Dee Finney's blog

start date July 20, 2011

today's date December 10, 2012

page 395

FROM PROJECT CAMELOT

LINKS BELOW ARTICLE

Hydraulic fracturing

"Fracking" redirects here. For other uses, see Fracking (disambiguation).
Hydraulic fracturing
Process type	Mechanical
Industrial sector(s)	Mining
Main technologies or sub-processes	Fluid pressure
Product(s)	Natural gas Petroleum
Inventor	Floyd Farris; J.B. Clark (Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation)
Year of invention	1947
Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer, by a pressurized fluid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally—certain veins or dikes are examples—and can create conduits along which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking, commonly known as fraccing or fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas, and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction.^[a][1] This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations.
The first use of hydraulic fracturing was in 1947 but the modern fracking technique, called horizontal slickwater fracking,^[2] that made the extraction of shale gas economical was first used in 1998 in the Barnett Shale in Texas.^[1][3][4] The energy from the injection of a highly pressurized fracking fluid creates new channels in the rock, which can increase the extraction rates and ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons.
Proponents of fracking point to the economic benefits from vast amounts of formerly inaccessible hydrocarbons the process can extract.^[5] Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these.^[6] For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even banning it.^[7][8]
Geology
Main article: Fracture (geology)
Mechanics
Fracturing in rocks at depth tends to be suppressed by the confining pressure, due to the load caused by the overlying rock strata. This is particularly so in the case of "tensile" (Mode 1) fractures, which require the walls of the fracture to move apart, working against this confining pressure. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when the effective stress is reduced sufficiently by an increase in the pressure of fluids within the rock, such that the minimum principal stress becomes tensile and exceeds the tensile strength of the material.^[9][10] Fractures formed in this way will in the main be oriented in the plane perpendicular to the minimum principal stress and for this reason induced hydraulic fractures in wellbores are sometimes used to determine the orientation of stresses.^[11] In natural examples, such as dikes or vein-filled fractures, the orientations can be used to infer past states of stress.^[12]
 Veins
Most vein systems are a result of repeated hydraulic fracturing during periods of relatively high pore fluid pressure. This is particularly noticeable in the case of "crack-seal" veins, where the vein material can be seen to have been added in a series of discrete fracturing events, with extra vein material deposited on each occasion.^[13] One mechanism to demonstrate such examples of long-lasting repeated fracturing is the effects of seismic activity, in which the stress levels rise and fall episodically and large volumes of fluid may be expelled from fluid-filled fractures during earthquakes. This process is referred to as "seismic pumping".^[14]
 Dikes
High-level minor intrusions such as dikes propagate through the crust in the form of fluid-filled cracks, although in this case the fluid is magma. In sedimentary rocks with a significant water content the fluid at the propagating fracture tip will be steam.^[15]
 History
Fracturing as a method to stimulate shallow, hard rock oil wells dates back to the 1860s. It was applied by oil producers in the US states of Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia by using liquid and later also solidified nitroglycerin. Later, the same method was applied to water and gas wells. The idea to use acid as a nonexplosive fluid for well stimulation was introduced in the 1930s. Due to acid etching, fractures would not close completely and therefore productivity was enhanced. The same phenomenon was discovered with water injection and squeeze cementing operations.^[16]
The relationship between well performance and treatment pressures was studied by Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation. This study became a basis of the first hydraulic fracturing experiment, which was conducted in 1947 at the Hugoton gas field in Grant County of southwestern Kansas by Stanolind.^[1][16] For the well treatment 1,000 US gallons (3,800 l; 830 imp gal) of gelled gasoline and sand from the Arkansas River was injected into the gas-producing limestone formation at 2,400 feet (730 m). The experiment was not very successful as deliverability of the well did not change appreciably. The process was further described by J.B. Clark of Stanolind in his paper published in 1948. A patent on this process was issued in 1949 and an exclusive license was granted to the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company. On March 17, 1949, Halliburton performed the first two commercial hydraulic fracturing treatments in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and Archer County, Texas.^[16] Since then, hydraulic fracturing has been used to stimulate approximately a million oil and gas wells.^[17]
In the Soviet Union, the first hydraulic proppant fracturing was carried out in 1952. In Western Europe in 1977–1985, hydraulic fracturing was conducted at Rotliegend and Carboniferous gas-bearing sandstones in Germany, Netherlands onshore and offshore gas fields, and the United Kingdoms sector of the North Sea. Other countries in Europe and Northern Africa included Norway, the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Tunisia, and Algeria.^[18]
Due to shale's high porosity and low permeability, technology research, development and demonstration were necessary before hydraulic fracturing could be commercially applied to shale gas deposits. In the 1970s the United States government initiated the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public-private hydro-fracturing pilot demonstration projects. During the same period, the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium, received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.^[19] In 1977, the Department of Energy pioneered massive hydraulic fracturing in tight sandstone formations. In 1997, based on earlier techniques used by Union Pacific Resources, now part of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Mitchell Energy, now part of Devon Energy, developed the hydraulic fracturing technique known as "slickwater fracturing" which involves adding chemicals to water to increase the fluid flow, that made the shale gas extraction economical.^[3][4][20]
 Induced hydraulic fracturing
Uses
The technique of hydraulic fracturing is used to increase or restore the rate at which fluids, such as petroleum, water, or natural gas can be produced from subterranean natural reservoirs. Reservoirs are typically porous sandstones, limestones or dolomite rocks, but also include "unconventional reservoirs" such as shale rock or coal beds. Hydraulic fracturing enables the production of natural gas and oil from rock formations deep below the earth's surface (generally 5,000–20,000 feet (1,500–6,100 m)). At such depth, there may not be sufficient permeability or reservoir pressure to allow natural gas and oil to flow from the rock into the wellbore at economic rates. Thus, creating conductive fractures in the rock is pivotal to extract gas from shale reservoirs because of the extremely low natural permeability of shale, which is measured in the microdarcy to nanodarcy range.^[21] Fractures provide a conductive path connecting a larger volume of the reservoir to the well. So-called "super fracking", which creates cracks deeper in the rock formation to release more oil and gas, will allow companies to frack more efficiently.^[22] The yield for a typical shale gas well generally falls off sharply after the first year or two.^[23]
While the main industrial use of hydraulic fracturing is in arousing production from oil and gas wells,^[24][25][26] hydraulic fracturing is also applied:
• To stimulate groundwater wells^[27]
• To precondition or induce rock to cave in mining^[28]
• As a means of enhancing waste remediation processes, usually hydrocarbon waste or spills^[29]
• To dispose of waste by injection into deep rock formations^[30]
• As a method to measure the stress in the earth^[31]
• For heat extraction to produce electricity in an enhanced geothermal systems^[32]
• To increase injection rates for geologic sequestration of CO₂^[33]
 Method
A hydraulic fracture is formed by pumping the fracturing fluid into the wellbore at a rate sufficient to increase pressure downhole to exceed that of the fracture gradient (pressure gradient) of the rock.^[34] The fracture gradient is defined as the pressure increase per unit of the depth due to its density and it is usually measured in pounds per square inch per foot or bars per meter. The rock cracks and the fracture fluid continues further into the rock, extending the crack still further, and so on. Operators typically try to maintain "fracture width", or slow its decline, following treatment by introducing into the injected fluid a proppant – a material such as grains of sand, ceramic, or other particulates, that prevent the fractures from closing when the injection is stopped and the pressure of the fluid is reduced. Consideration of proppant strengths and prevention of proppant failure becomes more important at greater depths where pressure and stresses on fractures are higher. The propped fracture is permeable enough to allow the flow of formation fluids to the well. Formation fluids include gas, oil, salt water, fresh water and fluids introduced to the formation during completion of the well during fracturing.^[34]
During the process fracturing fluid leakoff, loss of fracturing fluid from the fracture channel into the surrounding permeable rock occurs. If not controlled properly, it can exceed 70% of the injected volume. This may result in formation matrix damage, adverse formation fluid interactions, or altered fracture geometry and thereby decreased production efficiency.^[35]
The location of one or more fractures along the length of the borehole is strictly controlled by various methods that create or seal off holes in the side of the wellbore. Typically, hydraulic fracturing is performed in cased wellbores and the zones to be fractured are accessed by perforating the casing at those locations.^[36]
Hydraulic-fracturing equipment used in oil and natural gas fields usually consists of a slurry blender, one or more high-pressure, high-volume fracturing pumps (typically powerful triplex or quintuplex pumps) and a monitoring unit. Associated equipment includes fracturing tanks, one or more units for storage and handling of proppant, high-pressure treating iron, a chemical additive unit (used to accurately monitor chemical addition), low-pressure flexible hoses, and many gauges and meters for flow rate, fluid density, and treating pressure.^[37] Fracturing equipment operates over a range of pressures and injection rates, and can reach up to 100 megapascals (15,000 psi) and 265 litres per second (9.4 cu ft/s) (100 barrels per minute).^[38]
 Well types
A distinction can be made between conventional or low-volume hydraulic fracturing used to stimulate high-permeability reservoirs to frac a single well, and unconventional or high-volume hydraulic fracturing, used in the completion of tight gas and shale gas wells as unconventional wells are deeper and require higher pressures than conventional vertical wells.^[39] In addition to hydraulic fracturing of vertical wells, it is also performed in horizontal wells. When done in already highly permeable reservoirs such as sandstone-based wells, the technique is known as "well stimulation".^[26]
Horizontal drilling involves wellbores where the terminal drillhole is completed as a "lateral" that extends parallel with the rock layer containing the substance to be extracted. For example, laterals extend 1,500 to 5,000 feet (460 to 1,500 m) in the Barnett Shale basin in Texas, and up to 10,000 feet (3,000 m) in the Bakken formation in North Dakota. In contrast, a vertical well only accesses the thickness of the rock layer, typically 50–300 feet (15–91 m). Horizontal drilling also reduces surface disruptions as fewer wells are required to access a given volume of reservoir rock. Drilling usually induces damage to the pore space at the wellbore wall, reducing the permeability at and near the wellbore. This reduces flow into the borehole from the surrounding rock formation, and partially seals off the borehole from the surrounding rock. Hydraulic fracturing can be used to restore permeability.^[40]
 Fracturing fluids
Main article: Proppants and fracking fluids
A proppant is a material that will keep an induced hydraulic fracture open, during or following a fracturing treatment, while the fracking fluid itself varies in composition depending on the type of fracturing used, and can be gel, foam, or slickwater-based. In addition, there may be unconventional fracking fluids. Fluids make tradeoffs in such material properties as viscosity, where more viscous fluids can carry more concentrated proppant; the energy or pressure demands to maintain a certain flux pump rate (flow velocity) that will conduct the proppant appropriately; pH, various rheological factors, among others. In addition, fluids may be used in low-volume well stimulation of high-permeability sandstone wells (20k to 80k gallons per well) to the high-volume operations such as shale gas and tight gas that use millions of gallons of water per well.
 Introduction
The two main purposes of fracturing fluid is to extend fractures and to carry proppant into the formation, the purpose of which is to stay there without damaging the formation or production of the well. Two methods of transporting the proppant in the fluid are used – high-rate and high-viscosity. High-viscosity fracturing tends to cause large dominant fractures, while with high-rate (slickwater) fracturing causes small spread-out micro-fractures.^{[citation needed]}
The fluid injected into the rock is typically a slurry of water, proppants, and chemical additives.^[41] Additionally, gels, foams, and compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide and air can be injected. Typically, of the fracturing fluid over 98–99.5% is water and sand with the chemicals accounting to about 0.5%.^[34][42]
Hydraulic fracturing may use between 1.2 and 3.5 million US gallons (4.5 and 13 Ml) of fluid per well, with large projects using up to 5 million US gallons (19 Ml). Additional fluid is used when wells are refractured; this may be done several times.^{[43]:7, 33} Water is by far the largest component of fracking fluids. The initial drilling operation itself may consume from 6,000 to 600,000 US gallons (23,000 to 2,300,000 l; 5,000 to 500,000 imp gal) of fluids.
Initially it is common to pump some amount (normally 6000 gallons or less) of hydrochloric acid (usually 28%-5%), or acetic acid (usually 45%-5%), to clean the perforations or break down the near well bore and ultimately reduce pressure seen on the surface. Then the proppant is started and stepped up in concentration.
Proppants
Types of proppant include silica sand, resin-coated sand, and man-made ceramics. These vary depending on the type of permeability or grain strength needed. The most commonly used proppant is silica sand, though proppants of uniform size and shape, such as a ceramic proppant, is believed to be more effective. Due to a higher porosity within the fracture, a greater amount of oil and natural gas is liberated.^[44]
 Friction reducer
The friction reducer is usually a polymer, the purpose of which is to reduce pressure loss due to friction, thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface. The main way most friction reducers work is by changing turbulent flow to laminar flow, also many of the friction reducers are polyacrilamide which are good suspension agents ensuring the proppant does not fall out. The process does not work well at high concentrations of proppant thus more water is required to carry the same amount of proppant. For slickwater it is common to include sweeps or a reduction in the proppant concentration temporarily to ensure the well is not overwhelmed with proppant causing a screen-off.^[45]
 Gelling chemicals
