Public Perceptions of Oil and Natural Gas Development in Karnes County, Texas: A Summary Report

Transcription

1 Public Perceptions of Oil and Natural Gas Development in Karnes County, Texas: A Summary Report Prepared by: Gene L. Theodori Sam Houston State University Adrian B. Uzunian Utah State University September 2015

2 Acknowledgement Support for this research was provided by a grant from the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC). We wish to express our gratitude to the citizens of Karnes County, Texas. We also want to extend a special thanks to Kristen Koci and Ashley Volkmer for helping collect, code, and clean the data. 2

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgement... 2 Introduction... 4 Methodology... 5 Section I... 6 Public Perspectives... 6 Section II Potential Problems in Karnes County Section III Trust Section IV Oil and Gas Industry Performance Section V Actions Which May or May Not Have Been Taken in Response to the Exploration and Production of Oil and Natural Gas Section VI Satisfaction with Communication Section VII Management Decisions Section VIII Hydraulic Fracturing Section IX Frac Flowback Water Section X Individual-Level Characteristics Note

4 Introduction This report provides a summary of the results obtained from a 2015 survey of residents and absentee landowners in Karnes County, Texas. The purpose of this document is to provide insights into the public s perception of the energy industry. Moreover, 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. Figures and tables are used to simplify presentation of the data. 1 No conclusions or inferences are made. Individuals interested in statistical analyses and more detailed information should contact Dr. Gene L. Theodori at: Sam Houston State University Department of Sociology Center for Rural Studies Box 2446 Huntsville, TX Phone: (936) Fax: (936) gtheodori@shsu.edu 1 Percentages in figures and tables may not add to 100 due to rounding error. 4

5 Methodology Following a modified tailored design method, data were gathered using mail survey techniques. In February 2015, an informational letter was first mailed to a random sample of 525 residents and absentee landowners in Karnes County, Texas. The informational letter informed sampled individuals that their household was randomly selected for participation in an upcoming study on public perceptions of oil and natural gas development in the Eagle Ford Shale region of Texas. Six sampled individuals contacted the researchers at SHSU and requested not to participate in the study, reducing the sample size to 519. In March 2015, a survey questionnaire was mailed to the sampled individuals. To obtain a representative sample of individuals within residences, a response from the adult who most recently his/her birthday was requested in the cover letter. The survey questionnaire, organized as a self-completion booklet, contained 39 questions and required approximately 50 minutes to complete. After the initial survey mailing and two follow-up mailings during April and May of 2015, a total of 71 questionnaires were returned. 5

6 Section I Public Perspectives Figures 1a through 1u illustrate respondents perspectives on various issues related to oil and natural gas development in the Eagle Ford Shale. 6

7 Figure 1a The oil and gas industry is important to the local economy. (n = 71) Strongly agree 75% Mildly agree 17% Unsure 4% Mildly disagree 1% Strongly disagree 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 7

8 Figure 1b Not enough information concerning oil and gas development in the Eagle Ford Shale is being made available to the general public. (n = 71) Strongly agree 21% Mildly agree 27% Unsure 24% Mildly disagree 18% Strongly disagree 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 8

9 Figure 1c Even when carefully controlled, oil and gas development is likely to upset the quality of life in a local area. (n = 71) Strongly agree 27% Mildly agree 41% Unsure 6% Mildly disagree 18% Strongly disagree 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 9

10 Figure 1d Because industry has to be competitive, it is unfair to expect oil and gas companies to tell the public about their plans. (n = 71) Strongly agree 21% Mildly agree 28% Unsure 6% Mildly disagree 27% Strongly disagree 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 10

11 Figure 1e All in all, the benefits of oil and gas development in the Eagle Ford Shale are greater than the costs. (n = 71) Strongly agree 44% Mildly agree 30% Unsure 10% Mildly disagree 7% Strongly disagree 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 11

12 Figure 1f The oil and gas industry must adopt and use more environmentally-friendly drilling practices in the Eagle Ford Shale. (n = 71) Strongly agree 31% Mildly agree 35% Unsure 14% Mildly disagree 10% Strongly disagree 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 12

13 Figure 1g Too little attention is being paid to the social costs of oil and gas development in the Eagle Ford Shale. (n = 71) Strongly agree 21% Mildly agree 24% Unsure 24% Mildly disagree 17% Strongly disagree 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 13

14 Figure 1h The oil and gas industry has little interest in our natural environment. (n = 71) Strongly agree 13% Mildly agree 24% Unsure 14% Mildly disagree 24% Strongly disagree 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 14

15 Figure 1i Oil and gas companies in the Eagle Ford Shale will do only what s required by law. (n = 71) Strongly agree 21% Mildly agree 32% Unsure 14% Mildly disagree 17% Strongly disagree 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 15

