Jump to content

Environmental impact of fracking: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Added navbox
re-write lead to more closely follow the article. summary sentence recapitulating the table of contents, then brief discussion of each section
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Hydraulic fracturing}}
{{Hydraulic fracturing}}
[[File:Hydraulic Fracturing-Related Activities.jpg|thumb|Illustration of hydraulic fracturing and related activities]]
[[File:Hydraulic Fracturing-Related Activities.jpg|thumb|Illustration of hydraulic fracturing and related activities]]
The '''environmental impact of [[hydraulic fracturing]]''' includes land use, land use, risk of earthquakes, noise pollution, air emissions, water consumption, water contamination, risk of secondary accidents, and health effects on humans from environmental effects. Governments are attempting to forge policies to manage risk, working under pressure from industry on the one hand, and from anti-fracking groups on the other.
The '''environmental impact of [[hydraulic fracturing]]''' includes contamination of [[surface water]], [[ground water]], risks to [[air quality]], noise pollution, migration of natural gas and chemicals to the surface and air, and related health issues.<ref name="house1"/><ref name="HeatOnGas"/> Hydraulic fracturing can cause potentially irreversible threats to health and safety.<ref name=PHE2014/> Cases of groundwater contamination have been documented.<ref name="jenner"/><ref>DiGiulio, D.C., Wilkin, R.T., Miller, C., and Oberley, G. (October-December 2011) [http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf "Investigation of Ground Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming"] US EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory (Ada, Oklahoma)</ref> There is also evidence that it may cause earthquakes [[Injection well#Injection-induced earthquakes|under some conditions.]]


Significant amounts of land is used during hydraulic fracturing. About {{convert|3.6|ha}} is needed per each [[drill pad]] for surface installations. These sites need to be remediated after wells are exhausted.<ref name=aea2012/>
The study prepared in 2012 for the [[Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission]] identified ground- and surface water contamination, large usage of water resources, air emissions, land taken out of usage, risk to biodiversity, noise impacts, and increased traffic as main cumulative risks caused by massive hydraulic fracturing for unconventional gas extraction.<ref name=aea2012/>

Hydraulic fracturing causes [[induced seismicity]] called microseismic events or [[microearthquake]]s. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the fracturing.<ref name="Oilfield Review 2005/2006"/> The magnitude of these events is usually too small to be detected at the surface, although quakes have been triggered that have been large enough to be felt by people:.<ref name=worldwatch/><ref name="Kim" /><ref name="Reuters07122013" />

Noise pollution from hydraulic fracturing can effect residents and local wildlife; each well pad (in average 10&nbsp;wells per pad) needs during preparatory and hydraulic fracturing process about 800 to 2,500&nbsp;days of noisy activity, which affect both residents and local wildlife. In addition, noise is created by transport related to the hydraulic fracturing activities.<ref name=aea2012/>

Air emissions are primarily methane that escapes from wells, along with industrial emissions from equipment used in the extraction process.<ref name=aea2012/>

Hydraulic fracturing uses between {{convert|1.2|and|3.5|e6USgal|m3}} of water per well, with large projects using up to {{convert|5|e6USgal|m3}}. Additional water is used when wells are refractured.<ref name="CRO 2009"/><ref name="Penn State Water" /> An average well requires {{convert |3|to|8|e6USgal|m3}} of water over its lifetime.<ref name="DOE primer"/> According to the [[Oxford Institute for Energy Studies]], greater volumes of fracturing fluids are required in Europe, where the shale depths average 1.5 times greater than in the U.S.<ref name="shale Europe" />

Hydraulic fracturing fluids include [[hydraulic fracturing proppants|proppants]], [[Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing|radionuclide tracers]], and [[List of additives for hydraulic fracturing|other chemicals]], many of which are toxic.<ref name="house1" /> In some jurisdictions these chemicals are allowed to be treated as [[trade secrets]] by companies who use them, and in other jurisdictions they must be made public. Lack of knowledge about specific chemicals has complicated efforts to develop risk management policies and to study health effects.<ref name="EU" /><ref name = "HassBenjamin" />

[[Surface water]] may be contaminated through spillage and improperly built and maintained waste pits,<ref name="Surface Spills"/> and [[ground water]] can be contaminated if the fluid is able to escape the formation being fractured (through, for example, abandoned wells) or by [[produced water]] (the returning fluids, which also contain dissolved constituents such as minerals and [[brine water]]s). <ref name=PHE2014/> Produced water is managed by [[Injection well#Waste disposal|underground injection]], [[sewage treatment|municipal]] and [[industrial wastewater treatment|commercial]] [[wastewater treatment]] and discharge, self‐contained systems at well sites or fields, and recycling to fracture future wells.<ref name="LoganJeffrey" />

Oil obtained through hydraulic fracturing retains chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, which may increase the rate at which rail tank cars and pipelines corrode, potentially releasing their load and its gases.<ref name="Bloomberg08132013" /><ref name="reuters10112013" />

Water and air pollution are the biggest risks to human health from hydraulic fracturing; research is underway to determine if human health has been effected, and rigorous following of safety procedures and regulation is required to avoid harm and to manage the risk of accidents that could cause harm.<ref name=PHE2014/>

Governments worldwide are developing regulatory frameworks to [[risk assessment|assess]] and [[risk management|manage]] environmental and associated health risks.<ref name=EPAplan/>{{rp|3-7}} The two main schools of regulation are the taking of measures only to prevent harm from clearly-identified risks, and the [[precautionary principle]], where action is taken before risks are well-identified.<Ref name=ParisTech/> Efforts to gather information have been impeded by confidentiality requirements of settlement agreements<ref name=Vidic2013/>

Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In [[hydraulic fracturing by country#France|France]] and [[hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Vermont|Vermont]] for instance, a [[precautionary principle|precautionary approach]] has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned.<ref name=autogenerated2 /><ref name=autogenerated1 /> Some countries such as [[hydraulic fracturing in the United States|the U.S.]] have adopted the approach of clearly identifying risks before regulating. In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, which found that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.<<ref name=RoySocReport/>

The hydraulic fracturing industry has lobbied for permissive regulation in Europe,<ref name=NYTeurolobby/> the US federal government, and US states.<ref name=NYTusalobby/> At the same time, an [[anti-fracking movement]] has emerged internationally.<ref name=Ecologist713/>


== Air emissions ==
== Air emissions ==
Line 30: Line 52:


===Injected fluid===
===Injected fluid===

{{See also|List of additives for hydraulic fracturing}}
Hydraulic fracturing fluids include [[hydraulic fracturing proppants|proppants]], [[Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing|radionuclide tracers]], and [[List of additives for hydraulic fracturing|other chemicals]], many of which are toxic.<ref name="house1" />