A variety of chemicals can be used to increase the viscosity of the fracturing fluid. With any viscosity increase, some type of gelling chemical must be used first. Viscosity is used to carry proppant into the formation, but when a well is being flowed back or produced, it is undesirable to have the fluid pull the proppant out of the formation. For this reason, a chemical known as a breaker is almost always pumped with all gel or crosslinked^{[clarification needed]} fluids to reduce the viscosity. This chemical is usually an oxidizer or an enzyme. The oxidizer reacts with the gel to break it down, reducing the fluid's viscosity and ensuring that no proppant is pulled from the formation. An enzyme acts as a catalyst for the breaking down of the gel. Sometimes pH modifiers are used to break down the crosslink at the end of a hydraulic fracture job, since many require a pH buffer system to stay viscous.^[45]
Typical fluid types are:
• Conventional linear gels. These gels are cellulose derivatives (carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl hydroxyl ethyl cellulose), guar or its derivatives (hydroxypropyl guar, carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar) based, with other chemicals providing the necessary chemistry for the desired results.
• Borate-crosslinked fluids. These are guar-based fluids cross-linked with boron ions (from aqueous borax/boric acid solution). These gels have higher viscosity at pH 9 onwards and are used to carry proppants. After the fracturing job the pH is reduced to 3–4 so that the cross-links are broken and the gel is less viscous and can be pumped out.
• Organometallic-crosslinked fluids zirconium, chromium, antimony, titanium salts are known to crosslink the guar based gels. The crosslinking mechanism is not reversible. So once the proppant is pumped down along with the cross-linked gel, the fracturing part is done. The gels are broken down with appropriate breakers.^[43]
• Aluminium phosphate-ester oil gels. Aluminium phosphate and ester oils are slurried to form cross-linked gel. These are one of the first known gelling systems.
Other chemical additives
See also: List of additives for hydraulic fracturing
Chemical additives are applied to tailor the injected material to the specific geological situation, protect the well, and improve its operation, varying slightly based on the type of well. The composition of injected fluid is sometimes changed as the fracturing job proceeds. Often, acid is initially used to scour the perforations and clean up the near-wellbore area. Afterward, high-pressure fracture fluid is injected into the wellbore, with the pressure above the fracture gradient of the rock. This fracture fluid contains water-soluble gelling agents (such as guar gum) which increase viscosity and efficiently deliver the proppant into the formation.^[43] As the fracturing process proceeds, viscosity reducing agents such as oxidizers and enzyme breakers are sometimes then added to the fracturing fluid to deactivate the gelling agents and encourage flowback.^[43] At the end of the job the well is commonly flushed with water (sometimes blended with a friction reducing chemical) under pressure. Injected fluid is to some degree recovered and is managed by several methods, such as underground injection control, treatment and discharge, recycling, or temporary storage in pits or containers while new technology is being continually being developed and improved to better handle wastewater and improve reusability.^[34] Over the life of a typical gas well, up to 100,000 US gallons (380,000 l; 83,000 imp gal) of chemical additives may be used.^{[46][not in citation given]}
Fracture monitoring
Measurements of the pressure and rate during the growth of a hydraulic fracture, as well as knowing the properties of the fluid and proppant being injected into the well provides the most common and simplest method of monitoring a hydraulic fracture treatment. This data, along with knowledge of the underground geology can be used to model information such as length, width and conductivity of a propped fracture.^[34]
Injection of radioactive tracers, along with the other substances in hydraulic-fracturing fluid, is sometimes used to determine the injection profile and location of fractures created by hydraulic fracturing.^[47] The radiotracer is chosen to have the readily detectable radiation, appropriate chemical properties, and a half life and toxicity level that will minimize initial and residual contamination.^[48] Radioactive isotopes chemically bonded to glass (sand) and/or resin beads may also be injected to track fractures.^[49] For example, plastic pellets coated with 10 GBq of Ag-110mm may be added to the proppant or sand may be labelled with Ir-192 so that the proppant's progress can be monitored.^[48] Radiotracers such as Tc-99m and I-131 are also used to measure flow rates.^[48] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission publishes guidelines which list a wide range of radioactive materials in solid, liquid and gaseous forms that may be used as tracers and limit the amount that may be used per injection and per well of each radionuclide.^[49]
For more advanced applications, microseismic monitoring is sometimes used to estimate the size and orientation of hydraulically induced fractures. Microseismic activity is measured by placing an array of geophones in a nearby wellbore. By mapping the location of any small seismic events associated with the growing hydraulic fracture, the approximate geometry of the fracture is inferred. Tiltmeter arrays, deployed on the surface or down a well, provide another technology for monitoring the strains produced by hydraulic fracturing.^[50]
Horizontal completions
Since the early 2000s, advances in drilling and completion technology have made drilling horizontal wellbores much more economical. Horizontal wellbores allow for far greater exposure to a formation than a conventional vertical wellbore. This is particularly useful in shale formations which do not have sufficient permeability to produce economically with a vertical well. Such wells when drilled onshore are now usually hydraulically fractured in a number of stages, especially in North America. The type of wellbore completion used will affect how many times the formation is fractured, and at what locations along the horizontal section of the wellbore.^[51]
In North America, shale reservoirs such as the Bakken, Barnett, Montney, Haynesville, Marcellus, and most recently the Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Utica shales are drilled, completed and fractured using this method.^{[citation needed]} The method by which the fractures are placed along the wellbore is most commonly achieved by one of two methods, known as "plug and perf" and "sliding sleeve".^[52]
The wellbore for a plug and perf job is generally composed of standard joints of steel casing, either cemented or uncemented, which is set in place at the conclusion of the drilling process. Once the drilling rig has been removed, a wireline truck is used to perforate near the end of the well, following which a fracturing job is pumped (commonly called a stage). Once the stage is finished, the wireline truck will set a plug in the well to temporarily seal off that section, and then perforate the next section of the wellbore. Another stage is then pumped, and the process is repeated as necessary along the entire length of the horizontal part of the wellbore.^[53]
The wellbore for the sliding sleeve technique is different in that the sliding sleeves are included at set spacings in the steel casing at the time it is set in place. The sliding sleeves are usually all closed at this time. When the well is ready to be fractured, using one of several activation techniques, the bottom sliding sleeve is opened and the first stage gets pumped. Once finished, the next sleeve is opened which concurrently isolates the first stage, and the process repeats. For the sliding sleeve method, wireline is usually not required.^{[citation needed]}
These completion techniques may allow for more than 30 stages to be pumped into the horizontal section of a single well if required, which is far more than would typically be pumped into a vertical well.^[54]
Increased recovery
See also: Shale gas
Hydraulic fracturing has been seen as one of the key methods of extracting unconventional oil and gas resources. According to the International Energy Agency, the remaining technically recoverable resources of shale gas are estimated to amount to 208 trillion cubic metres (7.3 quadrillion cubic feet), tight gas to 76 trillion cubic metres (2.7 quadrillion cubic feet), and coalbed methane to 47 trillion cubic metres (1.7 quadrillion cubic feet). As a rule, formations of these resources have lower permeability than conventional gas formations. Therefore, depending on the geological characteristics of the formation, specific technologies (such as hydraulic fracturing) are required. Although there are also other methods to extract these resources, such as conventional drilling or horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing is one of the key methods making their extraction technically viable. The multi-stage fracturing technique has facilitated shale gas and light tight oil production development in the United States and is believed to do so in the other countries with unconventional hydrocarbon resources. Significance of the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons lies also in the fact that these resources are less concentrated than conventional oil and gas resources.^[5]
Environmental impact
Main article: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing
See also: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States
Hydraulic fracturing has raised environmental concerns and is challenging the adequacy of existing regulatory regimes.^[55] These concerns have included ground water contamination, risks to air quality, migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, mishandling of waste, and the health effects of all these, as well as its contribution to raised atmospheric CO2 levels by enabling the extraction of previously-sequestered hydrocarbons.^[6][34][46]
Because hydraulic fracturing originated in the United States,^[56] its history is more extensive there than in other regions. Most environmental impact studies have therefore taken place there.
 Research issues
Several organizations, researchers, and media outlets have reported difficulty in conducting and reporting the results of studies on hydraulic fracturing due to industry^[57][58][59] and governmental pressure, and expressed concern over possible censoring of environmental reports.^[57][60][61] Researchers have recommended requiring disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluids, testing animals raised near fracturing sites, and closer monitoring of environmental samples.^[62] After court cases concerning contamination from hydraulic fracturing are settled, the documents are sealed. The American Petroleum Institute deny that this practice has hidden problems with gas drilling, while others believe it has and could lead to unnecessary risks to public safety and health.^[63]
One New York Times report claimed that the results of a 2004 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study were censored due to political pressure.^[57] An early draft of the study had discussed the possibility of environmental threats due to fracking, but the final report changed that conclusion.^[57] The study's scope focused on the injection of fracking fluids.^[64] The 2012 EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Draft Plan was reduced in scope.^{[58][60][65][66]}
 Air
See also: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Air emissions
The air emissions from hydraulic fracking are related to methane leaks originating from wells, and emissions from the diesel or natural gas powered equipment such as compressors, drilling rigs, pumps etc.^[34]
Shale gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes higher well-to-burner emissions than conventional gas. This is mainly due to the gas 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.^[55] According to a study conducted by professor Robert W. Howarth et al. of Cornell University, "3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well." The study claims that this represents a 30–100% increase over conventional gas production.^[67] Methane gradually breaks down in the atmosphere, forming carbon dioxide, which contributes to greenhouse gasses more than coal or oil for timescales of less than fifty years.^[67][68] Howarth's colleagues at Cornell and others have criticized the study's design,^[69][70] however several other studies have also found higher emissions from shale-gas production than from conventional gas production.^{[71][72][73][74]} Howarth et al. have responded, "The latest EPA estimate for methane emissions from shale gas falls within the range of our estimates but not those of Cathles et al, which are substantially lower."^[75]
In 2008, concentrations near drilling sites in Sublette County, Wyoming were frequently above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),^[76] though a 2011 study for the city of Fort Worth, Texas "did not reveal any significant health threats" traceable to fracking.^[77][78]
In some areas, elevated air levels of harmful substances have coincided with elevated reports of health problems among the local populations. In DISH, Texas, elevated substance levels were detected and traced to fracking compressor stations,^[79] and people living near shale gas drilling sites complained of health problems;^[80] though a causal relationship to fracking was not established.^[80]
The EPA has proposed new regulations for controlling emissions from upstream oil and gas operations. These regulations would reduce emissions from aspects of the oil and gas production process including completions and various fugitive emissions. The regulations are scheduled to go into effect on April 17, 2012. However, the industry has requested a delay in implementation.^[81]
 Water
Consumption
The large volumes of water required have raised concerns about fracking in arid areas, such as Karoo in South Africa.^[56] During periods of low stream flow it may affect water supplies for municipalities and industries such as power generation, as well as recreation and aquatic life. It may also require water overland piping from distant sources.^[82] An average well requires 3 to 8 million US gallons (11,000 to 30,000 m³) of water, typically within one week.^{[34][82][83][84]} Some Marcellus wells may require restimulation frac jobs several times over a period of five to 20 years.^[83] Using the case of the Marcellus Shale as an example, as of 2008 fracking accounted for 650 million US gallons per year (2,500,000 m³/a) or less than 0.8% of annual water use in the area overlying the Marcellus Shale.^[82][85] The annual number of well permits, however, increased by a factor of five^[86] and the number of well starts increased by a factor of over 17 from 2008 to 2011.^[87] 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.^[88] To minimize water consumption, recycling is one possible option.^[55]
Injected fluid
See also: List of additives for hydraulic fracturing
There are concerns about possible contamination by hydraulic fracturing fluid both as it is injected under high pressure into the ground and as it returns to the surface.^[89] To mitigate the impact of hydraulic fracturing to groundwater the well and ideally the shale formation itself should remain hydraulically isolated from other geological formations, especially freshwater aquifers.^[55] In the United States hydraulic fracturing areas at least 36 cases of groundwater contamination due to hydraulic fracturing have been suspected and in several cases EPA has determined that hydraulic fracturing was likely the source of the contamination.^{[63][90][91][92][93][94]}
While some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are common and generally harmless, some are known carcinogens or toxic.^[46] The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2005–2009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.^[46] The 2011 US House of Representatives investigative report on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing states that out of 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products, "more than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants".^[46] The report also shows that between 2005 and 2009, 279 products had at least one component listed as "proprietary" or "trade secret" on their Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) required material safety data sheet (MSDS). The MSDS is a list of chemical components in the products of chemical manufacturers, and according to OSHA, a manufacturer may withhold information designated as "proprietary" from this sheet. When asked to reveal the proprietary components, most companies participating in the investigation were unable to do so, leading the committee to surmise these "companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the environment".^[46]