16 Figure 1j In the long run, I m sure that people in the Eagle Ford Shale will be better off if our energy resources are developed. (n = 70) Strongly agree 60% Mildly agree 24% Unsure 9% Mildly disagree 6% Strongly disagree 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 16

17 Figure 1k People who object to oil and gas development in the Eagle Ford Shale should move someplace else. (n = 69) Strongly agree 12% Mildly agree 14% Unsure 14% Mildly disagree 26% Strongly disagree 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 17

18 Figure 1l Oil and gas industry operators in the Eagle Ford Shale are too politically powerful. (n = 70) Strongly agree 19% Mildly agree 20% Unsure 26% Mildly disagree 27% Strongly disagree 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 18

19 Figure 1m Decisions about oil and gas-related development should be made solely on economic grounds. (n = 70) Strongly agree 10% Mildly agree 13% Unsure 17% Mildly disagree 27% Strongly disagree 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 19

20 Figure 1n We already know enough about the potential impacts of oil and natural gas extraction to speed up development in the Eagle Ford Shale. (n = 68) Strongly agree 10% Mildly agree 25% Unsure 25% Mildly disagree 24% Strongly disagree 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 20

21 Figure 1o I worry that there will be some sort of catastrophic accident involving oil and natural gas extraction in the Eagle Ford Shale. (n = 68) Strongly agree 21% Mildly agree 22% Unsure 19% Mildly disagree 22% Strongly disagree 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 21

22 Figure 1p Any negative impacts of oil and natural gas extraction in the Eagle Ford Shale can be fixed. (n = 65) Strongly agree 9% Mildly agree 26% Unsure 34% Mildly disagree 15% Strongly disagree 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 22

23 Figure 1q Continued development of oil and natural gas in the Eagle Ford Shale will create long lasting environmental problems. (n = 68) Strongly agree 19% Mildly agree 16% Unsure 29% Mildly disagree 24% Strongly disagree 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 23

24 Figure 1r Extraction of oil and gas from shale reservoirs, such as in the Eagle Ford, should be encouraged to decrease our reliance on imported energy sources. (n = 68) Strongly agree 47% Mildly agree 26% Unsure 19% Mildly disagree 4% Strongly disagree 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 24

25 Figure 1s Continued development of oil and natural gas in the Eagle Ford Shale will create long lasting social problems. (n = 68) Strongly agree 6% Mildly agree 15% Unsure 25% Mildly disagree 28% Strongly disagree 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 25

26 Figure 1t The oil and gas industry will provide economic opportunities that will help keep our children in south Texas. (n = 68) Strongly agree 35% Mildly agree 43% Unsure 16% Mildly disagree 1% Strongly disagree 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 26

27 Figure 1u Continued development of oil and gas in the Eagle Ford Shale makes me optimistic about the future of south Texas. (n = 68) Strongly agree 44% Mildly agree 37% Unsure 13% Mildly disagree 1% Strongly disagree 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 27

28 Section II Potential Problems in Karnes County This section deals with respondents perceptions of the potential problems in Karnes County which may or may not be associated with the continued development of oil and natural gas. Survey respondents were presented with 24 issues which may or may not be problems in Karnes County. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they believed each issue currently is no problem at all, a slight problem, a moderate problem, or a serious problem. Respondents were then asked to indicate whether the seriousness of the problem is getting better, staying the same, or getting worse with the continued development of oil and natural gas. The results are summarized below. Figures 2a through 25a illustrate the perceived problematic extent of the issue today. Figures 2b to 25b illustrate the perceived seriousness of the problem with the continued development of oil and natural gas. For purposes of presentation, the issues were ranked from the perceived most serious to the least serious (see the reported mean scores and coding notation). 28

29 Figure 2a Issue: Availability of good jobs (n = 69) Serious problem 35% Moderate problem 36% Slight problem 14% No problem at all 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.91 Standard deviation 1.04 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 29

30 Figure 2b Because of the development of natural gas, availability of good jobs is: (n = 67) 7% 16% 76% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 30

31 Figure 3a Issue: Illegal drugs (n = 63) Serious problem 25% Moderate problem 37% Slight problem 29% No problem at all 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.78 Standard deviation 0.94 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 31

32 Figure 3b Because of the development of natural gas, Illegal drugs are: (n = 62) 5% 53% 42% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 32

33 Figure 4a Issue: Young people leaving community after high school (n = 63) Serious problem 32% Moderate problem 29% Slight problem 22% No problem at all 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.75 Standard deviation 1.09 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 33

34 Figure 4b Because of the development of natural gas, young people leaving community after high school is: (n = 60) 13% 42% 45% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 34

35 Figure 5a Issue: Trash on roadsides (n = 70) Serious problem 19% Moderate problem 34% Slight problem 39% No problem at all 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.63 Standard deviation 0.89 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 35

