CapstoneReport

1

A Presentation and Analysis of PAHB1731: Creation of the Keystone

Energy Authority of Pennsylvania and the Long Term Effects of

Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania

Allyson Ditizio

Geography 432

April 6, 2016

CapstoneReport

2

Table of Contents

Abstract Page 4

Introduction Page 4

Background Information Page 6

Participating Parties Page 9

Political Page 10

Economic Page 11

Environmental Page 21

Societal Page 16

Long-Term Effects Page 17

Political Long-Term Effects Page17

Economic Long-Term Effects Page 18

Environmental Long-Term Effects Page 20

Societal Long-Term Effects Page 23

Targets and Goals Page 24

Conclusion Page 25

Works Cited Page 27

CapstoneReport

3

Table of Charts and Figures

Figure 1: Phases of the Business Cycle Page 7

Figure 2: Pipeline Construction Page 8

Figure 3: Summary of Climate Benefit-Cost Analysis Page 14

Figure 4: A Daunting Climate Footprint Page 22

CapstoneReport

4

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to address the impacts of PAHB1731 across scales

and in a temporal manner as it pertains to Pennsylvania’s citizens, environment, economy

and politics. PAHB1731 is a bill that has yet to be passed into law in the Pennsylvania

legislature; it proposes the introduction of The Keystone Energy Authority. The Keystone

Energy Authority is a conglomerate of state representatives that will utilize manipulated

tax codes to encourage and incentivize petroleum consuming corporations (n.p., 2015).

The purpose of this is to increase demand of petroleum when the market is diluted and

the price of natural gas goes down. This would continue drilling and activity in

Pennsylvania because the demand for natural gas would stay at a consistent level,

eliminating the dilution. The parties that would benefit from this are hydraulic fracturing

(fracking) corporations, petroleum-consuming corporations, employees of the industry,

mineral rights owners, and Pennsylvania’s government. The commitment to this

legislation yields predictions of singular-development of Pennsylvania’s energy portfolio

in the long term, but saves jobs and economic security in the short term.

The bill reached the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce in late December, and

since then there has been no additional news about the fate of PAHB1731.

Introduction

Energy regulation is a vitally important topic on all scales in the US because of

the weight these policies have in shaping the future of US energy production and

consumption. According to The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and

Development, within the next few years the energy policies that emerge have the

CapstoneReport

5

potential to shape the future investments and the path of production that the US and its

states will take (OECD, 1999)

An energy path is the type of investment and production method that is utilized by

an entity: for the basis of this report, there are two energy paths: soft and hard. An

influential publication for this study is the work of Amory Lovins entitled Energy

Strategy: The Road Not Taken. The soft energy path can be defined as “prompt and

serious commitment to efficient use of energy, rapid development of renewable energy

sources matched in scale and in energy quality to end-use needs, and special transitional

fossil-fuel technologies” (Lovins, 1976). Conversely, the hard energy path “relies on

rapid expansion of centralized high technologies to increase supplies of energy,

especially in the form of electricity” (Lovins, 1976). The application of this information

within this paper is focused on a larger scope; this policy could potentially be a catalyst to

social norms and future ideas that will specify a specific energy path for the state of

Pennsylvania.

PAHB1731 is energy legislation that currently is in review with the Pennsylvania

Commerce Committee in the Pennsylvania legislature. If enacted, this energy policy will

create the Keystone Energy Authority to lead the promotion of the use of petroleum

products and ensure continuous relationships between the petroleum and natural gas

industry in Pennsylvania. Examples of petroleum products are ink, tires, clothing, car

batteries, roofing, and hand lotion (Ranken Energy, n.d.). Additionally, natural gas is

consumed in the utilities market for home and industrial use. Drilling for natural gas,

refining natural gas into petroleum and the creation of petroleum-based products is all

alive and well in Pennsylvania, and serves as a large portion of the industry present in the

CapstoneReport

6

area (Darmstadter, 2013). The Keystone Energy Authority would develop “Keystone

Energy Enhancement Zones” or areas that have the potential to be economically

developed into industrious areas because of the methane available in the shale rock (n.d.,

2015). Choosing to develop this industry is choosing to devote resources into the hard

energy path that will shape Pennsylvania’s energy portfolio and energy future.

Background Information

Natural gas is an important energy resource within Pennsylvania for many

reasons. Farmers and low-wage workers alike that had previously struggled on

government subsidies or on dying wages from coal corporations now have a form of

consistent income (Darmstadter, 2013). Additionally, taxation of production and

consumption of natural gas and the chemical refinement into petroleum is a key source of

income for the Pennsylvania state government (Energy Facts PA, 2013).

