w e w ere gui d ed by four o bj e c tive s Obj e c t ive 1: To id e n t ify r es pond en ge n e r a l po s itions ab o u t h y dr au lic fr a c t u r ing us e d in unconventional shale d e v e lo p m e nt i n Texas. Obj e c t ive 2: To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development Obj e c t ive 3: evaluation of recent rules and their preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development Obj e c t ive 4: To u nd e r s tand t h e p o l i tic a l a ctiv i t i e s, r e so u rce s a nd n e two r k r e l a tio n s h i ps of r e spo n d e n ts b a sed on t h e ir pos i t i o n t o w a r d unconventional shale development In p r ovidi n g an u nder s t a ndi n g of t he pol i ti c s a n d regula t i ons of unconventional shale development t he s urvey as k s resp o nd e nts to a n s w er several val u e or i e n ted q ues t i o n s W e ask ed su c h q ues t i ons n o t to p u sh a pol i ti c al ag e nda or a pos i tion a b out h y dra u lic frac t uri n g, b ut i n ste a d to m easure t he p erce p t i ons of t h e re s po n de n ts a n d to i d e nt i fy ar e as of agre e m e nt a n d disagre e m e n t O ur ho p e is th a t th r ough solici t i ng the perc e pt i ons of t h ose actively i n volv e d i n the issue, w e mig h t assi s t p e o p l e i n s i de a n d o uts i d e o f gov e r n m e nt in u n d ers t a n d i n g t he di f f er e n c es in t heir pos i t i ons a nd p ot e ntially f i nd shared u nder s ta n di n gs t hat may be us e d to i n form t he g over n a n c e o f unconventional shale development in Texas a n d else w her e

PAGE 7

7 This Texas survey is p art o f a larger resear c h p roje c t th a t i n c l u d es w ork in Colorado a n d New Yor k I n each s t a t e, r esearchers f r om t h e School o f P ublic A f f airs at t h e Univ e rsi t y o f Colora d o D e nver explore t h e p oli t i c s of unconventional shale development th r ou g h i n ter v iew s survey s a n d do c um e nt a n alysi s

PAGE 8

8 Brief Overview of Unconventional Shale Development in Texas The recent oil and gas boom in the United States began in Texas due to the refin ement of two unconventional techniques horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing and the discovery of shale and other porous deposits holding hydrocarbons ( Railroad Commissi on of Texas August 2013; Railroad Commission of Texas February 2014 ; National Energy Technology Laboratory 2013) These u nconventional techniques increased extraction efficiencies and unlocked trillions ( Rahm 2011 ) A key component to unconventional shale development, h ydra u lic fra c tur i n g ( also ref e rred t o as f rac k ing or hydr o fra c k ing ) is a pro c ess used to release hydrocarbons from porous substrates. The process of h ydraulic fracturing includes pumping a m i x ture of w a t er, s a nd or similar m a teri a l, a n d c he m i c al a d d i tives, u n der high pressu r e, i nto ve r ti c ally or hor i zo n tally drill e d w ells. T he pro c ess fra c tures ro c k f o rmat i ons th o usa n ds o f f eet u nd e r grou n d to r el e ase oil a nd na t ural gas. Hydraulic fracturing was developed by Mitchell Energy in the 1940s but more recently its use has increased dramatically ( National Energy Technology Laboratory 2013 ) as it is estimated to be required in up to 90% of onshore natural gas and oil wells in the United States (Halliburton 2014) The practice is raising questions about whether it improves the economy, employment, energy independence and national security, as well as the degree to which it may harm the environment and public health (de Melo Mar tin et al. 2014). The lack of knowledge and consensus about the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing hav e filtered into debates about the best way to regulate the practice at the local (Kriesky et al. 2013), state (Warner & Shapiro 2013), and natio nal (Boudet et al. 2014) levels of government. Texas plays a major role i n the recent U.S. oil and gas boom. In 2012, 35% of natural gas from shale deposits produced in the United State s c ame from Texas ( U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014 a ). As of 2014, Texas crude oil production account ed for 36% of all crude oil produced in the United States a majority of which ca me from shale deposits ( U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014b ). A pproximately 50% of all drilling rigs in the United States were active in Texas as of May 2014 (Railroad Commission of Texas May 2014 ). In 2011, 2012, and 201 3 the Texas Railroad Commission issued approximately 22, 000 drilling permits annually, most of which were in one of the four major shale play format ions: Barnett Shale, Haynesville/Bossier Shale, the Wolfcamp Shale in the Permian basin, and the Eagle Ford Shale (Railroad Commission of Texas n.d.) According to the Texas Oil and Gas Association ( Texas Oil and Gas Association 2013 ), the oil and gas in dustry paid over $12 billion in taxes and royalties to the state of Texas in 2012. Furthermore, the same report show s that in 2012 t he oil and gas industry provided 369,000 j obs accounting for $44 billion in wages and salary in Texas ( Texas Oil and Gas Association 2013). U nconventional oil and gas development has brought the oil and gas indu stry to new areas of Texas including metropolitan and rural communities unfamiliar with this industrial activity (Rahm 2011) As a result, Texas, like other parts of the United States with surging unconventional oil and gas development is experiencing conflicts between industry, property rights owners, citizens, regulators, and environmental organizations These various parties are concerned over a myriad of oil a nd gas development related issues such as water use and

PAGE 9

9 pollution ( Nicot et al. 2011; Nicot et al. 2012; Freyman 2014), air pollution (Crossette 2014), and induced seismic ac tivity (Frohlich, 2012; Connell y et al. n.d.). In many cases, the industry refute s the legitimacy of the se issues (Pioneer n.d .; Encana 2011; Energy In D epth n.d) In response to increasing negative public perception of its pr actice s, the oil and gas industry responded in 2011 by organizing opportunities for public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The Texas state legisla ture passed one of the first bills concerning the disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids in May of 2011 and the Railroad Commission of Texas promulgated the disclosure rule shortly thereafter. L ocal governments in Texas are also actively debating unconventional shale development and creating local policy to regulate the industry. In addition to environmental and health concerns, d iscuss ions at the local level involve v arious issues ranging from socio economic s (Henry, 2013; Prior, 2012) to property rights (Blons, 2014) and infrastructure ( Campoy, 2012 ) Road damage is one of the most prominent issues for local governments and in 2013 a coalition of Texas counties led by County Judge Daryl Fowler facilitated the pass age of legislation to create a grant program for local governments to help pay for road maintenance ( Batheja and Satija, 2013 ). Many of the se debates are content ious and result in protests against development or cities passing ordinances to reduce development activity in their jurisdiction. Scientists and r esearchers from Texas and elsewhere have approached many of these issues, but to date few have systematical ly addressed the perceptions of individuals active in the politics of unconventional shale development in Texas. As a resu l t, m a ny un explor e d q ues t io n s rem a i n W hat are t h e areas o f disa g reem e nt o n t h e s e issues? Are t h e r e areas of agre e m e n t? H ow shou l d unconventional shale development be r eg u l a te d ? How are those active in the politics and governance of unconventional shale development working with each other? To wh at ex t e n t are these i n divi d uals s a tisfi e d w i t h re c e n t Texas Railroad Commission r eg u l a t io n s ? Whi l e a s i ngle r e port c a n n ot o f fer un q ual i fied a n s w ers to t hese que s ti o ns, o ur ho p e is t o provi d e i n si g ht i nt o t he politics a n d pos i tio n s on t his iss u e

