Saturday, February 15, 2014

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Illustration of hydraulic fracturing and related activities
Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing includes the potential contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the potential migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, the potential mishandling of waste, and the health effects of these, like cancer.[1][2] Many cases of suspected groundwater contamination have been documented.[3][4] The EPA has noted that "Ground water contamination with constituents such as those found at Pavillion is typically infeasible or too expensive to remediate or restore (GAO 1989)."[5] A review of a University of Texas Austin study led by Charles G. Groat, reported no direct evidence that fracking's actual injection phase resulted in contamination of ground water.[6][7][8] In the study "fracking" was defined as referring only to the injection of fluid under pressure and excluded the impact of equipment failure, spills, the nature of the fluids, preparations prior to injection, and events following the injection, such as disposal of wastewater.[6] The review suggests that problems occur due to leaks in its fluid or waste storage apparatus which it does not consider part of fracking. The review also says that gaps remain in understanding fracking.[7][8] Because hydraulic fracturing was invented in the United States,[9] and therefore has a longer history there, most of the studies of the environmental impact have been conducted there.

Scientific debate

It has been reported that the industry and governmental pressure have made it difficult to conduct and report the results of comprehensive studies of hydraulic fracturing. EPA investigations into the oil and gas industry's environmental impact have been narrowed in scope and/or reportedly had negative findings removed due to this pressure.[10][11][12] A 2012 Cornell University report noted that it was difficult to assess health impact because of legislation, proprietary secrecy, and non-disclosure agreements that allow hydraulic fracturing companies to keep the proprietary chemicals used in the fluid secret. Pre-drilling tests and other assessments have also found that water supplies—especially private water wells—often suffer from high levels of naturally occurring contaminants, as the US Geological Survey concluded in August 2011.[13] Nonetheless, these particular Cornell researchers recommended requiring disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluids, that nondisclosure agreements not be allowed when public health is at risk, testing animals (and their products) raised near hydraulic fracturing sites against animals raised near hydraulic fracturing sites prior to selling them to market, monitoring of water, soil, and air more closely, and testing the air, water, soil, and animals prior to drilling and at regular intervals thereafter. Despite the lack of conclusive data, however, the researchers also wrote that "a ban on shale gas drilling is essential for the protection of public health."[14] The co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the United Nations Environment Program, Dr. Ian Rae, recently criticized the Cornell researchers' conclusions, saying, "It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper but is, rather, an advocacy piece that does not involve deep analysis of the data gathered to support its case." Rae added that the Cornell researchers "cannot be regarded as experts" in this particular field. Others have pointed out that the study does still raise important questions, and it echoes similar concerns of some landowners and environmental groups.[15] In addition, after court cases concerning contamination from hydraulic fracturing are settled, the documents are sealed. While the American Petroleum Institute denies that this practice has hidden problems with gas drilling, others believe it has and could lead to unnecessary risks to public safety and health.[16]
New York State Assembly members Robert Castelli and Steve Katz call for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the Croton Watershed in October 2010.
The New York Times reported that the results of the 2004 EPA study were censored due to strong industry influence and political pressure (regulatory capture).[10] An early draft of the study discussed the possibility of dangerous levels of fracking fluid contamination and mentioned "possible evidence" of aquifer contamination. The final report concluded simply that fracking "poses little or no threat to drinking water".[10] The study's scope was narrowed so that it only focused on the injection of fracking fluids, ignoring other aspects of the process such as disposal of fluids and environmental concerns such as water quality, fish kills, and acid burns. The study was concluded before public complaints of contamination started emerging.[17]:780 The study's conclusion that the injection of fracking fluids into coalbed methane wells posed a minimal threat to underground drinking water sources[18] may have influenced the 2005 Congressional decision that hydraulic fracturing should continue to be regulated by the states and not under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The 2012 EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Draft Plan was also narrowed. It does not include studying the effects of iodine-131 (found in Philadelphia's drinking water)[19][20][21] or other radioactive tracer isotopes used in hydraulic fracturing.[22][23][24] Nor does the draft plan include evaluating the impact of wastewater. Christopher Portier, director of the US CDC's National Center for Environmental Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, argued that, in addition to the EPA's plans to investigate the impact of fracking on drinking water, additional studies should be carried out to determine whether wastewater from the wells can harm people or animals and vegetables they eat.[25] A group of US doctors called for a moratorium on fracking in populated areas until such studies had been done.[26][27]
Proponents of hydraulic fracturing have claimed in the press and other media that the recent University of Texas Study ("Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development") found that hydraulic fracturing caused no environmental contamination,[28][29] although the study did note that other steps in the drilling process—excepting the actual injection of the fluid—have been sources of environmental contamination.[6] Conflicting interpretations of this study are based on disagreement between industry and the environmental community about what "hydraulic fracturing" actually is: Industry notes that hydraulic fracturing is a specific process, which takes place after the well has been drilled and the drilling equipment has left the pad; the environmental community, however, uses hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," to describe the entire production phase. The radioactivity of the injected fluid itself was not assessed in the University of Texas study.[6]
As of 2009, state regulators from across the country stated that they had seen no evidence of hydraulic fracturing contaminating water in their respective jurisdictions.[30] In May 2011 EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson testified in a Senate Hearing Committee stating that she is not aware of any proof where the fracking process itself has contaminated water.[31] EPA and other reports released since that time, however, have identified hydraulic fracturing as the likely source of water contamination.[3][5][16][32][33][34]