Hydraulic fracturing fluids may cause contamination both as it is injected under high pressure into the ground and as it returns to the surface.<ref name = "NYT Waste Docs 26Feb2011" /><ref name="EhrenburgR" /> To mitigate the effect of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater, the well and ideally the formation itself should remain hydraulically isolated from other geological formations, especially freshwater aquifers.<ref name = "WEO2011full" />
Hydraulic fracturing fluids may cause contamination both as it is injected under high pressure into the ground and as it returns to the surface.<ref name = "NYT Waste Docs 26Feb2011" /><ref name="EhrenburgR" /> To mitigate the effect of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater, the well and ideally the formation itself should remain hydraulically isolated from other geological formations, especially freshwater aquifers.<ref name = "WEO2011full" />
Line 100: Line 123:
==Policy and science==
==Policy and science==


There are [[hydraulic fracturing#main approaches to regulation|two main approaches to regulation]] that derive from policy debates about how to [[risk management|manage risk]] and a corresponding debate about how to [[risk assessment|assess risk]].{{citation needed|date=October 2014}} Social sciences have raised two main critiques of [[risk assessment]]. Firstly, it takes scientific issues out of the [[public debate]] since there is no debate on the use of a technology but on its impacts.{{citation needed|date=October 2014}} Secondly, it does not prevent environmental harm from happening since risks are taken then assessed instead of evaluated then taken as it would be the case with a [[precautionary principle|precautionary approach]] to scientific debates.{{citation needed|date=October 2014}} The relevance and reliability of [[risk assessments]] in communities where hydraulic fracturing occurs has also been debated amongst environmental groups, health scientists, and industry leaders. The risks, to some, are overplayed and the current research is insufficient in showing the link between hydraulic fracturing and adverse health effects, while to others the risks are obvious and [[risk assessment]] is underfunded.<ref name=autogenerated10 />
There are [[hydraulic fracturing#main approaches to regulation|two main approaches to regulation]] that derive from policy debates about how to [[risk management|manage risk]] and a corresponding debate about how to [[risk assessment|assess risk]].<ref name=EPAplan>Office of Research and Development US Environmental Protection Agency. November 2011 [http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hf_study_plan_110211_final_508.pdf Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources]</ref>{{rp|3-7}}

The two main schools of regulation are science-based assessment of risk and the taking of measures to prevent harm from those risks through an approach like [[hazard analysis]], and the [[precautionary principle]], where action is taken before risks are well-identified.<Ref name=ParisTech>Editors, ParisTech Review March 28th, 2014 [http://www.paristechreview.com/2014/03/28/enforce-precautionary-principle/ Is it really possible to enforce the precautionary principle?]</ref> The relevance and reliability of [[risk assessments]] in communities where hydraulic fracturing occurs has also been debated amongst environmental groups, health scientists, and industry leaders. The risks, to some, are overplayed and the current research is insufficient in showing the link between hydraulic fracturing and adverse health effects, while to others the risks are obvious and [[risk assessment]] is underfunded.<ref name=autogenerated10 />


Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In [[hydraulic fracturing by country#France|France]] and [[hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Vermont|Vermont]] for instance, a [[precautionary principle|precautionary approach]] has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned based on two principles: the [[precautionary principle]] and the prevention principle.<ref name=autogenerated2 /><ref name=autogenerated1 /> Nevertheless, some States such as [[hydraulic fracturing in the United States|the U.S.]] have adopted a [[risk assessment]] approach, which had led to many [[hydraulic fracturing#implementation process and regulation|regulatory debates over the issue of hydraulic fracturing and its risks]].
Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In [[hydraulic fracturing by country#France|France]] and [[hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Vermont|Vermont]] for instance, a [[precautionary principle|precautionary approach]] has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned based on two principles: the [[precautionary principle]] and the prevention principle.<ref name=autogenerated2 /><ref name=autogenerated1 /> Nevertheless, some States such as [[hydraulic fracturing in the United States|the U.S.]] have adopted a [[risk assessment]] approach, which had led to many [[hydraulic fracturing#implementation process and regulation|regulatory debates over the issue of hydraulic fracturing and its risks]].


In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, whose purpose was to identify the problems around hydraulic facturing and to advise the country's regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the [[Royal Society]] and the [[Royal Academy of Engineering]], under the chairmanship of Professor [[Robert Mair]], the report features ten recommendations covering issues such as groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakages, water management, environmental risks, best practice for risk management, and also includes advice for regulators and research councils.<ref>{{cite report|url=http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf |first=Robert |last=Mair (Chair) |title=Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing |publisher=The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering|date=June 2012 |accessdate=10 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/ |title=Shale gas extraction: Final report|publisher=The Royal Society|date=29 June 2012 |accessdate=10 October 2014}}</ref> The report was notable for stating that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.
In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, whose purpose was to identify the problems around hydraulic facturing and to advise the country's regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the [[Royal Society]] and the [[Royal Academy of Engineering]], under the chairmanship of Professor [[Robert Mair]], the report features ten recommendations covering issues such as groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakages, water management, environmental risks, best practice for risk management, and also includes advice for regulators and research councils.<ref>{{cite report|url=http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf |first=Robert |last=Mair (Chair) |title=Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing |publisher=The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering|date=June 2012 |accessdate=10 October 2014}}</ref><ref name=RoySocReport>{{cite web|url=http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/ |title=Shale gas extraction: Final report|publisher=The Royal Society|date=29 June 2012 |accessdate=10 October 2014}}</ref> The report was notable for stating that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.


A 2013 review concluded that confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations have impeded peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts.<ref name=Vidic2013>{{cite journal|last1=Vidic|first1=R.D., ''et al.''|title=Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality|journal=Science|date=May 17, 2013|volume=340|issue=1235009|pages=826|doi=10.1126/science.1235009|pmid=23687049|url=http://www.eichrom.com/PDF/vidic-et-al.,-science,-2013.pdf|accessdate=29 September 2014}}</ref>
A 2013 review concluded that confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations have impeded peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts.<ref name=Vidic2013>{{cite journal|last1=Vidic|first1=R.D., ''et al.''|title=Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality|journal=Science|date=May 17, 2013|volume=340|issue=1235009|pages=826|doi=10.1126/science.1235009|pmid=23687049|url=http://www.eichrom.com/PDF/vidic-et-al.,-science,-2013.pdf|accessdate=29 September 2014}}</ref>


==Pressure groups==
==Anti-fracking movement==

⚫
An [[anti-fracking movement]] has emerged both internationally with involvement of international [[environmental organization]]s and [[nation state]]s such as [[France]] and locally in affected areas such as [[Balcombe]] in Sussex where the [[Balcombe drilling protest]] was in progress during summer 2013.<ref name=Ecologist713>{{cite news|title=The UK's anti fracking movement is growing|url=http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2016997/the_uks_anti_fracking_movement_is_growing.html|accessdate=July 29, 2013|newspaper=The Ecologist|date=Undated, but July, 2013|author=Jan Goodey}}</ref>
The hydraulic fracturing industry has lobbied for permissive regulation in Europe<ref name=NYTeurolobby>Eric Lipton and Danny Hakim for the New York Times. October 18, 2013 [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/world/europe/lobbying-bonanza-as-firms-try-to-influence-european-union.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Lobbying Bonanza as Firms Try to Influence European Union]</ref> the US federal government, and US states.<ref name=NYTusalobby>Thomas Kaplan for the New York Times. November 25, 2011 [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/nyregion/hydrofracking-debate-spurs-huge-spending-by-industry.html?pagewanted=all Millions Spent in Albany Fight to Drill for Gas]</ref>

