IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v93y2018icp691-700.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The economic, social and environmental impact of shale gas exploitation in Romania: A cost-benefit analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Grecu, Eugenia
  • Aceleanu, Mirela Ionela
  • Albulescu, Claudiu Tiberiu

Abstract

Romania has recently begun the exploration of shale gas reserves and, it is expected that these unconventional resources to be exploited by hydraulic fracturing. The use of this technology is controversial in high-populated areas, where the economic, social and especially the environmental impact is practically unknown. However, for the public opinion, the shale gas exploitation is presented as an operation triggering no major risks. Therefore, several agreements were concluded between the Romanian authorities and the major players in the exploitation field. Against this background, our paper shows that the shale gas exploitation has no real benefits for the Romanian citizens. More precisely, we conduct an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis, considering the economic, social and environmental consequences of the shale gas exploitation, and we show that in the long run, the costs considerably overlap the benefits. The use of hydraulic fracturing procedure, which implies huge costs with the water consumption and wastewater treatment, influences the outcome of our investigation. These findings are sustained by the sensitivity analysis we have performed.

Suggested Citation

  • Grecu, Eugenia & Aceleanu, Mirela Ionela & Albulescu, Claudiu Tiberiu, 2018. "The economic, social and environmental impact of shale gas exploitation in Romania: A cost-benefit analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 691-700.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:691-700
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303721
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.026?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. Kinnaman, Thomas C., 2011. "The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1243-1249, May.
    2. Milt, Austin W. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2017. "Performance of a cap and trade system for managing environmental impacts of shale gas surface infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 399-406.
    3. Munasib, Abdul & Rickman, Dan S., 2015. "Regional economic impacts of the shale gas and tight oil boom: A synthetic control analysis," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-17.
    4. Xin-gang, Zhao & Ya-hui, Yang, 2015. "The current situation of shale gas in Sichuan, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 653-664.
    5. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    6. Peter R. Hartley & Kenneth B. Medlock III, 2017. "The Valley of Death for New Energy Technologies," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    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. Yuan, Jiehui & Luo, Dongkun & Xia, Liangyu & Feng, Lianyong, 2015. "Policy recommendations to promote shale gas development in China based on a technical and economic evaluation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 194-206.
    9. Weijermars, Ruud, 2014. "US shale gas production outlook based on well roll-out rate scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 283-297.
    10. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    11. Hilaire, Jérôme & Bauer, Nico & Brecha, Robert J., 2015. "Boom or bust? Mapping out the known unknowns of global shale gas production potential," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 581-587.
    12. Stamford, Laurence & Azapagic, Adisa, 2014. "Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 506-518.
    13. Yuan, Jiehui & Luo, Dongkun & Feng, Lianyong, 2015. "A review of the technical and economic evaluation techniques for shale gas development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 49-65.
    14. Gina Cristina Dimian & Bogdan Ileanu & Josef Jablonský & Jan Fábry, 2013. "Analysis of European Labour Market in the Crisis Context," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2013(1), pages 50-71.
    15. Charles Davis & Jonathan M. Fisk, 2014. "Energy Abundance or Environmental Worries? Analyzing Public Support for Fracking in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(1), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Cotton, Matthew & Rattle, Imogen & Van Alstine, James, 2014. "Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 427-438.
    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. Yin, Linfei & Wang, Tao & Zheng, Baomin, 2021. "Analytical adaptive distributed multi-objective optimization algorithm for optimal power flow problems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    2. Xi Yang & Alun Gu & Fujie Jiang & Wenli Xie & Qi Wu, 2020. "Integrated Assessment Modeling of China’s Shale Gas Resource: Energy System Optimization, Environmental Cobenefits, and Methane Risk," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Wang, Qiang & Zhan, Lina, 2019. "Assessing the sustainability of the shale gas industry by combining DPSIRM model and RAGA-PP techniques: An empirical analysis of Sichuan and Chongqing, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 353-364.
    4. Florin-Constantin Mihai & Ionut Minea, 2021. "Sustainable Alternative Routes versus Linear Economy and Resources Degradation in Eastern Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-23, September.
    5. Aba, Michael M. & Parente, Virginia & dos Santos, Edmilson Moutinho, 2022. "Estimation of water demand of the three major Brazilian shale-gas basins: Implications for water availability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    6. Wang, Hui & Chen, Li & Qu, Zhiguo & Yin, Ying & Kang, Qinjun & Yu, Bo & Tao, Wen-Quan, 2020. "Modeling of multi-scale transport phenomena in shale gas production — A critical review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).