Air emissions

The main hydraulic-fracturing-related air emissions are methane emissions from the wells during fracturing and emissions from hydraulic fracturing equipment, such as compressor stations. According to the 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." According to the study, this is at least 30% more, and perhaps even 100% more, than from conventional gas production. The study explains these higher emissions with hydraulic fracturing and drill out following the fracturing.[35] Methane gradually breaks down in the atmosphere, forming carbon dioxide. It means its greenhouse-gas footprint is worse than coal or oil for timescales of less than fifty years.[35][36] However, several studies have argued that the paper was flawed and/or come to completely different conclusions, including assessments by experts at the US Department of Energy,[37] by Carnegie Mellon University[38] and the University of Maryland,[39] as well as by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which concluded that the Howarth et al. paper's use of a 20-year time horizon for global warming potential of methane is "too short a period to be appropriate for policy analysis."[40] In January 2012, Howarth's colleagues at Cornell University responded with their assessment, arguing that the Howarth paper was "seriously flawed" because it "significantly overestimate[s] the fugitive emissions associated with unconventional gas extraction, undervalue[s] the contribution of 'green technologies' to reducing those emissions to a level approaching that of conventional gas, base[s] their comparison between gas and coal on heat rather than electricity generation (almost the sole use of coal), and assume[s] a time interval over which to compute the relative climate impact of gas compared to coal that does not capture the contrast between the long residence time of CO2 and the short residence time of methane in the atmosphere."[41] The authors of that response conclude that "shale gas has a GHG footprint that is half and perhaps a third that of coal," based upon "more reasonable leakage rates and bases of comparison." Howarth et al. responded to this criticism: "We stand by our approach and findings. 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."[42][43]
In 2008, measured ambient concentrations near drilling sites in Sublette County, Wyoming were frequently above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of 75ppb and have been recorded as high as 125 ppb.[44] A 2011 study for the city of Fort Worth, Texas, examining air quality around natural gas sites "did not reveal any significant health threats."[45][46] In DISH, Texas, elevated levels of disulfides, benzene, xylenes and naphthalene have been detected in the air, emitted from the compressor stations.[47] People living near shale gas drilling sites often "complain of headaches, diarrhea, nosebleeds, dizziness, blackouts, muscle spasms, and other problems."[48] Cause-and-effect relationships have not been established in all cases.[48] In Garfield County, Colorado, another area with a high concentration of drilling rigs, volatile organic compound emissions increased 30% between 2004 and 2006; during the same period there was a rash of health complaints from local residents. Epidemiological studies that might confirm or rule out any connection between these complaints and fracking are virtually non-existent.[2] In 2012, researchers from the Colorado School of Public Health showed that air pollution caused by fracking may contribute to "acute and chronic health problems" for those living near drilling sites.[49]

