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

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.

SEISMIC RISK COMMUNICATION 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

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR SHALE GAS CAN INDUCE EARTHQUAKES 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 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

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 RISK = function exposure and hazard and probability 1. EXTENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE 2. NATURE OF HAZARD 3. PROBABILITY OF HAZARD 4. ABILITY TO MANAGE RISKS

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

TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 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 3-3.9 2-2.9 Global Earthquake Frequency 13,000 (estimated) 130,000 (estimated) 1,300,000 (estimated) 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 RISK = function risk perception factors and information 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 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 NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES WITH M>3 NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT INCREASE RISK PERCEPTION HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR SHALE GAS MINING GEOTHERMAL NATURE 0 300 per year 1-3 per year 2,000-3,000 per year 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 Involuntary Controlled by others Complicated Unfair Develop consensus understanding of earthquake and actual range of probabilities and damage levels possible from hydraulic fracturing Share plans for well development ahead of drilling Actively solicit public comments not just notices Stakeholder participation in risk management plans Do not tell people what is acceptable risk Develop simple clear message Avoid overuse of scientific terms, but don t talk down 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 Technology caused Increasing in time and space High media coverage 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 Clearly compare frequency and severity of induced versus natural earthquakes Develop understanding that unlike nature, seismicity can be controlled for HF pressure/volume/pause Monitor rate of events react if trending upward Avoid higher seismic areas 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