⚫
At the same time, an [[anti-fracking movement]] has emerged both internationally with involvement of international [[environmental organization]]s and [[nation state]]s such as [[France]] and locally in affected areas such as [[Balcombe]] in Sussex where the [[Balcombe drilling protest]] was in progress during summer 2013.<ref name=Ecologist713>{{cite news|title=The UK's anti fracking movement is growing |url=http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2016997/the_uks_anti_fracking_movement_is_growing.html |accessdate=July 29, 2013 |newspaper=The Ecologist|date=Undated, but July, 2013|author=Jan Goodey}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
Line 135: Line 163:


<ref name="NYT Waste Docs 26Feb2011">{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-documents-1.html#document/p533/a9948|title=Drilling Down: Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste |author=Staff |date=26 February 2011 |newspaper=The New York Times |accessdate=23 February 2012 }}</ref>
<ref name="NYT Waste Docs 26Feb2011">{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-documents-1.html#document/p533/a9948|title=Drilling Down: Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste |author=Staff |date=26 February 2011 |newspaper=The New York Times |accessdate=23 February 2012 }}</ref>

⚫
<ref name="HeatOnGas">{{Cite journal |last=Brown |first=Valerie J. |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817691/ |title=Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas |date=February 2007 |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |publisher=US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences |page=A76 |volume=115 |issue=2 |pmc=1817691 |accessdate=2012-05-01 |pmid=17384744 |doi=10.1289/ehp.115-a76}}</ref>


<ref name="UT Study">{{cite report |title=Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development | url = http://www.scribd.com/doc/82147814/Fact-Based-Regulation-for-Environmental-Protection-in-Shale-Gas-Development-by-The-Energy-Institute-at-the-University-of-Texas-at-Austin-February-201|author=Energy Institute |publisher=[[University of Texas at Austin]] |format = PDF | date=February 2012 |accessdate=29 February 2012| page = ?}}</ref>
<ref name="UT Study">{{cite report |title=Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development | url = http://www.scribd.com/doc/82147814/Fact-Based-Regulation-for-Environmental-Protection-in-Shale-Gas-Development-by-The-Energy-Institute-at-the-University-of-Texas-at-Austin-February-201|author=Energy Institute |publisher=[[University of Texas at Austin]] |format = PDF | date=February 2012 |accessdate=29 February 2012| page = ?}}</ref>
Line 285: Line 311:


<ref name=autogenerated10>Williams, Laurence, John [http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9444/ "Framing fracking: public responses to potential unconventional fossil fuel exploitation in the North of England"], Durham thesis, Durham University, 2014</ref>
<ref name=autogenerated10>Williams, Laurence, John [http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9444/ "Framing fracking: public responses to potential unconventional fossil fuel exploitation in the North of England"], Durham thesis, Durham University, 2014</ref>

⚫
<ref name="jenner">{{Cite journal | last1 = Jenner | first1 = Steffen | last2 = Lamadrid | first2 = Alberto J. | url = http://www.fraw.org.uk/files/extreme/jenner_lamadrid_2013.pdf | title = Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States | year = 2013 | journal = [[Energy Policy (journal)|Energy Policy]] | publisher = [[Elsevier]] | pages = 442–453 | issue = 53 | accessdate = 2014-09-28 | doi = 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.010}}</ref>
}}
}}

==Further reading==
⚫
* {{Cite journal |last=Brown |first=Valerie J. |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817691/ |title=Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas |date=February 2007 |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |publisher=US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences |page=A76 |volume=115 |issue=2 |pmc=1817691 |accessdate=2012-05-01 |pmid=17384744 |doi=10.1289/ehp.115-a76}}
⚫
* {{Cite journal | last1 = Jenner | first1 = Steffen | last2 = Lamadrid | first2 = Alberto J. | url = http://www.fraw.org.uk/files/extreme/jenner_lamadrid_2013.pdf | title = Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States | year = 2013 | journal = [[Energy Policy (journal)|Energy Policy]] | publisher = [[Elsevier]] | pages = 442–453 | issue = 53 | accessdate = 2014-09-28 | doi = 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.010}}


[[Category:Hydraulic fracturing]]
[[Category:Hydraulic fracturing]]

Revision as of 00:55, 13 October 2014

Fracking
Shale gas drilling rig near Alvarado, Texas
Shale gas drilling rig near Alvarado, Texas
Shale gas drilling rig near Alvarado, Texas
By country
Environmental impact
Regulation
Technology
Politics
Illustration of hydraulic fracturing and related activities

The environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes land use, land use, risk of earthquakes, noise pollution, air emissions, water consumption, water contamination, risk of secondary accidents, and health effects on humans from environmental effects. Governments are attempting to forge policies to manage risk, working under pressure from industry on the one hand, and from anti-fracking groups on the other.

Significant amounts of land is used during hydraulic fracturing. About 3.6 hectares (8.9 acres) is needed per each drill pad for surface installations. These sites need to be remediated after wells are exhausted.[1]

Hydraulic fracturing causes induced seismicity called microseismic events or microearthquakes. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the fracturing.[2] The magnitude of these events is usually too small to be detected at the surface, although quakes have been triggered that have been large enough to be felt by people:.[3][4][5]

Noise pollution from hydraulic fracturing can effect residents and local wildlife; each well pad (in average 10 wells per pad) needs during preparatory and hydraulic fracturing process about 800 to 2,500 days of noisy activity, which affect both residents and local wildlife. In addition, noise is created by transport related to the hydraulic fracturing activities.[1]

Air emissions are primarily methane that escapes from wells, along with industrial emissions from equipment used in the extraction process.[1]

Hydraulic fracturing uses between 1.2 and 3.5 million US gallons (4,500 and 13,200 m3) of water per well, with large projects using up to 5 million US gallons (19,000 m3). Additional water is used when wells are refractured.[6][7] An average well requires 3 to 8 million US gallons (11,000 to 30,000 m3) of water over its lifetime.[8] According to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, greater volumes of fracturing fluids are required in Europe, where the shale depths average 1.5 times greater than in the U.S.[9]

Hydraulic fracturing fluids include proppants, radionuclide tracers, and other chemicals, many of which are toxic.[10] In some jurisdictions these chemicals are allowed to be treated as trade secrets by companies who use them, and in other jurisdictions they must be made public. Lack of knowledge about specific chemicals has complicated efforts to develop risk management policies and to study health effects.[11][12]

Surface water may be contaminated through spillage and improperly built and maintained waste pits,[13] and ground water can be contaminated if the fluid is able to escape the formation being fractured (through, for example, abandoned wells) or by produced water (the returning fluids, which also contain dissolved constituents such as minerals and brine waters). [14] Produced water is managed by underground injection, municipal and commercial wastewater treatment and discharge, self‐contained systems at well sites or fields, and recycling to fracture future wells.[15]