Without knowing the identity of the proprietary components, regulators cannot test for their presence. This prevents government regulators from establishing baseline levels of the substances prior to hydraulic fracturing and documenting changes in these levels, thereby making it more difficult to prove that hydraulic fracturing is contaminating the environment with these substances.^[95] In some cases regulators in Pennsylvania have been criticized for withholding information about water test results and contamination incidents from affected residents.^[96][97]
Another 2011 study identified 632 chemicals used in natural gas operations. Only 353 of these are well-described in the scientific literature; and of these, more than 75% could affect skin, eyes, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems; roughly 40-50% could affect the brain and nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% were carcinogens and mutagens. The study indicated possible long-term health effects that might not appear immediately. The study recommended full disclosure of all products used, along with extensive air and water monitoring near natural gas operations; it also recommended that fracking's exemption from regulation under the US Safe Drinking Water Act be rescinded.^[98]
 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. It may account for about 30–70% of the original fracture fluid volume. In addition, natural formation waters may flow to the well and need treatment. These fluids, commonly known as flowback, produced water, or wastewater, are managed by underground injection, wastewater treatment and discharge, or recycling to fracture future wells.^[99] Treatment of produced waters may be feasible through either self-contained systems at well sites or fields or through municipal waste water treatment plants or commercial treatment facilities.^[99] 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. Much of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants, which are not equipped to remove radioactive material and are not required to test for it.^[97]
Methane
Groundwater methane contamination is also a concern as it has adverse impact on water quality and in extreme cases may lead to potential explosion.^[100][101] In 2006, over 7 million cubic feet (200,000 m³) of methane were released from a blown gas well in Clark, Wyoming and shallow groundwater was found to be contaminated.^[102] However, methane contamination is not always caused by fracking. Drilling for ordinary drinking water wells can also cause methane release. Some 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.^[103][104]
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 by a few operators."^[105] 2011 studies by the Colorado School of Public Health and Duke University also pointed to methane contamination stemming from fracking or its surrounding process.^[100][104] 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 Marcellus Shale (Middle Devonian) where hydraulic fracturing occurred, and from the shallower Upper Devonian formations.^[103]
Radioactivity
See also: Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing fluid might release heavy metals and radioactive materials from the deposit which may reflow to the surface by the flowback.^{[89][106][107][108]} Concerns have been expressed that radioactive tracers may return to the surface with flowback and during blow outs.^[109][110] The New York Times has reported radium and gross alpha radiation in wastewater from natural gas wells,^[111] which releases into Pennsylvania rivers,^[101] compiled a map of these wells and their wastewater contamination levels,^[111] and stated that some EPA reports were never made public. They did not measure beta or gamma radiation. The Times' reporting on the issue has come under some criticism.^[112][113] Recycling the wastewater has been proposed as a solution but has its limitations.^[114]
The EPA has asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to require community water systems in certain locations, and centralized wastewater treatment facilities to conduct testing for radionuclides.^[115][116] Safe drinking water standards have not yet been established to account for possible substances or radioactivity levels known to be in hydraulic fracturing waste water,^[101] and although water suppliers are required to inform citizens of radon and other radionuclides levels in their water,^[117] this doesn't always happen.^[118]
Seismicity
Hydraulic fracturing causes induced seismicity called microseismic events or microearthquakes. 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 -1.6 (M_w). 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 (M_w).^[119]
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has reported earthquakes induced by human measures, including hydraulic fracturing and hydraulic fracturing waste disposal wells, in several locations. According to the USGS only a small fraction of roughly 40,000 waste fluid disposal wells for oil and gas operations have induced earthquakes that are large enough to be of concern to the public.^[120] Although the magnitudes of these quakes has been small, the USGS says that there is no guarantee that larger quakes will not occur.^[121] 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.^[122] There are also concerns that quakes may damage underground gas, oil, and water lines and wells that were not designed to withstand earthquakes.^[123][121]
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.^[124] A report in the UK also concluded that fracking was the likely cause of some small tremors that occurred during shale gas drilling.^{[125][126][127]}
Several earthquakes occurring throughout 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, according to seismologists at Columbia University.^[128] A similar series of small earthquakes occurred in 2012 in Texas. Earthquakes are not common occurrences in either area. Disposal and injection wells are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and UIC laws.^[129]
 Health impact
Concern has been expressed over the possible long and short term health effects of air and water contamintation by gas production ^{[130] [131]} One fairly extensive American study on the effect of fracking concluded that exposure to gas drilling operations was strongly implicated in serious health effects on humans and animals. ^[132] As of May 2012, the United States Institute of Medicine and United States National Research Council were preparing to review the potential human and environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing.^[133][134]
Exposure of workers to silica dust
A study by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, concluded that an inhalation health hazard existed for workers exposed to crystalline silica at the evaluated hydraulic fracturing sites. NIOSH notified company representatives of these findings and provided reports with recommendations to control exposure to crystalline silica and recommend that all hydraulic fracturing sites evaluate their operations to determine the potential for worker exposure to crystalline silica and implement controls as necessary to protect workers.^[135]
Politics and public policy
To control the hydraulic fracturing industry, some governments are developing legislation and some municipalities are developing local zoning limitations.^[136] In 2011, France became the first nation to ban hydraulic fracturing.^[7][8] Other countries have placed a temporary moratorium on the practice.^[137] The US has the longest history with hydraulic fracturing, so its approaches to hydraulic fracturing may be modeled by other countries.^[56]
In the public argument over "fracking", there is some divergence in the use of the word "fracking". In the University of Texas Austin study led by Charles G. Groat, the term "fracking" was narrowly defined as only referring to the injection of fluid under pressure to create pathways. The study's definition excluded the impact of equipment failure, the nature of the fluids themselves, the preparations prior to injection, and procedures and events following the injection.^[17] Others, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, hold "fracking" to mean the entire process of resource extraction, specifically of gas in shale (which the UT study called the "lifecycle of shale extraction"), starting with building the well pads through recovering the gas, and dealing with the wastewater.^[92] This differing usage allows newspapers such as the Vancouver Sun to state that fracking has never contaminated groundwater,^[138][139] while The New York Times reports that it likely has.^[63][92]
Josh Fox's 2010 film Gasland became a center of opposition to hydrofracking of shale. The movie presented problems with ground water contamination near well sites in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Colorado.^[140] Energy in Depth, an oil and gas industry group, called the film's facts into question.^[141] In response, a detailed rebuttal of the claims of inaccuracy was posted on Gasland's website.^[142]
The considerable opposition against fracking activities in local townships has led companies to adopt a variety of public relations measures to assuage fears about fracking, including the admitted use of "mil­i­tary tac­tics to counter drilling oppo­nents". At a conference where public relations measures were discussed, a senior executive at Anadarko Petroleum was recorded on tape saying, "Download the US Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, because we are dealing with an insurgency", while referring to fracking opponents. Matt Pitzarella, spokesman for the most important fracking company in Pennsylvania, Range Resources, also told other conference attendees that Range employed psychological warfare operations veterans. According to Pitzarella, the experience learned in the Middle East has been valuable to Range Resources in Pennsylvania, when dealing with emotionally charged township meetings and advising townships on zoning and local ordinances dealing with fracking.^[143][144]
See also
• Directional drilling
• Environmental concerns with electricity generation
• Environmental impact of petroleum
• Environmental impact of the oil shale industry
• ExxonMobil Electrofrac
• Hydraulic fracturing by country
• Hydraulic fracturing in the United States
• Natural gas
• Shale gas
 Notes
a. ^{^} Also spelled "fraccing"^[145] or "fracing".^[146][147]
References
1. ^ ^{a b c} Charlez, Philippe A. (1997). Rock Mechanics: Petroleum Applications. Paris: Editions Technip. p. 239. http://books.google.com/books?id=NigwG_BYRsYC&pg=PA239. Retrieved 2012-05-14.
2. ^ Marcellus shale, definitions
3. ^ ^{a b} "US Government Role in Shale Gas Fracking: An Overview"
4. ^ ^{a b} SPE production & operations. 20. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2005. p. 87.
5. ^ ^{a b} IEA (29 May 2012) (PDF). Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas. World Energy Outlook Special Report on Unconventional Gas. OECD. pp. 18–27. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/goldenrules/WEO2012_GoldenRulesReport.pdf.
6. ^ ^{a b} Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817691/. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
7. ^ ^{a b} Patel, Tara (31 March 2011). "The French Public Says No to 'Le Fracking'". Bloomberg Businessweek. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223060759263.htm. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
8. ^ ^{a b} Patel, Tara (4 October 2011). "France to Keep Fracking Ban to Protect Environment, Sarkozy Says". Bloomberg Businessweek. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-04/france-to-keep-fracking-ban-to-protect-environment-sarkozy-says.html. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
9. ^ Fjaer, E. (2008). "Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing". Petroleum related rock mechanics. Developments in petroleum science (2 ed.). Elsevier. p. 369. ISBN 978-0-444-50260-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=l6CfasFxhzYC&pg=PA369. Retrieved 2012-05-14.
10. ^ Price, N.J.; Cosgrove, J.W. (1990). Analysis of geological structures. Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–33. ISBN 978-0-521-31958-4. http://books.google.com/books?id=80gYS1IzUWsC&pg=PA32. Retrieved 5 November 2011.
11. ^ Manthei, G.; Eisenblätter, J.; Kamlot, P. (2003). "Stress measurement in salt mines using a special hydraulic fracturing borehole tool". In Natau, Fecker & Pimentel (PDF). Geotechnical Measurements and Modelling. pp. 355–360. ISBN 90-5809-603-3. http://www.gmugmbh.de/download/gmug_Scan0965.pdf. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
12. ^ Zoback, M.D. (2007). Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press. p. 18. http://books.google.com/books?id=Xx63OaM2JIIC&pg=PA18. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
13. ^ Laubach, S.E.; Reed R.M., Olson J.E., Lander R.H. & Bonnell L.M. (2004). "Coevolution of crack-seal texture and fracture porosity in sedimentary rocks: cathodoluminescence observations of regional fractures". Journal of Structural Geology (Elsevier) 26 (5): 967–982. Bibcode 2004JSG....26..967L. doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2003.08.019. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191814103001858. Retrieved 5 November 2011.
14. ^ Sibson, R.H.; Moore J. McM. & Rankin A.H. (1975). "Seismic pumping--a hydrothermal fluid transport mechanism". Journal of the Geological Society (London: Geological Society) 131 (6): 653–659. doi:10.1144/gsjgs.131.6.0653. http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/6/653. Retrieved 5 November 2011.
15. ^ Gill, R. (2010). Igneous rocks and processes: a practical guide. John Wiley and Sons. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-4443-3065-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=vgpmAcu_M-AC&pg=PA102. Retrieved 5 November 2011.
16. ^ ^{a b c} Montgomery, Carl T.; Smith, Michael B. (2010-12-105). "Hydraulic fracturing. History of an enduring technology" (PDF). JPT Online (Society of Petroleum Engineers): 26–41. http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
17. ^ ^{a b} Energy Institute (February 2012) (PDF). Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development (Report). University of Texas at Austin. http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_shale_gas_regulation120215.pdf. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
18. ^ Mader, Detlef (1989). Hydraulic Proppant Fracturing and Gravel Packing. Elsevier. pp. 173–174; 202. ISBN 9780444873521. http://books.google.com/books?id=FyGcOI42oBMC&pg=PA174.
19. ^ United States National Research Council, Committee to Review the Gas Research Institute's Research, Development and Demonstration Program, Gas Research Institute (1989). A review of the management of the Gas Research Institute. National Academies. p. ?.
20. ^ The Breakthrough Institute. Interview with Dan Steward, former Mitchell Energy Vice President. December 2011.
21. ^ "The Barnett Shale" (PDF). North Keller Neighbors Together. http://www.nknt.org/Exhibits/Barnett_shale_points2.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-14.
22. ^ David Wethe (19 January 2012). "Like Fracking? You'll Love 'Super Fracking'". Businessweek. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/like-fracking-youll-love-super-fracking-01192012.html. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
23. ^ "Production Decline of a Natural Gas Well Over Time". Geology.com. The Geology Society of America. 3 January 2012. http://geology.com/royalty/production-decline.shtml. Retrieved 4 March 2012.
24. ^ Gidley, John L. (1989). Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE Monograph. 12. SPE. p. ?. ISBN 9781555630201.
25. ^ Ching H. Yew (1997). Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing. Gulf Professional Publishing. p. ?. ISBN 9780884154747.
26. ^ ^{a b} Economides, Michael J. (2000). Reservoir stimulation. J. Wiley. p. P-2. ISBN 9780471491927.
27. ^ Banks, David; Odling, N.E., Skarphagen, H., and Rohr-Torp, E. (May 1996). "Permeability and stress in crystalline rocks". Terra Nova 8 (3): 223–235. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.1996.tb00751.x.
28. ^ Brown, Edwin Thomas (2007) [2003]. Block Caving Geomechanics (2nd ed.). Indooroopilly, Queensland: Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, UQ. ISBN 978-0-9803622-0-6. http://www.jkmrc.uq.edu.au/Publications/BlockCavingGeomechanicsSecondEdition.aspx. Retrieved 2012-05-14.