Gas prices and the economics surrounding natural gas can be volatile; when the

market becomes diluted with natural gas, prices drop (Brown, 2008). Sometimes these

drops can be drastic, while other times more gradual (Brown, 2008) because the prices of

natural gas operate on a cycle that depends on outside factors such as political affairs,

natural disasters and the work force (EIA, 2015). The cyclical nature of natural gas prices

can be compared to larger scale economic boom and bust cycles, which adhere to what is

called the business cycle (Figure 1), with the most recent US trough occurring in 2008

after the mortgage crisis (n.p., 2008).

CapstoneReport

7

Figure 1: Phases of the Business Cyclw

Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trough.asp

Whether or not the fall in gas prices per barrel occurs over a short period or a long

period of time, it affects the entire industry. The natural gas industry is separated into

three main segments: upstream or exploration, midstream, and downstream (PSAC,

2016). Although this report will be focusing primarily on downstream, it is vital to

understand that the three systems work together and act both dependently and

independently of each other. Upstream involves extraction segment, where natural gas is

hydraulically fractured from rock formation (PSAC, 2016). Natural gas has most recently

been removed from shale rock formations in a process called hydraulic fracturing (DOE,

n.d.).

CapstoneReport

8

Midstream is the transition and transportation segment of this process (EMI,

2012). This includes any sort of transportation, although it is typically ground

transportation and pipeline transportation (EMI, 2012).

Figure 2: Pipeline construction; this is a vital part of the midstream segment Source: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20150108/keystone-fight-and-beyond-infrastructure-

energy-policy

Downstream is the final segment where natural gas reaches its final destination:

private home use, consumer use, storage and commercial use. The entire industry is

dependent upon a thriving downstream sector to continue generating revenue for the

other processes (Marten et al., 2015).

According to experts in the industry, the primary cause of natural gas price drops

are due to of the supply that is present in the downstream segment, compared to the

demand (Marten et al., 2015). When downstream is struggling to sell the quantity of

natural gas necessary to continue profits, prices go down. Although this is a measure to

encourage demand, there is typically not a response because of the elasticity of the

CapstoneReport

9

consumption of natural gas (Marten et al., 2015). Elasticity is defined as a commodity’s

necessity in day-to- day functions and the effect that price changes have on the

purchasing of that commodity (Krichene, 2002).

When prices go down upstream functions such as drilling and exploration slow

down, but do not completely halt because many corporations and business entities have

previous long-term contracts that require certain quantities of extraction. Because of this,

when the price natural gas falls, only the bare minimum of extraction occurs, leaving

many in the upstream industry without work. Pennsylvania is particularly susceptible to

this because of the amount of drilling and exploration that occurs. Pennsylvania is home

to over 4,000 well cites (Amico et al., n.d.), that employs 75,000 Pennsylvanians

(PADOLI, 2015).

The fall of natural gas prices would not be as prevalent or last as long if there

were more demand in the market; if there were more entities purchasing from the

downstream segment, the supply and demand would reach a more favorable equilibrium.

This is where PAHB1731 becomes imortant: The Keystone Energy Authority’s specific

mission would to keep the downstream sector of the industry active and invigorate

demand of petroleum in Pennsylvania through manipulation of tax codes that incentivize

continued purchasing of petroleum and natural gas (n.p., 2015).

Participating Parties

When analyzing these issues as systems many of them are interconnected. The

headings serve as a general guide for subject matter; however, each participating party is

mentioned in at least one other subsection. Understanding the bigger picture of

CapstoneReport

10

interactions between all parties in analysis of PAHB1731 and many other energy-related

policies is vital to forming an educated opinion and prohibition of the danger of a single

story.

Political

The representative presenting PAHB1731 is a member of the Pennsylvania

legislature; Representative Mike Turzai, a Republican from Allegheny County, proposed

this bill in late December and it has now been moved to the Pennsylvania Chamber of

Commerce for further review (n.p., 2015). There has been no further information

provided about the status of the bill since late 2015 (n.p., 2015). Support for this bill is a

combination of representatives from both parties, suggesting a bipartisan nature.

The recent Climate Summit that was concluded in Paris in late 2015 made

massive movements towards a more environmentally conscious global industry, but

Pennsylvania’s industry was severely injured. The agreement that President Barack

Obama has signed agreed to a deduction of coal usage by 0.5% by the year 2030 (Liptak,

2015) which has the potential to brutually damage Pennsylvania’s other main industry:

coal. Pennsylvania coal provides “$7.5 billion in economic output” and 41,500 jobs to

Pennsylvanians (PELSP, 2010), making it an integral part of Pennsylvania’s revenue.