Water consumption

The large volumes of water required have raised concerns about fracking in arid areas, such as Karoo in South Africa.[9] 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.[50] Over its lifetime an average well requires 3 to 5 million US gallons (11,000 to 19,000 m3) of water for the initial hydraulic fracturing operation and possible restimulation frac jobs.[50][51] Using the case of the Marcellus Shale as an example, 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 as of 2010.[50] To minimize water consumption, recycling is one possible option.[52]

Groundwater contamination

The 2011 University of Texas study described the environmental impact of each of the separate parts of the overall hydraulic fracturing process, or "phases of the shale gas development life cycle."[6] These parts include of (1) drill pad construction and operation, (2) the construction, integrity, and performance of the wellbores, (3) the injection of the fluid once it is underground (which proponents consider the actual "fracking"), (4) the flowback of the fluid back towards the surface, (5) blowouts, often unreported, which spew hydraulic fracturing fluid and other byproducts across surrounding area, (5) integrity of other pipelines involved and (6) the disposal of the flowback, including waste water and other waste products.[28][29] Associated problems include (1) Groundwater Contamination, (2) Blowouts and House Explosions, (3) Water Consumption and Supply, (4) Spill Management and Surface Water Protection, (5) Atmospheric Emissions, (6) Health Effects[6] All but the injection stage were reported to be sources of contamination in the University of Texas study.[6] The study concluded that if hydraulic fracturing is to be conducted in an environmentally safe manner, these issues need to be addressed first.[6] Proponents have reported that groundwater contamination doesn't come directly from the "fracking" part of the process (the injection of hydraulic fracturing chemicals into Shale rock formations) but from other parts of the hydraulic fracturing process. Injection cannot be accomplished, however, without the accompanying stages. Poorly constructed or damaged wellbores and pipelines can allow the fluid to flow into aquifers.[6] Volatile chemicals held in waste water evaporation ponds can to evaporate into the atmosphere, or overflow. In one of the cases described by a 2012 Cornell University study (conducted in Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas) impounded wastewater was released into a field and pond, killing at least 70 animals.[14] The runoff can also end up in groundwater systems. Groundwater may become contaminated by trucks carrying fracking chemicals and wastewater if they are involved in accidents on the way to fracking sites or disposal destinations. Disposal of fracking fluid by injection can cause earthquakes, and release of unprocessed or under-processed waste water into rivers can contaminate water supplies.[6] Critics have noted that it is "difficult for researchers to be objective if their university receives a lot of grants and funds from the industry."[53] An Energy Institute spokesperson said that the study was not funded by the industry. He said funds came from the university, which has a variety of funding sources.[53] There are extensive links between UT and the oil & gas industry, with the giving of Royal Dutch Shell to the university currently standing at more than $24.8 million, $4m alone having been handed over for 2012.[54][55] Since 2011, Shell has partnered Texas in a program called Shell-UT Unconventional Research, and the university has a similar research program in place with Exxon Mobil.[56] Halliburton, the largest supplier of fracking services in the United States, has also given millions of dollars to the university.[57] Statoil announced a $5m research agreement with UT's Bureau of Economic Geology in September 2011, whose program director, Ian Duncan, was the senior contributor for the parts of the Texas study to do with the environmental impacts of shale gas development.[6][58][59]
In DISH, Texas, elevated levels of disulphides, benzene, xylenes and naphthalene have been detected in the air.[47] According to an article in 'Environmental Health Perspectives,' people living near shale gas drilling sites often "complain of headaches, diarrhea, nosebleeds, dizziness, blackouts, muscle spasms, and other problems."[48] Cause-and-effect relationships have not been established.[48] Additionally, the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission has found some wells containing thermogenic methane due to oil and gas development upon investigating complaints from residents.[60]
A 2011 report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology addressed groundwater contamination, noting "There has been concern that these fractures can also penetrate shallow freshwater zones and contaminate them with fracturing fluid, but there is no evidence that this is occurring. There is, however, evidence of natural gas migration into freshwater zones in some areas, most likely as a result of substandard well completion practices by a few operators. There are additional environmental challenges in the area of water management, particularly the effective disposal of fracture fluids". This study encourages the use of industry best practices to prevent such events from recurring.[61]
A review published in February 2012 found no direct evidence that fracking's actual injection phase resulted in contamination of ground water, and suggests that reported problems occur due to leaks in its fluid or waste storage apparatus; the review says that methane in water wells in some areas probably comes from natural resources.[7][8]

