There is no question that the energy debate in the United States is prevalent, and in some minds, ceaseless. While environmental research findings in any one area falls on both sides of the safety fence, those that live in the communities impacted by growing energy exploration have stories to tell, stories about air quality, water quality, overall health issues, public safety, and uncertainty regarding the future of their land and property values. As their neighbors become “Shalionaires”, members of the surrounding communities stand by and endure the impacts that big oil has had on their communities. While compelling scientific research related to the many issues linked to fracking exist, from basic environmental impacts as well as other issues such as seismic activity, there is growing momentum and push back from some members of the private and public sectors.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a natural resource extraction process by which mechanical stimulation is used to remove natural resources from below the earth’s surface. The construction of horizontal and/or vertical wells are used to inject or pump pressurized fluids and “propping agents” containing water and various additives, sometimes nearing 150 different chemical additives, into the ground to rupture rocks and rock beds. This high-pressure injection fractures rocks “liberating” said reserves from below the surface of the earth.[1]
In the United States, the method of capturing natural gas through hydraulic fracking dates back to the 1940s. A patent on the process was issued to the Pan American Oil Company in 1949. Exclusive license was granted to the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, marking the first industrial use of the process [2]. A few years following that, other oil companies began being granted licenses.
According to a 2012 report by the Post Carbon Institute there are approximately 63,000 shale oil (tight oil) and gas wells from West Virginia, to California, Texas to North Dakota, and everywhere in between, covering countless counties in thirty-six states. Within each state there are varying sizes of shale plays, with various levels of hydraulic fracking extraction methods, from primary to tertiary, being used.
Of the methods used for oil extraction, two involve artificially applied pressure to the earth. While primary methods involve natural pressures and gravity, secondary recovery of hydrocarbons involve pressurized water and chemical injection into the earth’s crust and mantle to displace oil. The tertiary level, known as EOR [Enhanced Oil Recovery], is a process which involves high pressure and temperature by one of three methods: CO2 injection, gas[3], and thermal[4] recovery*.[5]
Overall, hydraulic fracking has increased to account for 90% of the natural gas extraction in the United States since 1999[6] and is now a multi-billion dollar industry across the country, and spans the globe. The environmental implications of fracking persist in every area of the world.
Fracking Implications
While proponents claim the process to be safe, looking to the boon in employment and increase in GDP[7]*, there is evidence of many negative effects associated with oil fracking, from environmental to social. The growing focus of concern is contamination of water wells from flowback and waste disposal resulting in toxic, sometimes radioactive[8],[9] drinking water occasionally creating flammable well water[10]. Additional issues include above ground spills and general property damage. Finally, adding to the potential polluting of “shallower drinking water aquifers”[11], fracking operations can be linked to shortages in local water sources[12] where water is scarce, as approximately five million gallons of water are used by fracking wells[13] and the recycled water cannot be turned into safe drinking water.[14] Air population and air quality is also becoming a concern as open-air disposal pits used by fracking companies become linked to airborne volatile organic compounds such as benzene and hexane.[15] In addition, the negative impacts on livestock and farming can have devastating economic impacts in the regions.[16]
With the environmental concerns come economic and social factors, such as the devaluing of surrounding property value[17] and risk of inability to resell homes due to mortgage regulation and insurance issues[18]. Additionally, increased crime due to population growth puts stress on the people in and around some oil regions, such as is the case in North Dakota’s Bakken[19].