29. ^ Frank, U.; Barkley, N. (February 1995). "Remediation of low permeability subsurface formations by fracturing enhancement of soil vapor extraction". Soil Remediation: Application of Innovative and Standard Technologies 40 (2): 191–201. doi:10.1016/0304-3894(94)00069-S. ISSN 0304-3894. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TGF-3YS8C2K-C/2/236451dcf9e7265b12548b83a2025e0f.
30. ^ Bell, Frederic Gladstone (2004). Engineering Geology and Construction. Taylor & Francis. p. 670. ISBN 9780415259392. http://books.google.com/books?id=m1uSzpaD_V8C&pg=PA670.
31. ^ Aamodt, R. Lee; Kuriyagawa, Michio (1983). "Measurement of Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure in Crystalline Rock". Hydraulic fracturing stress measurements. National Academies. p. 139. http://books.google.com/books?id=X2YrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA139.
32. ^ "Geothermal Technologies Program: How an Enhanced Geothermal System Works". .eere.energy.gov. 2011-02-16. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_animation.html. Retrieved 2011-11-02.
33. ^ Miller, Bruce G. (2005). Coal Energy Systems. Sustainable World Series. Academic Press. p. 380. ISBN 9780124974517. http://books.google.com/books?id=PYyJEEyJN94C&pg=PA380.
34. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h} Ground Water Protection Council; ALL Consulting (April 2009) (PDF). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer (Report). DOE Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory. pp. 56–66. DE-FG26-04NT15455. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/EPreports/Shale_Gas_Primer_2009.pdf. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
35. ^ Penny, Glenn S.; Conway, Michael W.; Lee, Wellington (June 1985). "Control and Modeling of Fluid Leakoff During Hydraulic Fracturing". Journal of Petroleum Technology (Society of Petroleum Engineers) 37 (6): 1071–1081. doi:10.2118/12486-PA. http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00012486. Retrieved 2012-05-10.
36. ^ Arthur, J. Daniel; Bohm, Brian; Coughlin, Bobbi Jo; Layne, Mark (2008) (PDF). Hydraulic Fracturing Considerations for Natural Gas Wells of the Fayetteville Shale (Report). ALL Consulting. p. 10. http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/ALL%20FayettevilleFrac%20FINAL.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
37. ^ Chilingar, George V.; Robertson, John O.; Kumar, Sanjay (1989). Surface Operations in Petroleum Production. 2. Elsevier. pp. 143–152. ISBN 9780444426772. http://books.google.com/books?id=X5xUuWvYow8C&pg=PA143.
38. ^ Love, Adam H. (December 2005). "Fracking: The Controversy Over its Safety for the Environment". Johnson Wright, Inc.. http://www.johnsonwright.net/newsletters/2011-December/Fracking-The_Controversy_Over_its_Safety_for_the_Environment.htm. Retrieved 2012-06-10.
39. ^ "Hydraulic Fracturing". University of Colorado Law School. http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/resources/fracing.php. Retrieved 2 June 2012.
40. ^ Wan Renpu (2011). Advanced Well Completion Engineering. Gulf Professional Publishing. p. 424. ISBN 9780123858689. http://books.google.com/books?id=GH6JoDxT_9sC&pg=PA424.
41. ^ Ram Narayan (August 8, 2012). "From Food to Fracking: Guar Gum and International Regulation". RegBlog. University of Pennsylvania Law School. https://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/regblog/2012/08/8-narayan-guar-gum.html. Retrieved 15 August 2012.
42. ^ Hartnett-White, K. (2011) (PDF). The Fracas About Fracking- Low Risk, High Reward, but the EPA is Against it. National Review Online. http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The-Fracas-about-Fracking.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
43. ^ ^{a b c d} Anthony Andrews et al. (30 October 2009) (PDF). Unconventional Gas Shales: Development, Technology, and Policy Issues. Congressional Research Service. p. ?. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40894.pdf. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
44. ^ "CARBO ceramics". http://www.carboceramics.com. Retrieved 2011.
45. ^ ^{a b} ALL Consulting (June 2012) (PDF). The Modern Practices of Hydraulic Fracturing: A Focus on Canadian Resources (Report). Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=210903&DT=NTV. Retrieved 2012-08-04.
46. ^ ^{a b c d e f} (PDF) Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing (Report). Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives. April 18, 2011. p. ?. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf.
47. ^ Reis, John C. (1976). Environmental Control in Petroleum Engineering. Gulf Professional Publishers.
48. ^ ^{a b c} (PDF) Radiation Protection and the Management of Radioactive Waste in the Oil and Gas Industry (Report). International Atomic Energy Agency. 2003. pp. 39-40. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1171_web.pdf. Retrieved 20 May 2012. "Beta emitters including H-3 and C-14 may be used when it is feasible to use sampling techniques to detect the presence of the radiotracer or when changes in activity concentration can be used as indicators of the properties of interest in the system. Gamma emitters, such as Sc-46, La-140, Mn-56, Na-24, Sb-124, Ir-192, Tc-m, I-131, Ag-m, Ar-41, and Xe-133 are used extensively because of the ease with which they can be identified and measured ... In order to aid the detection of any spillage of solutions of the 'soft' beta emitters, they are sometimes spiked with a short half-life gamma emitter such as Br-82"
49. ^ ^{a b} Jack E. Whitten, Steven R. Courtemanche, Andrea R. Jones, Richard E. Penrod, and David B. Fogl (Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards) (June 2000). "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study Licenses (NUREG-1556, Volume 14)". US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1556/v14/#_1_26. Retrieved 19 April 2012. "labeled Frac Sand...Sc-46, Br-82, Ag-110m, Sb-124, Ir-192"
50. ^ Bennet, Les, et.al.. "The Source for Hydraulic Fracture Characterization" (PDF). Oilfield Review (Schlumberger) (Winter 2005/2006): 42–57. https://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors05/win05/04_the_source_for_hydraulic.ashx. Retrieved 2012-09-30.
51. ^ Seale, Rocky (July/August 2007). "Open hole completion systems enables multi-stage fracturing and stimulation along horizontal wellbores" (PDF). Drilling Contractor. http://drillingcontractor.org/dcpi/dc-julyaug07/DC_July07_PackersPlus.pdf. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
52. ^ "Completion Technologies". EERC. http://www.undeerc.org/bakken/completiontechnologies.aspx. Retrieved 2012-09-30.
53. ^ [energyfromshale.org "EnergyFromShale"]. EnergyFromShale. 2011. energyfromshale.org.
54. ^ Mooney, Chris (2011). "The Truth About Fracking". Scientific American (305): 80–85. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-truth-about-fracking.
55. ^ ^{a b c d} IEA (2011). World Energy Outlook 2011. OECD. pp. 91; 164. ISBN 978 92 64 12413 4.
56. ^ ^{a b c} Urbina, Ian (30 December 2011). "Hunt for Gas Hits Fragile Soil, and South Africans Fear Risks". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/world/south-african-farmers-see-threat-from-fracking.html. 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."
57. ^ ^{a b c d} Urbina, Ian (3 March 2011). "Pressure Limits Efforts to Police Drilling for Gas". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04gas.html. Retrieved 23 February 2012. "More than a quarter-century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope and important findings have been removed"
58. ^ ^{a b} DiCosmo, Bridget (15 May 2012). "SAB Pushes To Advise EPA To Conduct Toxicity Tests In Fracking Study". InsideEPA. Inside Washington Publishers. (subscription required). http://insideepa.com/201107052369131/EPA-Daily-News/Daily-News/sab-pushes-to-advise-epa-to-conduct-toxicity-tests-in-fracking-study/menu-id-95.html. Retrieved 2012-05-19. "But some members of the chartered SAB are suggesting that the fracking panel revise its recommendation that the agency scale back its planned toxicity testing of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, process, because of the limited resources and time frame ... Chesapeake Energy supported the draft recommendation, saying that "an in-depth study of toxicity, the development of new analytical methods and tracers are not practical given the budget and schedule limitation of the study.""
59. ^ Satterfield, John (30 June 2011). "Letter from Chesapeake Energy to EPA" (PDF). InsideEPA (Inside Washington Publishers). (subscription required). http://insideepa.com/iwpfile.html?file=jul2011%2Fepa2011_1273b.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-19. "Flowback and Produced water ... Chesapeake agrees that an indepth study of toxicity, the development of new analytic methods and tracers are not practical given the budget and schedule limitations of the study ... Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal ... Chesapeake believes there was unjustified emphasis on the surface disposal of produced water to treatment plants in the SAB's Review ... Chesapeake disagrees with the inclusion of water distribution network corrosion and burden of analyzing for contaminants by POTW's into the study."
60. ^ ^{a b} "The Debate Over the Hydrofracking Study's Scope". The New York Times. 3 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/04/us/20110304_natural-gas-documents-intro.html. Retrieved 1 May 2012. "While environmentalists have aggressively lobbied the agency to broaden the scope of the study, industry has lobbied the agency to narrow this focus"
61. ^ "Natural Gas Documents". The New York Times. 27 February 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-documents-1.html#document/p533/a9948. Retrieved 5 May 2012. "The Times reviewed more than 30,000 pages of documents obtained through open records requests of state and federal agencies and by visiting various regional offices that oversee drilling in Pennsylvania. Some of the documents were leaked by state or federal officials."
62. ^ Ramanuja, Krishna (7 Martch 2012). "Study suggests hydrofracking is killing farm animals, pets". Cornell Chronicle (Cornell University). http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March12/FrackingAnimals.html. Retrieved 9 March 2012.
63. ^ ^{a b c} Urbina, Ian (3 August 2011). "A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May be More". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04natgas.html. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
64. ^ (PDF) Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs; National Study Final Report (Report). EPA. June 2004. http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_final_fact_sheet.pdf. Retrieved 23 February 2011.
65. ^ Mark Drajem (11 January 2012). "Fracking Political Support Unshaken by Doctors' Call for Ban". Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-11/fracking-s-political-support-unshaken-by-doctors-call-for-ban.html. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
66. ^ Alex Wayne (4 January 2012). "Health Effects of Fracking Need Study, Says CDC Scientist". Bloomberg Businessweek. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-10/health-effects-of-fracking-need-study-says-cdc-scientist.html. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
67. ^ ^{a b} 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 (Springer) 106 (4): 679–690. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5. http://www.springerlink.com/content/e384226wr4160653/fulltext.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
68. ^ Howarth, Robert W.; Ingraffea, Anthony (15 September 2011). "Should Fracking Stop? Extracting gas from shale increases the availability of this resource, but the health and environmental risks may be too high. Point: Yes, it's too high risk". Nature (477): 271–275. Bibcode 2011Natur.477..271H. doi:10.1038/477271a.
69. ^ Cathles, Lawrence M.; Brown, Larry; Taam, Milton; Hunter, Andrew (2011). Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0333-0.
70. ^ Stephen Leahy (24 January 2012). "Shale Gas a Bridge to More Global Warming". IPS. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106531. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
71. ^ Skone, Timothy J. (12 May 2011). "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction & Delivery in the United States" (PDF). National Energy Technology Laboratory. http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Documents/PDFs/SKONE_NG_LC_GHG_Profile_Cornell_12MAY11_Final.pdf. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
72. ^ Jiang, Mohan; Griffin, W Michael; Hendrickson, Chris; Jaramillo, Paulina; VanBriesen, Jeanne; Venkatesh, Aranya (2011). "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) 6 (3). Bibcode 2011ERL.....6c4014J. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034014. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034014/pdf/1748-9326_6_3_034014.pdf. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
73. ^ Hultman, Nathan; Rebois, Dylan; Scholten, Michael; Ramig, Christopher (2011). "The greenhouse impact of unconventional gas for electricity generation" (PDF). Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) 6 (4). Bibcode 2011ERL.....6d4008H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044008. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044008/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044008.pdf. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
74. ^ Lashof, Dan (12 April 2011). "Natural Gas Needs Tighter Production Practices to Reduce Global Warming Pollution". Natural Resources Defense Council. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/natural_gas_needs_tighter_prod.html. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
75. ^ 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. http://www.springerlink.com/content/c338g7j559580172/fulltext.pdf. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
76. ^ "Ozone mitigation efforts continue in Sublette County, Wyoming". Wyoming's Online News Source. March 2011. http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_d1b0ff92-d3a0-5481-a9fc-e3ca505fbe12.html.
77. ^ Eastern Research Group, Sage Environmental Consulting (July 13, 2011) (PDF). City of Fort Worth: Natural Gas Air Quality Study (Report). City of Fort Worth. http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/Gas_Wells/AirQualityStudy_final.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
78. ^ Hanna, Bill; Smith, Jack Z. (July 15, 2011). "Study: No 'significant health threats' from natural gas sites in Fort Worth". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/14/3222750/no-significant-health-threats.html. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
79. ^ Biello, David (30 March 2010). "Natural gas cracked out of shale deposits may mean the U.S. has a stable supply for a century – but at what cost to the environment and human health?". Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
80. ^ ^{a b} Schmidt, Charles (1 August 2011). "Blind Rush? Shale Gas Boom Proceeds Amid Human Health Questions". Environmental Health Perspectives 119: a348-a353. doi:10.1289/ehp.119-a348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.119-a348. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
81. ^ "EPA Oil and Gas Air Pollution Standards". EPA. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
82. ^ ^{a b c} 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. http://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/water_resources_and_use_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_marcellus_shale_region.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-09.
83. ^ ^{a b} Abdalla, Charles W.; Drohan, Joy R. (2010) (PDF). Water Withdrawals for Development of Marcellus Shale Gas in Pennsylvania. Introduction to Pennsylvania’s Water Resources (Report). The Pennsylvania State University. http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/ua460.pdf. 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)"
84. ^ Cothren, Jackson (PDF). Modeling the Effects of Non-Riparian Surface Water Diversions on Flow Conditions in the Little Red Watershed (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. http://ar.water.usgs.gov/Fayetteville_Shale/abstracts.pdf. 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"
85. ^ Satterfield, J; Mantell; Kathol, D; Hiebert, F; Patterson, K; Lee, R (September 2008). "Managing Water Resource‘s Challenges in Select Natural Gas Shale Plays". GWPC Annual Meeting. ALL Consulting.
86. ^ Staff (2012). "Unconventional well drilling permits". Marcellus Center. Marcellus Center, Pennsylvania State University. http://marcellus.psu.edu/images/permit_animation.gif. Retrieved 2012-09-16.
87. ^ "Horizontal drilling boosts Pennsylvania's natural gas production". US Energy Information Administration. 23 May 2012. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6390. Retrieved 2012-09-16.
