1932

Abstract

The extraction of unconventional oil and gas—from shale rocks, tight sand, and coalbed formations—is shifting the geographies of fossil fuel production, with complex consequences. Following Jackson et al.’s (1) natural science survey of the environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing, this review examines social science literature on unconventional energy. After an overview of the rise of unconventional energy, the review examines energy economics and geopolitics, community mobilization, and state and private regulatory responses. Unconventional energy requires different frames of analysis than conventional energy because of three characteristics: increased drilling density, low-carbon and “clean” energy narratives of natural gas, and distinct ownership and royalty structures. This review points to the need for an interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the resulting dynamic, multilevel web of relationships that implicates land, water, food, and climate. Furthermore, the review highlights how scholarship on unconventional energy informs the broader energy landscape and contested energy futures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061102
2017-10-17
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/42/1/annurev-environ-102016-061102.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061102&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Jackson RB, Vengosh A, Carey JW, Davies RJ, Darrah TH. 1.  et al. 2014. The environmental costs and benefits of fracking. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39:327–62 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. US Environ. Protect. Agency (EPA). 2016. Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas: impacts from the hydraulic fracturing water cycle on drinking water resources in the United States Rep. EPA-600-R-16-236Fa, Washington, DC: EPA Off. Res. Dev. https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy [Google Scholar]
  3. Lave R, Lutz B. 3.  2014. Hydraulic fracturing: a critical physical geography review. Geogr. Compass 8:10739–54 [Google Scholar]
  4. Hays J, Shonkoff SBC. 4.  2016. Toward an understanding of the environmental and public health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: a categorical assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, 2009–2015. PlosOne 11:4e0154164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154164 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Small MJ, Stern PC, Bomberg E, Christopherson SM, Goldstein BD. 5.  et al. 2014. Risks and risk governance in unconventional shale gas development. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:8289–97 [Google Scholar]
  6. Jacquet JB. 6.  2014. Review of risks to communities from shale energy development. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:158321–33 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clarke CE, Evensen DTN, Jacquet J, Stedman RC. 7.  2012. Emerging risk communication challenges associated with shale gas development. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 3:424–30 [Google Scholar]
  8. Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N, Darrah TH, Kondash A. 8.  2014. A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:158334–48 [Google Scholar]
  9. Wheeler D, MacGregor M, Atherton F, Christmas K, Dalton S. 9.  et al. 2015. Hydraulic fracturing—integrating public participation with an independent review of the risks and benefits. Energy Policy 85:299–308 [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. Council of Canadian Academies. 2014. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada. The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction. Ottawa: Counc. Can. Acad http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments and publications and news releases/shale gas/shalegas_fullreporten.pdf
  11. 11. Academy of Science of South Africa. 2016. South Africa's technical readiness to support the shale gas industry Rep., Acad. Sci. S. Afr., Pretoria, S. Afr. http://research.assaf.org.za/handle/20.500.11911/14 [Google Scholar]
  12. Willow AJ, Zak R, Vilaplana D, Sheeley D. 12.  2014. The contested landscape of unconventional energy development: a report from Ohio's shale gas country. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4:56–64 [Google Scholar]