PAGE 10

10 Survey Methodology and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents The c o n t e n t o f the q ues t io n s a nd a n s w er c a t egor i es are i n f orm e d by i n fo r ma t ion acquir e d f rom 1 2 i n t erv i ews w i t h ex p er t s rep r es e nti n g vari o us org a ni z a ti o ns a n d posit i ons i n Texas T h e s u rvey c o nsists o f 2 0 que s ti o ns w i t h se v eral s ub p ar t s. A c o py of t he s urvey is availa b le i n the A p p e ndi x Survey re s po n de n ts w e r e i d e nt i fi e d thr o ugh m u l t i p le s o urces i n c l u d i ng : interviews with experts; commenters from Texas Railroad Commission rule making pr o cesses related to oil and gas development since 2011 ; lists of those present or testifying at legislative hearings on bills related to oil and gas development since 2011 ; a t t e nd e es a n d prese n ters at academi c gover n m e nt, e n vi r onm e ntal, a n d i n du s try sponso r ed c o n f er e n c es a nd m eet i ng s ; orga n i zers of p u blic p r ote s ts; a nd n ews me d ia a nd o n li n e me d ia c ov e ri n g events r e la t ed to unconventional shale development in Texas I n t otal, t he s u rvey w as emailed t o 3 2 4 i n divi d uals a nd w as c o m ple t e d by 78 pe o ple, resul t i ng i n a resp o nse r a te o f 2 4 % Out of the total s ample su r v e y e d p e r orga n izational af f il i at i on typ e the r es pon s e rat e s a re the follo w ing: f e d e ral g o v e r n me nt ( 100 % ), e n v iro nm e n tal and con se r v ation groups (52 % ), local g o v e r nm e nt (50 % ), acad em i c s (32 % ), orga n ized ci t izen gro u ps (34 % ), indu s try a nd pro fe s s io n al a s s ociations (18 % ), n e w s m e dia (17 %), state go v e r n me nt (14 % ), oil and gas s e r v i ce p ro v i d e rs a nd op e rators (10 % ), r e gio n al go v e r nm e nt (0%) and other (0 % ). Some respondents included in this report did not respond to all the survey questions. Ta b le 1 p r ovides a summary of t he demogr a phic i n for m a t i o n for resp o n d e n t s

PAGE 11

11 T a b le 1 D e m o gr a ph i c Su m mary I n f o rma t i o n f o r R e s ponden ts Summary Responses Highest level of formal education High School or Some college 5 % 39% professional degree 37% Ph.D. or M.D. 18% Age distribution 18 to 29 1% 30 to 39 1 6 % 40 to 49 11% 50 to 59 39% 60 or older 32% Percent male and female Male /Female 68% /32% Organizational affiliation Local Government 13% State Government 7% Federal Gov ernment 1% Oil and Gas Service Providers and Operators 22% Industry and Professional Associations 7% Environmental and Conservation Groups 15% Organized Citizen Groups 18% News Media 6% Academics and Consultants 11% Years involved in unconventional shale development issues 0 to 1 years 7% 2 to 4 years 37% 5 to 9 years 36% 10 to 20 years 19% 21 or more years 1% Hours spent per week on related unconventional shale development issues 9 hours or less 47 % 10 to 20 hours 20 % 21 to 30 hours 9 % 31 to 40 hours 11% 41 or more hours 14% Hours spent per week on policy/politics related unconventional shale development issues 9 hours or less 66% 10 to 20 hours 20% 21 to 30 hours 6% 31 to 40 hours 9%

PAGE 12

12 Objective 1: fracturing used in unconventional shale development in Texas. In order to identify respondents general positions about hydraulic fracturing w e as k ed them w he t her t h eir c u r re n t pos i tion is mo s t c losely alig n w i t h t he beli e f t hat the practice in Texas s h ould b e s t opp e d limi t e d c on ti nu ed at i t s c u r r ent r a t e ex p a n d ed mo d e r a tel y or ex p and e d extensiv e l y T he re s ul t s are s ho w n be l ow in Fi g ure 1. T he average respo n d e nt s u p po r t s c ont i nu i ng d evel o pment at i ts c urr e nt r a te 1 F i g ure 1 Gener a l po s i t i o n s r ega rd i ng h y dr a u lic fr a ctur i ng (n = 78) Based on the results of Figure 1 above, we c a tegor i ze re s po n de n t s i n repo r ti n g t he r es u l t s f o r oth e r sur v ey questions by dividing respo n d e nts i n t o two p osition gr o ups: a s t o p o r limit g r o u p ( n = 35, 45%) and a continue or e xpan d g ro u p ( n = 43, 55% ) Ea c h o f these two pos i t ion gr o ups i n c l u d e s res p ond e nts re p rese n ti n g v a rious orga n i z a t i o nal a ffi l ia t i on s Figure 2 s h o w s t h e di s t ri b u tio n s of t hese orga n i za t i o n al a f f ilia t i o n s for e ach posit i on g r o u p State and local government as w ell as academi c s a n d c onsu l t a nt s a re in both position groups with the majority in the continue or expand group Respondents from o il a nd gas se r vi c e provi d ers a nd oper a tors i n du s try a nd pr o fessio n al associa t i ons and the federal government are only in the continue or expand group All respo n d e n t s from orga n i zed c i t i zen gr o ups beli e ve t hat devel o pment s hou l d be s to p ped or limi t e d a n d th ey comprise 40 % 1 T he m e an was ca l culat e d b y a ss igni n g nu m e rical v al ue s to r es pon s e s ( 1 i n dicates a b e l i e f th a t d e v e lo p me nt s hould b e sto p p e d; 3 that development should continue at its current rate; 5 indicates a r e s pon s e that d e v e lo p me nt s hould b e expa n d e d ex t e n s i v e ly). T he m e an r es pon s e a m ong r e s pond e nts w as 2.82, indicati n g an a v e ra g e r es po n s e that d e v e lo p me nt s hould conti n ue a t its curr e nt rate. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Stopped Limited Continued at Current Rate Expand Moderately Expand Extensively Percentage of Respondents