88. ^ Faucon, Benoît (17 September 2012). "Shale-Gas Boom Hits Eastern Europe". WSJ.com. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443866404577565244220252020.html. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
89. ^ ^{a b} Staff (26 February 2011). "Drilling Down: Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-documents-1.html#document/p533/a9948. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
90. ^ Mall, Amy (19 December 2011). "Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination". Switchboard: NRDC Staff Blog. Natural Resources Defense Council. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
91. ^ Lustgarten, Abrahm (November 2008). "Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination". ProPublica. http://www.propublica.org/article/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-us-water-supplies-1113. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
92. ^ ^{a b c} Susan Phillips (8 December 2011). "EPA Blames Fracking for Wyoming Groundwater Contamination". StateImpact Penn­syl­va­nia. WITF, WHYY & NPR. http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/12/08/epa-blames-fracking-for-wyoming-groundwater-contamination/. Retrieved 6 February 2012. "fed­eral envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tors have made a direct link between the con­tro­ver­sial drilling prac­tice known as hydraulic frac­tur­ing and ground­wa­ter contamination...The EPA found high con­cen­tra­tions of ben­zene, xylene, gaso­line and diesel fuel in shal­low ground­wa­ter sup­plies that they linked to waste­water pits. But the report also found a num­ber of frack­ing chem­i­cals in much deeper fresh water wells."
93. ^ Fetzer, Richard M. (19 January 2012). Action Memorandum - Request for funding for a Removal Action at the Dimock Residential Groundwater Site (Report). http://www.epaosc.org/sites/7555/files/dimock-action-memo-01-19-12%5B1%5D.pdf. Retrieved 27 May 2012.
94. ^ DiGiulio, Dominic C.; Wilkin, Richard T.; Miller, Carlyle; Oberley, Gregory (December 2011) (PDF). Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. Draft (Report). EPA. http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
95. ^ Kris Fitz Patrick (November 17, 2011). "Ensuring Safe Drinking Water in the Age of Hydraulic Fracturing". http://sites.duke.edu/sjpp/2011/ensuring-safe-drinking-water-in-the-age-of-hydraulic-fracturing/.
96. ^ Susan Phillips (02 November 2012). "DEP Employee Says Agency Withholds Water Contamination Information from Residents". StateImpact Pennsylvania. NPR. http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/11/02/dep-employee-says-agency-withholds-water-contamination-information-from-residents/. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
97. ^ ^{a b} Caruso, David B. (2011-01-03). "44,000 Barrels of Tainted Water Dumped Into Neshaminy Creek. We're the only state allowing tainted water into our rivers". Associated Press. NBC Philadelphia. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Pennsylvania-Allows-Fracking-Tainted-Water-Dumping-Gas-Drilling-112804034.html. Retrieved 2012-04-28. "...the more than 300,000 residents of the 17 municipalities that get water from the creek or use it for recreation were never informed that numerous public pronouncements that the watershed was free of gas waste had been wrong."
98. ^ 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 (Taylor & Francis) 17 (5): 1039–1056. doi:10.1080/10807039.2011.605662. http://www.pasdegazdeschistes.rd-h.fr/wp-content/uploads/NaturalGasManuscriptPDF09_13_10-Th%C3%A9o-Colborn.pdf.
99. ^ ^{a b} Arthur, J. Daniel; Langhus, Bruce; Alleman, David (2008) (PDF). An overview of modern shale gas development in the United States (Report). ALL Consulting. p. 21. http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20100210093849_large.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
100. ^ ^{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. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.full.pdf. Retrieved 2011-10-14.
101. ^ ^{a b c} Urbina, Ian (26 February 2011). "Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
102. ^ Blowout brings scrutiny to energy company
103. ^ ^{a b} "Methane in Pennsylvania Water Wells Unrelated to Marcellus Shale Fracturing". Oil and Gas Journal (Pennwell Corporation) 109 (49): 54–67. December 5, 2011. http://www.ogj.com/1/vol-109/issue-49/exploration-development/methane-in-pennsylvania-water-full.html.
104. ^ ^{a b} "Gasland Correction Document". Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf. Retrieved 25 January 2012.
105. ^ Moniz, Ernest J. et al. (June 2011) (PDF). The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (Report). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/natural-gas-2011/NaturalGas_Report.pdf. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
106. ^ Stevens, Paul (September 2010) (PDF). The 'Shale Gas Revolution': Hype and Reality (Report). Chatham House. p. 17. ISBN 978 1 86203 239 2. http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/r_0910stevens.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-28.
107. ^ Urbina, Ian (7 April 2011). "Pennsylvania Calls for More Water Tests". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/science/earth/08water.html. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
108. ^ "Iodine 131 Found in Philadelphia's Drinking Water" (Press release). Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority. 12 April 2011. http://www.bcwsa.net/for-the-public/press-releases/3-press-releases/192-iodine-131-found-in-philadelphias-drinking-water.html. Retrieved 11 May 2012. "In response to these results, PWD is working with the EPA and DEP and taking the following actions: Developing a Joint PADEP, EPA, PWD Action Plan for all Radionuclides; Initiating a focused sampling program for Iodine; Developing an aggressive track down program with EPA and DEP to identify the potential sources of Iodine 131 in our source waters."
109. ^ Dina Murphy and Larry Huskins (8 Sept 2006) (PDF). letter filed with Department of Environment, New Brunswick, CA. Penobsquis, CA government. p. ?. http://www.penobsquis.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fracspillfirst101.pdf. Retrieved 29 July 2012. "engineer who works with this radioactive material for living is exposed to less radiation than an individual who smokes 1.5 packs of cigarettes a day.""
110. ^ ICF Incorporated (8 September 2006) (PDF). Technical Assistance for the Draft Supplemental Generic EIS: Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs (Report). NYSERDA. p. 6. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Publications/NYSERDA-General-Reports/~/media/Files/Publications/NYSERDA/ng/icf-task-1.ashx. Retrieved 7 August 2009. "Radioactive tracers can be detected with wireline gamma-logging equipment in the wellbore, but their use poses additional environmental and safety concerns."
111. ^ ^{a b} White, Jeremy; Park, Haeyoun; Urbina, Ian; Palmer, Griff (26 February 2011). "Toxic Contamination From Natural Gas Wells". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-map.html.
112. ^ "Natural Gas Drilling, the Spotlight". The New York Times. 5 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/opinion/l06gas.html. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
113. ^ Charles Petit (2 March 2011). "Part II of the fracking water problems in PA and other Marcellus Shale country". Knight Science Journalism Tracker. MIT. http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2011/03/02/nytimes-part-ii-of-the-fracking-water-problems-in-pa-and-other-marcellus-shale-country/. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
114. ^ Urbina, Ian (1 March 2011). "Drilling Down: Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gas.html. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
115. ^ Urbina, Ian (7 March 2011). "E.P.A. Steps Up Scrutiny of Pollution in Pennsylvania Rivers". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/science/earth/08water.html. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
116. ^ Shawn M. Garvin (07 March 2011) (PDF). Letter to PADEP re:Marcellus Shale 030711. EPA. http://www.epa.gov/region03/marcellus_shale/PADEP_Marcellus_Shale_030711.pdf. Retrieved 11 May 2012. "several sources of data, including reports required by PADEP, indicate that the wastewater resulting from gas drilling operations (including flowback from hydraulic fracturing and other fluids produced from gas production wells) contains variable and sometimes high concentrations of materials that may present a threat to human health and aquatic environment, including radionuclides.... Many of these substances are not completely removed by wastewater treatment facilities, and their discharge may cause or contribute to impaired drinking water quality for downstream users, or harm aquatic life ... At the same time, it is equally critical to examine the persistence of these substances, including radionuclides, in wastewater effluents and their potential presence in receiving waters."
117. ^ "Radionuclides in public drinking water". EPA. 8 March 2012. http://www.epa.gov/radtown/public-water.html. Retrieved 4 May 2012.
118. ^ Bauers, Sandy (21 July 2011). "Cancer patients’ urine suspected in Wissahickon iodine-131 levels". Philadelphia inquirer, Carbon County Groundwater Guardians. http://carbonwaters.org/2011/07/cancer-patients-urine-suspected-in-wissahickon-iodine-131-levels/. Retrieved 25 February 2012.
119. ^ Zoback, Mark; Kitasei, Saya; Copithorne, Brad (July 2010) (PDF). Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development (Report). Worldwatch Institute. p. 9. http://efdsystems.org/Portals/25/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Paper%20-%20World%20Watch.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
120. ^ "FAQs – Earthquakes Induced by Fluid Injection". USGS. 25 June 2012. http://www.usgs.gov/faq/index.php?sid=54684&lang=en&action=show&cat=125. Retrieved 4 November 2012.
121. ^ ^{a b} ‹The template Cite video is being considered for deletion.› Rachel Maddow, Terrence Henry (07 August 2012) (in English). Rachel Maddon Show: Fracking waste messes with Texas (video). MSNBC. Event occurs at 9:24 - 10:35.
122. ^ Mike Soraghan (29 March 2012). "'Remarkable' spate of man-made quakes linked to drilling, USGS team says". EnergyWire.
123. ^ Terrence Henry (date=06 August 2012). "How Fracking Disposal Wells Are Causing Earthquakes in Dallas-Fort Worth". StateImpact Texas. NPR. http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/08/06/how-fracking-disposal-wells-are-causing-earthquakes-in-dallas-fort-worth/. Retrieved 09 November 2012.
124. ^ "Fracking causes minor earthquakes, B.C. regulator says". The Canadian Press (Canadian Broadcast Company - British Columbia). 6 September 2012. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/06/bc-fracking-earthquakes.html. Retrieved 2012-10-28.
125. ^ "Shale gas fracking: MPs call for safety inquiry after tremors". BBC News. 8 June 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-13700575. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
126. ^ "Fracking tests near Blackpool 'likely cause' of tremors". BBC News. 2 November 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
127. ^ de Pater, C.J.; Baisch, S. (2 November 2011) (PDF). Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity (Report). Cuadrilla Resources. http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Geomechanical-Study-of-Bowland-Shale-Seismicity_02-11-11.pdf. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
128. ^ "Ohio Quakes Probably Triggered by Waste Disposal Well, Say Seismologists" (Press release). Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory. 6 January 2012. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/seismologists-link-ohio-earthquakes-waste-disposal-wells. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
129. ^ "EPA Underground Injection Control Program". http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/index.cfm. Retrieved 2012-04-13.
130. ^ McHaney, Sarah (21 October 2012). "Shale Gas Extraction Brings Local Health Impacts". IPS News (Inter Press Service). http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/10/shale-gas-extraction-brings-local-health-impacts/. Retrieved 2012-10-21.
131. ^ Colborn, T., Kwiatkowski, C., Schultz, K. & Bachron, M. (2011). Natural gas operations from public health perspective, human and ecological risk assessment. International Journal. 17:45, 1039-1056. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2011.605662
132. ^ 22(1) (2012): 55-77. = http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/data/Bamberger_Oswald_NS22_in_press.pdf; accessed 2012.11.30
133. ^ Mall, Amy (16 May 2012). "Concerns about the health risks of fracking continue to grow". Switchboard: NRDC Staff Blog. Natural Resources Defense Council. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/concerns_about_the_health_risk.html. Retrieved 2012-05-19.
134. ^ Hopkinson, Jenny; DiCosmo, Bridget (15 May 2012). "Academies' NRC Seeks Broad Review Of Currently Ignored Fracking Risks". InsideEPA (Inside Washington Publishers). (subscription required). http://insideepa.com/201205152398901/EPA-Daily-News/Daily-News/academies-nrc-seeks-broad-review-of-currently-ignored-fracking-risks/menu-id-95.html. Retrieved 2012-05-19.
135. ^ Eric Esswein, MSPH; Max Kiefer, MS; John Snawder, PhD; and Michael Breitenstein, BS (23 May 2012). "Worker Exposure to Crystalline Silica During Hydraulic Fracturing". NIOSH Science Blog. United States Center for Disease Control. http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2012/05/silica-fracking/. Retrieved 2012-09-08.
136. ^ Nolon, John R. and Polidoro, Victoria, Hydrofracking: Disturbances Both Geological and Political: Who Decides? (2012). 44 Urb. Law. 507 (2012).
137. ^ The Nation Moratorium in the USA
138. ^ Munro, Margaret (17 February 2012). "Fracking does not contaminate groundwater: study released in Vancouver". Vancouver Sun. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fracking+does+contaminate+groundwater+study+released+Vancouver/6165532/story.html. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
139. ^ Vaughan, Vicki (16 February 2012). "Fracturing 'has no direct' link to water pollution, UT study finds". Fuel Fix powered by Stanoil. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/02/16/ut-study-fracturing-itself-not-connected-to-water-pollution/. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
140. ^ "Gasland". 2010. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html. Retrieved 2012-05-14.
141. ^ "Gasland Debunked" (PDF). Energy in Depth. http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Debunking-Gasland.pdf. Retrieved 2012-05-14.
142. ^ "Affirming Gasland". 2010-07. http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/Affirming_Gasland_Sept_2010.pdf. Retrieved 2010-12-21.
143. ^ Javers, Eamon (8 Nov 2011). "Oil Executive: Military-Style 'Psy Ops' Experience Applied". CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/id/45208498.
144. ^ Phillips, Susan (9 Nov 2011). "'We're Dealing with an Insurgency,' says Energy Company Exec of Fracking Foes". National Public Radio. http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/11/09/were-dealing-with-an-insurgency-says-energy-company-exec-of-fracking-foes/.
145. ^ "Chemicals that may be used in Australian CSG fraccing fluid" (PDF). Australian Petroleum Ptoduction & Exploration Association Limited. http://www.appea.com.au/images/stories/Policy_CSG/APPEA_Fraccing_chemicals_-_FINAL.pdf. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
146. ^ Stephen D. Simpson (12 July 2010). "Will The EPA Crack Down On 'Fracking'?". Investopedia. http://stocks.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2010/Will-The-EPA-Crack-Down-On-Fracking-HAL-APC-NBL-COG-EOG-CHK-UPL-XOM0712.aspx. Retrieved 22 February 2012.^{[unreliable source?]}
147. ^ "HydraulicFracturing.com". Chesapeake Energy. http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com. Retrieved 2011-07-13
 External links
Wikinews has related news: Disposal of fracking wastewater poses potential environmental problems
• Natural Gas Extraction—Hydraulic Fracturing (EPA website)
• EPA's Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan
• FracFocus Site indicating chemical composition of fracking fluid of individual wells
• FracTracker.org: Maps, data, and articles from news, government, industry, and academic sources.
• Fracking collected news and commentary at ProPublica
• Hydraulic Fracturing at Earthworks
• Hydraulic fracturing illustration on ProPublica
• Shale gas and fracking collected news and commentary at The Guardian