This is not without rebuttal, however. Recently, state attorney generals in West

Virginia and Pennsylvania (whose citizens rely on the coal industry) have filed for a

block on the policy in the Supreme Court (Liptak, 2015). If this regulation is not blocked

in the Supreme Court, there will be a grave amount of loss at the state and local level

CapstoneReport

11

within Pennsylvania; this will make PAHB1731 more important because it will be a

deciding catalyst to keep industry in Pennsylvania and to keep Pennsylvanians employed.

Economics

Corporations that purchase petroleum and natural gas from Pennsylvania drilling

companies are two of the main participants that dictate the success of PAHB1731. There

will be a mutually beneficial relationship established between these two parties if

PAHB1731 is passed, however the silent beneficiary is the state.

Although the Keystone Energy Authority will be providing alternative tax options

to petroleum-consuming corporations, costing half of a million dollars per year, the

revenue generated from the expected volume of drilling in Pennsylvania will be much

higher than the costs of the Keystone Energy Authority. In 2014 Pennsylvania had natural

gas tax revenue of $223.5 million (n.p., 2015). Pennsylvania’s taxation of natural gas

drilling has been criticized, however, for forfeiting revenue and also increasing the

amount of environmentally damaging activity by not strictly taxing drilling corporations

(n.p., 2015). Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf (D) has a plan implement taxes per

trillion cubic foot of natural gas drilled as well as a severance tax, yielding “an estimated

$456 million during the next two years” (Pelzer, 2015).Although this will help pass

future budgets and aid social programs, “[o]il and gas industry groups in both states have

made the same argument: raising taxes on drillers now, when energy prices have

slumped, will cost jobs and prompt energy companies to go to other energy-producing

states” (Pelzer, 2015). This increase in taxes would effectively decrease the amount of

power and blunt the purpose of the Keystone Energy Authority.

CapstoneReport

12

Besides state revenue, Pennsylvania has an existing history of reliance on energy

economics from the residents. From booming coal towns in the early 1900s to the

renewed life that fracking has given those impoverished areas, it is one of the few

industries that exist and can continue to exist in areas that are geographically remote from

large cities and industry (Morrone and Buckley, 2011).

Hydraulic fracturing has the potential to “support 211,000 jobs” when the shale is

fully developed (Pennsylvania Fracking, n.d.). The Pennsylvania Department of Industry

predicts overall growth and continuation of job potential in the industry, but this is not

without small cycles of lay-offs and unemployment. PAHB1731’s purpose is to help

alleviate these troughs and continue the pattern of positive growth in relation to jobs in

Pennsylvania. Citizens of the state need that; for generations jobs created through the

energy industry have provided income for families at or just above the poverty line.

Fracking is giving life and renewed purpose to dying towns through corporation

headquarters and the wealth that accompanies it.

Environmental

Pennsylvania has, for a long time, allowed itself to be subject to energy

harvesting practices that deface their land and unearth the ground. The long-term effects

of the mindset that allows activities such as coal mining have become more obvious in

the last twenty years as the Pennsylvania government struggles to bring continued

economic growth to the state. Fracking brought renewed promise to legislators and

citizens alike. The Pennsylvania EPA had been absent in the regulation of drilling in the

years of Tom Corbett’s governance when the initial boom of the Marcellus occurred. The

CapstoneReport

13

Governor passed Act 13, which prevented local policy regulation and zoning of fracking

wells (McKelvey, 2015). This allowed unregulated hours of operation and environmental

digression of the drilling corporation on any land that was deemed fit for production

(McKelvey, 2015). In 2013 Act 13 was taken to the Supreme Court “on the grounds that

they violated the environmental rights amendment in the Constitution that assures clean

air and water for residents” (McKelvey, 2015); despite these concerns, the court upheld

Act 13 and it is still regulating the zoning and environmental treatment of Pennsylvania.

The federal Department of Energy (DOE), however, has been present and leading

the way in promoting fracking in Pennsylvania for sixty years (DOE, n.d.). In an article

published by the DOE, Natural Gas from Shale: Questions and Answers, it cites

relationships with fracking corporations and fracking governance boards that have

effected the development of regulation. The first well ever hydraulically fractured was

completed through a join venture of the DOE and Range Resources, a local Pennsylvania

company that has 960 wells in Pennsylvamia (Amico et al., 2015) (DOE, n.d.). The

absence of the Pennsylvania EPA and the presence of the DOE in partnership with

natural gas corporations has skewed Pennsylvania’s policies and the extent to which

research has been done about environmental impacts of fracking.