PAGE 13

13 of t he s t o p o r limit g r o u p Eight y six percent of e n vi r o nmental orga n i za t i ons are in the stop or limit group and make up 34% of that group 2 but 16% of the environmental organizations belong to the continue or expand group Finally, a majority of respondents from the media also belong to the stop or limit group. F i g ure 2 O r ga nizat i o n a l a ffi l i a t i o ns by po s ition g ro u p (n=78) 2 Two respondents from environmental or conservation groups out of fourteen stated they believe hydraulic fracturing should continue at the current rate. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% News Media (n=3) Academics and Consultants (n=11) Local Government (n=13) State Government (n=5) Federal Government (n=1) Organized Citizen Groups (n=14) Environmental Organizations (n=14) Industry and Professional Associations (n=6) Oil and Gas Industry (n=11) Stop/Limit n = 35 Continue/Expand n = 43

PAGE 14

14 Objective 2 : To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development Potential problems The political deb ates about unconventional shale development are informed by perceptions of the potential problems related to the practice To u n d ers t a nd t h e perceptions of respondents about political issues related to unconventional shale development, we ask ed them to what extent they agree such issues are problems. Four political issues w ere identified based on interviews and primary sources. Respondents a re asked to identify the extent that they agree the issues a re problems on a 1 to 5 scale ( from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). The results in Table 2 show that t he stop or limit group and the continue or expand group differ in their perception of all four potential political issues The political issue with the Public distrust of the oil and gas industry problem. The stop or limit group agrees that this political issue is a p roblem and the continue or expand group have a relatively neutral view of this issue. The two position groups have statistically significant differences on all four issues. On three of these political issues the difference is between a neutral position b y the continue or expand group and a posi tion of either agree or strongly agree by the stop or limit group The is sue with the greatest disagreement and demonizing of hydraulic fracturing by those who oppose the practice Th e stop or limit group disagrees that this is a problem, but the continue or expand group agrees that this issue is a problem. It is evident that both position groups agree that there are some political problems in relation to unconv entional shale development in Texas. Table 2. Mean perceptions about the extent of potential political issues related to unconventional shale development by position group s Stop or Limit n = 35 Continue or Expand n = 43 Absolute Difference Insufficient capacity by state agencies for regulation 4.7 2.7 2.0 Conflict between landowners and their neighbors 4.1 2.5 1. 6 Public distrust of the oil and gas industry 3.9 3.1 0.8 Scare tactics and demonizing of hydraulic fracturing by those who oppose the practice 2.3 3.7 1.4 Total Mean s for Political Issues 3.8 3.0 0.8 1 = St rongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly a gree. Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold.

PAGE 15

15 To understand the perceptions of respondents on potential environmental and public health issues related to unconventional shale development, we asked them to identify the extent to which they agree six potential issues a re problems on a scale of 1 to 5 ( from 1 = strong ly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). The results in Table 3 show that the two position groups differ on each of the six potential issues. On five of these issues the continue or expand group has a neutral position but the stop or limit group either agrees or strongly agrees that these issues are potential Contamination of ground and surface water supplies from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids n groups have opposing views. T he stop or limi t group agrees that this is a potential problem but the continue or expand group disagree s The differences are statistically significant for all six of the potential environmental and public health issues. The two position groups do not agree on the risk posed to the environment or public health by unconventional shale development. Table 3. Mean perceptions about the extent of potential environmental and public health issues related to unconventional shale development by position group s Stop or Limit n = 35 Continue or Expand n = 43 Absolute Difference Disposing or treating produced water 4.7 2.9 1.8 Degradation of air quality from flaring, diesel exhaust, and dust from well site operations 4.6 2.6 2.0 Competition over available water supplies 4.5 3.4 1. 1 Nuisance to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations 4.4 3.0 1.4 Contamination of ground and surface water supplies from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids 4.3 1.8 2.5 Induced seismic activity 4.1 2.6 1.5 Total Means for Environmental and Public Health Issues 4.4 2.7 1.7 1 = St rongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly a gree. Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold. Potential benefits To understand the perception of potential benefits from unconventional shale development, r espondents a re asked the extent that five issues could b e potential benefits. These issues were identified based on interviews and secondary sources. Respondents a re asked the extent that they agree each of these issues are benefits on a scale of 1 to 5 ( from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ).

PAGE 16

16 The results in Table 4 demonstra te that the two position groups are not in agreement about the potential benefits of unconventional shale development in Texas. For each of the five issues the differences between the position groups are statistically significant On three of the issues the differences are between disagree by the stop or limit group and agree by the continue or expand group. Growth of the Texas economy through jobs and tax revenue National energy independence stop o r limit group perceives the effect of unconventional shale development as neutral, but the continue or expand group either agree or strongly agree that these issues are benefits. T a b le 4 Me a n pe r c ep t i on s a b ou t t h e extent o f potential benefits related to unconventional shale development by position group s Stop or Limit n = 35 Continue or Expand n = 43 Absolute Difference Growth of the Texas economy through jobs and tax revenue 2.8 4.6 1.8 National energy independence 2.5 4.1 1.6 A bridge toward renewable energy sources from the natural gas produced 1.9 3.8 1.9 Benefits to local landowners in Texas 1.9 4.3 2.5 Mitigation of climate change from the natural gas produced 1.7 3.6 1.9 Total Means for Potential Benefits 2.1 4.1 1.9 1 = St rongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly a gree. Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold. Three trends are seen in the results from Ta b les 2, 3, and 4 about potential problems and benefits related to unconventional shale development in Texas First, both groups do recognize that there are some political problems. Second, the continue or expand group tend s to have moderate perceptions of prob lems and i n contrast the stop or limit group tend s to view problems as more severe. Third t he stop or limit group is more pe ssimistic about the environmental and economic benefits of unconventional shale development than the continue or expand group Therefore, the re are significant different patterns of perception in terms of the problems and benefits of unconventional shale development based on position group.