  13. Davis C, Hoffer K. 13.  2012. Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking. Policy Sci 45:221–41 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gamper-Rabindran S. 14.  2017. Conclusion: How and why countries decide on shale and how they can make better decisions. The Shale Dilemma: A Global Perspective on Fracking and Shale Development S Gamper-Rabindran Pittsburgh: Univ. Pittsburgh Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Sovacool BK. 15.  2014. Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 37:249–64 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldthau A. 16.  2016. Conceptualizing the above ground factors in shale gas: toward a research agenda on regulatory governance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:73–81 [Google Scholar]
  17. Evensen D, Jacquet JB, Clarke CE, Stedman RC. 17.  2014. What's the ‘fracking’ problem? One word can't say it all. Extr. Ind. Soc. 1:130–36 [Google Scholar]
  18. Weinthal E, Vengosh A, Neville KJ. 18.  2017. The nexus of energy and water quality. Oxford Handbook on Water Politics and Policy K Conca, E Weinthal Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199335084.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199335084-e-26 [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2017. Annual Energy Outlook 2017: With Projections to 2050 Washington, DC: EIA https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2017).pdf [Google Scholar]
  20. Radetzki M. 20.  2010. Peak Oil and other threatening peaks—Chimeras without substance. Energy Policy 38:6566–69 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kilian L. 21.  2016. The impact of the shale oil revolution on U.S. oil and gasoline prices. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10:2185–205 [Google Scholar]
  22. Aguilera RF. 22.  2014. Production costs of global conventional and unconventional petroleum. Energy Policy 64:134–40 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hughes JD. 23.  2014. Drilling deeper: a reality check on US government forecasts for a lasting tight oil and shale gas boom Rep., Post Carbon Inst. http://www.postcarbon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Drilling-Deeper_FULL.pdf [Google Scholar]
  24. Braziel R. 24.  2015. The dynamic energy landscape: natural gas in the US Presented at US Assoc. Energy Econ. Conf., Pittsbg., PA, Oct. 26. http://www.usaee.org/usaee2015/submissions/presentations/Rusty%20Braziel-RBN-USAEE-151026-rb.pdf [Google Scholar]
  25. Kondash AJ, Albright E, Vengosh A. 25.  2017. Quantity of flowback and produced waters from unconventional oil and gas exploration. Sci. Total Environ. 574:314–21 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kondash A, Vengosh A. 26.  2015. Water footprint of hydraulic fracturing. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2:276–80 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lauer NE, Harkness JS, Vengosh A. 27.  2016. Brine spills associated with unconventional oil development in North Dakota. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50:105389–97 [Google Scholar]
  28. Richardson T, Weszkalnys G. 28.  2014. Resource materialities. Anthropol. Q. 87:15–30 [Google Scholar]
  29. Huber M. 29.  2015. Theorizing energy geographies. Geogr. Compass 9:6327–38 [Google Scholar]
  30. Florini A, Sovacool BK. 30.  2011. Bridging the gaps in global energy governance. Glob. Gov. 17:57–74 [Google Scholar]
  31. Balsiger J, VanDeveer SD. 31.  2012. Navigating regional environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 12:31–17 [Google Scholar]
  32. Short D, Elliot J, Norder K, Lloyd-Davies E, Morley J. 32.  2015. Extreme energy, “fracking” and human rights: A new field for human rights impact assessments?. Int. J. Hum. Rights 19:6697–736 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kaldor M, Karl TL, Said Y. 33. , eds. 2007. Oil Wars London: Pluto Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Ross ML. 34.  2015. What have we learned about the resource curse?. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 18:239–59 [Google Scholar]
  35. Godzimirski JM. 35.  2016. Can the Polish shale gas dog still bark? Politics and policy of unconventional hydrocarbons in Poland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:158–67 [Google Scholar]
  36. Adamus W, Florkowski WJ. 36.  2016. The evolution of shale gas development and energy security in Poland: presenting a hierarchical choice of priorities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:168–78 [Google Scholar]