A consistent continuation of demand in the Pennsylvania fracking market will

cause more exploration and drilling. This initial process of testing for natural gas and

creating well pads is highly damaging to the ecology and habitats of the areas. The DOE

sites

• Increased fresh water consumption

• Induced seismic activity

CapstoneReport

14

• Potential ground and surface water contamination

• Air and Noise Pollution (DOE, n.d.)

as common occurrences. On a large scale, these have extremely detrimental effects to

ecosystems as a whole and on society; Figure 3 utilizes a cost-benefit analysis approach

to measure the effects of pollution and environmental damage to the economy.

Figure 3: Many of the cited dangers of fracking from the DOE are also analyzed as part of this figure, and

then weighed in terms of cost to society in 2010 dollar amounts.

Source: http://www.pennsylvaniafracking.com/economic-opportunity/

Additionally, the impacts on day-to-day human life such as water contamination,

air contamination and increased seismic activity is worrisome. It is often hard to prove

that water contamination is a direct result from fracking; in fact, the DOE has allowed the

National Petroleum Council to officially claim that there are no direct linkages to

CapstoneReport

15

hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. The claim is that the water contamination

is due to already existing methane in the ground seeping into drinking water (DOE, n.d.).

This introduces a component of environmental justice. Publications such as Mountains of

Justice (Morrone and Buckley, 2011), Fracturing of Place (Perkins, 2012), and End of

Country (McGraw, 2011) all illustrate instances of fracking causing environmental harm

and directly effecting Pennsylvania citizen’s standard of living with fresh water

contamination and property degradation. Opponents of fracking frequently cite these

injustices as reasons to end fracking in Pennsylvania, and vehemently stop increased

fracking activity caused by PAHB1731.

The DOE states that air contamination through noise, diesel fumes, and

sometimes methane is common amongst the initial stages of drilling (DOE, n.d.). With

this information and the understanding that chemicals such as methane cause climate

change, it can be difficult to ignore the environmental impacts of fracking.

Additionally, the prospective of increased seismic activity, or increased threat of

earthquakes because of the damage to the geologic make-up of the ground is a serious

concern (DOE, n.d.). Other, similar threats already exist and have been documented in

areas such as Texas, which have been home to fracking since the 1940’s (McGraw,

2011). It is hard to prove without a doubt that fracking does lead to increased seismic

activity (DOE, n.d.), however, the potential threat of increased seismic activity is

something to at least consider when considering the prospect of increased drilling in

Pennsylvania.

In a piece written for EnergyInDepth.org, Nicole Jacobs, a resident of

Pennsylvania, dismisses the relationship between seismic disturbances and fracking

CapstoneReport

16

through usage of Seismology Research Letters (2011) and research conducted by the

USGS (Jacobs, 2015). Despite this research, it is impossible to either prove or disprove

the seismic effects that fracking in Pennsylvania will have because each shale play

contains different geological factors which necessitate different practices and therefore

different reactions from the geologic formations (Kondash et al., 2014). Despite this

research, it is important to note the potential for seismic activity and the effects of

manipulation of geologic structures.

Societal

The generational reliance on the jobs created by energy industries in Pennsylvania

is strongly withstanding the test of time. Although the income for blue collar families has

been steady for a long time, the accompanying environmental injustices and the stagnant

mindset of energy development and investment concepts is plaguing and negative if there

is any hope for Pennsylvania’s future energy portfolio to be diversified between soft and

hard energy paths. A study of neo-liberalism in Pennsylvania’s fracking industry

analyzed the relationship between fracking and farmers: “[f]armers’ roles as land-use

decision-makers make them uniquely attuned to fracking’s uncertain socio-environmental

outcomes, even as their economic vulnerability makes industry growth seem fortuitous.

This is particularly the case for marginalized small-scale farmers, who contend with

pressures of poverty, land stewardship, and exclusion from agricultural subsidies”

(Malin, 2013). The vulnerability but also imparitive position as mineral rights owners

makes farmers and family farms a keystone in the industrial function of fracking.

CapstoneReport

17

Conversely, fracking provides a solid standard of living for those who are

employed by Pennsylvania’s industry. From upstream to downstream and all of the

required production industry in-between, jobs are created and workers are necessary. It is

estimated that the average worker employed by a corporation that fracks in Pennsylvania

makes $62,000 per year (Pennsylvania Fracking, n.d.), “which is around $20,000 higher

than the state average” (Pennsylvania Fracking, n.d.). The omni-present opportunities for

laborers and mineral rights owners alike makes fracking a unique industry that provides

great potential for revenue and support.