PAGE 17

17 Objective 3 preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development. Evaluation of recent rules a re asked whether two recent rule changes by the Texas Railroad Commission resolved various issues. The two rules t hat questions a re asked about are the chemical disclosure rule of 2011 and the well casing, cementing, drilling, and completion requirements rule of 2013. To identify the issues these rules sought to resolve we reviewed documents from the Texas Railroad Co mmission as well as conducted interviews with those involved in the rulemaking process. Respondents a re asked to identify the extent that they agree the issues were resolved by each rule on a 1 to 5 scale ( from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). The results in Table 5 show that r espondents from the stop or limit group disagree or strongly disagree that the 2011 disclosure rule resolved any of the identified issues In contrast, the continue or expand group agrees that four of the five issues are resolved by the rule with the which is neutr al. There is a clear contrast in the evaluation of this rule between the two position groups and these d ifferences are statistically significant for each issue. Table 5. Me a n pe r c ep t i on s o f i ss ue s b ei n g r e s o lv e d by t h e 2 0 11 d i s c l o s u re r u le b y po si t i o n g r oups Stop or Limit n = 34 Continue or Expand n = 40 Absolute Difference Public distrust of the oil and gas industry 2.1 3.0 0.9 Accessibility of chemical information to the public 1.9 4.1 2.2 What chemical information must be disclosed 1.9 4.0 2.1 How trade secrets are protected and challenged 1.9 3.8 1.9 Groundwater protection 1.4 3.6 2.2 Total Means for Resolution of Issues 1.8 3.7 1.9 1 = St rongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly a gree. Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold. The second rule that respondents a re asked to evaluate is the Texas Railroad well casing, cementing, drilling, and completion requirements rule of 2013 with the results in Table 6. Respondents a re asked to evaluate the extent that four different issues are resolved by this rul e. Similar to the evaluation of the 2011 disclosure rule, the stop or limit group disagree that any of the issues are resolved. In contrast, the continue or expand group agree of the oil and gas s neutral. The two position groups have statistically significant different evaluation s of these two rules.

PAGE 18

18 Table 6. Me a n pe r c ep t i on s o f i ss ue s b ei n g r e s o lv e d by t h e 2013 casings rule b y po si t i o n g r oups Stop or Limit n = 34 Continue or Expand n = 40 Absolute Difference Public distrust of the oil and gas industry 2.3 3.1 0.8 Effective control of the well by the operator at all times 1.9 4.1 2.2 Long term well integrity 1.7 4.0 2.3 Groundwater protection 1.7 3.8 2.1 Total Means for Resolution of Issues 1.9 3.7 1.8 1 = St rongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Strongly a gree. Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold. P r eferences for t h e R ole of G overn m ent unconventional shale development we as k ed the fol l o w ing question I f y o u w ere to sele c t only o n e l evel of gove r nm e nt to r e gula t e t he follo w i n g iss u es r el a ted to n a tu r al gas devel o pm e nt t h at u s es hydr a ulic fract u ri n g, w hi c h w ould you pr e fer, if a n y ? The respondents had four levels of government to choose from and an option of no regulation ( n o re g u l a ti o n municipal government county government s t a te g o ver n me n t, a n d feder a l go ver n me n t ). Respondents a re asked their preferences on a battery of 11 issues that include many of the environmental and political issues from T able 3 as well as other issues recently debated in Texas. The r es u l ts by pos i tion g r oup are reported in Figu r e 3 Figure 3 demonstrates a couple of issues where there is agreement on the level of government regulation between the position groups T he ma j ori t y of both position g ro u p s s u p p o rt r eg u l a tio n for all 11 issues with very few respondents favoring no regulation A maj o ri t y o f r es p o nd en ts f r om both position groups prefer that local government should not regulate most of the issues related to unconventional shale development rather it should be regulated by either the state or fed eral government There are two divergent cases where respondents from both position groups favor local go v e r nment regulation (either municipal or count y governments ) : Setback distances of wells from occupied buildings or natural features and risks and nuisances to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and Also, respondents fro m both position groups prefer that the While Figure 3 demonstrates some agreement between the position groups about regulation of unconventional shale development, there are also multiple issues where there is disagreement. On eight of the issues the continue or expand group clear ly prefers state government regulation. In contrast, the stop or limit group prefers federal government regulation on seven of the issues. Therefore, while there is agreement that these issues should be regulated, the level of government regulation remains contentious.

PAGE 19

19 F i g ure 3 Pr e f e r e nces r e ga rding l e v e l o f g ov e r n me nt r eg ul a t i o n by po s i t ion g r o u p (n = 76 ) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Disclosure of chemicals in fracture fluids Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity Disposing or treating produced water Monitoring of air emissions Designing and constructing well casings Monitoring of water quality Safety of operators at the well site Volume of water used in fracture treatments Constructing well pads Setback distances of wells from buildings Mitigating risks and nuisances to the public Stop or Limit Group n = 35 No Regulation Municipal Government County Government State Government Federal Government 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Disclosure of chemicals in fracture fluids Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity Disposing or treating produced water Monitoring of air emissions Designing and constructing well casings Monitoring of water quality Safety of operators at the well site Volume of water used in fracture treatments Constructing well pads Setback distances of wells from buildings Mitigating risks and nuisances to the public Continue or Expand Group n = 41 No Regulation Municipal Government County Government State Government Federal Government

PAGE 20

20 Objective 4: To understand the political activities, resources, and network relationships of respondents based on their position toward unconventional shale development. Poli t ical Ac t iv i t ies To understand political advocacy in Texas, we ask ed respondents to indicate how frequently they engage in 13 different political activities. These political activities were identified through interviews with those directly and indirectly involved in the politics of unconventional shale development in Texas as well as secondary literature on advocacy. Respondents a re asked to identify the freque ncy that they engage in the various political activities on a 0 to 4 scale (from 0 = never to 4 = weekly ). The results are reported as the mean frequency for each position group and absolute differences between the groups in Table 7. T able 7. Frequency o f p olitical activities by position group Stop or Limit n = 34 Continue or Expand n = 39 Absolute Difference Communicating with the news media 2.9 1.9 1.0 Posting information or advocating online 2.7 1.4 1.3 Forming and maintaining a coalition with allies 2.2 1.7 0.4 Generating and disseminating research and reports 2.1 1.2 0.9 Participating in or organizing public meetings 2.0 1.2 0.8 Developing policy at the county or municipal levels 1.9 1.0 1.0 Providing written comments in response to state agency notices 1.7 1.1 0.6 Lobbying elected officials 1.5 1.1 0.4 Formal complaining to regulatory commissions 1.5 0.5 1.0 Organizing or participating in public protests or rallies 1.5 0.1 1.4 Testifying at state legislative or agency hearings 1.2 1.1 0.2 Participating in regulatory negotiations 0.9 1.2 0.3 Taking legal action (e.g. lawsuits) 0.5 0.4 0.1 Total Mean s for Frequency of Political Activities 1.7 1.1 0.7 0 = Never; 1 = Annually; 2 = Quarterly; 3 = Monthly; 4 = At least weekly Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold. A ma j ori t y of re s po n de n ts from both position groups engage in 10 of the 13 political activities at least annually. The exceptions are Formal complaining to reg ulatory commissions Organizing or participating in public protests or rallies Taking legal action (e.g. lawsuits) seeking to achieve their objectives in relation to unconventional shale development. In addition, the position groups share three of the most frequent political activities