36 Figure 5b Because of the development of natural gas, trash on roadsides is: (n = 68) 3% 32% 65% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 36

37 Figure 6a Issue: Illegal dumping (n = 67) Serious problem 21% Moderate problem 27% Slight problem 42% No problem at all 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.58 Standard deviation 0.94 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 37

38 Figure 6b Because of the development of natural gas, illegal dumping is: (n = 65) 3% 35% 62% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 38

39 Figure 7a Issue: Property crimes such as vandalism or theft (n = 69) Serious problem 10% Moderate problem 42% Slight problem 35% No problem at all 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.49 Standard deviation 0.85 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 39

40 Figure 7b Because of the development of natural gas, property crimes such as vandalism or theft are: (n = 68) 10% 57% 32% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 40

41 Figure 8a Issue: Local tax rates (n = 68) Serious problem 15% Moderate problem 25% Slight problem 32% No problem at all 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.26 Standard deviation 1.03 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 41

42 Figure 8b Because of the development of natural gas, local tax rates are: (n = 66) 9% 53% 38% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 42

43 Figure 9a Issue: Violent crimes such as assault or domestic abuse (n = 65) Serious problem 3% Moderate problem 37% Slight problem 43% No problem at all 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.26 Standard deviation 0.78 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 43

44 Figure 9b Because of the development of natural gas, violent crimes such as assault or domestic abuse are: (n = 63) 5% 37% 59% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 44

45 Figure 10a Issue: Traffic accidents (n = 66) Serious problem 20% Moderate problem 12% Slight problem 39% No problem at all 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.23 Standard deviation 1.08 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 45

46 Figure 10b Because of the development of natural gas, traffic accidents are: (n = 65) 9% 8% 83% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 46

47 Figure 11a Issue: Availability of affordable housing (n = 68) Serious problem 16% Moderate problem 22% Slight problem 26% No problem at all 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.19 Standard deviation 1.10 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 47

48 Figure 11b Because of the development of natural gas, availability of affordable housing is: (n = 66) 24% 64% 12% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 48

49 Figure 12a Issue: Spending in local businesses (n = 67) Serious problem 10% Moderate problem 24% Slight problem 37% No problem at all 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.16 Standard deviation 0.96 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 49

50 Figure 12b Because of the development of natural gas, spending in local businesses is: (n = 67) 6% 22% 72% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 50

51 Figure 13a Issue: Quality of local schools (n = 62) Serious problem 11% Moderate problem 27% Slight problem 27% No problem at all 34% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.16 Standard deviation 1.03 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 51

52 Figure 13b Because of the development of natural gas, quality of local schools are: (n = 64) 13% 45% 42% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 52

53 Figure 14a Issue: Traffic congestion (n = 70) Serious problem 27% Moderate problem 10% Slight problem 14% No problem at all 49% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 2.16 Standard deviation 1.29 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 53

54 Figure 14b Because of the development of natural gas, traffic congestion is: (n = 67) 12% 10% 78% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 54

55 Figure 15a Issue: Medical and health care services (n = 67) Serious problem 4% Moderate problem 30% Slight problem 25% No problem at all 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.99 Standard deviation 0.95 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 55

56 Figure 15b Because of the development of natural gas, medical and health care services are: (n = 65) 6% 35% 58% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 56

57 Figure 16a Issue: Disagreements among local residents (n = 64) Serious problem 5% Moderate problem 16% Slight problem 50% No problem at all 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.95 Standard deviation 0.81 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 57

58 Figure 16b Because of the development of natural gas, disagreements among local residents are: (n = 62) 13% 27% 60% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 58

59 Figure 17a Issue: Cost of food (n = 68) Serious problem 6% Moderate problem 19% Slight problem 34% No problem at all 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.90 Standard deviation 0.92 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 59

60 Figure 17b Because of the development of natural gas, cost of food is: (n = 65) 5% 43% 52% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 60

61 Figure 18a Issue: Sense of community well-being (n = 66) Serious problem 5% Moderate problem 21% Slight problem 32% No problem at all 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.88 Standard deviation 0.90 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 61

62 Figure 18b Because of the development of natural gas, sense of community well-being is: (n = 64) 31% 25% 44% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 62

63 Figure 19a Issue: Personal safety (n = 67) Serious problem 7% Moderate problem 16% Slight problem 30% No problem at all 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.85 Standard deviation 0.96 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 63

64 Figure 19b Because of the development of natural gas, personal safety is: (n = 64) 8% 44% 48% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 64

65 Figure 20a Issue: Light pollution (n = 66) Serious problem 8% Moderate problem 12% Slight problem 36% No problem at all 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.83 Standard deviation 0.92 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 65

66 Figure 20b Because of the development of natural gas, light pollution is: (n = 63) 5% 37% 59% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 66