Long-Term Effects

Political Long-Term Effects

PAHB1731 may be small in terms of costs, but the precedent of future energy

source reliance will be established if this bill is signed into law. The political governance

that will enrapture Pennsylvania if PAHB1731 will be one of reliance on fracking as a

producer of income, jobs, and energy. This will not only take away from future potential

Pennsylvania State Government funding for alternative energies, but it reduces the

chances of additional fracking legislation.

Although fracking is seen as the most efficient way to remove hydro-carbon from

shale at this point in time (DOE, n.d.), natural gas may not be the most efficient form of

energy in the future and fracking may not be the best dominating investment to make in

the present. It is obviously impossible to predict these trends, but according to Barry

Rabe, diversifying energy portfolio investments is the best strategy to being prepared in

CapstoneReport

18

the long-term (Rabe, 2013). PAHB1731 retards this preparedness through consumption

of financial, temporal and interpersonal resources.

Pennsylvania has a history of hard energy path investments, mainly coal in the

20th century. The 21st century has the potential to be known as a time of progressive

policies and thinking within Pennsylvania, and PAHB1731 is preventing that by

continually relying on the safety of fracking and not passively allowing the industry to

run its course while being proactive and investing in developing technologies for the

future.

Economic Long-Term Effects

Proponents

Within the next 8 years, PAHB1731 has the potential to keep jobs and revenue

within Pennsylvania through tax breaks and continued consumption of natural gas that is

fracked and then refined in Pennsylvania. These are all positives for the present and the

future of Pennsylvania’s state budget. The majority of the $223.5 million per year from

natural gas severance tax revenue contributes to “balancing the state’s budget and

spending deficit” (Energy Facts PA, 2013). According to the Marcellus Shale Coalition,

“All of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties will receive a portion of the $223.5 million generated

in 2014 from the state’s natural gas impact tax… that directly benefit communities –

including those without drilling activity” (Marcellus Shale Coalition, 2015).

Exploration and drilling new wells would contribute to this tax revenue, with the

addition of a new proposed tax from Govonor Wolf: “ [he] wants the state’s natural gas

drillers to pay a 6.5 percent tax on Marcellus Shale production, which he estimates will

CapstoneReport

19

bring in $217.8 million dollars for fiscal year 2016/2017 to the general fund” (Phillips,

2016). This would be a large factor contributing to the balancing of the state’s budget for

years to come.

Opponents

The ‘natural resource curse’ or the economic impacts of places with significant

natural resources for economic use deems the US natural gas industry as “a negative

determinate of economic growth” (Barth, 2013). Many of the studies that have been

conducted on the positive effects of fracking on economic growth have been funded by

the industry for positive results (Barth, 2013). Economic Impact of Shale Gas

Development investigated the long-term effects of the boom and bust cycle and

concluded that generally areas are equal to the state of wealth that they were before or

worse off (Barth, 2013). This article cites a Pennsylvania-specific example of coal: “for

each 10 jobs produced in the coal sector during the boom, we estimate that fewer than 2

jobs were produced in the local-good sectors of construction, retail and services” (Barth,

2013). The comparison is drawn to the petroleum industry through a study of fracking in

Louisiana and found that “improvements can be lost as early as the second or third year

after an increase in petroleum activity and will be lost during the bust if not sooner”

(Barth, 2013).

In conclusion, economic development is highly contested. The strongest

economic arguments in favor of fracking stem from the creation of jobs, but many

question how many jobs the market actually creates. As Jeanette Barth explored in her

publication (2013), the long-term effects are deceptively equal or worse the prior state

CapstoneReport

20

and standard of living within areas that are effected. In the short term, the outlook for

employment looks positive, and the job loss that Barth explores is the exact issue which

the Keystone Energy Authority would work to marginalize or eliminate, making fracking

a steadier job within Pennsylvania.

Environmental Long-Term Effects

Many of the present environmental dangers of fracking were previously discussed

in this paper. On a larger scale all of those negative repercussions have long-term effects

on the entire state. Pennsylvania is home to 45 indigenous species of flora (Rhoades and

Klien, 1993) and 64 species of fauna (PA Game Commission, 2001). Pennsylvania’s

ecosystem is unique; it is classified as an Eastern Deciduous Forest region (Rhoades and

Kline, 1993), as many of the neighboring states such as New York, New Jersey,

Maryland, and Ohio are. These species are critical to the equilibrium of the Pennsylvania

landscape as we know it.