Waste water management

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. approaches to managing these fluids, commonly known as produced water, include underground injection, municipal and commercial wastewater treatment and discharge, self‐contained systems at well sites or fields, or recycling to fracture future wells.[62] 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.[63][64]

Health Risks Due to Environmental Contamination of Fracking Fluids

Fracking fluids have the potential to enter water sources, and air currents through chemical spills, through evaporation of wastewater, and through errors in the drilling process.[64] Trace amounts of these chemicals may affect the health of those working on or living near the wells. In Colorado, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry sampled 14 sites, and found high levels of carcinogens such as benzene, tetrachloroethene, and 1-4 dichlorobenzene.[65] In July 2011, the EPA released new emissions guidelinees stating that current standards could lead to an unacceptably high risk of cancers for those living near drilling operations.[65] Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units(PEHSU) also found chemical contamination of drinking water near fracking operations in New York and Pennsylvania that involved detectable and harmful levels of benzene toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, ethylene glycol, glutaldehyde, and other biocides such as hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen treated light petroleum distillates.[66] Human exposure to these chemicals can result in cancer, adverse effects of the reproductive, neurological, and endocrine systems.[66] Exposure to specialized chemical solutions patented by energy service companies, such as Zetaflow, used by Weatherford International, may result in kidney and liver damage, irritated lung tissue, decreased blood pressure, dizziness, and vomiting according to their Meterial Safety Data Sheet.[67]
PEHSU has linked higher vulnerability in children to health risks associated with chemical exposure to fracking fluids.[66] This increased risk is due to a higher ratio of consumption pound for pound versus adults' rate of consumption, along with the inability to metabolize certain toxants that the body is able to metabolize as an adult.[66] The same kind of vulnerability is also exhibited in development of the fetus during pregnancy, and health risks may involve neural tube defects, decreased birth perameters, and childhood leukemia.[66]
The growing of oil and natural gas drilling employing fracking technology is steady around different regions of the United States, but the maintenance of wastewater gathered after the drilling process containing fracking fluids is lagging behind.[68] In Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection reported that the resources to properly regulate wastewater-handling facilities were unavailable, inspecting facilities every 20 years rather than every 2 years as called for by regulation.[68]

Public health benefits of shale gas from hydraulic fracturing

Richard A. Muller, a Principal of the China Shale Fund,[69] argues that the benefits from shale gas made available by fracking, by displacing harmful air pollution from coal, far outweigh their combined environmental costs. In a 2013 report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Muller writes that air pollution, mostly from coal burning, kills over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world. The report does not reference any studies on air pollution associated with gas produced through hydraulic fracturing.[70]