Fracking earthquakes: Colorado regulators now checking seismic risk in permit reviews

Regulators checking seismic risk in permit reviews


Fracking

e

Posted: 12/05/2012
Last Updated: 6 days ago

DENVER - Federal geologists say recent earthquakes in Colorado and elsewhere were induced by a drilling procedure to dispose of

wastewater, and regulators in Colorado have started to look for seismic risk in permit reviews.

The Denver Post reported Tuesday that Colorado drilling regulators say more study is needed on the link between drilling waste disposal and the uptick in earthquakes. But nevertheless regulators are looking at permits to analyze earthquake risk.

A report due this week at a gathering of the American Geophysical Union says that an uptick in earthquakes on the Raton Basin in Colorado, northern New Mexico and elsewhere is tied to disposal wells, where oil and gas drilling wastewater is injected.

A 5.3-magnitude earthquake near Trinidad last year triggered minor rock slides.

No one was hurt.

 

Does Fracking Cause Earthquakes?

—By Alyssa Battistoni
• 
  
| Mon Apr. 16, 2012 2:00 AM PDT


There are plenty of reasons to worry about fracking—groundwater contamination, methane leaks, that flaming tap water thing. But can it really cause earthquakes? That's the question the US Geological Survey set out to answer after a spate of tremors in the Midwest—an area not usually known for earthquakes—alerted scientists to the possibility that some of them might be man-made.

Seismic activity in the Midwest started increasing around 12 years ago but picked up significantly in the past few years, says seismologist Bill Ellsworth, the lead author of a new USGS study examining potential links between fracking and earthquakes in the region. Since 1970, the baseline for earthquakes in the Midwest measuring above a 3.0 hovered at around 21 per year, but beginning in 2001, that number began to rise. There's been a "remarkable increase" in the past few years: The number of 3.0-plus earthquakes rose from 29 in 2008 to 50 in 2009, then to 87 in 2010, and in 2011 to a staggering 134. Something unusual was going on, but what? As Ellsworth and his colleagues at USGS ask in the study, "Is this increase natural or manmade?" And if it's man-made, is fracking—which has ramped up in the region in the past several years—to blame?

According to the study, the answer to the first question is "almost certainly." But the second one is a little more complicated. Though fracking does cause tiny tremors, the USGS scientists found no links between the process of fracking itself and the larger earthquakes that have been occurring more frequently. They did, however, notice that earthquakes have clustered around wastewater wells in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and neighboring states. Disposing of wastewater by pumping it deep into the ground is standard practice in many industries, including mining, chemical manufacturing, and oil and gas extraction, and the oil and gas industry alone operates tens of thousands of wastewater disposal wells. But the recent surge of fracking activity, which uses millions of gallons of water to crack rock deep in the ground and release natural gas, has boosted the volume of wastewater being injected into the ground.

Stresses are everywhere in the earth's crust, Ellsworth explains, and drilling activity can affect them. Many wastewater wells actually go deeper than gas drilling wells, reaching an older layer of rock known as basement rock, where stresses and faults are more common. The high pressure used to pump water into waste wells can cause those faults to shift, and the water itself can lubricate already-stressed faults, easing their movement and making an earthquake-causing slip more likely. As Ellsworth told NPR, "Small perturbations can tip the scales, allowing an earthquake that might not otherwise happen for a very long time."

Most earthquakes caused by fracking-related processes are relatively small. But it's possible that wastewater disposal could induce larger earthquakes: A new study by University of Memphis geologist Stephen Horton concluded that a 5.6 quake in Oklahoma last November "was possibly triggered by fluid injection" at nearby wastewater wells. It's not news that deep-earth fluid injection can cause increases in seismic activity: Nearly 50 years ago, scientists traced a series of earthquakes near Denver to huge injections of wastewater at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. And scientists have long observed that the extraction of large quantities of gas, oil, and water from the ground can affect existing stresses in unpredictable ways.

Still, researchers caution, the new data is preliminary, and plenty of questions remain. We don't yet know why only a few of the tens of thousands of wastewater disposal wells have induced earthquakes, or whether any specific planned well is particularly likely to cause a quake. It could be because production has ramped up and the sheer quantity of wastewater has increased, or because oil and gas companies are using new techniques for injecting waste fluids. And while there have been no confirmed cases of major earthquakes resulting from the injection of wastewater into the ground near major faults, the possibility can't be eliminated, says Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes.

Many regulators aren't taking any chances. After a series of earthquakes in northeastern Ohio, including a 4.0 quake in Youngstown on New Year's Eve, state regulators ordered natural gas drillers to suspend development of several deep-injection wastewater wells and issued a new set of standards for frack-water disposal. In Arkansas, dozens of earthquakes near wastewater disposal sites related to the state's huge Fayetteville Shale deposit led the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission to shut down an existing disposal site and issue a moratorium on the development of new ones. But because oil and gas companies are exempt from the provisions in hazardous waste regulations aimed at preventing induced earthquakes, there's a gap in regulation at the federal level, though the EPA is currently working to draft recommendations for state regulators.

So, does fracking cause earthquakes? Not exactly, but the way companies dispose of fracking waste can, which means that other types of energy-related activity that rely on fluid injection—enhanced oil recovery, enhanced geothermal systems, carbon capture and sequestration—also have the potential to cause quakes. Still, the evidence suggests that we can add earthquakes to the growing list of fracking-related hazards, alongside air pollution, tainted drinking water, and potentially outsized carbon emissions.



quake due to fracking in Ohio

New USGS Report Links Fracking and Earthquakes

By Akhila Vijayaraghavan | April 5th, 2012

The US Geological Survey (USGS) will be presenting a paper next month at the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America in San Diego. The paper will directly link an “unprecedented” increase in frequency and magnitude of earthquakes to drilling for oil and gas.

This link is not a new one. The USGS already linked about 50 earthquakes in Oklahoma due to fracking. Their investigation found that the earthquakes had a magnitude ranging from 1.0 to 2.8. In January, a single earthquake of the magnitude of 4.0 was strong enough that it was felt in Toronto. The bulk of these occurred within 2.1 miles of Eola Field, a fracking operation in southern Garvin County.

From the report:

Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24 hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had ceased. There have been previous cases where seismologists have suggested a link between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes, but data was limited, so drawing a definitive conclusion was not possible for these cases.

In April and May, two small earthquakes near Blackpool, in England also contributed to suspicions of a link between earthquakes and fracking. Finally, the company responsible, Cuadrilla Resources, admitted that its shale fracking operations were indeed responsible.

The latest report from USGS states that:

In Oklahoma, the rate of M >= 3 events abruptly increased in 2009 from 1.2/year in the previous half-century to over 25/year. This rate increase is exclusive of the November 2011 M 5.6 earthquake and its aftershocks. A naturally-occurring rate change of this magnitude is unprecedented outside of volcanic settings or in the absence of a main shock, of which there were neither in this region.

Although the report links earthquakes to drilling activities, it is still too early to say whether this is due to the increase in rate of drilling or a specific technique. However the fact remains that it is now an indisputable fact that fracking causes abnormal seismic activity. This definitely puts the oil and gas industry as the most environmentally damaging enterprise. The sooner we are able to switch to more renewable sources of energy, the better.

Image Credit: Martin Luff, Flickr, CC BY 2.0

 



Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:29 AM PST

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE: MAPS Prove How Fracked Up This Idea Is

he hypothesis of this diary is that fracking and/or fracking injection wells cause shallow earthquakes which cause more damage to structures than deeper quakes. The Keystone XL Pipeline's proposed path runs over and near fracking drilling and fracking injection wells. Therefore, the pipeline risks being damaged by an earthquake. For example, on November 11, 2011 there was a 5.6 earthquake in Oklahoma within a mile of at least two fracking sites. The is a huge production area to the east and northeast of Oklahoma City, where this quake happened is.

Before you check out the maps and information below, I want you to listen to a very short audio clip. Click on this link and listen:

Oil Executive: Military-Style 'Psy Ops' Experience Applied


November 8, 2011 - Last week’s oil industry conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Houston was supposed to be an industry confab just like any other — a series of panel discussions, light refreshments and an exchange of ideas.

CNBC has obtained audiotapes of the event, on which one presenter can be heard recommending that his colleagues download a copy of the Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual. (Click below to hear the audio.) That’s because, he said, the opposition facing the industry is an “insurgency.”

The oil and gas industries have not been great partners for the US. If an airline ran their business the way the Oil and Gas Industries do, no one would fly. This is from the following article:

ONSHORE: From 2000 – 2009, pipeline accidents accounted for 2,554 significant incidents, 161 fatalities, and 576 injuries in the United States.