Fracking Earthquake Impacts
Finally, many regions have experienced earthquakes where there had previously been very few to none, and in some places a tripling in earthquakes have been recorded. As far back as the 1950’s there have been documented earthquakes associated with deep well fracking. Historical studies have indicated “strong potential for inducing earthquakes by deep well injection [as well as a] very close geographic association between the zone of fluid injection and the locations of the earthquakes.” Links between adjacent seismic activity due to an increase of wells across a larger expanse of land, were also made[20]. The injection pressure from fracking causes stress on the Earth’s crust, and burdens the physical and hydrological properties of the rocks into which the fluid is injected. At the time of the 1951 report, earthquakes linked to fracking activities were recorded in Colorado, Texas, New York, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Ohio, as well as Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi. [21]
The U.S. Energy Information Administration says that earthquakes caused by fracking are small and inconsequential. However, even small earthquakes have a negative effect on water tables, disrupting groundwater sources; groundwater accounts for approximately 38% of water supplied by municipal utility departments, as well as 97% of rural* populations in the United States.[22] In addition to decreasing the movement and availability of groundwater, which is essential to all living things, there is the danger of a breach of the confining layers of waste-disposal reservoirs due to seismic activity, “permitting the possible upward migration of contaminated fluids”.[23]
In addition to the danger of earthquakes on waste systems, is the danger to the pipes associated with oil operations ad the impact of earthquakes on those, as well as threats created by inadequate sealing of pipes used, which results in leaking toxic drilling fluids into the soil and aquifers.[24]
These breaches, from disrupted water flows to the leeching of toxic chemicals, can be caused by even the most subtle of earthquakes (< than 3.0 magnitude), which can present harmful implications to soil biodiversity that includes essential organisms integral to the health of soil and water.[25]
Fracking Politics
The lack of regulation can be heavily linked with the deregulation of environmental laws under the innocuous sounding Energy Policy Act of 2005. This act was created by a task force created under the George W. Bush Administration and assembled by Vice President Cheney. The portion of the act in question, commonly known as the “Halliburton Loophole”, reversed federal policy standards which had been in place for decades, revising regulations designed to protect the air and water, and granting exemption to gas and oil companies. Included in the exempt standards were procedures under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)*[26] designed to protect groundwater and drinking water from contamination. Under the act, the companies were no longer required to disclose when, where or what chemicals were being used in the fracking process. Additional exemptions took place in regards to the Clean Water Act - designed to protect surface waters such as rivers, streams, and wetlands, The Clean Air Act, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)[27]. Other exceptions to long standing acts were extended to the industry, such as The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (Toxic Release Inventory); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates the handling and disposal of waste; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and the Superfund Program[28].
With federal regulation and policy weak, impenitent, and overburdened, states are being left to their own devices. They must work to craft legislation in the face of resistance and pressure from oppositional fracking companies, industry leaders, lobbyists and public opponents, to protect the future of their air, water, animals and the health of their communities and its members.
Some state policy makers have drafted bills related to the testing of groundwater at the well sites, both before and after drilling, as well as testing of production water and drilling waste during initial fracking, and the flowback (wastewater) which results from the operations[29]. Some states also have standards in regards to the disposal of the wastewater and residual chemicals used in the process of fracturing. Currently, only a handful of states require the disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking process, as each company uses a different tailored concoction, but some states are experiencing heavy litigation brought on by oil companies trying to protect “their interests”. In addition, legislation by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has successfully built in loopholes to the bills that would allow companies to mandate the chemicals they use as “trade secrets”, and therefore be exempt from disclosing some or many of the chemicals used in the process.[30]
State Regulations and Policy
Fracking regulations are constantly influx. The level of under-reported accidents and poorly implemented rules resulting in the lack of disciplinary action is growing, despite the (slow) evolution of policies and regulations. The Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) calls current safety regulations “insufficient” and states that the EPA cannot adequately protect water sources from the effects of fracking[31] or other environmental safety concerns due to a “backlog”. This leaves some states, such as North Dakota, to ineffectually depend on voluntary compliance, and leave the responsibility of cleanup, after the fact, to the companies themselves.[32] With no concrete federal regulations on water or seismic activity to abide by, each state has what amounts to a raggedy patchwork of good-faith environmental standards to adhere to, rebuked and easily disregarded through litigation and fat wallets wielded to block regulations at the polls.
