IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v50y2012icp358-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The significance of regulation and land use patterns on natural gas resource estimates in the Marcellus shale

Author

Listed:
  • Blohm, Andrew
  • Peichel, Jeremy
  • Smith, Caroline
  • Kougentakis, Alexandra

Abstract

Recent advancements in natural gas extraction (e.g. hydraulic fracturing) have significantly increased natural gas reserves in the United States. Estimates of the technically recoverable natural gas (TRR) in the Marcellus range between 141 trillion cubic feet (TCF) and 489TCF. However, TRR estimation does not incorporate existing policies, regulations, or land use. We find that approximately 48% of the Marcellus in New York and Pennsylvania is inaccessible given land use patterns and current policy. In New York, approximately 83% of the Marcellus is inaccessible; while in Pennsylvania about 32% of the Marcellus is off limits to drilling. The New York portion of the Marcellus is estimated to have a TRR of between 19.9TCF and 68.9TCF. We estimate that 79% of the resource is inaccessible, which results in an accessible resource estimate of between 4.2TCF and 14.4TCF. In Pennsylvania, the shale gas TRR is estimated at 86.6–300TCF. However, we estimate that 31% of the resource is inaccessible, which results in an accessible resource estimate of between 60.0TCF and 208TCF.

Suggested Citation

  • Blohm, Andrew & Peichel, Jeremy & Smith, Caroline & Kougentakis, Alexandra, 2012. "The significance of regulation and land use patterns on natural gas resource estimates in the Marcellus shale," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 358-369.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:50:y:2012:i:c:p:358-369
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151200612X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prest, Robert & Daniell, Trevor & Ostendorf, Bertram, 2007. "Using GIS to evaluate the impact of exclusion zones on the connection cost of wave energy to the electricity grid," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 4516-4528, September.
    2. Wang, Jinsheng & Ryan, David & Anthony, Edward J., 2011. "Reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 8196-8199.
    3. Baban, Serwan M.J & Parry, Tim, 2001. "Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to locating wind farms in the UK," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 59-71.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Baranzelli, Claudia & Vandecasteele, Ine & Ribeiro Barranco, Ricardo & Mari i Rivero, Ines & Pelletier, Nathan & Batelaan, Okke & Lavalle, Carlo, 2015. "Scenarios for shale gas development and their related land use impacts in the Baltic Basin, Northern Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 80-95.
    2. Zwickl, Klara, 2019. "The demographics of fracking: A spatial analysis for four U.S. states," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 202-215.
    3. Lozano Maya, Juan Roberto, 2013. "The United States experience as a reference of success for shale gas development: The case of Mexico," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 70-78.
    4. Chris Cunningham & Kristopher Gerardi & Yannan Shen, 2017. "Fracking and Mortgage Default," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2017-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    5. Cronshaw, Ian & Quentin Grafton, R., 2016. "A tale of two states: Development and regulation of coal bed methane extraction in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 253-263.
    6. Philipp M. Richter, 2015. "From Boom to Bust? A Critical Look at US Shale Gas Projections," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    7. Johnson, Corey & Boersma, Tim, 2013. "Energy (in)security in Poland the case of shale gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 389-399.
    8. Centner, Terence J., 2013. "Oversight of shale gas production in the United States and the disclosure of toxic substances," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 233-240.
    9. Charles Abdalla & Renata Rimsaite & Bryan Swistock, 2014. "Municipal officials’ decisions to lease watershed lands for Marcellus shale gas exploration," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(1), pages 28-36, March.
    10. Geltman, Elizabeth Glass & Gill, Gunwant & Jovanovic, Miriam, 2016. "Impact of Executive Order 13211 on environmental regulation: An empirical study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 302-310.
    11. Darrick Evensen & Christopher Clarke & Richard Stedman, 2014. "A New York or Pennsylvania state of mind: social representations in newspaper coverage of gas development in the Marcellus Shale," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(1), pages 65-77, March.