Oil obtained through hydraulic fracturing retains chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, which may increase the rate at which rail tank cars and pipelines corrode, potentially releasing their load and its gases.[16][17]

Water and air pollution are the biggest risks to human health from hydraulic fracturing; research is underway to determine if human health has been effected, and rigorous following of safety procedures and regulation is required to avoid harm and to manage the risk of accidents that could cause harm.[14]

Governments worldwide are developing regulatory frameworks to assess and manage environmental and associated health risks.[18]: 3–7  The two main schools of regulation are the taking of measures only to prevent harm from clearly-identified risks, and the precautionary principle, where action is taken before risks are well-identified.[19] Efforts to gather information have been impeded by confidentiality requirements of settlement agreements[20]

Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In France and Vermont for instance, a precautionary approach has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned.[21][22] Some countries such as the U.S. have adopted the approach of clearly identifying risks before regulating. In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, which found that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.<[23]

The hydraulic fracturing industry has lobbied for permissive regulation in Europe,[24] the US federal government, and US states.[25] At the same time, an anti-fracking movement has emerged internationally.[26]

Air emissions

The main hydraulic-fracturing-related air emissions are methane emissions from the wells during fracturing and emissions like diesel fumes and other hazardous pollutants, ozone precursors or odours from hydraulic fracturing equipment, such as compressors, pumps, and valves. Also gases and hydraulic fracturing fluids dissolved in waste water poses air emissions risk.[1]

Whether natural gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes higher well-to-burner emissions than gas produced from conventional wells is a matter of contention. Some studies have found that hydraulic fracturing has higher emissions due to methane released during completing wells as some gas returns to the surface, together with the fracturing fluids. Depending on their treatment, the well-to-burner emissions are 3.5%–12% higher than for conventional gas.[27]

A debate has arisen particularly around a study by professor Robert W. Howarth finding shale gas significantly worse for global warming than oil or coal.[28] Other researchers have criticized Howarth's analysis,[29][30] including Cathles et al., whose estimates were substantially lower."[31] A 2012 industry funded report co-authored by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory found emissions from shale gas, when burned for electricity, were "very similar" to those from so-called "conventional well" natural gas, and less than half the emissions of coal.[15]

Several studies which have estimated lifecycle methane leakage from shale gas development and production have found a wide range of leakage rates, from less than 1% of total production to nearly 8%.[32][33] According to the Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Inventory a methane leakage rate is about 1.4%.[34] The American Gas Association, an industry trade group, calculated a 1.2% leakage rate.[35] The most comprehensive study of methane leakage from shale gas to date, initiated by the Environmental Defense Fund and released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on September 16, 2013, finds that fugitive emissions in key stages of the natural gas production process are significantly lower than estimates in the EPA's national emissions inventory. The study reports direct measurements from 190 onshore natural gas sites, all hydraulically fractured, across the country and estimates a leakage rate of 0.42% for gas production.[32]

Also transportation of necessary water volume for hydraulic fracturing, if done by trucks, can cause high volumes of air emissions, especially particulate matter emissions.[36]

Water consumption

Hydraulic fracturing uses between 1.2 and 3.5 million US gallons (4,500 and 13,200 m3) of water per well, with large projects using up to 5 million US gallons (19,000 m3). Additional water is used when wells are refractured.[6][7] An average well requires 3 to 8 million US gallons (11,000 to 30,000 m3) of water over its lifetime.[7][8][37][38] According to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, greater volumes of fracturing fluids are required in Europe, where the shale depths average 1.5 times greater than in the U.S.[9]

Concern has been raised over the increasing quantities of water for hydraulic fracturing. Use of water for hydraulic fracturing can divert water from stream flow, water supplies for municipalities and industries such as power generation, as well as recreation and aquatic life.[39] It converts water into wastewater, taking this water out of the water cycle and the possibility of further use, except in hydraulic fracturing itself after recycling.[40] The large volumes of water required for most common hydraulic fracturing methods have raised concerns for arid regions, such as Karoo in South Africa,[41] and in Pennsylvania,[42][43] and in drought-prone Texas, and Colorado in North America.[44] It may also require water overland piping from distant sources.[37]

Some producers have developed hydraulic fracturing techniques that could reduce the need for water.[45] Using carbon dioxide, liquid propane or other gases instead of water have been proposed to reduce water consumption.[46] After it is used, the propane returns to its gaseous state and can be collected and reused. In addition to water savings, gas fracturing reportedly produces less damage to rock formations that can impede production.[45] Recycled flowback water can be reused in hydraulic fracturing.[27] It lowers the total amount of water used and reduces the need to dispose of wastewater after use. The technique is relatively expensive, however, since the water must be treated before each reuse and it can shorten the life of some types of equipment.[47]

New data shows that water saved by using natural gas combined cycle plants instead of coal steam turbine plants saves 25–50 times more water than the amount of water needed to extract the gas using hydraulic fracturing.[48]

Water contamination

Surface water and groundwater can be contaminated by fracturing fluid through two routes, and may be contaminated by methane gas.

Injected fluid

Hydraulic fracturing fluids include proppants, radionuclide tracers, and other chemicals, many of which are toxic.[10]

Hydraulic fracturing fluids may cause contamination both as it is injected under high pressure into the ground and as it returns to the surface.[49][50] To mitigate the effect of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater, the well and ideally the formation itself should remain hydraulically isolated from other geological formations, especially freshwater aquifers.[27]

The type of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and their properties vary. While most of them are common and generally harmless, some chemicals used in the United States are carcinogenic.[10] Out of 2,500 products used as hydraulic fracturing additives, 652 contained one or more of 29 chemical compounds which are either: (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.[10] Another 2011 study identified 632 chemicals used in United States natural gas operations, of which only 353 are well-described in the scientific literature.[51]

The European Union regulatory regime requires full disclosure of all additives.[11] In the US, the Ground Water Protection Council launched FracFocus.org, an online voluntary disclosure database for hydraulic fracturing fluids funded by oil and gas trade groups and the U.S. Department of Energy.[12][52]

Flowback

As the fracturing fluid flows back through the well, it consists of spent fluids and may contain dissolved constituents such as minerals and brine waters.[53] In some cases, depending the geology of formation, it may concentrate uranium, radium, radon and thorium.[54] Estimates of the amount of injected fluid returning to the surface range from 15-20% to 30–70%.[53][55] The potential has been recognized that fracturing fluid could move out of the fractured zone through nearby abandoned wells, if the abandoned wells intersect the formation.[14]

Approaches to managing these fluids, commonly known as produced water, include underground injection, municipal and commercial wastewater treatment and discharge, self‐contained systems at well sites or fields, and recycling to fracture future wells.[15][53][56][57] The vacuum multi-effect membrane distillation system as a more effective treatment system has been proposed for treatment of flowback.[58] However, the quantity of waste water needing treatment and the improper configuration of sewage plants have become an issue in some regions of the United States. Part of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed there by public sewage treatment plants, which are not equipped to remove radioactive material and are not required to test for it.[59][60]