PAGE 21

21 Communicating with the news media Posting information or advocating online Forming and maintaining a coalition with allies While the position groups engage in these activities in different frequencies, these are the most frequent political act ivities of both position groups. In comparing the two position groups, t he stop or limit group engages in all activities at a frequency greater than or equal to the continue or expand group except for Participating in regulatory negotiations ot significantly different For eight of the political activities the stop or limit group engages in the activity either monthly or quarterly in comparison to the continue or expand group which engages in the activity either quarterly or annually. In addit ion to this qualitative difference there is also a significant statistical difference in the frequency that respondents from the two position groups engage in these eight political activities. Therefore, while respondents from both position groups engage i n a diverse spectrum of political activities, the stop or limit group consistently more frequently engages in such activities. Organi z a t i onal Ca p acity In order to better understand the resources that respondents have they we ask ed a bo u t the c a p acity of t h e i r orga n i z a tio n s to use or mobilize nine organizational resources f o r a c hievi n g t h eir o bje c ti v e s related to unconventional shale development in Texas These resources were identified through interviews with those directly and indirectly involved in the politics of unconventional shale development in Texas as well as secondary literature. Respondents are asked to identify the capacity that their organiza mobilize these nine resources on a 0 to 3 scale (from 0 = no capacity to 3 = substantial capacity ). The results are reported as the mean capacity for each position group and absolute differences between the groups in Table 8.

PAGE 22

22 Table 8 Mean organizational capacity by position group Stop or Limit n = 34 Continue or Expand n = 36 Absolute Difference Financial resources for paying staff 1.9 1.1 0.8 Financial resources for lobbying 1.9 1.0 0.9 Support from people with a different position on unconventional shale development 1.7 0.9 0.8 Support from the media 1.4 1.2 0.2 Support from government officials 1.4 0.9 0.5 Support from members of the general public 1.2 1.1 0.1 Support from members of the organization 1.2 1.0 0.2 Support from people with a similar position on unconventional shale development 1.2 1.0 0.2 Scientific and technical expertise 1.2 0.9 0.3 Total Mean s for Resources 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 = No c a p acit y 1 = Li m ited c a p acit y 2 = Mod e rate c apaci t y, 3 = Sub s tantial c a p acit y Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold. Both of the position groups report that they have a limited capacity to use or mobilize at least six of the nine resources. This demonst rates that both position groups report that they have relatively the same limited capacity to achieve their objectives In addition, both groups have little variance in terms of their capacity in relation to use these various resources as the stop or limit group has a range of responses from 1.2 to 1.9 (difference of 0.7) and the continue or expand group has a range of responses from 0.9 to 1.2 (difference of 0.3). In comparing the two position groups, the stop or limit group has relatively greater capacity to utilize or mobilize every resource but these differences are only statistically significant for four of the nine resources. Also, in qualitative terms the stop or limit group reports have a moderate capacity in comparis on to the limited capacity of the continue or expand group Financial resources for paying staff Financial resources for lobbying Support from people with a different position on unconventional shale development stop or limit group reports that they have significantly greater capacity to utilize financial resources in comparison to the continue or expand group However, it is important to note that this represents relative capacity to utilize such resources and is not a comparison of absolute financial or other resources between the position groups. Coll a bora t ive N e t w orks To understand the collaborative networks of actors in Texas, we ask ed respondents to indicate how frequently they collaborate with 13 different types of organizations in order to achieve their objectives related to unconventional shale development in Texas. This list of

PAGE 23

23 organizations was developed through interviews. Respond ents a re asked to identify the frequency that they collaborate with each type of organization on a 0 to 3 scale (from 0 = never to 3 = weekly ). The results are reported as the mean frequency for each position group and absolute differences between the grou ps in Table 9. Table 9 Mean c ollaboration frequency of each positio n group by type of organization Stop or Limit n = 32 Continue or Expand n = 36 Absolute Difference Environmental Organizations 2.3 1.2 1.1 Media 2.2 1.3 0.9 Organized Citizen Groups 2.2 0.7 1.5 Municipal Governments 1.7 0.9 0.8 Railroad Commission of Texas 1.3 1.5 0.2 Oil and Gas Industry 1.2 2.0 0.8 Texas House of Representatives 1.2 0.9 0.3 Texas State Senate 1.1 1.0 0.1 Mineral Rights Owners 1.0 1.2 0.2 Federal Government 1.0 0.8 0.2 County Commissioner Courts 0.4 0.6 0.2 Texas State Courts 0.3 0.4 0.1 Texas Governor s Office 0.3 0.4 0.1 0 = Never; 1 = Annually ; 2 = Monthly; 3 = Weekly. Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold. The two position groups have multiple common patterns in terms of which organizations they do and do not collaborate with. Both position groups tend to collaborate most frequently with organizations of interest groups that belong to their position. In other words, the stop or limit group collaborates with environmental organizations and organized citizen groups but the continue or expand group collaborates with the oil and gas industry. The two position groups collaborate at relative ly the same frequency with o rganizatio ns that have authority to regulate unconventional shale development in Texas (for example: Railroad Commission of Texa s, and Texas State Legislature) Therefore, both position groups collaborate most freq uently with in terest groups that have a similar position and they collaborate at relatively the same frequency with government organizations. In comparing the frequency of collaboration between the two position groups, there are statistically significant differences for five of the 13 organizations. These include organizations representing competing interest groups as well as the media and munic ipal governments. In each case, the differences in the frequency of collaboration between the position groups are monthly and annually. It is important to note that the stop or limit group more frequently collaborates with the media and municipal governmen ts compared to the continue or expand group The rational for this may warrant further investigation.