67 Figure 21a Issue: Land use conflicts (n = 66) Serious problem 5% Moderate problem 11% Slight problem 45% No problem at all 39% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.80 Standard deviation 0.81 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 67

68 Figure 21b Because of the development of natural gas, land use conflicts are: (n = 64) 11% 48% 41% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 68

69 Figure 22a Issue: Prostitution (n = 60) Serious problem 7% Moderate problem 8% Slight problem 33% No problem at all 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.70 Standard deviation 0.89 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 69

70 Figure 22b Because of the development of natural gas, prostitution is: (n = 57) 12% 35% 53% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 70

71 Figure 23a Issue: Air quality (n = 67) Serious problem 7% Moderate problem 9% Slight problem 28% No problem at all 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.69 Standard deviation 0.92 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 71

72 Figure 23b Because of the development of natural gas, air quality is: (n = 66) 5% 42% 53% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 72

73 Figure 24a Issue: Water quality (n = 68) Serious problem 4% Moderate problem 10% Slight problem 32% No problem at all 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.66 Standard deviation 0.95 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 73

74 Figure 24b Because of the development of natural gas, water quality is: (n = 65) 6% 29% 65% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 74

75 Figure 25a Issue: Man camps (n = 64) Serious problem 3% Moderate problem 14% Slight problem 13% No problem at all 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Mean 1.50 Standard deviation 0.85 (coding: 1 = no problem at all; 2 = slight problem; 3 = moderate problem; 4 = serious problem) 75

76 Figure 25b Because of the development of natural gas, man camps are: (n = 61) 18% 41% 41% Getting better Staying the same Getting worse 76

77 Section III Trust Figures 26a through 26m summarize respondents levels of trust in selected sources of information on the potential impacts of oil and natural gas extraction in the Eagle Ford Shale. Table 1 ranks the selected sources of information from perceived most to least trustworthy. 77

78 Figure 26a Level of trust: Oil/natural gas industry (n = 67) Don't know 3% Great deal of trust 22% Some trust 54% Very little trust 12% No trust 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 78

79 Figure 26b Level of trust: Texas Railroad Commission (n = 68) Don't know 9% Great deal of trust 19% Some trust 40% Very little trust 21% No trust 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 79

80 Figure 26c Level of trust: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (n = 68) Don't know 9% Great deal of trust 19% Some trust 26% Very little trust 26% No trust 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80

81 Figure 26d Level of trust: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (n = 67) Don't know 12% Great deal of trust 24% Some trust 36% Very little trust 19% No trust 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 81

82 Figure 26e Level of trust: Texas A&M AgriLife Extension (n = 67) Don't know 10% Great deal of trust 45% Some trust 31% Very little trust 9% No trust 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 82

83 Figure 26f Level of trust: Environmental groups/organizations (n = 66) Don't know 11% Great deal of trust 11% Some trust 36% Very little trust 27% No trust 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 83

84 Figure 26g Level of trust: Scientists/researchers (n = 68) Don't know 10% Great deal of trust 32% Some trust 43% Very little trust 9% No trust 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 84

85 Figure 26h Level of trust: South Texas Energy & Economic Roundtable (STEER) (n = 64) Don't know 28% Great deal of trust 11% Some trust 38% Very little trust 16% No trust 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 85

86 Figure 26i Level of trust: America s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) (n = 66) Don't know 18% Great deal of trust 21% Some trust 32% Very little trust 20% No trust 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 86

87 Figure 27j Level of trust: County government (n = 68) Don't know 12% Great deal of trust 13% Some trust 32% Very little trust 24% No trust 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 87

88 Figure 26k Level of trust: Local city government (n = 67) Don't know 7% Great deal of trust 13% Some trust 25% Very little trust 30% No trust 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 88

89 Figure 26l Level of trust: Texas State Legislature (n = 68) Don't know 9% Great deal of trust 7% Some trust 47% Very little trust 16% No trust 21% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 89

90 Figure 26m Level of trust: Eagle Ford Consortium (n = 68) Don't know 19% Great deal of trust 12% Some trust 37% Very little trust 18% No trust 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 90

91 Table 1 Of the groups listed above, which one do you believe is MOST trustworthy? Groups Texas A&M AgriLife Extension 18 Texas Railroad Commission 10 Scientists/researchers 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5 Oil/natural gas industry 4 My county government 3 Environmental groups/organizations 2 Eagle Ford Consortium 2 America s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) 2 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2 Our local government 1 South Texas Energy & Economic Roundtable (STEER) 1 Texas State Legislature 1 None/Not sure 3 n 91

92 Section IV Oil and Gas Industry Performance Figures 27a through 27l summarize respondents levels of satisfaction with the oil and natural gas industry s performance in the Eagle Ford Shale. 92