A 2011 report by the MIT Energy Initiative addressed groundwater contamination, noting "there has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing fluid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring".[61]

Surface spills

Surface spills related to the hydraulic fracturing occur mainly because of equipment failure or engineering misjudgments.[13][62]

Volatile chemicals held in waste water evaporation ponds can to evaporate into the atmosphere, or overflow. The runoff can also end up in groundwater systems. Groundwater may become contaminated by trucks carrying hydraulic fracturing chemicals and wastewater if they are involved in accidents on the way to hydraulic fracturing sites or disposal destinations.[63]

Methane

Groundwater methane contamination has adverse effect on water quality and in extreme cases may lead to potential explosion.[64] A scientific study conducted by researchers of Duke University found high correlations of gas well drilling activities, including hydraulic fracturing, and methane pollution of the drinking water.[64] According to the 2011 study of the MIT Energy Initiative, "there is evidence of natural gas (methane) migration into freshwater zones in some areas, most likely as a result of substandard well completion practices i.e. poor quality cementing job or bad casing, by a few operators."[61] A 2013 Duke study suggested that both faulty construction (defective cement seals in the upper part of wells and faulty steel linings within deeper layers) and peculiarity of local geology may be allowing methane and injected fluid to seep into waters.[50] Abandoned gas and oil wells also provide conduits to the surface.[65]

However, methane contamination is not always caused by hydraulic fracturing. Drilling for ordinary drinking water wells can also cause methane release. Most recent studies make use of tests that can distinguish between the deep thermogenic methane released during gas/oil drilling, and the shallower biogenic methane that can be released during water-well drilling. While both forms of methane result from decomposition, thermogenic methane results from geothermal assistance deeper underground.[66][67] A study by Cabot Oil and Gas examined the Duke study using a larger sample size, found that methane concentrations were related to topography, with the highest readings found in low-lying areas, rather than related to distance from gas production areas. Using a more precise isotopic analysis, they showed that the methane found in the water wells came from both the formations where hydraulic fracturing occurred, and from the shallower formations.[66] The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission has found some wells containing thermogenic methane due to oil and gas development upon investigating complaints from residents.[67] A review published in February 2012 found no direct evidence that hydraulic fracturing actual injection phase resulted in contamination of ground water, and suggests that reported problems occur due to leaks in its fluid or waste storage apparatus; the review says that methane in water wells in some areas probably comes from natural resources.[68][69]

Land usage

Significant amount of land is used during hydraulic fracturing. About 3.6 hectares (8.9 acres) is needed per each drill pad for surface installations. During re-fracturing additional land is used. In total about 1.4% of land above gas reservoir is needed for its full extraction. This is a potential risk in high-density areas. It may not be possible to fully restore the surface area after completion of works.[1]

Seismology

Hydraulic fracturing causes induced seismicity called microseismic events or microearthquakes. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the fracturing.[2] The magnitude of these events is usually too small to be detected at the surface, although the biggest micro-earthquakes may have the magnitude of about -1.5 (Mw).[3] However, as of late 2012, there have been three instances of hydraulic fracturing, through induced seismicity, triggering quakes large enough to be felt by people: one each in the United States, Canada, and England.[4][5] In England, two earthquakes that occurred in April and May 2011 of a magnitude of respectively 1.5 and 2.3 on the Richter scale were felt by local populations. The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change said the "observed seismicity in April and May 2011 was induced by the hydraulic fracture treatments at Preese Hall", in the North of England.[70] The injection of waste water from gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing, into saltwater disposal wells may cause bigger low-magnitude tremors, being registered up to 3.3 (Mw).[3]

A 2012 US Geological Survey study reported that a "remarkable" increase in the rate of M ≥ 3 earthquakes in the US midcontinent "is currently in progress", having started in 2001 and culminating in a 6-fold increase over 20th century levels in 2011. The overall increase was tied to earthquake increases in a few specific areas: the Raton Basin of southern Colorado (site of coalbed methane activity), and gas-producing areas in central and southern Oklahoma, and central Arkansas.[71] While analysis suggested that the increase is "almost certainly man-made", the USGS noted: "USGS's studies suggest that the actual hydraulic fracturing process is only very rarely the direct cause of felt earthquakes." The increased earthquakes were said to be most likely caused by increased injection of gas-well wastewater into disposal wells.[72] The injection of waste water from oil and gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing, into saltwater disposal wells may cause bigger low-magnitude tremors, being registered up to 3.3 (Mw).[3]

Induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has reported earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing and by disposal of hydraulic fracturing flowback into waste disposal wells in several locations. Bill Ellsworth, a geoscientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has said, however: “We don't see any connection between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes of any concern to society.”[73] The National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences) has also observed that hydraulic fracturing, when used in shale gas recovery, does not pose a serious risk of causing earthquakes that can be felt.[74] In 2013, Researchers from Columbia University and the University of Oklahoma demonstrated that in the midwestern United States, some areas with increased human-induced seismicity are susceptible to additional earthquakes triggered by the seismic waves from remote earthquakes. They recommended increased seismic monitoring near fluid injection sites to determine which areas are vulnerable to remote triggering and when injection activity should be ceased.[4][75]

A British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission investigation concluded that a series of 38 earthquakes (magnitudes ranging from 2.2 to 3.8 on the Richter scale) occurring in the Horn River Basin area between 2009 and 2011 were caused by fluid injection during hydraulic fracturing in proximity to pre-existing faults. The tremors were small enough that only one of them was reported felt by people; there were no reports of injury or property damage.[76]

A report in the United Kingdom concluded that hydraulic fracturing was the likely cause of two small tremors (magnitudes 2.3 and 1.4 on the Richter scale) that occurred during hydraulic fracturing of shale in April and May 2011.[77][78][79] These tremors were felt by local populations. Because of these two events, seismicity is impact mostly related to hydraulic fracturing in the UK's public opinion.[70]

Induced seismicity from water disposal wells

According to the USGS only a small fraction of roughly 30,000 waste fluid disposal wells for oil and gas operations in the United States have induced earthquakes that are large enough to be of concern to the public.[72] Although the magnitudes of these quakes has been small, the USGS says that there is no guarantee that larger quakes will not occur.[80] In addition, the frequency of the quakes has been increasing. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than magnitude 3.0 in the area spanning Alabama and Montana, and there were 87 quakes in 2010. In 2011 there were 134 earthquakes in the same area, a sixfold increase over 20th century levels.[81] There are also concerns that quakes may damage underground gas, oil, and water lines and wells that were not designed to withstand earthquakes.[80][82]

Several earthquakes in 2011, including a 4.0 magnitude quake on New Year's Eve that hit Youngstown, Ohio, are likely linked to a disposal of hydraulic fracturing wastewater,[4] according to seismologists at Columbia University.[83] A similar series of small earthquakes occurred in 2012 in Texas. Earthquakes are not common occurrences in either area.[84]