Texas, one of the five largest of the producing states, has almost no regulations regarding the testing of water before or after drilling, nor does it have regulations on the handing of waste water produced by fracture injections. While what scant policy that may exist dictates the handling of the waste beneath “standard state or Clean Water Act requirements”[33], it should be recalled that the industry itself has immunity to many essential provisions under the Clean Water Act.
In North Dakota, there are no required water tests for pre-drilling or post-drilling to determine potential contamination due to fracking. However, liquid waste and fracking fluids “[must be] properly disposed of in an authorized facility” via “Normal NPDES [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] requirements”.[34] Liquid waste from fracking operations is monitored by Oil and Gas Division of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources.[35] Despite regulations, reports have proved that spills are all too common and prevalent in the Bakken[36] and illegal dumping of the filters used to strain radioactive waste is also among the many issues in the state.[37]
Also among the top fracking states, Colorado’s water testing guidelines mirror those of North Dakota. However, waste disposal is either disposed of by injection wells and required to be disposed of per guidelines set by the Colorado Oil Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs, or disposed of in an E&P disposal facility.[38] Some have suggested a “home rule” approach to crafting regulation as it is “less broad” than standard land use authority. Colorado is just another of many states trying to grapple with balancing the need for environmental regulation with that of a broad range of perceived land use privileges.
In Pennsylvania, another of the big fracking states, drillers are required to test the water only if they want to be able to prove that the water was polluted prior to their drilling. In handling of the wastewater, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) requires the use of Form 26R – Chemical Analysis of Residual Waste. Form 26 necessitates the testing for 25 types of metals, which includes aluminum, lead and mercury, as well as pH, ammonia nitrogen benzene, bromide, chloride, sulfate, ethylene glycol, nitrites, nitrates, nitrogen, radium 226, radium 228, as well as a litany of other gases, solids and liquids.[39] While Pennsylvania is one of the states that is slowly increasing its regulations on fracking, state politicians are starting to question the effectiveness of the existing regulations[40] in the face of environmental concerns.
In Ohio, regulations require the sampling of the well sites prior to drilling. In regards to waste water, disposal takes place in an ODNR permitted Class II injection well where it is injected into “underground geological formations”[41], and sometimes used to “maintain reservoir pressure” and “displace hydrocarbons toward the wellbore”[42]. Displacing hydrocarbons is also known as secondary oil recovery.[43] While Ohio is trying to craft increased regulations on waste, it has proven difficult and controversial. So far it has left much of the regulatory power and responsibility up to the Department of Natural Resource (DNR).[44]
Wyoming requires pre-drill testing of water. And until 2010, there had been no regulations on any and all water and/or waste resulting from fracking operations.[45] Following a push by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) to increase transparency, Wyoming passed a law in 2010 requiring oil companies to test water before and after drilling. Halliburton, in response to a statute that required the disclosure of the chemicals used in their fracking practice, along with 10 other drilling companies, filed a petition to have 146 out of the 148 chemicals protected as trade secrets. Since 2012 they have been battling against environmental protection groups - Center for Effective Government (formerly OMB Watch), Powder River Basin Resource Council, and the Wyoming Outdoor Council - in court, holding that the chemicals they use in fracking is protected as a “trade secret”. As of March 2014 the case was again transferred to another court.[46]
However, as illustrated by the “Halliburton Loophole”, in states with no state policies on waste water treatment and drinking water standards, fracking operations are technically exempt from such controls set forth by the EPA’s NPDES, and even in the states that require some form of treatment of waste water, the chemicals used in creating the waste does not have to be disclosed as it does with other industries whose operations impact drinking water, aquifers and surface waters, in part to additional loopholes put into place by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, referred to in previous state regulation outlines, is applied by many states. The IUC program prohibits the discharge of oil, and the “dispersants or emulsifiers to oil” from being dispersed into waterways, including “intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, and wetlands”.[47] But as previously mentioned, fracking operations, apart from the use of diesel fuel, which requires a special permit, are exempt from UIC regulation via SDWA § 1421 (d)(1).[48] Despite diesel fuel being generally prohibited, some operations have illegally injecting tens of millions of gallons without obtaining proper permits.[49]