    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. Howell, Rachel A., 2018. "UK public beliefs about fracking and effects of knowledge on beliefs and support: A problem for shale gas policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 721-730.
    2. Hongxun Liu & Jianglong Li, 2018. "The US Shale Gas Revolution and Its Externality on Crude Oil Prices: A Counterfactual Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Bilgili, Faik & Koçak, Emrah & Bulut, Ümit & Sualp, M. Nedim, 2016. "How did the US economy react to shale gas production revolution? An advanced time series approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(P1), pages 963-977.
    4. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    5. Saussay, Aurélien, 2018. "Can the US shale revolution be duplicated in continental Europe? An economic analysis of European shale gas resources," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 295-306.
    6. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & García-Valiñas, María Á. & Matesanz, David, 2019. "Public Attitudes towards Hydraulic Fracturing in Western Newfoundland," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3vsrea3gla9r5oaa2cle5jrqfh is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    9. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Rose, Jonathan & Humphrey, Mathew & Knight, Wil & O'Hara, Sarah, 2019. "The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 693-697.
    10. Chen, Yuntian & Jiang, Su & Zhang, Dongxiao & Liu, Chaoyang, 2017. "An adsorbed gas estimation model for shale gas reservoirs via statistical learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 327-341.
    11. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Knight, William & Humphrey, Mathew & O’Hara, Sarah, 2016. "Exploring support for shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 582-589.
    12. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    13. Yu Zhang & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2021. "Contrasting Public and Scientific Assessments of Fracking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Yao, Liuyang & Sui, Bo, 2020. "Heterogeneous preferences for shale water management: Evidence from a choice experiment in Fuling shale gas field, southwest China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    15. Yu, Chin-Hsien & Huang, Shih-Kai & Qin, Ping & Chen, Xiaolan, 2018. "Local residents' risk perceptions in response to shale gas exploitation: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 123-134.
    16. Bradshaw, Michael & Devine-Wright, Patrick & Evensen, Darrick & King, Owen & Martin, Abigail & Ryder, Stacia & Short, Damien & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Stretesky, Paul & Szolucha, Anna & Williams, Laur, 2022. "‘We're going all out for shale:’ explaining shale gas energy policy failure in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/2b9jeu7kmm94kq22avt9ejbu5k is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Burnett, J. Wesley, 2015. "FOREWORD: Unconventional Oil and Gas Development: Economic, Environmental, and Policy Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(2), pages 1-15, August.
    19. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    20. Liuyang Yao & Qian Zhang & Kin Keung Lai & Xianyu Cao, 2020. "Explaining Local Residents’ Attitudes toward Shale Gas Exploitation: The Mediating Roles of Risk and Benefit Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-13, October.
    21. Huang, Liang & Ning, Zhengfu & Wang, Qing & Zhang, Wentong & Cheng, Zhilin & Wu, Xiaojun & Qin, Huibo, 2018. "Effect of organic type and moisture on CO2/CH4 competitive adsorption in kerogen with implications for CO2 sequestration and enhanced CH4 recovery," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 28-43.
    22. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Q32; D61; Shale gas exploitation; Cost-benefit analysis; Sensitivity analysis; Hydraulic fracturing; Romania;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q32 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Exhaustible Resources and Economic Development
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rensus:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:691-700. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    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.