Noise pollution

Each well pad (in average 10 wells per pad) needs during preparatory and hydraulic fracturing process about 800 to 2,500 days of noisy activity, which affect both residents and local wildlife. In addition, noise is created by transport related to the hydraulic fracturing activities.[1]

Safety issues

Oil obtained through hydraulic fracturing contains chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, which may increase the rate at which rail tank cars and pipelines corrode, potentially releasing their load and its gases.[16][17]

Health risks

Further information: Hydraulic fracturing § Health effects, and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States § Health effects

There is worldwide concern over the possible adverse public health implications of hydraulic fracturing activity.[85] Although as of 2013 there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion, intensive research is underway to ascertain whether there are impacts on a number of health conditions.[85]

In June 2014 Public Health England published a review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of shale gas extraction in the UK, based on the examination of literature and data from countries where hydraulic fracturing already occurs.[14] The executive summary of the report stated: "An assessment of the currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated. Most evidence suggests that contamination of groundwater, if it occurs, is most likely to be caused by leakage through the vertical borehole. Contamination of groundwater from the underground hydraulic fracturing process itself (ie the fracturing of the shale) is unlikely. However, surface spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids or wastewater may affect groundwater, and emissions to air also have the potential to impact on health. Where potential risks have been identified in the literature, the reported problems are typically a result of operational failure and a poor regulatory environment."[86]: iii 

A 2013 review focusing on Marcellus shale gas hydraulic fracturing and the New York City water supply stated, "Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate, even if more highly regulated Marcellus gas production is eventually permitted elsewhere in New York State."[87]

Another 2013 review found that hydraulic fracturing technologies are not free from risk of contaminating groundwater, and described the controversy over whether the methane that has been detected in private groundwater wells near hydraulic fracturing sites has been caused by drilling or by natural processes.[20]

A 2012 report prepared for the European Union Directorate-General for the Environment identified risks to humans from air pollution and ground water contamination posed by hydraulic fracturing.[1]

A 2012 guidance for pediatric nurses, said that hydraulic fracturing had a potential negative impact on public health, and that pediatric nurses should be prepared to gather information on such topics so as to advocate for improved community health.[88]

Policy and science

There are two main approaches to regulation that derive from policy debates about how to manage risk and a corresponding debate about how to assess risk.[18]: 3–7 

The two main schools of regulation are science-based assessment of risk and the taking of measures to prevent harm from those risks through an approach like hazard analysis, and the precautionary principle, where action is taken before risks are well-identified.[19] The relevance and reliability of risk assessments in communities where hydraulic fracturing occurs has also been debated amongst environmental groups, health scientists, and industry leaders. The risks, to some, are overplayed and the current research is insufficient in showing the link between hydraulic fracturing and adverse health effects, while to others the risks are obvious and risk assessment is underfunded.[70]

Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In France and Vermont for instance, a precautionary approach has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned based on two principles: the precautionary principle and the prevention principle.[21][22] Nevertheless, some States such as the U.S. have adopted a risk assessment approach, which had led to many regulatory debates over the issue of hydraulic fracturing and its risks.

In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, whose purpose was to identify the problems around hydraulic facturing and to advise the country's regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Mair, the report features ten recommendations covering issues such as groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakages, water management, environmental risks, best practice for risk management, and also includes advice for regulators and research councils.[89][23] The report was notable for stating that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.

A 2013 review concluded that confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations have impeded peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts.[20]

Pressure groups

The hydraulic fracturing industry has lobbied for permissive regulation in Europe[24] the US federal government, and US states.[25]

At the same time, an anti-fracking movement has emerged both internationally with involvement of international environmental organizations and nation states such as France and locally in affected areas such as Balcombe in Sussex where the Balcombe drilling protest was in progress during summer 2013.[26]

See also

Wikinews has related news:

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Broomfield, Mark (2012-08-10). Support to the identification of potential risks for the environment and human health arising from hydrocarbons operations involving hydraulic fracturing in Europe (PDF) (Report). European Commission. pp. vi–xvi. ED57281. Retrieved 2014-09-29.
  2. ^ a b Bennet, Les; et al. "The Source for Hydraulic Fracture Characterization" (PDF). Oilfield Review (Winter 2005/2006). Schlumberger: 42–57. Retrieved 2012-09-30. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  3. ^ a b c d Zoback, Mark; Kitasei, Saya; Copithorne, Brad (July 2010). Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development (PDF) (Report). Worldwatch Institute. p. 9. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  4. ^ a b c d Kim, Won-Young 'Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio', Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth
  5. ^ a b Begley, Sharon; McAllister, Edward (12 July 2013). "News in Science: Earthquakes may trigger fracking tremors". ABC Science. Reuters. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
  6. ^ a b Andrews, Anthony; et al. (30 October 2009). Unconventional Gas Shales: Development, Technology, and Policy Issues (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 7, 23. Retrieved 22 February 2012. {{cite report}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  7. ^ a b c Abdalla, Charles W.; Drohan, Joy R. (2010). Water Withdrawals for Development of Marcellus Shale Gas in Pennsylvania. Introduction to Pennsylvania’s Water Resources (PDF) (Report). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved 16 September 2012. Hydrofracturing a horizontal Marcellus well may use 4 to 8 million gallons of water, typically within about 1 week. However, based on experiences in other major U.S. shale gas fields, some Marcellus wells may need to be hydrofractured several times over their productive life (typically five to twenty years or more)
  8. ^ a b Ground Water Protection Council; ALL Consulting (April 2009). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer (PDF) (Report). DOE Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory. pp. 56–66. DE-FG26-04NT15455. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
  9. ^ a b Faucon, Benoît (17 September 2012). "Shale-Gas Boom Hits Eastern Europe". WSJ.com. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
  10. ^ a b c d Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing (PDF) (Report). Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives. April 18, 2011.
  11. ^ a b Healy, Dave (July 2012). Hydraulic Fracturing or 'Fracking': A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts (PDF) (Report). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 28 July 2013.
  12. ^ a b Hass, Benjamin (14 August 2012). "Fracking Hazards Obscured in Failure to Disclose Wells". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  13. ^ a b New Research of Surface Spills in Fracking Industry. (2013). Professional Safety, 58(9), 18.
  14. ^ a b c d Public Health England. 25 June 2014 PHE-CRCE-009: Review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of shale gas extraction ISBN 978-0-85951-752-2
  15. ^ a b c Logan, Jeffrey (2012). Natural Gas and the Transformation of the U.S. Energy Sector: Electricity (PDF) (Report). Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  16. ^ a b Jim Efstathiou Jr. and Angela Greiling Keane (13 August 2013). "North Dakota Oil Boom Seen Adding Costs for Rail Safety". Bloomberg. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
  17. ^ a b Gebrekidan, Selam (11 October 2013). "Corrosion may have led to North Dakota pipeline leak: regulator". Reuters. Retrieved 31 December 2013.
  18. ^ a b Office of Research and Development US Environmental Protection Agency. November 2011 Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources
  19. ^ a b Editors, ParisTech Review March 28th, 2014 Is it really possible to enforce the precautionary principle?
  20. ^ a b c Vidic, R.D.; et al. (May 17, 2013). "Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality" (PDF). Science. 340 (1235009): 826. doi:10.1126/science.1235009. PMID 23687049. Retrieved 29 September 2014. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)
  21. ^ a b "LOI n° 2011-835 du 13 juillet 2011 visant à interdire l'exploration et l'exploitation des mines d'hydrocarbures liquides ou gazeux par fracturation hydraulique et à abroger les permis exclusifs de recherches comportant des projets ayant recours à cette technique"
  22. ^ a b "Vermont Act 152"
  23. ^ a b "Shale gas extraction: Final report". The Royal Society. 29 June 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
  24. ^ a b Eric Lipton and Danny Hakim for the New York Times. October 18, 2013 Lobbying Bonanza as Firms Try to Influence European Union
  25. ^ a b Thomas Kaplan for the New York Times. November 25, 2011 Millions Spent in Albany Fight to Drill for Gas
  26. ^ a b Jan Goodey (Undated, but July, 2013). "The UK's anti fracking movement is growing". The Ecologist. Retrieved July 29, 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ^ a b c IEA (2011). World Energy Outlook 2011. OECD. pp. 91, 164. ISBN 978 92 64 12413 4.
  28. ^ Howarth, Robert W.; Santoro, Renee; Ingraffea, Anthony (13 March 2011). "Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations" (PDF). Climatic Change. 106 (4). Springer: 679–690. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
  29. ^ Cathles, Lawrence M.; Brown, Larry; Taam, Milton; Hunter, Andrew (2011). "A commentary on "The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations"". Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0333-0. Retrieved 7 August 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  30. ^ Stephen Leahy (24 January 2012). "Shale Gas a Bridge to More Global Warming". IPS. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  31. ^ Howarth, Robert W.; Santoro, Renee; Ingraffea, Anthony (1 February 2012). "Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development: Response to Cathles et al" (PDF). Climatic Change. Springer. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  32. ^ a b Allen, David T.; Torres, Vincent N.; Thomas, James; Sullivan, David W.; Harrison, Matthew; Hendler, Al; Herndon, Scott C.; Kolb, Charles E.; Fraser, Matthew P.; Hill, A. Daniel; Lamb, Brian K.; Miskimins, Jennifer; Sawyer, Robert F.; Seinfeld, John H. (16 September 2013). "Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1304880110. Retrieved 2013-10-02.
  33. ^ Trembath, Alex; Luke, Max; Shellenberger, Michael; Nordhaus, Ted (June 2013). Coal Killer: How Natural Gas Fuels the Clean Energy Revolution (PDF) (Report). Breakthrough institute. p. 22. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
  34. ^ Bradbury, James; Obeiter, Michael (2013-05-06). "5 Reasons Why It's Still Important To Reduce Fugitive Methane Emissions". World Resources Institute. Retrieved 2013-10-02.
  35. ^ "The Importance of Accurate Data". True Blue Natural Gas. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  36. ^ Fernandez, John Michael; Gunter, Matthew. "Hydraulic Fracturing: Environmentally Friendly Practices" (PDF). Houston Advanced Research Center. Retrieved 2012-12-29. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  37. ^ a b Arthur, J. Daniel; Uretsky, Mike; Wilson, Preston (May 5–6, 2010). Water Resources and Use for Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region (PDF). Meeting of the American Institute of Professional Geologists. Pittsburgh: ALL Consulting. p. 3. Retrieved 2012-05-09.
  38. ^ Cothren, Jackson. Modeling the Effects of Non-Riparian Surface Water Diversions on Flow Conditions in the Little Red Watershed (PDF) (Report). U. S. Geological Survey, Arkansas Water Science Center Arkansas Water Resources Center, American Water Resources Association, Arkansas State Section Fayetteville Shale Symposium 2012. p. 12. Retrieved 16 September 2012. ...each well requires between 3 and 7 million gallons of water for hydraulic fracturing and the number of wells is expected to grow in the future
  39. ^ Upton, John (August 15, 2013). "Fracking company wants to build new pipeline — for water". Grist. Retrieved August 16, 2013.
  40. ^ Ridlington, Rumpler "Fracking by the numbers: key impact of dirty drilling at the state and national level", Environment America, October 2013 [unreliable source?]
  41. ^ Urbina, Ian (30 December 2011). "Hunt for Gas Hits Fragile Soil, and South Africans Fear Risks". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012. Covering much of the roughly 800 miles between Johannesburg and Cape Town, this arid expanse – its name [Karoo] means "thirsty land" – sees less rain in some parts than the Mojave Desert.
  42. ^ Janco, David F. (3 January 2008). PADEP Determination Letter No. 352 Determination Letter acquired by the Scranton Times-Tribune via Right-To-Know Law request. Order: Atlas Miller 42 and 43 gas wells; Aug 2007 investigation; supplied temporary buffalo for two springs, ordered to permanently replace supplies (PDF) (Report). Scranton Times-Tribune. Retrieved 27 December 2013.
  43. ^ Janco, David F. (1 February 2007). PADEP Determination Letter No. 970. Diminution of Snow Shoe Borough Authority Water Well No. 2; primary water source for about 1,000 homes and businesses in and around the borough; contested by Range Resources. Determination Letter acquired by the Scranton Times-Tribune via Right-To-Know Law request (PDF) (Report). Scranton Times-Tribune. Retrieved 27 December 2013.