Radioactive contamination

See also: Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing
The New York Times has reported radiation in hydraulic fracturing wastewater released into rivers in Pennsylvania.[64] It collected data from more than 200 natural gas wells in Pennsylvania and has posted a map entitled Toxic Contamination from Natural Gas Wells in Pennsylvania. Sand containing gamma-emitting tracer isotopes is used to trace and measure fractures.[22] The Water Research Foundation, Philadelphia Water Department, Water Environment Research Federation, and The American Water Works Association are currently investigating hydraulic fracturing as a potential source of the Iodine-131 found in Philadelphia's drinking water.[71] Individuals exposed to high enough levels of radiation may experience symptoms of acute radiation syndrome, including fatigue, leukopenia, fever, diarrhea, vomiting, nose bleeds, dizziness, disorientation, low blood pressure, seizures, and tremors.[72] The Times stated "never-reported studies" by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and a "confidential study by the drilling industry" concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.[73] Despite this, as of early 2011 federal and state regulators did not require sewage treatment plants that accept drilling waste (which is mostly water) to test for radioactivity. In Pennsylvania, where the drilling boom began in 2008, most drinking-water intake plants downstream from those sewage treatment plants have not tested for radioactivity since before 2006.[64] The New York Times reporting has been criticized by aggrieved parties,[74] but one venerable science writer has taken issue with one instance of the newspaper's presentation and explanation of its calculations regarding dilution,[75] charging that a lack of context made the article's analysis uninformative.[76]
According to a Times report in February 2011, wastewater at 116 of 179 deep gas wells in Pennsylvania "contained high levels of radiation," but its effect on public drinking water supplies is unknown because water suppliers are required to conduct tests of radiation "only sporadically".[77] The New York Post stated that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection reported that all samples it took from seven rivers in November and December 2010 "showed levels at or below the normal naturally occurring background levels of radioactivity", and "below the federal drinking water standard for Radium 226 and 228."[78] However the samples taken by the state at at least one river, (the Monongahela, a source of drinking water for parts of Pittsburgh), were taken upstream from the sewage treatment plants accepting drilling waste water.[79]
In Pennsylvania, much of this wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants. However, many sewage plants say that they are incapable of removing the radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. Industry officials, though, claim that these levels are diluted enough that public health is not compromised.[64] This is a major concern as it provides the possibility for radioactive waste to enter into public water supplies.
The New York Times has implicated the DEP in industry-friendly inactivity, requesting rather than requiring them to handle their own flowback waste rather than sending it to public water treatment facilities.[80] However, former Pennsylvania DEP Secretary John Hanger, who served under Gov. Ed Rendell (D), has affirmed that municipal drinking water throughout the state is safe, but added that the environmentalists were accurate in stating that Pennsylvania's water treatment plants were not equipped to treat hydraulic fracturing water.[81] Current Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Michael Krancer serving under Gov. Tom Corbett (R) has denied that untreated wastewater is being discharged into the state's waterways.[82] It has been observed that Corbett received over a million dollars in gas industry contributions,[83] more than all his competitors combined, during his election campaign.[84] The New York Times reported that regulations are lax in Pennsylvania.[64] The oil and gas industry is generally left to police itself in the case of accidents. Unannounced inspections are not made by regulators: the companies report their own spills, and create their own remediation plans.[64] A recent review of the state-approved plans found them to appear to be in violation of the law.[64] Treatment plants are still not equipped to remove radioactive material and are not required to test for it.[64] Despite this, in 2009 the Ridgway Borough's public sewage treatment plant, in Elk County, PA, facility was sent wastewater containing radium and other types of radiation at at 275-780 times the drinking-water standard. The water being released from the plant was not tested for radiation levels.[64] Part of the problem is that growth in waste produced by the industry has outpaced regulators and state resources.[64] It should be noted that "safe drinking water standards" have not yet been set for many of the substances known to be in hydrofracturing fluids or their radioactivity levels,[64] and their levels are not included in public drinking water quality reports.[85]

Seismology

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 (Mw). The injection of waste water from gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing, into saltwater disposal wells may cause bigger low-magnitude tremors, being registered up to 3.3 (Mw).[86]
A report in the UK concluded that fracking was the likely cause of some small earth tremors that happened during shale gas drilling.[87][88][89] In addition, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports that, "Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations" in the United States, Japan, and Canada, "the cause [of which] was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil, and the use of reservoirs for water supplies."[90] The disposal and injection wells referenced are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and UIC laws and are not wells where hydraulic fracturing is generally performed.[citation needed]
Several earthquakes—including a magnitude 4.0 one on New Year's Eve—that had hit Youngstown, Ohio, throughout 2011 are likely linked to a disposal well for injecting wastewater used in the hydraulic fracturing process, according to seismologists at Columbia University.[91] Consequently, Ohio has since tightened its rules regarding the wells,[92] increased fees, and is considering a moratorium on waste injection wells.[92]

Anti-fracking movement

An anti-fracking movement has emerged both internationally with involvement of international environmental organizations and nation states such as France and locally in affected areas such as Balcombe in Sussex where the Balcombe drilling protest was in progress during summer 2013.[93]

See also

Wikinews has related news: Disposal of fracking wastewater poses potential environmental problems