Here's a map of showing the PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ACCIDENTS for the last decade. It's jaw dropping.



This Oil and Gas Disaster map was found in this report from the National Wildlife Federation:

ASSAULT ON AMERICA: A Decade of Petroleum Company Disaster, Pollution, and Profit

Here is a time lapse map of oil and gas production for the entire USA for the years 1900 - 2005. As we know from the Boom Times reporting, recently production levels have sky rocketed in Eastern Montana and Western North Dakota. A time lapse of Montana and North Dakota from 1986 - 2010 is also included.

 

Compare the production areas with the accident, which are pollution events.

If this history is any indication, Keystone XL may produce some jobs during construction, maybe a few thereafter. However, many jobs will be created cleaning up disasters and MANY LIVES CAN BE LOST as well.

Worse, our water, air, land and health are at stake.

And in TransCanada's own words:

TransCanada also predicted that one of their existing pipelines would produce one spill every seven years, but it has produced 12 spills in less than one year. Even with one spill, over 1,000 rivers will be adversely impacted as well as the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies drinking water to 2 million Americans and is the primary source of groundwater for 20% of America’s agriculture production.

For those of you in a rush, I think you can get a pretty good picture of the dangers the Keystone XL Pipeline, as presently proposed, poses for the States it will run through and the country at large.

Let's start with a map of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route. I watched the Congressional hearings last week, and learned that the final route isn't actually finalized, which is WHY THE STATE DEPARTMENT VOTED AGAINST THE PIPELINE RECENTLY. A point the Republicans are loathe to include in their discussion with their constituents.



It is important to note that the Keystone XL Pipeline will cross Oil Shale territories, gas fracking areas, and be near fracking injection wells that cause earthquakes. Here's is a map of areas that are or will be fracked:



Oddly, the Niobrara Oil Shale area that will be fracked looks a lot larger on this map:



At a glance, the areas the pipline will traverse, the areas that have had oil/gas disasters, and the areas that are or will be drilled/fracked.

Not surprisingly, the first fracking well was drilled by Halliburton in 1947. Can we guess that fracking was discussed during Cheney's secret Energy Meeting? Btw, click the link and read the list of who attended leaked to the Washington Post. Oh yes, Duke Energy and TransCanada Pipeline were there!

Speaking of fracking, there's something that isn't being discussed in the Keystone XL pipeline reporting.

I doubt this will get a huge amount of attention in the Keystone Environmental Impact Study either. There's just too much money to be made, in my opinion.

Who in Congress is discussing the connection between fracking, the fracking and earthquakes and the impact this could have on the safety of the pipeline? There are now many reports and science is agreeing that there is a correlation. There is a lot of fracking in operation and/or planned to go into operation in the areas the Keystone XL Pipeline will cross.

Speaking of earthquakes, the first stage of the Keystone XL Pipeline will end adjacent and possibly within one of the highest seismic areas of the country: Patoka, Illinois



It is really, really important to not that the earthquakes caused by aspects of fracking are shallow earthquakes which cause more damage than deep quakes.

AN EARTHQUAKE IS CONSIDERED SHALLOW WHEN IT OCCURS AT DEPTHS LESS THAT 7 KM.

How Fracking Causes Earthquakes

According to geologists, it isn't the fracking itself that is linked to earthquakes, but the re-injection of waste salt water (as much as 3 million gallons per well) deep into rock beds.

Braxton County West Virginia (160 miles from Mineral) has experienced a rash of freak earthquakes (eight in 2010) since fracking operations started there several years ago.

According to geologists fracking also caused an outbreak of thousands of minor earthquakes in Arkansas (as many as two dozen in a single day).

It's also linked to freak earthquakes in Texas, western New York, Oklahoma and Blackpool, England (which had never recorded an earthquake before).

What could possibly go wrong? Lots of little things like this. The contractor was just following the plans, which were outdated and wrong.

I know you are busy, so I think the maps in the Introduction pretty much tell a compelling story about the risks the Keystone XL Pipeline presents.

Sadly, I think this is going to get jammed through even though so many can see the huge potential for damage and even death for some.

Perhaps this information can at least provide some essential information to push Congress and the pipeline developers to me more responsible. Dare we dream?

I would also like to add that it has become apparent to me that the pipeline is just as much about getting the oil from US states as it is from Canada which raises this question:

Will Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma oil producers also hook into the Keystone XL? If so, is this being discussed? And, if so, this will increase the risk for accidents won't it?

Now that you have a clearer picture of the areas involved, from the maps above, of the Keystone XL Pipeline and some potential hazards, I will go into some more detail to demonstrate that fracking earthquakes and earthquakes in general are already occuring in the path of the Keystone XL Pipeline and other concerns.

This might be too far into the weeds for some, but I think it is vital information for decision makers to have on hand so, if you know any, please pass this along. Thank you.

FRACKING AND EARTHQUAKES

Here's some information confirming a correlation between fracking and earthquakes. It is important to note that most of the fracking quakes, to date, are SHALLOW EARTHQUAKES.

The more shallow an earthquake is, the greater its potential for damage to structures, like pipelines, becomes.

Youngstown Rocks: Is Fracking Causing Earthquakes in Ohio?

Until 2011, Youngstown had never recorded an earthquake. Now it has registered 11. Is fracking changing the facts in the ground?

Confirmed: Fracking caused Ohio earthquakes

Ohio lawmakers have put a temporary ban on fracking after experts say it is certain that recent fracking in the Buckeye State caused an outbreak of earthquakes.

According to some seismologists, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is to blame for a string of tremors in Ohio, including a 4.0-magnitude quake on New Year’s Eve. It has long been suggested that fracking, which involves deep-earth drilling to extract gas for natural resource reserves, has been culpable for quakes. In the fracking process, wastewater collected during the deep drilling is injected back into the Earth for disposal.

Thought to be safe by some, other experts insist that the brine water could find its way into subterranean faults and force parts of the planet to separate. The Youngstown, OH area has seen 11 small quakes since last spring, and now a moratorium has been instated in the area to keep future fracking from occurring while seismologists reinvestigate the quakes.

Even with a stay in place, however, experts say the quakes won’t be stopping anytime soon.

That last sentence is a bit disconcerting. There are two nuclear plants in Ohio.

UK Fracking Firm Admits They Are Causing Earthquakes

Following seismic tremors in North-West England this Spring, the firm exploring for natural shale gas in the region has admitted that the disturbances were caused by the controversial exploration process of fracking.

Fracking involves cracking or fracturing rock, containing trapped shale gas, by using pressurized liquid. Shale gas is an increasingly important energy resource though there have been claims that it is worse for the environment than coal, largely due to the fracking process.


So, we have an industry that is fraught with deadly and environmentally damaging "accidents" and we have a proposal for an Oil Pipeline that will run through states with lots of Fracking wells either in operation or proposed that can cause structual damage.

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? Little things like this. There were two oil spills within months of each other in Salt Lake Utah. Oil pipeline

 

Again, here's a map of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route. I watched the Congressional hearings last week, so I guess the route isn't actually finalized, which is WHY THE STATE DEPARTMENT VOTED AGAINST THE PIPELINE RECENTLY.



Let's look at fracking in the States the pipeline will traverse and the earthquakes they are experiencing:

EASTERN MONTANA FRACKING

This animated map shows a huge amount of horizonal or fracking in the area of Montana from 1985 - 2010. This is an area that Phase 4 of the pipeline will cross:

 

There are no fault lines in Eastern Montana according to theUSGS Map.

Recent Earthquakes in Eastern Montana.

4.1 September 25, 2009 at 09:11:34 AM at epicenter Lat 45.0156 Long -104.2075

2.3 September 21, 2010 Lat 45.3326 Long -107.4603

2.3 January 1, 2012 Lat 48.5505 Long -111.5105

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? Lot of things. Here's one:

Crews Work to Staunch North Dakota Fracking Blow Out

Crews in North Dakota are working to seal a leaking oil well. According to the Associated Press, officials are calling the leak, the result of a well blowout, the worst in the state since it saw a resurgence of the gas drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Before we look at South Dakota and Nebraska, I want to show the Niobrara Oil Shale map again. This area that will be fracked.



SOUTH DAKOTA

South Dakota is ready to start fracking. Notice that the Keystone Pipeline, Stage 4 will cross the Niobrara Oil Shale area in northwest South Dakota.

South Dakota Legislature Considering Bill To Back Fracking

In April of 2011, North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple signed into law a bill passed by the state legislature which “designates hydraulic fracturing, a mechanical method of increasing the permeability of rock to increase the amount of oil and gas produced from the rock, an acceptable recovery process in this state.”

The state legislature also passed a resolution, HCR3008, calling on Congress to “clearly delegate responsibility for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing to the states.”
Now it appears as though South Dakota is following the lead of their northern neighbors. Introduced in the 2012 legislative session is a bill with the exact same text as North Dakota’s endorsement of fracking.


South Dakota is already experiencing earthquakes:

Earthquakes from 1872 - 1991
Earthquakes in South Dakota from 1872 - 2011

3.0 - January 16, 2012 Lat 43.48 Long 102.99W
4.0 - November 14, 2011
3.3 - November 15, 2011
3.4 - August 9, 2011 Lat 44.36 Long 100.363

NEBRASKA

The pipeline will not cross the Niobrara Oil Shale area in Nebraska. However, it will pass through some very flood prone areas. That is a concern on several levels. One, stress on the pipeline and two, damage to the Missouri River.

No fracking oil wells drilled yet in Nebraska

OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma has two many earthquakes to list as in many earth quakes EVERY DAY. Most of them are close to and east/north east of Oklahoma city AND near the path of Phase 2 of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Here's a video that shows the actual fracking sites in Oklahoma, and their proximity to the 5.6 earthquake (depth 5 km) on November 6, 2011. The vid shows two wells within a mile of the this huge quake that was felt as far away as Illinois , Kansas , Arkansas , Tennessee and Texas. How much proof do we need? Please watch the video to see for yourself:

 

Oklahoma Earthquake 2011: Quake Rattles Area Stretching Into Texas, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri

A 5.1 magnitude earthquake struck in October 2010 a few miles southeast of Norman. Two people were treated at hospitals after that temblor.

Here's a partial list for just the last few days.

You can get see that earthquakes are a daily occurence in Oklahoma.

2012-02-01 00:52:59Lincoln1.4 ML 35.4977-96.8212 5.9
2012-01-31 21:21:05Lincoln2.1 ML 35.5592-96.828615.8
2012-01-31 09:51:34Lincoln1.8 ML 35.5384-96.9778 5.0
2012-01-31 04:23:52Oklahoma1.9 ML 35.6145-97.2201 4.8
2012-01-30 01:55:14Lincoln1.9 ML 35.5269-96.7742 7.7
2012-01-29 20:50:12Oklahoma1.1 Md 35.5262-97.1887 8.6
2012-01-29 15:31:27Oklahoma2.4 ML 35.5252-97.1606 5.0
2012-01-29 11:33:48Lincoln2.7 ML 35.5105-96.7877 5.0
2012-01-28 23:22:15Oklahoma1.4 ML 35.5610-97.2793 5.0
2012-01-28 23:10:43Oklahoma2.0 ML 35.5710-97.2727 4.5
2012-01-28 17:26:09Oklahoma1.2 Md 35.5911-97.3111 5.0
2012-01-27 17:53:33Lincoln3.0 ML 35.5944-96.8899 4.7
2012-01-27 07:28:43Lincoln2.2 ML 35.5287-96.7653 4.2
2012-01-27 04:17:27Lincoln2.5 ML 35.5998-96.8951 4.4
2012-01-27 01:06:42Lincoln1.6 ML 35.4851-96.7450 4.5
2012-01-27 00:44:12Lincoln1.8 ML 35.5985-96.9018 4.2
2012-01-27 00:33:04Lincoln1.9 ML 35.5997-96.9083 4.3
2012-01-27 00:05:36Lincoln2.4 ML 35.5997-96.9003 4.3

Who would have guessed? Oklahoma looks like California.

KANSAS

Keystone XL pass from north to south through the whole state and through the Excello/Mulky natural gas deposits (see maps in intro).

Fracking in Kansas pushes water permits to new high

Even as sections of Kansas struggled with drought last year, oil exploration companies pushed into the state to drill for oil and gas with horizontal hydraulic fracturing, a method that relies on water.

The burst of drilling pushed temporary water permits for oil and gas exploration in Kansas to a nearly 30-year high. Chelsea Good, spokeswoman for the Kansas Division of Water Resources, said the division received more than 600 applications for temporary water permits for oil and gas exploration in 2011 and approved all but two.

This story is disconcerting. Water for oil and gas seems more important than water for people and animals in Kansas.

This is interesting:

Status of Abandoned Oil and Gas Well Plugging Operations and Site Remediation Activities

Earthquakes in Kansas

Some Kansas earthquakes are associated with the Nemaha Ridge and the Midcontinent rift, which happens to be where the Keystone XL pipeline will run. Look at the maps in the link.