  37. McGowan F. 37.  2014. Regulating innovation: European responses to shale gas development. Environ. Polit. 23:141–58 [Google Scholar]
  38. Feng B. 38.  2015. China backpedals on shale gas. Chem. Eng. News 93:22–23 [Google Scholar]
  39. Yu M, Weinthal E, Patiño-Echeverri D, Deshusses MA, Zou C. 39.  et al. 2016. Water availability for shale gas development in Sichuan Basin, China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50:62837–45 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lozano-Maya JR. 40.  2016. Looking through the prism of shale gas development: towards a holistic framework for analysis. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:63–72 [Google Scholar]
  41. Newell RG, Qian Y, Raimi D. 41.  2016. Global energy outlook 2015 NBER Work. Pap. 22075. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22075 [Google Scholar]
  42. Knittel CR, Metaxoglou K, Trindade A. 42.  2015. Natural gas prices and coal displacement: evidence from electricity markets NBER Work. Pap. 21627. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21627.pdf [Google Scholar]
  43. Hausman C, Kellogg R. 43.  2015. Welfare and distributional implications of shale gas. Brookings Pap. Econ. Act. 2015:71–125 [Google Scholar]
  44. Baily MN, Bosworth BP. 44.  2014. US manufacturing: understanding its past and its potential future. J. Econ. Perspect. 28:13–26 [Google Scholar]
  45. Newell RG, Raimi D. 45.  2014. Implications of shale gas development for climate change. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:158360–68 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mason CF, Muehlenbachs LA, Olmstead SM. 46.  2015. The economics of shale gas development. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 7:269–89 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kelsey TW, Partridge MD, White NE. 47.  2016. Unconventional gas and oil development in the United States: Economic experience and policy issues. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 38:2191–214 [Google Scholar]
  48. Bradshaw M, Dutton J, Bridge G. 48.  2015. The geopolitical economy of a globalizing gas market. Global Energy: Issues, Potentials and Policy Implications P Ekins, M Bradshaw, J Watson Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  49. Broderick J, Anderson K. 49.  2012. Has US shale gas reduced CO2 emissions? Examining recent changes in emissions from the US power sector and traded fossil fuels Rep. Tyndall. Cent. Clim. Change Res., Univ. Manch., http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/broderick_and_anderson_2012_impact_of_shale_gas_on_us_energy_and_emissions.pdf [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. Medlock III KB. 2011. Impact of shale gas development on global gas markets. Nat. Gas Electr. 27:922–28 [Google Scholar]
  51. Borenstein S, Kellogg R. 51.  2014. The incidence of an oil glut: Who benefits from cheap crude oil in the Midwest?. Energy J 35:Jan15–33 [Google Scholar]
  52. Badel A, McGillicuddy J. 52.  2015. Oil prices and inflation expectations: Is there a link?. Reg. Econ. (Fed. Reserve Bank St. LouisJuly 12–13 https://www.stlouisfed.org/∼/media/Publications/Regional%20Economist/2015/July/Oil.pdf [Google Scholar]
  53. Baffes J, Kose MA, Ohnsorge F, Stocker M. 53.  2015. The great plunge in oil prices: causes, consequences, and policy responses SSRN Work. Pap. 2624398. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2624398 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Baumeister C, Kilian L. 54.  2016. Understanding the decline in the price of oil since June 2014 CESifo Work. Pap. 5755 http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/cesceswps/_5f5755.htm [Google Scholar]
  55. Selley RC, van der Spuy D. 55.  2016. The oil and gas basins of Africa. Episodes: J. Int. Geosci. 39:429–45 [Google Scholar]
  56. Layachi A. 56.  2013. The changing geopolitics of natural gas: the case of Algeria Work Pap., Belfer Cent., Harv. Univ., Cambridge, MA/Baker Inst., Rice Univ., Houston, TX. http://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/Research/5b21ebcc/CES-pub-GeoGasAlgeria-110113.pdf [Google Scholar]
  57. Boersma T, Vandendriessche M, Leber A. 57.  2015. Shale gas in Algeria: no quick fix Policy Brief 15–01 Brookings Inst Washington, DC: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/no_quick_fix_final-2.pdf [Google Scholar]
  58. Rafey W, Sovacool BK. 58.  2011. Competing discourses of energy development: the implications of the Medupi coal-fired power plant in South Africa. Glob. Environ. Change 21:31141–51 [Google Scholar]
