Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey

Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey: A Summary Report Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Introduction This report provides a summary of the results obtained from a 2012 survey of Pennsylvania residents living in the Marcellus Shale region of the state. The purpose of this document is to provide insights into residents’ perceptions of natural gas development in Pennsylvania. The report includes information on their reported knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to natural gas development, including their views about hydraulic fracturing and possible uses of treated wastewater from these operations. Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Methodology Between June 2012 and October 2012, a random sample of individuals living in counties in the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale region were contacted by mail or telephone and asked to participate in a survey of resident opinions concerning natural gas extraction in the region. The sample was chosen to reflect the views of individuals living in counties with “high” well densities (20 or more wells per 100 square miles) and those with “low” well densities (fewer than 20 wells per 100 square miles).1 A total of 3,505 persons were contacted, with 800 providing data for this analysis (a 23% response rate). Half of the sample members were interviewed by telephone; half responded to mailed questionnaires. 1 Counties included in the “low” well density category were: Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Cameron, Centre, Clearfield, Clinton, Indiana, Lackawanna, Somerset, Sullivan, and Wayne. The “high” well density counties included: Bradford, Fayette, Greene, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Tioga, Washington, Westmoreland, and Wyoming. Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Self-rated Knowledge of Selected Issues Related to Natural Gas Drilling Figures 1a through 1e illustrate respondents’ self-rated knowledge of the economic, social, environmental, and water quality and quantity effects of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Figure 1a Knowledge about natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale with respect to: Economic impacts of the natural gas industry (n = 800) A great deal 17.9% A good bit 28.8% Some but not much 29.9% Very little 14.0% None or almost none 9.4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Figure 1b Knowledge about natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale with respect to: Social impacts of natural gas well development on communities (n = 795) A great deal 15.2% A good bit 27.7% Some but not much 28.8% Very little 15.8% None or almost none 12.5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Figure 1c Knowledge about natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale with respect to: Effects of gas drilling on the natural environment (n = 797) A great deal 18.3% A good bit 30.5% Some but not much 27.2% Very little 13.5% None or almost none 10.5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Figure 1d Knowledge about natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale with respect to: Implications of natural gas drilling for water quality (n = 795) A great deal 17.9% A good bit 28.4% Some but not much 28.4% Very little 14.2% None or almost none 11.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Figure 1e Knowledge about natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale with respect to: Implications of natural gas drilling for water quantity (n = 792) A great deal 13.0% A good bit 23.9% Some but not much 29.2% Very little 18.9% None or almost none 15.0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Region Public Perceptions Survey Trust in Selected Groups and Organizations Related to Natural Gas Development Figures 2a through 2e illustrate respondents’ overall trust in the industry, state and local officials/organizations, environmental groups, and scientists.