COMPARING AND COMMUNICATING THE SEISMIC RISKS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF SHALE FOR NATURAL GAS OCTOBER 2014 GWPC ANNUAL FORUM – SEATTLE, WA

DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? A lot of residents became more frustrated about an earthquake problem possibly linked to hydraulic fracturing on Thursday night, where they were hopeful that a meeting with the regulatory agency and other state leaders would shed some light on the problem. First up to the microphone was Jim Smith, who asked, "I was wondering how unbiased that can be, since there's so much oil and gas money that goes into the campaigns of elected officials". After only an hour, residents began leaving the meeting, most grumbling about the same frustration as Kevin Wilson. "I truly believe this was a dog and pony show," said Wilson.

8 small earthquakes shake Oklahoma as fracking critics grumble Headline from CBS News/Associated Press - July 14, 2014 "Hydraulic fracturing almost never causes true earthquakes. It is the disposal of fluids that is a concern.“ Dr. Cliff Frohlich – Associate Director, Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas – September 2013 at National Research Council workshop Fracking led to 109 earthquakes in Youngstown, Ohio, Columbia University study finds Headline from UPI - August.19, 2013 Once Again Boys & Girls, Fracking Does Not Cause Earthquakes Headline from Marcellus Drilling News – April 2013

SEISMIC RISK “COMMUNICATION”

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR SHALE GAS CAN INDUCE EARTHQUAKES

TECHNICALLY ASSESSED RISK AND PERCEIVED RISK ARE ALSO DIFFERENT

THIS MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN COMPARING AND COMMUNICATING RISK

IF NOT RISK COMPARISONS AND RISK COMMUNICATION WILL BE INEFFECTIVE

EARTHQUAKES ARE ALSO INDUCED BY ACTIVITIES SUCH AS MINING, WASTEWATER INJECTION, GEOTHERMAL ENERGY, WATER IMPOUNDMENTS, OIL

AND GAS EXTRACTION, CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE

“EARTHQUAKE” HAS DIFFERENT MEANINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE

DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF EARTHQUAKE

• A shaking of a part of the earth's surface that often causes great damage – Webster Dictionary

• A sudden and violent shaking of the ground, sometimes

causing great destruction, as a result of movements within the earth’s crust or volcanic action – Oxford Dictionary

• Earthquake is a term used to describe both sudden slip on a fault, and the resulting ground shaking and radiated seismic energy caused by the slip, or by volcanic or magmatic activity, or other sudden stress changes in the earth. - USGS

• An earthquake is what happens when two blocks of the earth suddenly slip past one another – USGS for Kids

EARTHQUAKE HAS DIFFERENT MEANINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE

EARTHQUAKE RISK

USGS

• Earthquake risk is the probable building damage, and number of people that are expected to be hurt or killed if a likely earthquake on a particular fault occurs.

Damage from earthquake

• Is caused by ground vibration and surface movement

Technical comparisons of earthquake risk are best done based on comparison of probability of ground vibration/surface movement

Risk perception factors may be different

METRICS FOR EARTHQUAKE RISK • Richter Scale

• Magnitude • Logarithmic • Based on recorded amplitudes of ground motion

• Moment Magnitude Scale

• Most widely used • Force released x Area of rupture surface

• Mercalli Scale

• Based on eyewitness, felt shaking and observed damage

• Ground vibration metrics • Peak ground velocity • Peak ground acceleration • Vibration frequency (Hz)

THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF EARTHQUAKES

• M = less than 3.0 • Cannot be felt

• M = 3.0

• May be felt if you are at the epicenter • A hanging object might swing

• M = 4.0

• Noticeable shaking of indoor items • Feels like a large truck or a train passing the building • Can cause cracks in dry wall, tile

• M > 5.0

• Can cause major damage

RISK IS IN THE MIND OF THE PERCEIVER FACTS CAN BE HELPLESS WHEN UP AGAINST PERCEPTION

RISK = function technically assessed risk and risk perception factors

Because people perceive risks in multi-attribute terms, comparing risks on one or two calculated metrics may be ineffective For example – based on probability comparison “There’s a greater chance you will get hit by lightening than….” These comparisons can be viewed as trying to persuade someone that their perception of the risk is wrong They can also be viewed as telling someone what risks are acceptable The risk assessor gets frustrated and the audience becomes mistrustful (and angry)

RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS (NOT ALL INCLUSIVE)

LESS RISKY MORE RISKY

Voluntary

Controlled by Self

Familiar

Fair

Trustworthy Source

Nature caused

Not increasing in Time/Space

Less media coverage

Involuntary

Controlled by Others

Complicated

Unfair

Untrustworthy Source

Technology caused

Increasing in Time/Space

More media coverage

EXAMPLE – COMPARISON OF EARTHQUAKE RISK

Compare risk from: • Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas

• Mining

• Geothermal energy systems

• Natural seismicity

But compare both technically assessed risk and risk perception factors

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS

1. EXTENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE

2. NATURE OF HAZARD

3. PROBABILITY OF HAZARD

4. ABILITY TO MANAGE RISKS

RISK = function exposure and hazard and probability

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 1. EXTENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT – MINING LOCATIONS