93 Figure 27a Extent to which industry communication practices are adaptable to local emergencies. (n = 66) Very satisfied 8% Satisfied 36% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 41% Dissatisfied 12% Very dissatisfied 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 3.33 Standard deviation 0.90 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 93

94 Figure 27b Extent to which crises are handled appropriately through communication by the industry. (n = 65) Very satisfied 8% Satisfied 28% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 43% Dissatisfied 15% Very dissatisfied 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 3.15 Standard deviation 0.99 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 94

95 Figure 27c Extent to which the industry knows about its impacts on local communities. (n = 67) Very satisfied 4% Satisfied 34% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 30% Dissatisfied 27% Very dissatisfied 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 3.07 Standard deviation 0.99 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 95

96 Figure 27d Extent to which the industry responds to concerns raised by local community residents. (n = 67) Very satisfied 6% Satisfied 27% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 39% Dissatisfied 22% Very dissatisfied 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 3.04 Standard deviation 0.99 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 96

97 Figure 27e Extent to which the industry listens to concerns raised by local community residents. (n = 67) Very satisfied 6% Satisfied 36% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 25% Dissatisfied 21% Very dissatisfied 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 3.03 Standard deviation 1.14 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 97

98 Figure 27f Extent to which the industry s communications are interesting and helpful. (n = 66) Very satisfied 5% Satisfied 23% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 48% Dissatisfied 20% Very dissatisfied 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 3.03 Standard deviation 0.89 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 98

99 Figure 27g Extent to which the industry is open to suggestions from local community leaders. (n = 65) Very satisfied 5% Satisfied 22% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 49% Dissatisfied 20% Very dissatisfied 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 3.02 Standard deviation 0.89 Figure 28b coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 99

100 Figure 27h Extent to which the industry shares information about its activities with local communities. (n = 66) Very satisfied 2% Satisfied 35% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 30% Dissatisfied 24% Very dissatisfied 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 2.95 Standard deviation 1.01 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 100

101 Figure 27i Extent to which the trustworthiness of communication by the industry is about right. (n = 65) Very satisfied 2% Satisfied 25% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 46% Dissatisfied 17% Very dissatisfied 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 2.89 Standard deviation 0.95 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 101

102 Figure 27j Extent to which the amount of communication with local community residents by the industry is about right. (n = 65) Very satisfied 3% Satisfied 18% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 48% Dissatisfied 25% Very dissatisfied 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 2.88 Standard deviation 0.89 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 102

103 Figure 27k Extent to which industry communication with community residents is clear and concise. (n = 65) Very satisfied 2% Satisfied 23% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 42% Dissatisfied 26% Very dissatisfied 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 2.85 Standard deviation 0.92 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 103

104 Figure 27l Extent to which the industry anticipates the local community residents need for information. (n = 66) Very satisfied 5% Satisfied 17% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 42% Dissatisfied 29% Very dissatisfied 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 2.82 Standard deviation 0.96 coding: 1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied; 3 = neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 = satisfied; 5 = very satisfied 104

105 Section V Actions Which May or May Not Have Been Taken in Response to the Exploration and Production of Oil and Natural Gas This section deals with eight actions that residents may or may not have taken in response to exploration and production of natural gas in Karnes County. Survey respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they had engaged in such actions. Respondents were then asked to indicate their likelihood of engaging in such actions in the future. The results are summarized below. Figures 28a through 35a illustrate the extent to which respondents had engaged in such actions. Figures 28b to 35b illustrate the likelihood of engaging in such actions in the future. 105

106 Figure 28a Action: Attended a public meeting to get information and learn more about the drilling and/or production of oil and natural gas. (n = 67) 52% 48% Yes No 106

107 Figure 28b Likelihood of attending public meeting in the future: (n = 62) Very likely 26% Somewhat likely 48% Not likely 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 107

108 Figure 29a Action: Contacted a local elected official or governmental agency to complain about an oil and natural gas drilling and/or production issue. (n = 67) 13% 87% Yes No 108

109 Figure 29b Likelihood of contacting elected official or government agency in the future: (n = 59) Very likely 14% Somewhat likely 22% Not likely 64% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 109

110 Figure 30a Action: Voted FOR a political candidate because of his/her position on the drilling and/or production of oil and natural gas. (n = 66) 35% 65% Yes No 110

111 Figure 30b Likelihood of voting FOR political candidate in the future: (n = 60) Very likely 27% Somewhat likely 37% Not likely 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 111

112 Figure 31a Action: Voted AGAINST a political candidate because of his/her position on the drilling and/or production of oil and natural gas. (n = 65) 32% 68% Yes No 112

113 Figure 31b Likelihood of voting AGAINST political candidate in the future: (n = 59) Very likely 31% Somewhat likely 29% Not likely 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 113

114 Figure 32a Action: Attended an energy industrysponsored meeting to get information and learn more about the exploration and/or production of oil and natural gas. (n = 65) 52% 48% Yes No 114