  59. Baker L, Newell P, Phillips J. 59.  2014. The political economy of energy transitions: the case of South Africa. New Polit. Econ. 19:6791–818 [Google Scholar]
  60. Bazilian M, Hobbs BF, Blyth W, MacGill I, Howells M. 60.  2011. Interactions between energy security and climate change: a focus on developing countries. Energy Policy 39:63750–56 [Google Scholar]
  61. Di Muzio T. 61.  2012. Capitalizing a future unsustainable: finance, energy and the fate of market civilization. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 19:363–88 [Google Scholar]
  62. Mazur A. 62.  2016. How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010–2012?. Public Underst. Sci. 25:2207–22 [Google Scholar]
  63. Burnham A, Han J, Clark CE, Wang M, Dunn JB, Palou-Rivera I. 63.  2012. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas, natural gas, coal, and petroleum. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:619–27 [Google Scholar]
  64. Poole A, Hudgins A. 64.  2014. “I care more about this place, because I fought for it”: Exploring the political ecology of fracking in an ethnographic field school. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4:37–46 [Google Scholar]
  65. Neville KJ, Weinthal E. 65.  2016. Mitigating mistrust? Participation and expertise in hydraulic fracturing governance. Rev. Policy Res. 33:6578–602 [Google Scholar]
  66. Venturini T, Ricci D, Mauri M, Kimbell L, Meunier A. 66.  2015. Designing controversies and their publics. DesignIssues 31:374–87 [Google Scholar]
  67. Zink V, Eaton E. 67.  2016. Fault Lines: Life and Landscape in Saskatchewan's Oil Economy Winnipeg: Univ. Manitoba Press [Google Scholar]
  68. Nikiforuk A. 68.  2015. Slick Water: Fracking and One Insider's Stand Against the World's Most Powerful Industry Vancouver, BC, Can./Berkeley, CA, USA: Greystone Books [Google Scholar]
  69. Rodríguez SMS. 69.  2015. Global Resistance to Fracking: Communities Rise Up to Fight Climate Crisis and Democratic Deficit Madrid, Sp.: Libros en Acción [Google Scholar]
  70. Hutton D. 70.  2012. Lessons learned from the Lock the Gate movement. Soc. Altern. 31:115–19 [Google Scholar]
  71. Moore ML, von der Porten S, Castleden H. 71.  2017. Consultation is not consent: hydraulic fracturing and water governance on Indigenous lands in Canada. WIREs Water 4:1e1180 http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WAT21180.html [Google Scholar]
  72. Kinniburgh C. 72.  2015. From Zuccotti Park to Żurawlów: the global revolt against fracking. Dissent 63:342–52 [Google Scholar]
  73. Harkness JS, Darrah TH, Warner NR, Whyte CJ, Moore MT. 73.  et al. 2017. The geochemistry of naturally occurring methane and saline groundwater in an area of unconventional shale gas development. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 208:302–34 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hudgins A, Poole A. 74.  2014. Framing fracking: private property, common resources, and regimes of governance. J. Polit. Ecol. 21:303–15 [Google Scholar]
  75. Bassey N. 75.  2012. Leaving the oil in the soil—communities connecting to resist oil extraction and climate change. Dev. Dialogue III:Clim., Dev. Equity332–39 [Google Scholar]
  76. Savino L. 76.  2016. Landscapes of contrast: the neo-extractivist state and indigenous peoples in “post-neoliberal” Argentina. Extr. Ind. Soc. 3:404–15 [Google Scholar]
  77. Bomberg E. 77.  2015. Shale we drill? Discourse dynamics in UK fracking debates. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 19:172–88 [Google Scholar]
  78. Cotton M, Rattle I, Van Alstine J. 78.  2014. Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: an argumentative discourse analysis. Energy Policy 73:427–38 [Google Scholar]
  79. Wright M. 79.  2013. Making it personal: how anti-fracking organizations frame their messages. Columbia U. J. Polit. Soc. 24:105–23 [Google Scholar]
  80. Andrews E, McCarthy J. 80.  2014. Scale, shale, and the state: political ecologies and legal geographies of shale gas development in Pennsylvania. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4:7–16 [Google Scholar]
  81. Hilson C. 81.  2014. Framing fracking: Which frames are heard in English planning and environmental policy and practice?. J. Environ. Law 27:177–202 [Google Scholar]
  82. Ladd AE. 82.  2014. Environmental disputes and opportunity-threat impacts surrounding natural gas fracking in Louisiana. Soc. Curr. 1:3293–311 [Google Scholar]