UNDERGROUND MINES SURFACE MINES TOTAL MINES

256 12,014 12,270

USGS ROUTINE U.S. MINING SEISMICITY WEBSITE

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT – MINING INDUCED SEISMICITY MAP

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT – GEOTHERMAL MAP

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP - USGS

Magnitude Average Annually 8 and higher 1 ¹

7 - 7.9 15 ¹ 6 - 6.9 134 ² 5 - 5.9 1319 ²

4 - 4.9 13,000 (estimated)

3 - 3.9 130,000 (estimated)

2 - 2.9 1,300,000 (estimated)

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS

Global Earthquake Frequency

USGS records 2,000 to 3,000 US earthquakes M = 3 or greater per year

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON

TECHNOLOGY NUMBER OF PROJECTS

NUMBER OF FELT INDUCED

EARTHQUAKES

MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE OF

FELT EARTHQUAKES

NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES WITH M >3.0

NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES

WITH M>4.0

Hydraulic Fracturing for

Shale Gas

10,000 wells drilled per year 2 2.8 0 0

Wastewater Disposal 30,000+ 10-12? 5.5 ? 7

Mining 12,270 mines Thousands 4.8 300 per year in range 2.5 – 3.5 Some

Geothermal Systems 30+ projects 12-45 per year 4.1 1-3 per year 0

Natural Seismicity NA NA 7.0 – 7.9 2,000 – 3,000

per year 300 – 700 per year

Century Link Field

Marshawn Lynch TD 2 2.2 0 0

PERCEIVED RISK

• Information may be correct or incorrect

• Information may be complete or incomplete

• Information may be understood or not understood

• Assessment of quality and importance of information is a judgment by the perceiver

RISK = function risk perception factors and information

RISK PERCEPTION FACTOR COMPARISON WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR

SHALE GAS MINING GEOTHERMAL NATURE

Involuntary Involuntary Involuntary Voluntary

Controlled by others Controlled by others Controlled by others No control

Complicated Familiar Familiar? Familiar

Unfair Unfair Fair Fair

Untrustworthy source Untrustworthy source Trustworthy source Trustworthy source

Technology caused Technology caused Technology caused Nature caused

Increasing Not increasing Limited increase Not increasing

High media coverage Low media coverage Low media coverage Big Events

COMPARATIVE RISKS

RELATIVE RISK RANKING

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR

SHALE GAS MINING GEOTHERMAL NATURE

NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES

WITH M>3 0 300 per year 1-3 per year 2,000-3,000

per year

NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT INCREASE RISK PERCEPTION

9 6 4 2

So a comparison of technically assessed risks is unlikely to be effective without addressing risk perception factors

This is true no matter how factual the technical risk comparison

HOW CAN WE ADDRESS RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS WHEN COMMUNICATING ABOUT INDUCED SEISMICITY FROM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING?

RISK PERCEPTION FACTOR

Meaning of earthquake risk Develop consensus understanding of “earthquake” and actual range of probabilities and damage levels possible from hydraulic fracturing

Involuntary Share plans for well development ahead of drilling Actively solicit public comments – not just notices

Controlled by others Stakeholder participation in risk management plans Do not tell people what is acceptable risk

Complicated Develop simple clear message Avoid overuse of scientific terms, but don’t talk down

Unfair Relate benefits to all exposed to risks Well owner not going away – no “hit and run”

HOW CAN WE ADDRESS RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS WHEN COMMUNICATING ABOUT INDUCED SEISMICITY FROM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING?

RISK PERCEPTION FACTOR

Untrustworthy source Acknowledge induced earthquake risk exists and have occurred Respect peoples fears Followup on questions – deliver on promises Have trustworthy source present and evaluate risk information

Technology caused Clearly compare frequency and severity of induced versus natural earthquakes Develop understanding that unlike nature, seismicity can be controlled for HF – pressure/volume/pause

Increasing in time and space

Monitor rate of events – react if trending upward Avoid higher seismic areas

High media coverage Don’t have significant induced earthquake Train the messenger

FINAL THOUGHT PERCEPTION OF RISK CAN BE PERCEPTION OF CONTROL

“As with previous fossil fuel booms that left long-term impacts on the environment, there is every reason to believe that the public will be stuck with the bill for many of the impacts of fracking.” “Current law also does little to protect against impacts that emerge over a long period of time, have diffuse impacts over a wide area, or affect health in ways that are difficult to prove with the high standard of certainty required in legal proceedings.” Source: The Cost of Fracking: The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling's Environmental Damage, Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center

QUESTIONS

William Rish, Ph.D. Principal Hull Risk Analysis Center wrish@hullinc.com 614.793.8777