References

  1. Jump up ^ (PDF) Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing (Report). Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives. April 18, 2011.
  2. ^ Jump up to: 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. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
  3. ^ Jump up to: a b 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. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
  4. Jump up ^ Lustgarten, Abrahm (November 2008). "Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination". ProPublica. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b DiGiulio, Dominic C.; Wilkin, Richard T.; Miller, Carlyle; Oberley, Gregory (December 2011) (PDF). Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. Draft (Report). EPA. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
  6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k Energy Institute (February 2012) (PDF). Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development (Report). University of Texas at Austin. p. ?. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b c "Fracking Acquitted of Contaminating Groundwater". Science 335: 898. 24 February 2012.
  8. ^ Jump up to: a b c Erik Stokstad (16 February 2012). "Mixed Verdict on Fracking". Science.
  9. ^ Jump up to: a b Urbina, Ian (30 December 2011). "Hunt for Gas Hits Fragile Soil, and South Africans Fear Risks". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012. "Covering much of the roughly 800 miles between Johannesburg and Cape Town, this arid expanse – its name [Karoo] means "thirsty land" – sees less rain in some parts than the Mojave Desert."
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b c Urbina, Ian (3 March 2011). "Pressure Limits Efforts to Police Drilling for Gas". The New York Times. 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"
  11. Jump up ^ "EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources". EPA. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
  12. Jump up ^ "Natural Gas Documents". The New York Times. 27 February 2011. 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."
  13. Jump up ^ Joseph D. Ayotte et al. (August 2011). "Trace Elements and Radon in Groundwater Across the United States, 1992-2003". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
  14. ^ Jump up to: a b Ramanuja, Krishna (7 Martch 2012). "Study suggests hydrofracking is killing farm animals, pets". Cornell Chronicle (Cornell University). Retrieved 9 March 2012.
  15. Jump up ^ Helen Westerman (11 January 2012). "Gas drilling research highlights risk to animals, but more thorough work needed". The Conversation. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
  16. ^ Jump up to: a b Urbina, Ian (3 August 2011). "A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May be More". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  17. Jump up ^ Dammel, Joseph A. (2011). "Notes From Underground: Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale" (PDF). Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology (University of Minnesota Law School) 12 (2): 773–810. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
  18. Jump up ^ (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. Retrieved 23 February 2011.
  19. Jump up ^ Jeff McMahon (10 April 2011). "EPA: New Radiation Highs in Little Rock Milk, Philadelphia Drinking Water". Forbes. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  20. Jump up ^ "Japanese Nuclear Emergency: Radiation Monitoring". EPA. 30 June 2011. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
  21. Jump up ^ Bauers, Sandy (21 July 2011). "Cancer patients’ urine suspected in Wissahickon iodine-131 levels". Philadelphia inquirer, Carbon County Groundwater Guardians. Retrieved 25 February 2012.
  22. ^ Jump up to: a b [1] Scott III, George L. (03-June-1997) US Patent No. 5635712: Method for monitoring the hydraulic fracturing of a subterranean formation. US Patent Publications.
  23. Jump up ^ [2] Fertl; Walter H. (15-Nov-1983) US Patent No. US4415805: Method and apparatus for evaluating multiple stage fracturing or earth formations surrounding a borehole. US Patent Publications.
  24. Jump up ^ [3] Scott III, George L. (15-Aug-1995) US Patent No. US5441110: System and method for monitoring fracture growth during hydraulic fracture treatment. US Patent Publications.
  25. Jump up ^ Alex Wayne (4 January 2012). "Health Effects of Fracking Need Study, Says CDC Scientist". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 29 February 2012.
  26. Jump up ^ David Wethe (19 January 2012). "Like Fracking? You'll Love 'Super Fracking'". Businessweek. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  27. Jump up ^ Mark Drajem (11 January 2012). "Fracking Political Support Unshaken by Doctors' Call for Ban". Bloomberg. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
  28. ^ Jump up to: a b Vaughan, Vicki (16 February 2012). "Fracturing 'has no direct' link to water pollution, UT study finds". Retrieved 3 March 2012.
  29. ^ Jump up to: a b Munro, Margaret (17 February 2012). "Fracking does not contaminate groundwater: study released in Vancouver". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