115 Figure 32b Likelihood of attending energy industrysponsored meeting in the future: (n = 61) Very likely 23% Somewhat likely 51% Not likely 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 115

116 Figure 33a Action: Attended a public meeting to OPPOSE the exploration and/or production of oil and natural gas. (n = 65) 3% 97% Yes No 116

117 Figure 33b Likelihood of attending public meeting to OPPOSE oil and gas in the future: (n = 61) Very likely 7% Somewhat likely 18% Not likely 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 117

118 Figure 34a Action: Attended a public meeting to SUPPORT the exploration and/or production of oil and natural gas. (n = 65) 14% 86% Yes No 118

119 Figure 34b Likelihood of attending public meeting to SUPPORT oil and gas in the future: (n = 61) Very likely 8% Somewhat likely 46% Not likely 46% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 119

120 Figure 35a Action: Wrote and mailed a letter to the editor of your local newspaper OPPOSING the continued exploration and/or production of oil and natural gas. (n = 65) 2% 98% Yes No 120

121 Figure 35b Likelihood of writing to local newspaper OPPOSING oil and gas in the future: (n = 59) Very likely 8% Somewhat likely 14% Not likely 78% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 121

122 Section VI Satisfaction with Communication Figures 36a through 36g summarize respondents levels of satisfaction regarding communication involving oil and gas industry activities. 122

123 Figure 36a Level of satisfaction: Freedom to express my opinion about oil and gas development (n = 63) Very satisfied 14% Satisfied 32% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 33% Dissatisfied 11% Very dissatisfied 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 3.30 Standard deviation 1.14 coding: 1 = Very dissatisfied; 2 = Dissatisfied; 3 = Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 =Satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied 123

124 Figure 36b Level of satisfaction: Oil and gas industry officials getting information out to the public (n = 63) Very satisfied 2% Satisfied 29% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 33% Dissatisfied 30% Very dissatisfied 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 2.89 Standard deviation 0.95 coding: 1 = Very dissatisfied; 2 = Dissatisfied; 3 = Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 =Satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied 124

125 Figure 36c Level of satisfaction: Availability of information about oil and gas development (n = 63) Very satisfied 2% Satisfied 30% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 32% Dissatisfied 24% Very dissatisfied 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 2.84 Standard deviation 1.05 coding: 1 = Very dissatisfied; 2 = Dissatisfied; 3 = Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 =Satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied 125

126 Figure 36d Level of satisfaction: Fairness of the communication process (all citizens voices and concerns are heard and considered) (n = 63) Very satisfied 5% Satisfied 17% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 38% Dissatisfied 27% Very dissatisfied 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 2.75 Standard deviation 1.05 coding: 1 = Very dissatisfied; 2 = Dissatisfied; 3 = Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 =Satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied 126

127 Figure 36e Level of satisfaction: Oil and gas industry officials soliciting input from the public (n = 63) Very satisfied 3% Satisfied 16% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 40% Dissatisfied 27% Very dissatisfied 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 2.67 Standard deviation 1.02 coding: 1 = Very dissatisfied; 2 = Dissatisfied; 3 = Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 =Satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied 127

128 Figure 36f Level of satisfaction: Effectiveness of county government in communicating information about oil and gas development (n = 63) Very satisfied 2% Satisfied 19% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 24% Dissatisfied 30% Very dissatisfied 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 2.41 Standard deviation 1.12 coding: 1 = Very dissatisfied; 2 = Dissatisfied; 3 = Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 =Satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied 128

129 Figure 36g Level of satisfaction: Effectiveness of city government in communicating information about oil and gas development (n = 62) Very satisfied 3% Satisfied 16% Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 27% Dissatisfied 24% Very dissatisfied 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 2.40 Standard deviation Figure 36a 1.17 coding: 1 = Very dissatisfied; 2 = Dissatisfied; 3 = Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied; 4 =Satisfied; 5 = Very satisfied 129

130 Section VII Management Decisions Figures 37a through 46b summarize the amounts of influence respondents believe selected groups/organizations (a) should have and (b) actually have on the management decisions pertaining to the oil and natural gas development occurring in/near their communities. Figures 37a through 46a illustrate the perceived level of influence each group/organization should have on management decisions. Figures 37b through 46b illustrate the perceived level of influence each group/organization actually has on management decisions. 130

131 Figure 37a Perceived level of influence should have: Residents of local affected communities (n = 63) Major influence 38% Moderate influence 46% A little infuence 14% No influence 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 2.21 Standard deviation 0.74 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 131

132 Figure 37b Perceived level of influence actually have: Residents of local affected communities (n = 61) Major influence 13% Moderate influence 23% A little infuence 34% No influence 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.20 Standard deviation 1.01 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 132

