Balancing Socioeconomic and Environmental Risks and Benefits under Multiple Stressor Conditions

A Case Study of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming
  • S. Shalhevet
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


U.S. national energy policy calls for increasing natural gas production in order to increase environmental security, provide energy security, and increase national security by reducing dependence on imported energy. One of the major sources of natural gas production in the U.S. is the coalbed methane (CBM) gas development project in the Powder River Basin. However, this project is highly controversial and is considered one of the greatest environmental threats to Wyoming. The threat is caused by a large variety of chemical and non-chemical Stressors, including physical Stressors such as excavation, increased water volume, wind and water erosion, noise, dust, road construction, and increased traffic.

This paper presents a model for multiple Stressor analysis of the ecosystem and the derived human values. The objective is to recommend an optimal management policy that maximizes economic profits while minimizing social costs and environmental damage. The adverse effects of the physical and chemical Stressors in the Powder River Basin project are assessed under different feasible management alternatives for each of the 18 sub-watersheds involved in the project. The social, economic and environmental impacts on sustainable development are incorporated into a single score model using the economic valuation approach, which assigns a monetary value to environmental damage in order to compare different types of impacts.

The cost-benefit analysis shows that for the project as a whole, the total benefits are lower than the value of the environmental damage. However, an examination by area shows that for some sub-watersheds, the benefits outweigh the costs. Management alternatives that involve improved water treatment methods cost more than the value of their environmental benefits. The recommendation is to continue the project only in those sub-watersheds where the benefits outweigh the environmental costs, while maintaining the current water treatment methods.


Coalbed Methane Economic Valuation Economic Profit Environmental Impact Statement Company Profit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blend, J., 2002. Important Economic Issues to Address with Coal-Bed Methane. Resource Protection and Planning Bureau, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, October 22.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper, A., n.d. The Natural Capital of the Southern Lake Michigan Coastal Zone. Graduate paper, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fausold, C. J., and Lilieholm, R. J., 1996. The Economic Value of Open Space. Land Lines 8, 5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goerold, W. T., 2002. Revised Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Financial Model. Report PRB-CBM-FM), Lookout Mountain Analysis.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haruvy, N., Shalhevet, S., and Yaron, D., 2001. Effect of urban development on water quality and environmental concerns. International Water & Irrigation 21(2):24–32.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    LaMuth, J., 1998. Community Development: Noise. Report CDFS-190–198. The Ohio State University Fact Sheet.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laurence, C., 2003. Cowboys fight to run drillers off the range. Sunday Telegraph, 2 March.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loft, E. R., 1998. Economic Contribution of Deer, Pronghorn Antelope and Sage Grouse Hunting to Northeastern California and Implications to the Overall “Value” of Wildlife. California Wildlife Conservation Bulletin, California Department of Fish and Game, 11.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Munn, L. C., 2000. Water in a Dry Land: A Problematic Gift. Frontline Report, Fall. Available at:
  10. 10.
    Murphy, J. J., and Delucchi, M. A., 1998. A review of the literature on the social cost of motor vehicle use in the United States. Journal of Transportation and Statistics January: 15–42.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pearce, D., 2003. Renewable Resources: The Tropical Forest. Publication no. B48 2002–3. A lecture given on Nov. 21, 2002, at the University College London. Available at:
  12. 12.
    Power River Basin Resource Council Website. Available at:
  13. 13.
    Regele, S., and Stark, J., 2000. Coal-Bed Methane Gas Development in Montana, Some Biological Issues. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Industrial and Energy Minerals Bureau. Available at:
  14. 14.
    Sagoff, M., 1988. The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge studies in Philosophy and Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shalhevet, J., 1994. Using water of marginal quality for crop production: major issues. Agricultural Water Management 25:233–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2003. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service. Wyoming Office of USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2003. Agricultural Statistics 2003. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Department of the Interior, 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. Report WY-070-02-065, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Wyoming.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SustainEconBrooklineUSA

Personalised recommendations