According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), “Natural gas drilling activity is

destroying thousands of acres of forest in Pennsylvania” (USGS, 2012). In a comparison

to logging and agriculture, fracking had the worst impact and the overall predicted most

harmful long-term impacts (USGS, 2012). Because of the geographic location of

fracking, the majority of danger “stems from fragmentation of the existing forest, where a

habitat is divided by roads, drilling pads, pipelines and other infrastructure development

associated with fracking into smaller, less functional areas” (USGS, 2012). The report

presented by the USGS concludes that the forests have drastically been altered by the

presence of fracking. A study conducted through Swathmore College in Pennsylvania

concluded that the long-term effects of this habitat fragmentation are difficult to predict

CapstoneReport

21

and specify, however, “[f]ragmentation has complex impacts on ecosystems, but

generally cause changes to environmental variables such as wind patterns, sunlight

fluxes, water regime, and nutrient levels” (n.p., 2009). The study also cited one of the

greatest impacts being on migratory birds (n.p., 2009), some of which play critical roles

in Pennsylvania biodiversity such as Geese. Disrupting key elements of Pennsylvania’s

biodiversity will present extremely negative long-term effects that will not only effect the

natural gas industry, but others such as agriculture as well.

Water contamination has been the most highly contested danger of fracking. In a

study done by Stony Brook University, the most probable avenues of water

contamination from fracking are: “transportation spills, well casing leaks, leaks through

fractured rock, drilling site discharge, and wastewater disposal” (Rozell, 2011). The same

study created a probability equation to model the probability of water contamination per

well site based on the above avenues. The conclusion of this study resulted in the

prediction that per 40,000 wells (Pennsylvania has 17,462 (MGOrg, 2016)) the amount of

contamination would be enough to “fill a few thousand Olympic sized swimming pools”

(Rozell, 2011). Rozell recommends that precautions and additional safety in the fracking

procedure be implemented to avoid future risk, which he considers substantial (2011).

Another study published by the International Weekly Journal of Science in 2011

entitled Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop? Investigated the risk of water pollution and

concluded that “[n]atural gas extracted from shale comes at too great a cost to the

environment” (Howarth et al., 2011). The reasons being that

“[t]he real risk of water contamination comes from these flowback fluids leaking

into streams or seeping down into groundwater after reaching the surface. This

CapstoneReport

22

can be caused by leaky wellheads, holding tanks or blowouts. Wellheads are made

sufficiently safe to prevent this eventuality; holding tanks can be made secure;

and blowouts, while problematic, are like all accidents caused by human error —

an unpredictable risk with which society lives” (Howarth et al., 2011).

This is a concern that has been proven to not be able to be controlled, and the risk to

private properties and ecosystems alike is reason to not support PAHB1731.

Decreasing methane emissions is a large step for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions and slowing the process of climate change. Supporters of fracking label it as a

cleaner alternative to coal or oil; however, in another study published by Robert Howarth

in 2014, he concludes that “both shale gas and conventional natural gas have a larger

GHG than do coal or oil” (Howarth, 2014).

CapstoneReport

23

Figure 4: Numerical Comparisons of Methane emissions between three prevelant sources of

energy, two of which are harvested from Pennsylvania.

Source: Natural Gas, Should Fracking Stop?

Howarth continues to weigh this into the longer-term picture of climate change: “for any

possible use of natural gas and particularly for the primary uses of residential and

commercial heating. The 20-year time period is appropriate because of the urgent need to

reduce methane emissions over the coming 15–35 years” (Howarth, 2014). Howarth’s

other publication, Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop? conducted a numerical analysis of

the amount of methane released in the lifecycle from well to consumer use, and an

estimated “3.6–7.9% of the lifetime production of a shale gas well (compared with 1.7–

6% for conventional gas wells) is vented or leaked to the atmosphere from the well head,

pipelines and storage facilities” (Howarth et al., 2011). Not only is it numerically proven

that natural gas releases more methane than conventional gas, but it also releases carbon

dioxide in combustion cycles such as burning for heat (Howarth et al., 2011). PAHB1731

would increase the consumption of natural gas, which would contribute to climate change

through the releasing of methane in the initial drilling of the well, but also the usage in

the downstream sector such as utilities.

Social Long-Term Effects

Many of the long-term social effects stem are intertwined with the economic and

environmental long-term effects. There are two camps of those effected by fracking:

those who will be negatively effected through repercussions such as personal property

damage, and those who are employed or receive continual benefits from that very same

source of negative repercussions. The small geographic area in which this has played out

CapstoneReport

24

and will play out creates a fascinating landscape of relationships between those as close

as being in the same family.