133 Figure 38a Perceived level of influence should have: Officials of local affected communities (n = 63) Major influence 30% Moderate influence 48% A little infuence 21% No influence 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 2.06 Standard deviation 0.76 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 133

134 Figure 38b Perceived level of influence actually have: Officials of local affected communities (n = 62) Major influence 18% Moderate influence 29% A little infuence 37% No influence 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.48 Standard deviation 0.97 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 134

135 Figure 39a Perceived level of influence should have: Environmental interest groups (n = 63) Major influence 17% Moderate influence 35% A little infuence 33% No influence 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.56 Standard deviation 0.95 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 135

136 Figure 39b Perceived level of influence actually have: Environmental interest groups (n = 62) Major influence 18% Moderate influence 27% A little infuence 47% No influence 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.55 Standard deviation 0.88 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 136

137 Figure 40a Perceived level of influence should have: Commercial resource industries (agriculture, timber, etc.) (n = 63) Major influence 22% Moderate influence 54% A little infuence 22% No influence 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.97 Standard deviation 0.72 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 137

138 Figure 40b Perceived level of influence actually have: Commercial resource industries (agriculture, timber, etc.) (n = 62) Major influence 15% Moderate influence 39% A little infuence 39% No influence 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.60 Standard deviation 0.84 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 138

139 Figure 41a Perceived level of influence should have: Statewide public opinion (n = 63) Major influence 13% Moderate influence 32% A little infuence 38% No influence 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.40 Standard deviation 0.93 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 139

140 Figure 41b Perceived level of influence actually have: Statewide public opinion (n = 61) Major influence 13% Moderate influence 33% A little infuence 39% No influence 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.44 Standard deviation 0.90 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 140

141 Figure 42a Perceived level of influence should have: National public opinion (n = 63) Major influence 8% Moderate influence 22% A little infuence 40% No influence 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.08 Standard deviation 0.92 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 141

142 Figure 42b Perceived level of influence actually have: National public opinion (n = 62) Major influence 13% Moderate influence 35% A little infuence 34% No influence 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.44 Standard deviation 0.93 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 142

143 Figure 43a Perceived level of influence should have: State natural resource agencies (n = 63) Major influence 19% Moderate influence 48% A little infuence 32% No influence 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.84 Standard deviation 0.75 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 143

144 Figure 43b Perceived level of influence actually have: State natural resource agencies (n = 62) Major influence 21% Moderate influence 48% A little infuence 27% No influence 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.87 Standard deviation 0.78 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 144

145 Figure 44a Perceived level of influence should have: Federal natural resource agencies (n = 63) Major influence 14% Moderate influence 30% A little infuence 43% No influence 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.46 Standard deviation 0.89 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 145

146 Figure 44b Perceived level of influence actually have: Federal natural resource agencies (n = 61) Major influence 23% Moderate influence 44% A little infuence 26% No influence 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.84 Standard deviation 0.86 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 146

147 Figure 45a Perceived level of influence should have: U.S. Congress (n = 63) Major influence 11% Moderate influence 27% A little infuence 32% No influence 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.19 Standard deviation 1.00 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 147

148 Figure 45b Perceived level of influence actually have: U.S. Congress (n = 62) Major influence 31% Moderate influence 40% A little infuence 24% No influence 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.97 Standard deviation 0.87 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 148

149 Figure 46a Perceived level of influence should have: Texas State Legislature (n = 64) Major influence 25% Moderate influence 38% A little infuence 25% No influence 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.75 Standard deviation 0.98 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 149

150 Figure 46b Perceived level of influence actually have: Texas State Legislature (n = 63) Major influence 41% Moderate influence 41% A little infuence 16% No influence 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 2.22 Standard deviation 0.77 coding: 0 = No influence; 1 = A little influence; 2 = Moderate influence; 3 = Major influence 150

151 Section VIII Hydraulic Fracturing Figures 47 through 49o pertain to the issue of hydraulic fracturing. Figure 47 summarizes respondents level of familiarity with the process of hydraulic fracturing. Figures 48a through 48o illustrate the contribution to respondents knowledge about hydraulic fracturing from 15 different sources. And, Figures 49a through 49o represent respondents overall trust in each of 15 sources to deliver unbiased, factual knowledge on hydraulic fracturing. 151

152 Figure 47 Level of familiarity with the process of hydraulic fracturing (n = 65) 7 (Extremely familiar) 6 3% 2% 5 29% 4 21% 3 26% 2 14% 1 (Extremely unfamiliar) 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 4.97 Standard deviation

153 Figure 48a Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Newspapers (n = 65) A great deal 20% Some 43% Very little 20% None 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 1.66 Standard deviation 0.99 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 153

154 Figure 48b Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Internet websites (n = 65) A great deal 28% Some 38% Very little 9% None 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 1.69 Standard deviation 1.13 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 154