  44. ^ Staff (16 June 2013). "Fracking fuels water battles". Politico. Associated Press. Retrieved 26 June 2013.
  45. ^ a b "Texas Water Report: Going Deeper for the Solution". Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
  46. ^ Bullis, Kevin (2013-03-22). "Skipping the Water in Fracking". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2014-03-30.
  47. ^ Sider, Alison; Lefebvre, Ben (20 November 2012). "Drillers Begin Reusing 'Frack Water.' Energy Firms Explore Recycling Options for an Industry That Consumes Water on Pace With Chicago". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
  48. ^ Scanlon, Bridget R; Duncan, Ian; Reedy, Robert C (2013). "Drought and the water–energy nexus in Texas" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters. 8 (4). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045033. Retrieved 2014-03-30.
  49. ^ Staff (26 February 2011). "Drilling Down: Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
  50. ^ a b Ehrenburg, Rachel (25 June 2013). "News in Brief: High methane in drinking water near fracking sites. Well construction and geology may both play a role". Science News. Retrieved 26 June 2013.
  51. ^ Colborn, Theo; Kwiatkowski, Carol; Schultz, Kim; Bachran, Mary (2011). "Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective" (PDF). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: an International Journal. 17 (5). Taylor & Francis: 1039–1056. doi:10.1080/10807039.2011.605662.
  52. ^ Soraghan, Mike (13 December 2013). "White House official backs FracFocus as preferred disclosure method". E&E News. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  53. ^ a b c Arthur, J. Daniel; Langhus, Bruce; Alleman, David (2008). An overview of modern shale gas development in the United States (PDF) (Report). ALL Consulting. p. 21. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
  54. ^ Weinhold, Bob (19 September 2012). "Unknown Quantity: Regulating Radionuclides in Tap Water". Environmental Health Perspectives. NIEHS, NIH. Retrieved 11 February 2012. Examples of human activities that may lead to radionuclide exposure include mining, milling, and processing of radio­active substances; wastewater releases from the hydraulic fracturing of oil and natural gas wells... Mining and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", can concentrate levels of uranium (as well as radium, radon, and thorium) in wastewater... {{cite web}}: soft hyphen character in |quote= at position 117 (help)
  55. ^ Staff. Waste water (Flowback)from Hydraulic Fracturing (PDF) (Report). Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved 29 June 2013. Most of the water used in fracturing remains thousands of feet underground, however, about 15-20 percent returns to the surface through a steel-cased well bore and is temporarily stored in steel tanks or lined pits. The wastewater which returns to the surface after hydraulic fracturing is called flowback
  56. ^ Hopey, Don (1 March 2011). "Gas drillers recycling more water, using fewer chemicals". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  57. ^ Litvak, Anya (21 August 2012). "Marcellus flowback recycling reaches 90 percent in SWPA". Pittsburgh Business Times. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  58. ^ "Monitor: Clean that up". The Economist. 2013-11-30. Retrieved 2013-12-15.
  59. ^ David Caruso (2011-01-03). "44,000 Barrels of Tainted Water Dumped Into Neshaminy Creek. We're the only state allowing tainted water into our rivers". NBC Philadelphia. Associated Press. Retrieved 2012-04-28.
  60. ^ Urbina, Ian (26 February 2011). "Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  61. ^ a b Moniz, Ernest J.; et al. (June 2011). The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (PDF) (Report). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 1 June 2012. {{cite report}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  62. ^ name= savannahb022
  63. ^ Energy Institute (February 2012). Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development (PDF) (Report). University of Texas at Austin. p. ?. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
  64. ^ a b Osborn, Stephen G.; Vengosh, Avner; Warner, Nathaniel R.; Jackson, Robert B. (2011-05-17). "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 108 (20): 8172–8176. doi:10.1073/pnas.1100682108. Retrieved 2011-10-14.
  65. ^ Detrow, Scott (9 October 2012). "Perilous Pathways: How Drilling Near An Abandoned Well Produced a Methane Geyser". StateImpact Penn­syl­va­nia. NPR. Retrieved 29 June 2013. {{cite web}}: soft hyphen character in |work= at position 17 (help)
  66. ^ a b Molofsky, L. J.; Connor, J. A.; Shahla, K. F.; Wylie, A. S.; Wagner, T. (December 5, 2011). "Methane in Pennsylvania Water Wells Unrelated to Marcellus Shale Fracturing". Oil and Gas Journal. 109 (49). Pennwell Corporation: 54–67. (subscription required).
  67. ^ a b "Gasland Correction Document" (PDF). Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Retrieved 7 August 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  68. ^ "Fracking Acquitted of Contaminating Groundwater". Science. 335: 898. 24 February 2012. doi:10.1126/science.335.6071.898.
  69. ^ Erik Stokstad (16 February 2012). "Mixed Verdict on Fracking". Science.
  70. ^ a b c Williams, Laurence, John "Framing fracking: public responses to potential unconventional fossil fuel exploitation in the North of England", Durham thesis, Durham University, 2014
  71. ^ Ellsworth, W. L.; Hickman, S.H.; McGarr, A.; Michael, A. J.; Rubinstein, J. L. (18 April 2012). Are seismicity rate changes in the midcontinent natural or manmade?. Seismological Society of America 2012 meeting. San Diego, California: Seismological Society of America. Retrieved 2014-02-23.
  72. ^ a b "Man-Made Earthquakes Update". United States Geological Survey. 2014-01-17. Retrieved 2014-03-30.
  73. ^ Soraghan, Mike (13 December 2013). "Disconnects in public discourse around 'fracking' cloud earthquake issue". E&E News. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  74. ^ "Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies". National Academies Press. Retrieved 27 March 2013. The process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.
  75. ^ van der Elst1, Nicholas J.; Savage, Heather M.; Keranen, Katie M; Abers, Geoffrey A. (12 July 2013). "Enhanced Remote Earthquake Triggering at Fluid-Injection Sites in the Midwestern United States". Science. 341 (6142). ACS Publications: 164–167. doi:10.1126/science.1238948.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  76. ^ "Fracking causes minor earthquakes, B.C. regulator says". The Canadian Press. Canadian Broadcast Company — British Columbia. 6 September 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
  77. ^ "Shale gas fracking: MPs call for safety inquiry after tremors". BBC News. 8 June 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  78. ^ "Fracking tests near Blackpool 'likely cause' of tremors". BBC News. 2 November 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  79. ^ de Pater, C.J.; Baisch, S. (2 November 2011). Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity (PDF) (Report). Cuadrilla Resources. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  80. ^ a b Rachel Maddow, Terrence Henry (7 August 2012). Rachel Maddow Show: Fracking waste messes with Texas (video). MSNBC. Event occurs at 9:24 - 10:35. {{cite AV media}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  81. ^ Soraghan, Mike (29 March 2012). "'Remarkable' spate of man-made quakes linked to drilling, USGS team says". EnergyWire. E&E. Retrieved 2012-11-09.
  82. ^ Henry, Terrence (6 August 2012). "How Fracking Disposal Wells Are Causing Earthquakes in Dallas-Fort Worth". State Impact Texas. NPR. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  83. ^ "Ohio Quakes Probably Triggered by Waste Disposal Well, Say Seismologists" (Press release). Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  84. ^ "EPA Underground Injection Control Program". Retrieved 2012-04-13.
  85. ^ a b Finkel ML, Hays J (October 2013). "The implications of unconventional drilling for natural gas: a global public health concern". Public Health (Review). 127 (10): 889–93. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2013.07.005. PMID 24119661. This in silico epidemiologic study will analyse at 2.6 million electronic health records of patients in 31 Pennsylvania counties for respiratory, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and pregnancy outcomes.
  86. ^ Report
  87. ^ Eaton TT. Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and New York City water supply. Sci Total Environ. 2013 Sep 1;461-462:158-69. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.093. Epub 2013 May 28. PMID 23722091
  88. ^ Lauver LS (August 2012). "Environmental health advocacy: an overview of natural gas drilling in northeast Pennsylvania and implications for pediatric nursing". J Pediatr Nurs. 27 (4): 383–9. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2011.07.012. PMID 22703686.
  89. ^ Mair (Chair), Robert (June 2012). Shale gas extraction in the UK: A review of hydraulic fracturing (PDF) (Report). The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. Retrieved 10 October 2014.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_impact_of_fracking&oldid=629375165"