PAGE 24

24 Important attributes of coll a bora t ors To further investigate collaboration among respondents, we ask ed them what factors are important in selecting whic h organizations you collaborate with to achieve your objectives related to unconventional shale development in Texas. This list of factors was developed based on secondary sources and past surveys. Respondents a re asked to identify the importance of each o f the eight factors on a scale of 0 to 4 (from 0 = never to 4 = extremely important ). The results are reported as the mean rational for each position group and absolute differences between the groups in Table 10. Ta b le 10 Me a n r epo rted r e a s on s f o r c o ll a bo r a t i o n by po sit i o n g r oup s Stop or Limit n = 32 Continue or Expand n = 38 Absolute Difference They are professionally competent 3 3 3 4 0.1 I trust them to keep their promises 3 1 3 0 0.1 They share my position about major issues 2 .3 1 6 0.7 I have worked with them in the past 2 .0 1 7 0.3 They have access to human resources 2 .0 1 5 0.5 We share a common opponent 2 .0 0 .8 1.2 They have political influence 1 .9 1 6 0.3 They have access to financial resources 1 6 1 1 0.5 0 = Not important 1 = Somewhat important 2= Moderately important 3= Very important 4 = Extremely i mportant. Statistically significant differences between the two position groups are highlighted in bold. The two position groups report the same two reasons as the most important for They are professionally competent and I trust them to keep their promises as an organization is very important for collaboration. In addition, both position groups report that relatively having financial and political resources are the least important factors when determining whether to collaborate with an organization In comparing the two position groups there are few differences in t heir rationale They share my position about major issues We share a common opponent They have access to financial resources between the position group s is about having a common opponent This factor is moderately important for the stop or limit group but only somewhat important for the continue or expand group It is evident that beliefs about unconventional shale development are a more important facto r for the stop or limit group than beliefs are for the continue or expand group.

PAGE 25

25 Conclusions This report presents the findings of a 2014 survey administered to people directly and indirectly involved in unconventional shale d evelopment in Texas. It focuse s on four objectives related to the beliefs and strategies of the respondents The findings in relation to each objective are summarized below. Obj e c t ive 1: unconventional shale d e v e lo p m e nt i n Texas. T h e f i nd i ngs s h ow th a t respo n d e nts c a n b e gr ou ped ac c or d i n g t o t heir p osition a b o u t w h e th e r h ydra u lic fract u ri n g s hou l d be s to p ped or l i mi t e d ( n = 35 ) or c ont i nu e d a t the c ur r e n t r a t e or ex p a n d ed ( n = 43 ). The s e two position gr o ups a re us e d to g ui d e t he a n a l y s is for the rema i ni n g o b je c t i ves. The majority of envir o nmental a nd all of the orga n i zed c i t i zen gr o ups a r e a part of t he s t o p o r limit gr o u p I n c o n tras t t he oil a n d gas i ndustry and state and local governments m a k e up the major i ty o f re s p o nd e nts i n the continue or expand group Academics, consultants, and members of the news media are split between the two groups. Obj e c t ive 2: To understand the extent that respondents perceive potential problems and benefits associated with unconventional shale development Potential p roblems related to pollution, health risks or environmental degradation and politics are perceived as more s evere by the stop or limit group than by the continue or expand group. In addition, the two groups hav e different views of the potential benefits of unconventional shale development. The continue or expand group agrees that there are economic and environmental benefits from unconventional shale development, while the stop or limit group neither agrees nor disagrees about the economic benefits and perceives environmental risks. Obj e c t ive 3: evaluation of recent rules and their preferences for the role of government in unconventional shale development The stop or limit group is unsatisfied that the 2011 chemical disclosure and the 2013 well casing rules resolved the issues they were intended to address. In contrast, the continue or expand group is satisfied with these two rules. However, one issue both groups agree that has not been resolved by these rules is public distrust of the oil and gas industry. The majority of both position groups support regulation in some form. There is also general agreement that local governments should regulate setback distances and public nuis ance issues. However, the continue or expand group on most issues supports state government regulation of unconventional shale development, but the stop or limit group tends to prefer federal regulation. Obj e c t ive 4: To u nd e r s tand t h e p o l i tic a l a ctiv i t i e s, r e so u rce s a nd n e two r k r e l a tio n s h i ps of r e spo n d e n ts b a sed on t h e ir pos i t i o n t o w a r d unconventional shale development The political activities that respondents most frequently engage in to influence politics and policy related to unconventional shale development are c omm u n i c a t i n g w i t h the news m e dia ge n e r a ti n g a nd dissem i na t i n g r esearch a nd re p or t s and p ar t i c i p a t i n g in p u blic m e e t i n gs. Across almost all a c t ivities, re s po n d e nts from the s t o p or limit group are more politically active. T he res o urce t hat respo n d e nts of both groups have t h e g r eatest c a p acity to u tili z e is financial resources. T he stop or

PAGE 26

26 limit reports moderate capacity for most resources and the continue or expand group reports limited capacity for most resources. The two position groups most frequently collaborate with interest groups that share their position and least frequently with courts and the Texas T he m ost im p o r ta n t attribute f or selecting with w hom to c olla b or a te with by both position groups are pr o f e ssio n al c o m pe t e n c y and trust. The least important characteristic sought in a collaborator by the respondents is financial resources. Table 11 summarizes the areas of substantial agreement and disagreement between the two position groups. In general, the areas of disagreement are about the potential political, environmental and public health problems related to unconventional shale development, except for the agreement that public distrust of the oil and gas industry is an issue. There is a lso disagreement about the potential benefits of the practice. Therefore, those who oppose the practice believe it is harmful for the environment and public health, while those who support the practice believe it is not harmful and may possess potential ec onomic and environmental benefits. Another area of disagreement between the two positions was whether the 2011 disclosure and the 2013 well casings rule s resolved various issues. The two groups disagree on whether these two rules resolved the issues they were supposed to address except for distrust of the oil and gas industry, which both groups agree continues to be an issue. T hey agree that unconventional shale development should be regulated but for the majority of issues the two groups do not agree wh ich level of government should be regulating the practice. Both sides prefer local government regulation for setback distances and public nuisance issues and both support a role for the federal g overnment in ensuring the safety of operators at well sites. However, there is disagreement about the role of state regulation on other issues as o pponents of unconventional d evelopment tend to favor federal regulation of the practice. In the final analysis, the two positions in relation to unconventional shale dev elopment in Texas diverge on their beliefs in general about the potential problems, benefits, evaluation of past regulations, and preferences on level of government regulation, but they do have some specific areas of common ground.