Additionally, it is very easy for residents of Pennsylvania to initially reap benefits

such as royalty checks from land usage and drilling on property, and then in the long-

term be worse off. Many of these stories have been published: well water pollution, noise

pollution, and loss of property value and some of the main subjects of these stories. A

very popular documentary, Gas Land, recounts the personal stories of individuals and

families that can light their water aflame. Unfortunately for this same group of people, it

is typically very hard to prove damages if prior testing of water is not done (which it is

usually not) (Fox, 2010). Although in 2011 Pennsylvania instated stricter standards for

well-casings so no leaking occurs, if it does, the polluted water is exempt from the

protection of The Clean Water Act (Holzman, 2011). The danger of increased fracking

activity in Pennsylvania, as PAHB1731 will catalyze, is the lack of regulation and

supervision that will be upheld while this is done. If more regulation were to be

implemented that would protect environmental resources, ecosystems, and landowners,

there would be greater success for the industry in the long run in Pennsylvania.

Targets and Goals

The Keystone Energy Authority is granted $500,000 per fiscal year (n.p.,2015)

that “designate at maximum 20 zones of impoverished areas not exceeding 500 acres and

utilize tools such as tax abatements, deductions or credits for qualifying entities”

(n.p.,2015). To be considered for these incentives, companies must submit a solid

reasoning and promise for the keeping or creation of jobs (n.p.,2015). The purpose or

CapstoneReport

25

goal of this is to alleviate the aches of downturned natural gas prices in areas that have

had severely negative effects through the manipulation of tax regulations. Preventing job

loss and facilitating the long-term job growth that research has deemed unsustainable

previously due to the unpredictable nature of the market is the main goal of the Keystone

Energy Authority.

Conclusion

The purpose of The Keystone Energy Authority is to encourage the continued

consumption of fossil fuels in Pennsylvania markets. The measurement of success of this

legislation relies in job security, job creation, increased demand for petroleum products,

and continuation of profits for natural gas companies in Pennsylvania.

The effects of The Keystone Energy Authority are directly measured through its

beneficiaries: petroleum producers and consumers within Pennsylvania, those who own

the land rights on Pennsylvania property, and those who have jobs within the industry.

Indirect parties that are affected are the future generations of Pennsylvanians that must

cope with the effects of a hard path developed energy portfolio. Some may argue that this

is not a method of sustainable energy development for Pennsylvania, and would instead

support a more diversified energy investment portfolio (of hard and soft energy paths) or

the investments of the funds of the Keystone Energy Authority over the next 8 years to be

put into other energy and development projects.

Although the goals of the legislation are well within reach, the environmental and

political effects in the long term may be enough to make representatives and yourself

think twice before supporting it. Pennsylvania has seen various energy boom and busts-

CapstoneReport

26

from coal now to natural gas, and the remnants on the environment, on the populous, and

on the legislators’ points of views clearly reflect this.

CapstoneReport

27

Works Cited

Amico, C., DeBelius, D., Detrow, S., & Stiles, M. (2015). Pennsylvania fracking map | NPR StateImpact. Retrieved April 6, 2016, from http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/drilling/ Barth, J. M. (2013). The economic impact of shale gas development on state and local economies: Benefits, costs, and uncertainties. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 23(1), 85-101. Brown, S. P., & Yücel, M. K. (2008). Deliverability and regional pricing in US natural gas markets. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2441-2453. Buckley, G. L., & Morrone, M. (2011). Mountains of Injustice: Social and Environmental Justice in Appalachia. Ohio State University Press. Darmstadter, J. (2013). The controversy over US coal and natural gas exports. Issue brief, 13(01). Department of Energy. (n.d.). Natural Gas from Shale: Questions and Answers. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://energy.gov/fe/downloads/natural-gas-shale-questions-and-answers Energy Facts PA. (2013). Natural Gas. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://energyfactspa.com/natural-gas/ Energy Information Administration. (2007). An Analysis of Price Volatility in Natural Gas Markets. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from https://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2007/ngprivolatility/ngprivolatility.pdf. Energy Management Institute. (2012). "Missing Course." Course Detail. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from http://www.energyinstitution.org/education/course-detail.php?filterby=. Fox, J. (Director). (2010). Gas Land [Motion picture on DVD]. United States: Independent. Holzman, D. C. (2011). Methane found in well water near fracking sites. Environmental health perspectives, 119(7), a289. Howarth, R. W. (2014). A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering, 2(2), 47-60. Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. (2011). Natural gas: Should fracking stop?. Nature, 477(7364), 271-275.