  83. Graham JD, Rupp JA, Schenk O. 83.  2015. Unconventional gas development in the USA: exploring the risk perception issues. Risk Anal 35:101770–88 [Google Scholar]
  84. Hopke JE. 84.  2015. Hashtagging politics: transnational anti-fracking movement Twitter practices. Soc. Media Soc. 1:21–12 [Google Scholar]
  85. Cook J. 85.  2012. Political action through environmental shareholder resolution filing: Applicability to Canadian Oil Sands?. J. Sust. Finance Invest. 2:126–43 [Google Scholar]
  86. Vasi IB, Walker ET, Johnson JS, Tand HF. 86.  2015. “No fracking way!” Documentary film, discursive opportunity, and local opposition against hydraulic fracturing in the United States, 2010 to 2013. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:5934–59 [Google Scholar]
  87. Theodori GL, Luloff AE, Willits FK, Burnett DB. 87.  2014. Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of frac flowback waters: views from the public in the Marcellus Shale. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2:66–74 [Google Scholar]
  88. McAdam D, Boudet HS. 88.  2012. Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000–2005 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  89. McCarthy J. 89.  2005. Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in environmental governance. Antipode 37:4731–53 [Google Scholar]
  90. Neville KJ, Weinthal E. 90.  2016. Scaling up site disputes: strategies to redefine “local” in the fight against fracking. Environ. Polit. 25:4569–92 [Google Scholar]
  91. Pearson TW. 91.  2016. Frac sand mining and the disruption of place, landscape, and community in Wisconsin. Hum. Organ. 75:147–58 [Google Scholar]
  92. De Rijke K. 92.  2013. Coal seam gas and social impact assessment: an anthropological contribution to current debates and practices. J. Econ. Soc. Policy 15:33 [Google Scholar]
  93. Ladd AE. 93.  2013. Stakeholder perceptions of socioenvironmental impacts from unconventional natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the Haynesville Shale. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 28:256–89 [Google Scholar]
  94. Kinchy A, Parks S, Jalbert K. 94.  2015. Fractured knowledge: mapping the gaps in public and private water monitoring efforts in areas affected by shale gas development. Environ. Plann. C 34:5879–99 [Google Scholar]
  95. Costello RA. 95.  2014. Reviving Rylands: how the doctrine could be used to claim compensation for environmental damages caused by fracking. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 23:1134–43 [Google Scholar]
  96. Jaspal R, Nerlich B, Lemancyzk S. 96.  2014. Fracking in the Polish press: geopolitics and national identity. Energy Policy 74:253–61 [Google Scholar]
  97. Eaton E, Kinchy A. 97.  2016. Quiet voices in the fracking debate: ambivalence, nonmobilization, and individual action in two extractive communities (Saskatchewan and Pennsylvania). Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:22–30 [Google Scholar]
  98. Gullion JS. 98.  2015. Fracking the Neighborhood: Reluctant Activists and Natural Gas Drilling Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  99. Jackson W, Monk H. 99.  2014. Police violence at anti-fracking protests: pacifying disruptive subjects. Crim. Justice Matters 98:112–13 [Google Scholar]
  100. Jones P, Hillier D, Comfort D. 100.  2015. The contested future of fracking for shale gas in the UK: risk, reputation and regulation. World Rev. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 11:4377–90 [Google Scholar]
  101. Hudgins A. 101.  2013. Fracking's future in a coal mining past: subjectivity undermined. C&AFE (Cult. Agric. Food Environ.—J. Cult. Agric.) 35:154–59 [Google Scholar]
  102. Boudet H, Bugden D, Zanocco C, Maibach E. 102.  2016. The effect of industry activities on public support for “fracking.”. Environ. Polit. 25:4593–612 [Google Scholar]
  103. Christopherson S. 103.  2015. Risks beyond the well pad: the economic footprint of shale gas development in the US. The Human and Environmental Impact of Fracking: How Fracturing Shale for Gas Affects Us and Our World ML Finkel 115–130 Santa Barbara, CA/Denver, CO/Oxford, UK: Praeger [Google Scholar]
  104. Mooney L. 104.  2015. Promoting the rule of law in the intersection of business, human rights, and sustainability. Georgetown J. Int. Law 46:1135–50 [Google Scholar]
  105. Raimi D, Newell RG. 105.  2016. Local government revenue from oil and gas production Res. Pap., Duke Univ. Energy Init Durham, NC: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/12390/Local%20government%20revenue%20from%20oil%20and%20gas%20production%20FINAL.pdf?sequence=1 [Google Scholar]