  30. Jump up ^ "Hydraulic Fracturing – 15 Statements from Regulatory Officials". New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Retrieved 25 May 2012.
  31. Jump up ^ "Pathways To Energy Independence: Hydraulic Fracturing And Other New Technologies". U.S. Senate. May 6, 2011.
  32. Jump up ^ Susan Phillips (8 December 2011). "EPA Blames Fracking for Wyoming Groundwater Contamination". StateImpact Penn­syl­va­nia. WITF, WHYY & NPR. Retrieved 6 February 2012.
  33. Jump up ^ Fetzer, Richard M. (19 January 2012). Action Memorandum - Request for funding for a Removal Action at the Dimock Residential Groundwater Site (Report). Retrieved 27 May 2012.
  34. Jump up ^ Mark Drajem (27 September 2012). "Diesel in Water Near Fracking Confirms EPA Tests Wyoming Disputes". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  35. ^ Jump up to: 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. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
  36. Jump up ^ 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. doi:10.1038/477271a.
  37. Jump up ^ 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. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  38. Jump up ^ 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). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034014. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  39. Jump up ^ 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). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044008. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  40. Jump up ^ Lashof, Dan (12 April 2011). "Natural Gas Needs Tighter Production Practices to Reduce Global Warming Pollution". Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  41. Jump up ^ Cathles, Lawrence M.; Brown, Larry; Taam, Milton; Hunter, Andrew (2011). "A commentary on "The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations"". Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0333-0. Retrieved 7 August 2013.
  42. Jump up ^ Howarth, Robert W.; Santoro, Renee; Ingraffea, Anthony (1 February 2012). "Venting and leaking of methane from shale gas development: Response to Cathles et al." (PDF). Climatic Change (Springer). doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  43. Jump up ^ Stephen Leahy (24 January 2012). "Shale Gas a Bridge to More Global Warming". IPS. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
  44. Jump up ^ "Ozone mitigation efforts continue in Sublette County, Wyoming". Wyoming's Online News Source. March 2011.
  45. Jump up ^ Eastern Research Group, Sage Environmental Consulting (July 13, 2011) (PDF). City of Fort Worth: Natural Gas Air Quality Study (Report). City of Fort Worth. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
  46. Jump up ^ Hanna, Bill; Smith, Jack Z. (July 15, 2011). "Study: No 'significant health threats' from natural gas sites in Fort Worth". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  47. ^ Jump up to: a b 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. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
  48. ^ Jump up to: a b c d 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. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
  49. Jump up ^ "Study shows air emissions near fracking sites may have serious health impacts". @theForefront. Colorado School of Public Health. 19 March 2012. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
  50. ^ Jump up to: 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. Retrieved 2012-05-09.
  51. Jump up ^ 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. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
  52. Jump up ^ IEA (2011). World Energy Outlook 2011. OECD. pp. 91; 164. ISBN 978 92 64 12413 4.
  53. ^ Jump up to: a b "Fracturing ‘has no direct’ link to water pollution, UT study finds". Fuel Fix. 17 February 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
  54. Jump up ^ "Shell Oil Company Invests Nearly $4 Million in The University of Texas at Austin". UT Austin website. 14 February 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
  55. Jump up ^ Sandra Zaragoza (15 February 2012). "Shell Oil invests $3.9M in UT". Houston Business Journal. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
  56. Jump up ^ Brett Clanton (13 September 2011). "Shell, UT to study better shale production methods". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
  57. Jump up ^ "Halliburton Gives $90,000 in Grants to The University of Texas at Austin". UT Austin website. 28 February 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2012. "Energy services company Halliburton has contributed $90,000 to support academic programs at The University of Texas at Austin, bringing the company's total university giving to nearly $7 million."
  58. Jump up ^ Scott, Mark (17 October 2011). "Norway’s Statoil to Acquire Brigham Exploration for $4.4 Billion". Dealb%k (New York Times). Retrieved 4 March 2012.
  59. Jump up ^ Barry Harrell (19 September 2011). "Norway-based energy company, UT agree on $5 million research program". The Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
  60. Jump up ^ "Gasland Correction Document". Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Retrieved 7 August 2013.