    12. Cronshaw, Ian & Grafton, R. Quentin, 2016. "Economic benefits, external costs and the regulation of unconventional gas in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 180-186.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Griffiths & William Dushenko, 2011. "Effectiveness of GIS suitability mapping in predicting ecological impacts of proposed wind farm development on Aristazabal Island, BC," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 957-991, December.
    2. Defne, Zafer & Haas, Kevin A. & Fritz, Hermann M., 2011. "GIS based multi-criteria assessment of tidal stream power potential: A case study for Georgia, USA," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 2310-2321, June.
    3. Campbell, Maria S. & Stehfest, Kilian M. & Votier, Stephen C. & Hall-Spencer, Jason M., 2014. "Mapping fisheries for marine spatial planning: Gear-specific vessel monitoring system (VMS), marine conservation and offshore renewable energy," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 293-300.
    4. Şan, Murat & Akpınar, Adem & Bingölbali, Bilal & Kankal, Murat, 2021. "Geo-spatial multi-criteria evaluation of wave energy exploitation in a semi-enclosed sea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    5. Neupane, Deependra & Kafle, Sagar & Karki, Kaji Ram & Kim, Dae Hyun & Pradhan, Prajal, 2022. "Solar and wind energy potential assessment at provincial level in Nepal: Geospatial and economic analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 278-291.
    6. Ayodele, T.R. & Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O. & Odigie, O. & Munda, J.L., 2018. "A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1853-1869.
    7. Sahoo, Somadutta & Zuidema, Christian & van Stralen, Joost N.P. & Sijm, Jos & Faaij, André, 2022. "Detailed spatial analysis of renewables’ potential and heat: A study of Groningen Province in the northern Netherlands," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 318(C).
    8. Hossein Yousefi & Saheb Ghanbari Motlagh & Mohammad Montazeri, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System for Wind Farm Site-Selection Using Geographic Information System (GIS): Case Study of Semnan Province, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-27, June.
    9. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Rodman, Laura C. & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2006. "A geographic analysis of wind turbine placement in Northern California," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(15), pages 2137-2149, October.
    11. Marco Rogna, 2019. "A First-Phase Screening Device for Site Selection of Large-Scale Solar Plants with an Application to Italy," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS57, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    12. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    13. Hugo Díaz & Carlos Guedes Soares, 2021. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Evaluate Floating Offshore Wind Farms Siting in the Canary Islands (Spain)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Frank Hanssen & Roel May & Jiska van Dijk & Jan Ketil Rød, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    15. Ramírez-Rosado, Ignacio J. & García-Garrido, Eduardo & Fernández-Jiménez, L. Alfredo & Zorzano-Santamaría, Pedro J. & Monteiro, Cláudio & Miranda, Vladimiro, 2008. "Promotion of new wind farms based on a decision support system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 558-566.
    16. Baseer, M.A. & Rehman, S. & Meyer, J.P. & Alam, Md. Mahbub, 2017. "GIS-based site suitability analysis for wind farm development in Saudi Arabia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1166-1176.
    17. Gorsevski, Pece V. & Cathcart, Steven C. & Mirzaei, Golrokh & Jamali, Mohsin M. & Ye, Xinyue & Gomezdelcampo, Enrique, 2013. "A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 374-385.
    18. Yasir Ahmed Solangi & Qingmei Tan & Muhammad Waris Ali Khan & Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Ifzal Ahmed, 2018. "The Selection of Wind Power Project Location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A Factor Analysis, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS Application," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, July.
    19. Tabassum-Abbasi, & Premalatha, M. & Abbasi, Tasneem & Abbasi, S.A., 2014. "Wind energy: Increasing deployment, rising environmental concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 270-288.
    20. Roy, Sandeepan & Maji, Avijit, 2019. "Optimization of High-Speed Railway Station Location Selection Based on Accessibility and Environmental Impact," ADBI Working Papers 953, Asian Development Bank Institute.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:50:y:2012:i:c:p:358-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.