155 Figure 48c Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Gasland and/or Gasland 2 (the films by Josh Fox) (n = 63) A great deal 5% Some 17% Very little 13% None 65% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Mean 0.62 Standard deviation 0.94 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 155

156 Figure 48d Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Texas A&M AgriLife Extension (n = 64) A great deal 3% Some 25% Very little 30% None 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 0.89 Standard deviation 0.89 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 156

157 Figure 48e Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Oil/natural gas industry (n = 64) A great deal 22% Some 48% Very little 20% None 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.83 Standard deviation 0.88 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 157

158 Figure 48f Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Regulatory agencies (n = 63) A great deal 3% Some 37% Very little 25% None 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 1.08 Standard deviation 0.92 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 158

159 Figure 48g Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Conservation/environmental groups (n = 65) A great deal 2% Some 37% Very little 23% None 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 1.02 Standard deviation 0.91 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 159

160 Figure 48h Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Social media (n = 64) A great deal 6% Some 33% Very little 33% None 28% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Mean 1.17 Standard deviation 0.92 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 160

161 Figure 48i Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: University professors (n = 64) A great deal 6% Some 23% Very little 23% None 47% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 0.89 Standard deviation 0.98 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 161

162 Figure 48j Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Landowner groups/coalitions (n = 65) A great deal 9% Some 45% Very little 22% None 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 1.38 Standard deviation 0.96 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 162

163 Figure 48k Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Neighbors (n = 63) A great deal 16% Some 48% Very little 17% None 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 1.60 Standard deviation 0.98 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 163

164 Figure 48l Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Friends in community (n = 65) A great deal 17% Some 48% Very little 20% None 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.66 Standard deviation 0.94 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 164

165 Figure 48m Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Elected county officials (n = 63) A great deal 0% Some 24% Very little 33% None 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 0.81 Standard deviation 0.80 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 165

166 Figure 48n Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Elected city officials (n = 64) A great deal 0% Some 16% Very little 34% None 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 0.66 Standard deviation 0.74 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 166

167 Figure 48o Contributed to knowledge about the process of hydraulic fracturing: Religious leaders (n = 65) A great deal 0% Some 12% Very little 17% None 71% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Mean 0.42 Standard deviation 0.70 coding: 0 = None; 1 = Very little; 2 = Some; 3 = A great deal 167

168 Figure 49a Trust to deliver unbiased, factual knowledge on hydraulic fracturing: Newspapers (n = 63) Great deal of trust 21% Some trust 48% Very little trust 19% No trust 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 1.76 Standard deviation 0.93 coding: 0 = No trust; 1 = Very little trust; 2 = Some trust; 3 = Great deal of trust 168

169 Figure 49b Trust to deliver unbiased, factual knowledge on hydraulic fracturing: Internet websites (n = 61) Great deal of trust 18% Some trust 56% Very little trust 15% No trust 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.80 Standard deviation 0.87 coding: 0 = No trust; 1 = Very little trust; 2 = Some trust; 3 = Great deal of trust 169

170 Figure 49c Trust to deliver unbiased, factual knowledge on hydraulic fracturing: Gasland and/or Gasland 2 (the films by Josh Fox) (n = 61) Great deal of trust 3% Some trust 31% Very little trust 25% No trust 41% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mean 0.97 Standard deviation 0.93 coding: 0 = No trust; 1 = Very little trust; 2 = Some trust; 3 = Great deal of trust 170

171 Figure 49d Trust to deliver unbiased, factual knowledge on hydraulic fracturing: Texas A&M AgriLife Extension (n = 62) Great deal of trust 8% Some trust 65% Very little trust 11% No trust 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Mean 1.65 Standard deviation 0.85 coding: 0 = No trust; 1 = Very little trust; 2 = Some trust; 3 = Great deal of trust 171

172 Figure 49e Trust to deliver unbiased, factual knowledge on hydraulic fracturing: Oil/natural gas industry (n = 65) Great deal of trust 17% Some trust 49% Very little trust 23% No trust 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.72 Standard deviation 0.88 coding: 0 = No trust; 1 = Very little trust; 2 = Some trust; 3 = Great deal of trust 172

173 Figure 49f Trust to deliver unbiased, factual knowledge on hydraulic fracturing: Regulatory agencies (n = 63) Great deal of trust 6% Some trust 51% Very little trust 21% No trust 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Mean 1.41 Standard deviation 0.91 coding: 0 = No trust; 1 = Very little trust; 2 = Some trust; 3 = Great deal of trust 173

174 Figure 49g Trust to deliver unbiased, factual knowledge on hydraulic fracturing: Conservation/environmental groups (n = 63) Great deal of trust 0% Some trust 30% Very little trust 32% No trust 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Mean 0.92 Standard deviation 0.83 coding: 0 = No trust; 1 = Very little trust; 2 = Some trust; 3 = Great deal of trust 174