  106. Trigger D, Keenan J, de Rijke K, Rifkin W. 106.  2014. Aboriginal engagement and agreement-making with a rapidly developing resource industry: coal seam gas development in Australia. Extr. Ind. Soc. 1:176–88 [Google Scholar]
  107. Boyer D. 107.  2011. Energopolitics and the anthropology of energy. Anthropol. News 52:55–7 [Google Scholar]
  108. Cartwright E. 108.  2013. Eco-risk and the case of fracking. Cultures of Energy: Power, Practices, Technologies S Strauss, S Rupp, T Love 201–12 Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press [Google Scholar]
  109. Finewood MH, Stroup LJ. 109.  2012. Fracking and the neoliberalization of the hydro-social cycle in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 147:72–79 [Google Scholar]
  110. Vesalon L, Crettan R. 110.  2015. “We are not the Wild West”: Anti-fracking protests in Romania. Environ. Polit. 24:2288–307 [Google Scholar]
  111. Willow AJ, Wylie S. 111.  2014. Politics, ecology, and the new anthropology of energy: exploring the emerging frontiers of hydraulic fracking. J. Polit. Ecol. 21:222–36 [Google Scholar]
  112. Barry A. 112.  2013. Material Politics: Disputes Along the Pipeline Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  113. Krupnick A, Wang ZM, Wang YS. 113.  2014. Environmental risks of shale gas development in China. Energy Policy 75:117–25 [Google Scholar]
  114. Cotton M. 114.  2015. Stakeholder perspectives on shale gas fracking: a Q-Method study of environmental discourses. Environ. Plann. A 47:91944–62 [Google Scholar]
  115. Hanschel D, Centner T. 115.  2016. Delineating property rights in unconventional hydrocarbon resources: concepts from the United States and Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:149–57 [Google Scholar]
  116. Rabe BG, Hampton RL. 116.  2016. Trusting in the future: the re-emergence of state trust funds in the shale era. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:117–27 [Google Scholar]
  117. Merrill TW. 117.  2013. Four questions about fracking. Case West. Reserv. Law Rev. 63:4971–94 [Google Scholar]
  118. Boudet H, Clarke C, Bugden D, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. 118.  2014. “Fracking” controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 65:57–67 [Google Scholar]
  119. Davis C, Fisk JM. 119.  2014. Energy abundance or environmental worries? Analyzing public support for fracking in the United States. Rev. Policy Res. 31:11–16 [Google Scholar]
  120. Stedman RC, Jacquet JB, Filteau MR, Willits FK, Brasier KJ, McLaughlin DK. 120.  2012. Marcellus Shale gas development and new boomtown research: views of New York and Pennsylvania residents. Environ. Pract. 14:4382–93 [Google Scholar]
  121. Clarke CE, Bugden D, Hart PS, Stedman RC, Jacquet JB. 121.  et al. 2016. How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development. Energy Policy 97:301–9 [Google Scholar]
  122. Theodori GL. 122.  2012. Public perception of the natural gas industry: data from the Barnett Shale. Energy Source B 7:3275–81 [Google Scholar]
  123. Brasier KJ, McLaughlin DK, Rhubart D, Stedman RC, Filteau MR, Jacquet J. 123.  2013. Risk perceptions of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. Environ. Pract. 15:2108–22 [Google Scholar]
  124. Choma BL, Hanoch Y, Currie S. 124.  2016. Attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing: the opposing forces of political conservatism and basic knowledge about fracking. Glob. Environ. Change 38:108–17 [Google Scholar]
  125. Warner B, Shapiro J. 125.  2013. Fractured, fragmented federalism: a study in fracking regulatory policy. Publius J. Federalism 43:3474–96 [Google Scholar]
  126. Spence DB. 126.  2013. Federalism, regulatory lags, and the political economy of energy production. U. Penn. Law Rev. 161:2431–508 [Google Scholar]
  127. Wiseman HJ. 127.  2014. The capacity of states to govern shale gas development risks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:158376–87 [Google Scholar]
  128. Leiter AC. 128.  2015. Fracking, federalism, and private governance. Harv. Environ. Law 39:107–56 [Google Scholar]
  129. Merrill TW, Schizer DM. 129.  2013. The shale oil and gas revolution, hydraulic fracturing, and water contamination: a regulatory strategy. Minn. Law Rev. 98:1145–264 [Google Scholar]
  130. Burger M. 130.  2013. Response: fracking and federalism choice. U. Penn. Law Rev. Online. 161:150–63 https://www.pennlawreview.com/online/161-U-Pa-L-Rev-Online-150.pdf [Google Scholar]