PAGE 27

27 T a b l e 1 1 Ar ea s of s u bs t a nt i a l ag r eeme nt a nd d i s ag r ee m e nt b e t w ee n p o s i tion g r o u ps Ar ea s of Subst a n t i a l A g r eeme nt Ar ea s of Subst a n t i a l Di s ag r ee m e nt Potential Environmental and Public Health Problems N one C ontaminat ion of ground and surface water degradation of air quality, disposing or treating produced water Potential Political Problems Public distr ust of the oil and gas industry Scare tactics used by those who oppose the practice Insufficient regulatory capacity by the state Conflict between landowners and their neighbors Potential Benefits None Benefits to local landowners Natural gas is a bridge towards renewable energy Mitigation of climate change from natural gas Evaluation of resolution of issues by 2011 Chemical Disclosure Rule Public distrust of the oil and gas industry continues What chemical information must be disclosed Accessibility of chemical information to the public How trade secrets are protected and challenged Groundwater protection Evaluation of resolution of issues by 2013 Well Casings Rule Pub lic distrust of the oil and gas industry continues Groundwater protection Effective control of the well by operator at all times Long term well integrity Preferred Level of Government Regulation Local government regulation of setback distances and mitigating public nuisance issues Federal government regulation for ensuring safety of operators at well site Federal versus state government regulation of several items: risks from induced seismic activity, constructing well pads, disposing of treated water, constructing well casings, disclosure, monitoring air and water contamination The goal of this study is to help clarify the positions, beliefs, preferences, strategies, resources and collaborative ties of a diverse range of actors in Texas. This survey offers only a

PAGE 28

28 partial representation of the politics and policy process of unconv entional shale development at a specific point in time and it does not extrapolate to the beliefs and preferences of the general public in Texas. However, we hope to offer interested individuals and organizations a better understanding of one of the most c ontroversial and intractable energy and environmental debates in Texas and nationally.

PAGE 29

29 References Batheja, A., Satija, N. December 12, 2013 Road funding figures surprise some counties. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/12/road funding surprises some better or worse/ Bl ons, S. March 6, 2014 Battle over fracking in Dallas continues with taking lawsuit. Energy Center: University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/law/centers/energy/blog/2014/03/battle o ver fracking in dallas continues with takings lawsuit/ Boudet, Hilary, Christopher Clarke, Dylan Bugden, Edward Maibach, Connie Roser Renouf, survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65: 57 67. Campoy, A. July 26, 2012 Drilling strains rural roads: Counties struggle to repair damage from heavy trucks in Texas energy boom. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100008723963904448401045775512238605694 02 Conne l ly, K. Barer, D., and Y Skorobogatov. n.d How oil and gas disposal wells can cause earthquakes. State IMPAC T Texas, National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/earthquake/ Crossette, A. March 27, 2014 Air pollution and hydraulic fracturing: Better monitoring, planning and tracking of health effects needed in Texas. University of Austin Texas. Retrieved from h ttp://w ww.utexas.edu/news/2014/03/27/hydraulic fracturing texas/ de Melo Martin, Inmaculada, Jake Hays, Madelon L. Finkel. 2014. The role of ethics in shale gas policies. Science of the Total Environment, 470 471 1114 1119. Encana. December 12, 2011 Why Encana refutes U.S. EPA Pavillion groundwater report. Encana news releases Retrieved from http://www.encana.com/news stories/news releases/index.html?2011 Energy In D epth n.d. Just the Facts. Retrieved from http://energyindepth.org/just the facts/ Freyman, M. 2014. Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Water Demand by the Numbers. A Ceres Report Retrieved from http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/hydraulic fracturing water stress water demand by the numbers/view

PAGE 30

30 Frohlich, C. 2012. Two y ear survey comparing earthquake activity and injection well locations in Barnett Shale, Texas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS Early Edition. Retrieved from www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1207728109 Halliburton. 2014. Hydraulic Fracturing 101. Retrieved from http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fracturing _101.html Henry, T. September 10, 2013 How the West Texas drilling boom could go bust. Again. State IMPACT Texa s, National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/09/10/how the west texas drilling boom could go bust again/ Kriesky, J., B.D. Goldstein, K. Zell, S. Beach. 2013. Diff ering opinions about natural gas drilling in two adjacent counties with different levels of drilling activity. Energy Policy, 58, 228 236. National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2013 Modern shale gas development in the United States: An Update. U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Oil Gas/shale gas primer update 2013.pdf Nicot, J., Hebel, A., R itter, S., Walden, S., Baier, R., Galusky, P., Beach, J., Kyle, R., Symank, L. and C. Bretaon. 2011. Current and projected water use in the Texas mining and oil and gas industry. Bureau of Economic Geolo gy. Retrieved from http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/090483093 9_MiningWaterUse.pdf Nicot, J., Reedy, R. Costley, R. an d Y. Huang. 2012. Oil & Gas Water Use in Texas: Update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report Bureau of Economic Geology. Retrieved from https://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/090483093 9_2012Update_MiningWaterUse.pdf Pioneer Resources. n.d. Current Issues. Pioneer Resources. Retrieved from http://www.pxd.com/about/our industry/current issues Prior, J. September 6, 2012 Rural affordable housing struggles with oil and gas boom. Howsingwire. Retrieved from http://www.housingwire.com/articles/rural affordable housing struggles oil and gas boom Rahm, D. 2011. Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2974 2981.

PAGE 31

31 Railroad Commiss ion of Texas. August 9, 2013 Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick Tells Ra ilroad Commission of Texas News. Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about us/commissioners/craddick/news/080913/ / Railroad Commission of Texas. February 2, 2014 Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick Tells NA Ra ilroad Commission of Texas News. Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about us/commissioners/craddick/news/02051 4/ / Railroad Commission of Texas. May 27, 20 14 RRC production statistics and allowable s for June 2014. Ra ilroad Commission of Texas News. Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/news/052714b/ Railroad Commission of Texas. n.d Major Oil & Gas Formations (Data files). Retrieved from http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil gas/major oil gas formations/ Texas Oil and Gas Assoc iation. 2013 Economic Impact Retrieved from http://www.txoga.org/resources/economic impact/ U.S. Ener gy Information Administration. 2014a Natural gas gross withdrawals and production (Data file). Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm U.S. Ener gy Information Administration. 2014b Texas field production of crude oil (Data file). Retrie ved from http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPTX1&f=M Warner, B. & J. Shapiro. 2013. Fractured, fragmented Federalism: A study in fracki ng regulatory policy. Publius: The Journal or Federalism, 43 (3), 474 496.