Fracking Legislation
While there have been bills related to state regulations of fracking introduced to the House and Senate, little movement has occurred. Among the bills in the House, of note, are the Focused Reduction of Effluence and Stormwater runoff through Hydrofracking Environmental Regulation H.R. 1175 (FRESHER Act) and the Bringing Reductions to Energy’s Airborne Toxic Health Effects H.R. 1154 (BREATHE Act), introduced in March of 2013, intended to close Clean Air and Clean Water (Halliburton) loopholes. Additionally FRACAct would repeal the exemptions to the SDWA put in place by the 2005 Energy Policy Act.[50]* In the Senate, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act S. 1135 (FRACAct)[51] was introduced in June of 2013 by U.S. Representatives Polis and Degette (CO) and Hinchey (NY) requiring chemical transparency. Many states have some sort of chemical transparency standards, or are considering bills related to the issue of chemical transparency, or have bills slated to pass.
On the state level, there are 45 bills at carious stages related to fracking issues, the bulk is primarily related to environmental and safety measures when it comes to waste handling; some have crafted bills to ban fracking in their states. Since October 2010, at least 100 bills related to regulating hydraulic fracturing of natural gas have been introduced in at least 19 states including New York and Pennsylvania.[52] North Dakota has adopted a resolution (HCR 3008) which is urging Congress to clearly outline and delegate responsibility for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the state.
In addition to growing regulation related to environmental factors like keeping drinking water and air safe, is the growing desire for regulation regarding seismic activity said to be caused by the pressurized injections of waters and chemicals in to the earth’s surface.
Increased seismic activity has prompted states like Colorado to implement safeguards in monitoring well injection volume as well as the “pressure below the fracture gradient” to reduce “induced seismicity related to UIC Class II wells”. However, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) specified in a recent report to the governor that “hydraulic fracturing and underground injection [well operations] are not related activities”. Therefore, there is reason to believe that underground injection control (UIC) regulation does not apply to hydraulic fracturing nor does it apply to the disposal of flowback wastewater in Colorado, despite recommendations by the EPA of implementation of requirements for UIC Class II wells in relation to hydraulic fracturing.[53] It is unclear communication such as this that is burdensome to the understanding, creation and implementation of fracking legislation.
In a bold move, the Oil and Gas Division of The Railroad Commission of Texas, the regulating body of oil and gas exploration in Texas, has also decided to implement standards in monitoring for seismic activity. In a recent amendment, the Commission stipulated that a survey of a one hundred mile radius around proposed well sites should be investigated for historical seismic activity, in addition, “pressure front boundary calculations” should be provided. The amendment also grants staff the authority to deny or alter well permits if areas are found to be a likely contributor to earthquakes. [54] In Ohio and Pennsylvania, where previously earthquakes had been rare to nonexistent, regulators are also considering implementing guidelines to mitigate seismic activity in their states and across their borders.[55] As the number of earthquakes linked to fracking increase across the United States, it is likely that increasingly amounts of geological studies will be required in order to attain drilling permits.
In terms of geologically surveying sites and regulating man-made seismic activity by fracking techniques, there are some methods available, such as developing precise measurement of the “pressure required to create small fractures in the wellbore” - though there is indication that the process is very hard to control and may be inadequate.[56] The increased prevalence of seismic activity in many regions indicates a growing need for regulation and procedure in analyzing fracking sites for seismic factors such as tectonic stress measurements, and existing fault lines through geologic and geophysical surveys, as well as transmissivity and storativity analysis, from site selection to well operation, extending into monitoring pressure in the well heads and injection sites.[57]
Fracking Bans
Due to pressure from a 1994 petition by Alabama residents, the EPA conducted a study on the impacts of fracking activities to the environment. Following the nearly ten year study they issued a report in 2004 stating that fracking activities were innocuous, posing no or little risk to the environment or potential drinking water. Many have regarded the report as unsound[58], including members of the EPA. One such member was whistleblower, and environmental engineer, Westen Wilson. Following the 2004 EPA report, Wilson wrote a letter to Congress, including with it his own report outlining the dangers associated with the injection of fluids into the earth’s crust through hydraulic fracturing, as well as the misconduct in the investigation done by the EPA, calling their finding unsupported[59].