  61. Jump up ^ Moniz, Ernest J. et al. (June 2011) (PDF). The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (Report). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 1 June 2012.
  62. Jump up ^ 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. Retrieved 2012-05-07.
  63. Jump up ^ David Caruso (2011-01-03). "44,000 Barrels of Tainted Water Dumped Into Neshaminy Creek. We're the only state allowing tainted water into our rivers". NBC Philadelphia. Associated Press. Retrieved 2012-04-28.
  64. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Urbina, Ian (26 February 2011). "Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  65. ^ Jump up to: a b Abrahm Lustgarten and Nicholas Kusnetz (2011-09-16). "Science Lags as Health Problems Emerge Near Gas Fields". Propublica. Retrieved 2013-05-06.
  66. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e PEHSU (August 2011). PEHSU Information Concerning Effects on Children of Natural Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing (Report). Propublica. Retrieved 2013-05-06.
  67. Jump up ^ "A Toxic Spew?". 19 August 2008. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
  68. ^ Jump up to: a b "With Natural Gas Drilling Boom, Pennsylvania Faces an Onslaught of Wastewater". Propublica. 3 October 2009. Retrieved 7 August 2013.
  69. Jump up ^ http://www.chinashalefund.com/ China Shale Fund
  70. Jump up ^ Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favour Fracking, 2013 report by Richard A. Muller and Elizabeth A. Muller of Berkeley Earth
  71. Jump up ^ Timothy A. Bartrand and Jeffrey S. Rosen (October 2013). Potential Impacts and Significance of Elevated 131 I on Drinking Water Sources [Project #4486 ORDER NUMBER: 4486] (Report). Water Research Foundation. Retrieved 11 November 2013.
  72. Jump up ^ Mayo clinic staff. "Radiation sickness". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 31 March 2012.
  73. Jump up ^ Staff (26 February 2011). "Drilling Down: Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
  74. Jump up ^ "Natural Gas Drilling, the Spotlight". The New York Times. 5 March 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
  75. Jump up ^ Urbina, Ian (1 March 2011). "Drilling Down: Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  76. Jump up ^ Petit, Charles (2 March 2011). "Part II of the fracking water problems in PA and other Marcellus Shale country". Knight Science Journalism Tracker. MIT. Retrieved 6 May 2013.
  77. Jump up ^ Don Hopey (5 March 2011). "Radiation-fracking link sparks swift reactions". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
  78. Jump up ^ Shocker: New York Times radioactive water report is false March 8, 2011 Îą Abby Wisse Schachter. Report is from a Rupert Murdoch tabloid, The New York Post
  79. Jump up ^ Urbina, Ian (7 March 2011). "E.P.A. Steps Up Scrutiny of Pollution in Pennsylvania Rivers". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 February 2012.
  80. Jump up ^ Griswold, Eliza (17 November 2011). "The Fracturing of Pennsylvania". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 21 November 2011.
  81. Jump up ^ "State Official: Pa. Water Meets Safe Drinking Standards". CBS Pittsburgh. January 4, 2011.
  82. Jump up ^ "Pennsylvania DEP Secretary Defends States' Ability to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing" (Press release). PR Newswire. November 17, 2011.
  83. Jump up ^ Don Hopey (February 24, 2011). "Corbett repeals policy on gas drilling in parks". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
  84. Jump up ^ McKibben, Bill (8 March 2012). "Why Not Frack?". The New York Review of Books 59 (4). Retrieved 21 February 2012.
  85. Jump up ^ (PDF) Annual Drinking Water Quality Report, 2010 (Report). Philadelphia Water Department. Spring 2011. Retrieved 7 February 2012.
  86. Jump up ^ Zoback, Mark; Kitasei, Saya; Copithorne, Brad (July 2010) (PDF). Addressing the Environmental Risks from Shale Gas Development (Report). Worldwatch Institute. p. 9. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  87. Jump up ^ "Shale gas fracking: MPs call for safety inquiry after tremors". BBC News. 8 June 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  88. Jump up ^ "Fracking tests near Blackpool 'likely cause' of tremors". BBC News. 2 November 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  89. Jump up ^ de Pater, C.J.; Baisch, S. (2 November 2011) (PDF). Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity (Report). Cuadrilla Resources. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  90. Jump up ^ "FAQs – Earthquakes, Faults, Plate Tectonics, Earth Structure: Can we cause earthquakes? Is there any way to prevent earthquakes?". USGS. 27 October 2009. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  91. Jump up ^ "Ohio Quakes Probably Triggered by Waste Disposal Well, Say Seismologists" (Press release). Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  92. ^ Jump up to: a b Niquette, Mark (22 March 2012). "Fracking Fluid Soaks Ohio". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
  93. Jump up ^ Jan Goodey (Undated, but July, 2013). "The UK's anti fracking movement is growing". The Ecologist. Retrieved July 29, 2013.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)