  131. Carter AV, Eaton EM. 131.  2016. Subnational responses to fracking in Canada: explaining Saskatchewan's “Wild West” regulatory approach. Rev. Policy Res. 33:4393–419 [Google Scholar]
  132. Shaw K, Hill SD, Boyd AD, Monk L, Reid J, Einsiedel EF. 132.  2015. Conflicted or constructive? Exploring community responses to new energy developments in Canada. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8:41–51 [Google Scholar]
  133. Garvie KH, Shaw K. 133.  2016. Shale gas development and community response: perspectives from Treaty 8 Territory, British Columbia. Local Environ 21:81009–28 [Google Scholar]
  134. Fleming RC, Reins L. 134.  2016. Shale gas extraction, precaution and prevention: a conversation on regulatory responses. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20:131–41 [Google Scholar]
  135. Elsner M, Schreglmann K, Calmano W, Bergmann A, Vieth-Hillebrand A. 135.  et al. 2015. Comment on the German draft legislation on hydraulic fracturing: the need for an accurate state of knowledge and for independent scientific research. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49:116367–69 [Google Scholar]
  136. Copley C, Eckert V. 136.  2016. Germany Imposes Limits on Fracking Berlin/Frankfurt, Ger.: Reuters [Google Scholar]
  137. Johnson C, Boersma T. 137.  2013. Energy (in)security in Poland the case of shale gas. Energy Policy 53:389–99 [Google Scholar]
  138. Green CA, Styles P, Baptie BJ. 138.  2012. Preese Hall Shale Gas Fracturing Review & Recommendations for Induced Seismic Mitigation London: Dep. Energy Clim. Change https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review-and-recommendations-for-induced-seismic-mitigation [Google Scholar]
  139. Pi G, Dong X, Dong C, Guo J, Maet Z. 139.  2015. The status, obstacles and policy recommendations of shale gas development in China. Sustainability 7:32353–72 [Google Scholar]
  140. Lin A. 140.  2017. Replacing coal with shale gas: Could reducing China's regional air pollution lead to more local pollution in rural China?. The Shale Dilemma: A Global Perspective on Fracking and Shale Development S Gamper-Rabindran Pittsburgh: Univ. Pittsburgh Press [Google Scholar]
  141. Konschnik KE, Boling MK. 141.  2014. Shale gas development: a smart regulation framework. Environ Sci. Technol. 48:158404–16 [Google Scholar]
  142. Craig RK. 142.  2013. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking), federalism, and the water-energy nexus. Idaho Law Rev. 49:2241–64 [Google Scholar]
  143. Wiseman HJ. 143.  2013. Risk and response in fracturing policy. Univ. Colorado Law Rev. 84:3729–818 [Google Scholar]
  144. Rabe BG, Hampton RL. 144.  2015. Taxing fracking: the politics of state severance taxes in the shale era. Rev. Policy Res. 32:4389–412 [Google Scholar]
  145. Wiseman HJ. 145.  2013. The private role in public fracturing disclosure and regulation. Harv. Bus. Law Rev. (Online) 3:49–66 http://www.hblr.org/2013/02/the-private-role-in-public-fracturing-disclosure-and-regulation/ [Google Scholar]
  146. Dundon LA, Abkowitz M, Camp J. 146.  2015. The real value of FracFocus as a regulatory tool: a national survey of state regulators. Energy Policy 87:496–504 [Google Scholar]
  147. Konschnik K, Holden M, Shasteen A. 147.  2013. Legal Fractures in Chemical Disclosure Laws: Why the Voluntary Chemical Disclosure Registry Fracfocus Fails as a Regulatory Compliance Tool Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Sch. [Google Scholar]
  148. Haufler V. 148.  2010. Disclosure as governance: The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and resource management in the developing world. Glob. Environ. Polit. 10:353–73 [Google Scholar]
  149. Fisk JM. 149.  2013. The right to know? State politics of fracking disclosure. Rev. Policy Res. 30:4345–65 [Google Scholar]
  150. Curran G. 150.  2017. Social licence, corporate social responsibility and coal seam gas: Framing the new political dynamics of contestation. Energy Policy 101:427–35 [Google Scholar]
  151. Manno JP, Hirsch P, Feldpausch-Parker AM. 151.  2014. Introduction by the Onondaga Nation and activist neighbors of an indigenous perspective on issues surrounding hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4:47–55 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061102
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061102
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error