These alleged findings by the EPA, that fracking is not harmful to the environment, is what prompted the exemptions to environmental policy for the fracking industry (the “Halliburton Loophole”). Subsequently the general lack of regulations are often the catalyst to fracking ban initiatives by community members across the United States, as mounting evidence suggests a link between hydraulic fracking and several environmental hazards.
Banning of fracking activities in the United States first started in 2013 in Mora County, New Mexico[60]. In just over a year fracking bans have increased to include 213 communities in New York State[61]. A recent vote during the 2014 midterm elections resulted in a ban within the city limits of Denton, Texas[62]. A ban in Hawaii County, Hawaii was implemented in 2013[63]. After spending $7 million dollars in campaign money to block fracking ban initiatives in the 2014 midterm election, oil companies succeeded in preventing a ban in Santa Barbara, but failed in Mendocino[64] and San Benito County, California where fracking bans successfully passed on the ballot.[65] Upcoming measures to ban fracking are slated for the 2016 election for many other cities in California.[66] While unsuccessful due to a veto by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, there have also been attempts to ban fracking waste.[67]
Finally, bans have also been enacted in the 1.1 million acre George Washington National Forest. The action was taken in order to protect Washington D.C.’s drinking water which comes from the Potomac River, which flows through the George Washington National Forest, in Virginia and West Virginia. [68]
Overall, measures related to banning comes from the uncertainty and lack of confirmation of the safety of fracking in regards to the environment, and the mounting evidence that the activities are detrimental as it has been linked to earthquakes[69], birth defects[70], high levels of arsenic and other harmful chemical contamination exceeding safe levels for drinking water[71].
Fracking Litigation
Fracking lawsuits are expansive and cover a broad range of issues. The very first fracking-related litigation in the United States took place in LEAF v. EPA, 118F.3d 1467 (11th Cir, 1997). This federal lawsuit was related to alleged well contamination from coalbed methane hydraulic fracturing[72] on family property owned by the McMillian family in Alabama. The ruling from the court case determined the EPA was required to regulate hydraulic fracturing, which resulted in the aforementioned study and 2004 report. Ultimately, the outcome was a decision that regulation by the EPA was not required[73], and which eventually led to the exemption of hydraulic fracturing from environmental protection standards through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Lawsuits abound, they are increasing in number and coming from both ends, not just residents and communities taking action against oil companies.
A 2013 defamation lawsuit is of special note. In 2011, the EPA determined that nearby fracking wells had contaminated Texan resident Steve Lipsky’s water well with benzene, causing it to become flammable. While this resulted in a lawsuit against Range Resources, the company who owns the wells, Range Resources moved to counter-sue Lipsky for defamation, claiming he had/has mislead the public about his flammable water. Wrought with political problems, it is unlikely that the case will be settled soon.[74]
A recent case regarding land use, based on a 1961 “forced pooling” law, moved Hilcrop Energy to sue a landowner in Pennsylvania after he would not grant them drilling rights on his property.[75] The Pennsylvania law, which essentially gives oil and gas companies the right to drill beneath land without permission from the owners, is a good example of how defunct regulations can be used as a tool of exploitation in the burgeoning fracking industry. The legal action was subsequently dropped by the plaintiff in August of 2014.[76]
Recently, due to alleged improper environmental studies, The Environmental Defense Center moved to take legal action against the U.S. Department of the Interior, in conjunction with two additional agencies, for issuing 51 acid well stimulation permits to be used in the region of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, off of the Southern coast of California.[77]
As the industry continues to grow, and more environmental and policy problems arise, the industry is likely to continue to be rife with litigation such as these. How that will impact the overall costs of oil and gas in the nation is to be determined.