CapstoneReport

28

Huber, M. T. (2011) Enforcing scarcity: Oil, violence, and the making of the market. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(4), 816-826. Jacobs, Nicole. (10 June 2015). Geologists Set the Record Straight on Earthquakes, Injection, and Fracking. Energy In Depth. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from http://energyindepth.org/national/geologists-set-record-straight-earthquakes-injection-fracking/. Krichene, N. (2002). World crude oil and natural gas: a demand and supply model. Energy economics, 24(6), 557-576. OECD. (1999). Energy: The Next 50 Years. Retrieved April 6, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/futures/17738498.pdf M. (2012, October 24). U.S. Geological Survey: Natural Gas Fracking Is Destroying Pennsylvania Forests - Natural Gas Watch.org. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?p=1565 Malin, S. (2014). There’s no real choice but to sign: neoliberalization and normalization of hydraulic fracturing on Pennsylvania farmland. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 4(1), 17-27. PSAC. (2016). Industry Overview. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://www.psac.ca/business/industry-overview/ Marcellus Shale Coalition. (2015, June 11). Natural Gas Impact Taxes Generate $223.5M for Pa. Communities, State Programs. Retrieved April 04, 2016, from http://marcelluscoalition.org/2015/06/natural-gas-impact-taxes-generate-223-5m-for-pa-communities-state-programs/ McGraw, S. (2011) The End of Country. Huffing Gas. New York: Random House. 90-106. Print. MGOrg. (2016, April 2). MarcellusGas.Org Home Page. Retrieved April 04, 2016, from https://www.marcellusgas.org/ Rozell, D. J., & Reaven, S. J. (2012). Water pollution risk associated with natural gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale. Risk Analysis, 32(8), 1382-1393. Swarthmore College. (2009). Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://www.swarthmore.edu/environmental-studies-capstone/habitat-destruction-and-fragmentation Rhoads, A. F., & Klein, W. M. (1993). The vascular flora of Pennsylvania: annotated checklist and atlas (Vol. 207). American Philosophical Society.

CapstoneReport

29

PA - HB1731 | TrackBill. (2015). Retrieved April 06, 2016, from https://trackbill.com/bill/pa-hb1731-an-act-establishing-the-keystone-energy-authority-and-providing-for-the-designation-of-keystone-energy-enhancement-zones/1209127/?ab=ce8b023692699933a6d2225fd14f19df

Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (PADOLI). (2015). Marcellus Update. Online PDF. Retrieved March 16, 2015. Pennsylvania Game Commission. (n.d.). Wildlife. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/wildlife/9109 Pelzer, J. (2015, November 02). Like Ohio, Pennsylvania embroiled in political fight over fracking taxes. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/11/like_ohio_pennsylvania_embroil.html Perkins, N. (2012, November 02). The Fracturing of Place: The Regulation of Marcellus Shale Development and the Subordination of Local Experience. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/256040939_The_Fracturing_of_Place_The_Regulation_of_Marcellus_Shale_Development_and_the_Subordination_of_Local_Experience Phillips, S. (2016, February 09). Wolf proposes 6.5 percent tax on Marcellus Shale. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2016/02/09/wolf-proposes-6-5-percent-tax-on-marcellus-shale/ Ranken Energy. (n.d.) "A Partial List of Products Made from Petroleum.” http://www.ranken-energy.com/products from petroleum.htm. Lovins, A. (1976).Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1976-10-01/energy-strategy-road-not-taken. Rabe, B. (2006). Race to the top: The expanding role of US state renewable portfolio standards. Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y, 7, 10.

Kondash, Andrew, Warner, Mathaniel, Lahav, Ori, Vengosh, Avner. (2014). Radium and Barium Removal through Blending Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids with Acid Mine Drainage. American Chemical Society; Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 48, No. 1. Print.

Martén, I, Jamie Ruiz-Cabrero,, and Mathieu Zajdela.(2015). The Impact of Low Oil Prices on Downstream Oil. Www.bcgperspectives.com.

CapstoneReport

30

Natural Gas Impact Taxes Generate $223.5M for Pa. Communities, State Programs. (2015, June 11). Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://marcelluscoalition.org/2015/06/natural-gas-impact-taxes-generate-223-5m-for-pa-communities-state-programs/

N.p.. (2008). Subprime Mortgage Crisis. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from UNC Stat Department.

Liptak, A., & Davenport, C. (2016). Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?_r=1

W. M. (2015, October 21). Act 13 on Marcellus Shale: What is it and why you should care. Retrieved April 06, 2016, from http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/10/act_13_what_is_it_and_why_shou.html

CapstoneReport

31