PAGE 32

32 Appendix. Survey Questions 1. Please indicate to what extent you perceive the following issues to be potential benefits of unconventional shale development. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree National energy independence Growth of the Texas economy through jobs and tax revenue A bridge toward renewable energy sources from the natural gas produced Mitigation of climate change from the natural gas produced Benefits to local landowners in Texas 2. Please indicate to what extent you perceive the following issues as potential problems related to unconventional shale development. Not a Problem Minor Problem Moderate Problem Serious Problem Severe Problem Insufficient capacity by state agencies for regulation Conflict between landowners and their neighbors Contamination of ground and surface water supplies from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids Public distrust of the oil and gas industry Degradation of air quality from flaring, diesel exhaust, and dust from well site operations Nuisance to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations Scare tactics and demonizing of hydraulic fracturing by those who oppose the practice Competition over available water supplies Disposing or treating produced water Induced seismic activity

PAGE 33

33 3. Please indicate what comes closest to your current position in relation to unconventional shale development that uses hydraulic fracturing. It should be... Stopped Limited Continued at Current Rate Expanded Moderately Expanded Extensively 4. When you first became aware of unconventional shale development, what was your position on the following issues? Strongly Disagreed Disagreed Neither Agreed Strongly Agreed The potential economic benefits are significant The potential public health risks are severe The potential environmental risks are severe Local governments should be able to decide if and where drilling occurs in their jurisdiction 5. Today, what is your position on the following issues? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree The potential economic benefits are significant The potential public health risks are severe The potential environmental risks are severe Local governments should be able to decide if and where drilling occurs in their jurisdiction

PAGE 34

34 6. If you were to select only one level of government to regulate the following issues related to shale development, which would you prefer, if any? No Regulation Municipal Government County Government State Government Federal Government Monitoring of water quality Monitoring of air emissions Disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids Volume of water used in hydraulic fracturing treatments Setback distances of wells from occupied buildings or natural features Designing and constructing well casings Disposing or treating produced water Constructing well pads Mitigating risks from induced seismic activity Mitigating risks and nuisances to the general public caused by truck traffic, noise, and light from well site operations Safety of operators at the well site Other

PAGE 35

35 7. In 2011 the Texas State Legislature enacted and the Railroad Commission of Texas promulgated a disclosure law and rule with the intention to address some of the following issues. To what extent do you agree that these issues have been resolved by the final Disclosure Rule of 2011 ? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree What chemical information must be disclosed Accessibility of chemical information to the public Groundwater protection How trade secrets are protected and challenged Public distrust of the oil and gas industry 8. In 2013 the Texas Railroad Commission completed a rule making process to update Rule 3.13, relating to Casing, Cementing, Drilling and Completion Requirements To what extent do you agree that the following issues have been resolved by the updated Rule 3.1 3 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Effective control of the well by the operator at all times Groundwater protection Long term well integrity Public distrust of the oil and gas industry

PAGE 36

36 9. How often has your organization engaged in the following activities for achieving its objectives in unconventional shale development in Texas? At Least Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Communicating with the news media Formal complaining to regulatory commissions Lobbying elected officials Forming and maintaining a coalition with allies Posting information or advocating online Generating and disseminating research and reports Providing written comments in response to state agency notices Participating in or organizing public meetings Testifying at state legislative or agency hearings Participating in regulatory negotiations Taking legal action (e.g. lawsuits) Organizing or participating in public protests or rallies Developing policy at the county or municipal levels Other

PAGE 37

37 10. Since 2008, how influential has your organization been in politics and policy about unconventional shale development in Texas? Not Influential Somewhat Influential Extremely Influential 11. To what extent does your organization have the capacity to use or mobilize the following resources to achieve its objectives in relation to unconventional shale development in Texas? No Capacity Limited Capacity Moderate Capacity Substantial Capacity Not Applicable Financial resources for lobbying Financial resources for paying staff Support from members of the organization Support from members of the general public Support from government officials Scientific and technical expertise Support from people with a different position on unconventional shale development Support from people with a similar position on unconventional shale development Support from the media Other

PAGE 38

38 12. In general, what factors are important in choosing which organization(s) you collaborate with on issues related to unconventional shale development in Texas? Not Important Somewhat Important Moderately Important Very Important Extremely Important They share my position about major issues I trust them to keep their promises They are professionally competent I have worked with them in the past They have access to financial resources They have political influence They have access to human resources We share a common opponent Other

PAGE 39

39 13. Since 2008, please indicate how frequently you engage with the following organizations to achieve your political and policy goals related to unconventional shale development in Texas Weekly Monthly Yearly Never Federal Government The Railroad Commission of Texas Texas House of Representatives Texas State Courts County Commissioner Courts Municipal Governments Oil and Gas Industry Environmental Organizations Organized Citizen Groups Mineral Rights Owners Media Texas State Senate Other

PAGE 40

40 14. The following statements reflect general attitudes. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each statement. Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Moderately Agree Strongly Agree It is not the government's business to try to protect people from themselves. We need to dramatically reduce inequalities between the rich and the poor, as well as between men and women. The government should do more to advance society's goals, even if that means limiting the freedom and choices of individuals. It is not enough to provide equal opportunities; we also have to try to make outcomes more equal. Sometimes government needs to make laws that keep people from hurting themselves. Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth were more equal. The government interferes far too much in our everyday lives. The government should stop telling people how to live their lives. Government should put limits on the choices individuals can make so they do not get in the way of what is good for society. Most of the important things that take place in life happen by random chance. No matter how hard we try, the course of our lives is largely determined by forces beyond our control. For the most part, succeeding in life is a matter of chance.

PAGE 41

41 15. Please indicate your gender. Male Female 16. Please indicate your age. 18 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60 or older 17. Please indicate the highest level of education you have attained Not a High School Graduate High School Graduate Some College Bachelor's Degree Master's or Professional Degree Ph.D. or M.D. 18. How many years have you been involved in unconventional shale development? 0 1 years 2 4 years 5 9 years 10 20 years 21 or more years 19. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on issues related to unconventional shale development? Less than 9 hours 10 20 hours 21 30 hours 31 40 hours More than 40 hours 20. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on the policy and/or politics related to unconventional shale development ? Less than 9 hours 10 20 hours 21 30 hours 31 40 hours More than 40 hours

PAGE 42

42 21. If you have any additional thoughts, considerations, or opinions you would like to share with us about unconventional shale development please provide them below. 22. If you would like a copy of the final report, please provide your email. Your email will never be distributed or shared. Thank you for your time and responses!