Limitations
Limitations to this paper is primarily found in the lack of availability of up-to-the-minute data coupled with too much conflicting data in regards to changes in fracking regulation. Additionally, the focus was limited to only a few of the over 30 states that currently have fracking well operations. While much can be said about environmental regulations outside of water and seismic-related water contamination, the scope of the paper in regards to state policies did not extend to solid waste, air pollution, or other environmental and social factors that are impacted by the industry.
Conclusion
Implementing fracking policies and regulations can save time and money, as well as mitigate negative impacts on the environment. As the recognition of the impacts on environment and safety uncertainty become more rampant, so will push back from the public to implement policy standards. Over the years there have been various legal actions taken against oil industries related to fracking activities, and they continue to be on the rise. Litigation is both an expensive and arduous process. Through crafting strategies and policies that help limit spills and contamination, reduce deliberate mismanagement, and increase enforcement of standards and environmental safety, the industry can be guided towards responsibility. It is through this responsibility that “standards of transparency, environmental protection, and safety” can transpire, which assists in building assurance through mutual recognition of the risks involved in fracking.[78]
--------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
Resources
Arnsdorf, Isaac. "Fracking
Link to Birth Defects Probed in Early Research." Bloomberg,
August
25, 2014.
Accessed December 2014.
Behar, Michael. "Fracking's
Latest Scandal? Earthquake Swarms." Mother Jones, March/April
2013.
Blackwill, Robert D., and Meghan
L. O'Sullivan. "The Geopolitical Consequences of the Shale
Cart, Julie. "Election Win
Puts Rural San Benito County on Anti-fracking Map." Los Angeles
Times,
November 29, 2014. Accessed December 2014.
Cart, Julie. "New Mexico
County First in Nation to Ban Fracking to Safeguard Water."Los
Angeles Times,
May 28, 2013. Accessed December 2014.
"Congressman Jared Polis 2nd
District of Colorado." Polis, DeGette, Hinchey
"Conservation Law."
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Accessed
Craddick, Christi. "Railroad
Commission Adopts Disposal Well Rule Amendments Today."
Davis, Charles. "The
Politics of “Fracking”: Regulating Natural Gas Drilling Practices in
"D.C. Passes Resolution
Prohibiting Fracking in George Washington National Forest”
Dermansky, Julie. "Fracking
Victim Sued for Defamation After Proving Drinking Water
Diaz, John. "Dark Money
Looms Large in 2014 Midterms." SFGate, November 7, 2014.
Accessed December 2014.
"Drilling vs. the American
Dream: Fracking Impacts on Property Rights and Home Values."
"ECFR — Code of Federal
Regulations." ECFR — Code of Federal Regulations. Accessed
"Enhanced Oil
Recovery." Energy.gov Office of Fossil Energy. Accessed October 2014.
"Enhanced Oil
Recovery." Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary.
"Environmental Defense
Center | Climate Change." Environmental Defense Center | Climate
"Fact Sheet: History and
Analysis of EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study." Western Organization of
"Feds Sued over Santa
Barbara Fracking Permits." ABC News, December 3, 2014.
Accessed
"Fracking."
SourceWatch. September 23, 2014. Accessed December 2014.
"Fracking: Laws and
Loopholes | Clean Water Action." Fracking: Laws and Loopholes | Clean
"Fracking Regulations by
State." ALS Global. Accessed December
2014.
"Fracking Update: What States Are Doing to Ensure Safe Natural Gas
Extraction."