25 earthquakes rumbled through the state between 1867 and 1976

100 were measured between 1977 and 1989 (The largest event had a magnitude of 4.0 and the smallest had a magnitude of 0.8

Ok, I am running out of time here. I will be back to finish.

The Patoka, Illinois site could be a diary on its own and needs more scrutiny because it is a high seismic area.

Let me know if you have information to contribute.

Thanks.

Originally posted to War on Error on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:29 AM PST.

Also republished by The Royal Manticoran Rangers, DK GreenRoots, and South Dakota Kos.

• Recommended by:

  War on Error

  I think there are a lot of strong arguments to be made regarding the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline, but I really have to role my eyes every time I hear about the link between fracking (which I abhore) and seismic activity.

  Yes I will agree with you that fracking pollutes ground water, causes gas seepage into wells, and about 50 other things that are aweful about the practice. But I'm not convinced about the seismic front and I think your agrument would be stronger if you left that part out.

  Regarding OK and CA being similar, California had 429 earthquakes in the last week as you can see here.

  Anything under a 3.0 can barely be detected without sensitive seismic equipment and isn't exactly a threat to anyone.

  "Religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together" - James Madison

  by SierraDrinker on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 10:49:01 AM PST

  • * [new] OK doesn't look like CA, it was comic relief.(3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:

    Russgirl, KenBee, joynow

    However, I have been following the quakes and fracking for a while now.

    There is a correlation, Sierra. And, as the diary states, fracking creates shallow quakes which are the most destructive.

    Perhaps this will help

    How Fracking Causes Earthquakes

    According to geologists, it isn't the fracking itself that is linked to earthquakes, but the re-injection of waste salt water (as much as 3 million gallons per well) deep into rock beds.

    Braxton County West Virginia (160 miles from Mineral) has experienced a rash of freak earthquakes (eight in 2010) since fracking operations started there several years ago.

    According to geologists fracking also caused an outbreak of thousands of minor earthquakes in Arkansas (as many as two dozen in a single day).

    It's also linked to freak earthquakes in Texas, western New York, Oklahoma and Blackpool, England (which had never recorded an earthquake before).

    • Recommended by:

      War on Error

      as if...do we yet know what they are putting down there?

      Thanks for this!

      ..squinting all the while in the glare of a culture that radiates ultraviolet consumerism and infrared celebrity...Russell Brand

      by KenBee on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:51:05 PM PST

      • * [new] Not yet, but there's a big problem with(2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:

        KenBee, Tinfoil Hat

        The study concludes that radium in oil and gas industry wastewater dumped into the Gulf of Mexico could create "potentially significant risks" for people who ate the highest amounts of seafood considered in the study.

        The E.P.A. points to the radionuclides in drilling waste as among the contaminants of concern.

        Ohio River and South Fork Tenmile Creek would pollute the waters due to radioactive material in the wastewater. The agency concluded that there was reasonable potential for both radium and gross alpha radiation in drilling waste to exceed water quality standards when this waste was discharged through sewage treatment plants and into large and small rivers.

        Wastewater from this well contained substantial levels of radium-226, a radioactive element. The total radium levels in this water were over 400 times the federal drinking water standard

        All taken from this New York Times article

        I feel so badly for the children of this world. What a mess power and greed, and our need for energy is leaving them.

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:56:15 PM PST

  • Previously the Dallas Fort Worth Quakes were also inviting. Now the Ohio quakes show clearly what the standards are.

    All 3 of these areas saw quakes within 1.5 miles of a single fracking waste water injection site. Mag 3-5. When injection stopped, the quakes stopped.

    Both WOE and I have written on this subject. I have maps of injection wells, and epicenters, specifically the Guy Swarm saw 100's of quakes within a few 100 yards of an injection well that had been placed literally on top of a fault.

    Guy swarm

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Ohio quakes

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:20:53 PM PST

    • • My takeaway/summary

        Is the Keystone XL engineered to withstand a mag 5 quake. How about multiple mag 4-5 quakes over the planned 80 year lifespan of the pipeline?

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:15:34 PM PST

• The XL pipeline route was openly touted during the environmental review as a method to bring the domestically-produced Baaken crude to refineries. Currently the Baaken crude is inefficiently transported from North Dakota in tanker trucks and by train.

  The other shale areas you cite are better known for their dramatic levels of natural gas production. Their oil production is a minor element served by existing pipelines.

  XL could not be used for transporting both oil and gas.

  Your statistics on pipeline accidents are misleading since those numbers lump together problems at all kinds of pipelines, not just crude oil pipelines.

  • Recommended by:

    Roger Fox, KenBee

    I included the Oil and Gas Disaster information to demonstrate how prone to accidents the industry is. It's important information. I didn't indicate that the disasters are only from crude oil. It's a truly dismal record for the Oil and Gas industries.

    The Gas Fracking areas are where the injections wells, which cause shallow, structure damaging earthquakes are also important to consider BECAUSE the earthquakes can damage the pipeline.

    I asked the transportation question because it will require hook ups in those areas where oil is extracted.

    In short, I presented the bigger picture and feel strongly that this information needs to be considered when planning the route the pipeline takes.

    I know that the pipeline is for oil only.

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:10:47 AM PST

    • nt ]

• * [new] one way or another...(3+ / 0-)

  Recommended by:

  War on Error, Roger Fox, Russgirl

  that heavy bitumen (not oil) will be refined and brought to market unless there is a cheaper alternative.

  The Obama administration is not saying no to the pipeline, they are simply requiring that procedure be followed. If ultimately the pipeline is not approved, the bitumen will be refined in Canada and be exported to the U.S. via existing gasoline and diesel pipeline networks or else exported to Asia through a west coast port. Only a lower cost transportation fuel will prevent this from happening.

  In other words, the carbon in this bitumen will ultimately be released unless there is a less expensive alternate regardless of the existence of the Keystone pipeline.

  If one looks at the network of pipelines cris-crossing the country today, it would be hard to argue that one more drastically increases the risk, provided at least as much care is taken siting and constructing the line as was used on the existing network.

  I think this is a feudal fight. Getting cheaper electric cars and killing hydrocarbon subsidies would make much more difference in my opinion.

  "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel.

  by Inventor on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:11:52 AM PST

  • * [new] errr "futile" fight(1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:

    War on Error

    dang spell check.

    "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel.

    by Inventor on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:12:56 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

  • * [new] Great points.(2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:

    Russgirl, KenBee

    Thank you for commenting.

    I am not disputing that the carbon will make it to market.

    I am disputing the obvious dangers that are within the path of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.

    Perhaps my outlook is colored by my experience:

    Chevron to pay $4.5 million for 2 Utah oil pipeline spills

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Chevron Corp. has agreed to a $4.5 million settlement with Salt Lake City and state environmental officials for two oil spills that polluted a creek and city pond, city officials announced Tuesday.

    The Kansas corridor which, include the Nemaha Ridge and the Midcontinent rift, and the seismically active Patoka, Illinois locations are of concern.

    Also of concern are the fracking injection wells that might be located near the pipeline.

    I join you in dismay and acceptance that the oil industry will get its way; however, I think the risks need to be well-known by all.

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:19:24 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    • * [new] I would like to see the Political fight(2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:

      War on Error, KenBee

      focus on hydrocarbon subsidies. That is the strongest political argument that has a likelihood for real results. On an equal footing renewables, particularly solar PV and solar thermal will compete nicely, but there must be affordable convenient electric cars to take advantage of it.

      Similar economics are driving growth in GTL (gas to liquids) which could also supplant some of this bitumen, albeit will less environmental benefit.

      "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel.

      by Inventor on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:33:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      • * [new] Dare we dream.(2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:

        Inventor, KenBee

        If you have a chance, read

        ASSAULT ON AMERICA: A Decade of Petroleum Company Disaster, Pollution, and Profit

        linked in the Intro.

        They make your point and several others. It's an amazing overview and offers solutions.

        The solar panel subsidies that they had were impossible for most because you had to pay up front and then wait for the 30% rebate. AND the cost was much to high for most. I so wanted to take advantage of that before it sunsetted but couldn't afford it.

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:37:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      • * [new] Also, Utah is in the cross hairs for tar sand(2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:

        KenBee, Inventor

        The richest deposits are found in Utah (Table 1) and California.

        U.S. tar sands resources are estimated at 60 to 80 billion barrels of oil; some 11 billion barrels may be recoverable1. The resource could support 500 M Bbl/d of production.

        They are producing now.....in the desert, go figure.

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 11:44:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        • * [new] Think about that...(1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:

          War on Error

          tar sands are sold as our energy savior. Yet, even their optimistic projections (VERY optimistic, I would say) would mean 2% of current US usage and less than 1% of the current global usage.

          We're at the end of the line and won't admit it.

          "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel.

          by Inventor on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:12:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

• * [new] Phase 1 is already complete(1+ / 0-)

  Recommended by:

  War on Error

  Note that Phase 1 is already complete and the brown pipeline is already there and shipping shale oil to the Midwest. Keystone XL is phase 2 & 3, where they can instead ship it to Europe and Asia who will pay more and they can do it tax free through the Port Arthur free trade zone.

  • The Keystone was completed June 2010

    TransCanada predicted ONE spill in 7 YEARS.

    TransCanada also predicted that one of their existing pipelines would produce one spill every seven years, but it has produced 12 spills in less than one year.

    The existing Keystone pipeline has been in operation for less than one year and has spilled 12 times,

    including spills of 400 barrels of crude in North Dakota on May 7, and

    10 barrels of crude in Kansas on May 29.

    The May spills resulted in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issuing a Corrective Action Order to TransCanada, finding that “the continued operation of the pipeline without corrective measures would be hazardous to life, property and the environment.”

    These spills are troubling, as the Keystone XL pipeline will have similar characteristics, and underscore the need for careful assessment of both the spill risks and route of Keystone XL.

    
    

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:05:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

• * [new] Very interesting connection(3+ / 0-)

  Recommended by:

  War on Error, Russgirl, KenBee

  We know that fracking waste water injection can cause mag 4-5 quakes and if we build a large 900kbd pipeline on top of where waste water injection occurs....

  That seems like a plan for failures. Which leads me to -

  "Is the Keystone XL capable of withstanding repeated mag 5 quakes?".
  

  
  Excellent work WOE, top flight concept that deserves lot of eyes beyond DK. Relublished to DKGreenroots and Royal Mantocoran Rangers. TNR.

  FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

  by Roger Fox on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:06:58 PM PST

  • * [new] I've been following the fracking/quake(2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:

    Roger Fox, KenBee

    issue for awhile.

    I think the concern has merit, too.

    Thanks for helping to pass this diary along.

    The 4.7 Oklahoma fracking quake was felt in several states. These shallow quakes from injection wells or the actual fracking are very damaging.

    Thank you so much for commenting.

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:19:10 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

  • * [new] Oh my gosh(3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:

    Russgirl, KenBee, Roger Fox

    I just learned that a friend of a friend that works in the North Dakota fracking industry has to wear a Radiation Button. If it reads at a certain level, he has to take time off.

    Also, the lining on one of the ponds ripped, but the news was quieted.

    What we don't know might be worse than what we do know.

    I found this

    Radiation in fracking fluid a new concern

    Check out a couple of snippets from the documents the NY Times published although it doesn't cover North Dakota:

    Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers

    The study concludes that radium in oil and gas industry wastewater dumped into the Gulf of Mexico could create "potentially significant risks" for people who ate the highest amounts of seafood considered in the study.

    The E.P.A. points to the radionuclides in drilling waste as among the contaminants of concern.

    Ohio River and South Fork Tenmile Creek would pollute the waters due to radioactive material in the wastewater. The agency concluded that there was reasonable potential for both radium and gross alpha radiation in drilling waste to exceed water quality standards when this waste was discharged through sewage treatment plants and into large and small rivers.

    Wastewater from this well contained substantial levels of radium-226, a radioactive element. The total radium levels in this water were over 400 times the federal drinking water standard

• All philosophies have certain valid points. All philosophies followed to their logical conclusions is hazardous for mankind overall.

  by Captain Chaos on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:02:14 PM PST

  • http://www.cbc.ca/...

    and here's an incident that occurred in Burnaby, B.C. (on Vancouver's eastern boundary) when a backhoe accidentally put a hole in a pipeline because underground maps provided to the backhoe contractor were not accurate i.e. outdated

     

    The geyser continued for 25 minutes

    Residents were evacuated and some homes had to be razed because of the environmental damage (11, if I remember correctly).

    This was just a small spill.

    by marigold on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:36:47 PM PST

• 

   

  BLOG INDEXES

  2011

  JAN, FEB, MAR, APR  2012

  MAY, JUNE, JULY, AUG  2012

  SEPT, OCT, NOV, DEC. 2012