"Frequently Asked Questions
- The Hydrology of Groundwater." U.S. Geological Survey. U.S.
Galassi, D.M.P. et al.
Earthquakes trigger the loss of groundwater biodiversity. Nature. Scientific
Reports 4,6273;
DOI:10.1038/srep06273 (2014).
Gral, Laurie. "Who Wants to
Be a Shaleionaire? Hidden Concerns of Fracking." Journal of
Property Management,
2013. Accessed October 2014.
Horwitz, Sari. "Dark Side of
the Boom." Washington Post, September 28, 2014. Accessed
"Hydraulic Fracturing
Background Information." EPA | United States Environmental Protection
"Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act." EPA
| United States Environmental
Johnson, Brent. "Christie
Vetoes Bill Aiming to Ban Fracking Waste in N.J." NJ.com. August 8,
Koba, Mark. "Severe Water
Shortage in West Fails to Stop Fracking at Gas Wells." NBC News,
Kusnetz, Nicholas. "Visit
Our News Center for Expert Coverage of the Exxon Oil Spill in
Lathem, Dennis. LEAF v.
EPA - A Challenge to Hydraulic Fracturng of Coalbed Methane Wells
Larson, Jeff, and Nicholas
Kusnetz. "North Dakota Spills." ProPublica. July 7, 2012. Accessed
Legere, Laura. "Department
of Environmental Protection Considers Rules on Tremors and
Lustgarten, Abrahm.
"Injection Wells: The Poison Beneath Us." ProPublica,
June 21, 2012.
Lustgarten, Abrahm.
"Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to
Meyer, Theodoric. "New Study
Finds High Levels of Arsenic in Groundwater Near Fracking
Sites." ProPublica,
August 8, 2013. Accessed December 2014.
Mcintire, Mike.
"Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist." The New
York
Miller, Erin. "Council OKS
Ban on Fracking." Hawaii Tribune Herald, October 17, 2013.
Accessed December 2014.
Minor, Joel. "Local
Government Fracking Regulations: A Colorado Case Study." Stanford
Environmental
Law Journal 33, no. 1 (2014): 59-120.
Moskowitz, Peter.
"Communities Find Little Success in Resisting Fracking
Nicholson, Craig, and Robert L.
Wesson. Earthquake Hazard Associated With Deep Well
Injection: A
Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin
1951. Rep. N.p.: United States Government Printing Office, 1990. Print.
"ODNR Division of Oil and
Gas Resources." Underground Injection Wells In Ohio. Accessed
Orr, Steve. "Canandaigua
Joins Fracking Bans." Democrat & Chronicle, June 6, 2014.
Accessed
Phillips, Ari. "Texans Vote
to Ban Fracking." ThinkProgress, November 5, 2014. Accessed
"Regulation of Hydraulic
Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act." EPA | United States
Robbins, Denis. "Pennsylvania’s Top Papers Ignore Controversial
‘Forced Pooling’ Fracking
Robbins, Denis. "Study: Top Fracking States Ignore Findings That
Their Drinking Water Is At
Sadasivam, Naveena. "In Fracking Hotbed, a Muted Approach to
Regulation." ProPublica. May
“Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: Investigation of the Bush
Administration's Abuse of
Science.” N.p.: Union of Concerned
Scientists, 204. EPA Findings on Hydraulic
Spross, Jeff. "Pennsylvania
Congressman Launches Investigation Into His State’s Fracking
"Superfund."
SourceWatch. Accessed October 2014.
Vengosh, Avner, Nathaniel Warner,
Rob Jackson, and Tom Darrah. "The Effects of Shale Gas
"Wilson, Weston. "EPA
Whistleblower Criticizes Fracking Study." Letter to Honorables Wayne
Wyoming Supreme Court Advances
Disclosure of Fracking Chemicals | Center for Effective
Zeller, Tom, Jr. "Gas
Drilling Technique Is Labeled Violation." The New York Times, January
|
One of these recipes.
