Hydraulic fracturingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search "Fracking" redirects here. For other uses, see Fracking (disambiguation).Hydraulic fracturing

Schematic depiction of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.

Process typeMechanical

Industrial sector(s)Mining

Main technologies or sub-processesFluid pressure

Product(s)Natural gasPetroleum

InventorFloyd Farris; J.B. Clark (Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation)

Year of invention1947

Hydraulic fracturing is the fracturing of rock by a pressurized liquid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturallycertain veins or dikes are examples. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing, commonly known as fracking, is a technique in which typically water is mixed with sand and chemicals, and the mixture is injected at high pressure into a wellbore to create small fractures (typically less than 1mm), along which fluids such as gas, petroleum, uranium-bearing solution,[1] and brine water may migrate to the well. Hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, then small grains of proppant (sand or aluminium oxide) hold these fractures open once the rock achieves equilibrium. The technique is very common in wells for shale gas, tight gas, tight oil, and coal seam gas[2][3] and hard rock wells. This well stimulation is only conducted once in the life of the well and greatly enhances fluid removal and well productivity. A different technique where only acid is injected is referred to as acidizing.The first experimental use of hydraulic fracturing was in 1947, and the first commercially successful applications were in 1949. As of 2010, it was estimated that 60% of all new oil and gas wells worldwide were being hydraulically fractured.[4] As of 2012, 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing jobs have been performed on oil and gas wells worldwide, more than one million of them in the United States.[5] Uranium Energy Corporation is planning to use hydraulic fracturing to mine uranium. Fracking for uranium involves injecting oxygenated water (to increase solubility) to dissolve the uranium, then pumping the solution back up to the surface.[1]

Halliburton Frack Job in the Bakken Formation, North Dakota, United StatesProponents of hydraulic fracturing point to the economic benefits from the vast amounts of formerly inaccessible hydrocarbons the process can extract.[6] Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these.[7] For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under international scrutiny, with some countries suspending or banning it.[8][9] However, some of those countries, including most notably the United Kingdom,[10] have recently lifted their bans, choosing to focus on regulations instead of outright prohibition. The 2013 draft EU-Canada trade treaty includes language outlawing any "breach of legitimate expectations of investors" which may occur if revoking drilling licences of Canada-registered companies in the territory of the European Union after the treaty comes into force.[11]

Frac job in progressContents 1 Geology 1.1 Mechanics 1.2 Veins 1.3 Dikes 1.4 Non-hydraulic fracturing 1.5 Hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas wells 1.6 Massive hydraulic fracturing 1.7 Massive hydraulic fracturing in shales 2 Induced hydraulic fracturing 2.1 Uses 2.2 Hydraulic fracturing of water-supply wells 2.3 Method 2.4 Well types 2.5 Fracturing fluids 2.6 Fracture monitoring 2.7 Horizontal completions 3 Economic impacts 4 Environmental impact 4.1 Research issues 4.2 Air 4.3 Water 4.4 Injected fluid 4.5 Flowback 4.6 Methane 4.7 Hydrogen sulfide 4.8 Radioactivity 4.9 Seismicity 5 Health impacts 6 Public debate 6.1 Politics and public policy 6.2 Media coverage 7 See also 8 References 9 External linksGeologyMain article: Fracture (geology)MechanicsFracturing in rocks at depth tends to be suppressed by the confining pressure, due to the load caused by the overlying rock strata and the cementation of the formation. 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 overcome 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.[12][13] 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 well bores are sometimes used to determine the orientation of stresses.[14] In natural examples, such as dikes or vein-filled fractures, the orientations can be used to infer past states of stress.[15]VeinsMost 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.[16] One mechanism to demonstrate such examples of long-lasting repeated fracturing is the effect of seismic activity, in which the stress levels rise and fall episodically and large volumes of connate water may be expelled from fluid-filled fractures during earthquakes. This process is referred to as "seismic pumping".[17]DikesLow-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.[18]Non-hydraulic fracturingFracturing 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.Hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas wellsThe 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.[2][4] For the well treatment 1,000 US gallons (3,800l; 830impgal) of gelled gasoline (essentially napalm) and sand from the Arkansas River was injected into the gas-producing limestone formation at 2,400 feet (730m). 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.[4] Since then, hydraulic fracturing has been used to stimulate approximately a million oil and gas wells[19] in various geologic regimes with good success.In contrast with the large-scale hydraulic fracturing used in low-permeability formations, small hydraulic fracturing treatments are commonly used in high-permeability formations to remedy skin damage at the rock-borehole interface. In such cases the fracturing may extend only a few feet from the borehole.[20]In the Soviet Union, the first hydraulic proppant fracturing was carried out in 1952. Other countries in Europe and Northern Africa to use hydraulic fracturing included Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Tunisia, and Algeria.[21]Massive hydraulic fracturing

Well Head where fluids are injected into the ground

Well head after all the Fracking equipment has been taken off locationPan American Petroleum applied the first massive hydraulic fracturing (also known as high-volume hydraulic fracturing) treatment in Stephens County, Oklahoma, USA in 1968. The definition of massive hydraulic fracturing varies somewhat, but is generally used for treatments injecting greater than about 150 short tons, or approximately 330,000 pounds (136 metric tonnes), of proppant.[22]American geologists became increasingly aware that there were huge volumes of gas-saturated sandstones with permeability too low (generally less than 0.1 millidarcy) to recover the gas economically.[22] Starting in 1973, massive hydraulic fracturing was used in thousands of gas wells in the San Juan Basin, Denver Basin,[23] the Piceance Basin,[24] and the Green River Basin, and in other hard rock formations of the western US. Other tight sandstones in the US made economic by massive hydraulic fracturing were the Clinton-Medina Sandstone, and Cotton Valley Sandstone.[22]Massive hydraulic fracturing quickly spread in the late 1970s to western Canada, Rotliegend and Carboniferous gas-bearing sandstones in Germany, Netherlands onshore and offshore gas fields, and the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea.[21]Horizontal oil or gas wells were unusual until the 1980s. Then in the late 1980s, operators in Texas began completing thousands of oil wells by drilling horizontally in the Austin Chalk, and giving massive slickwater hydraulic fracturing treatments to the wellbores. Horizontal wells proved much more effective than vertical wells in producing oil from the tight chalk;[25] the shale runs horizontally so a horizontal well reached much more of the resource.[26] In 1991, the first horizontal well was drilled in the Barnett Shale[26] and in 1996 slickwater fluids were introduced.[26]Massive hydraulic fracturing in shalesDue to shale's low porosity and low permeability, technological 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 hydraulic 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.[27]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.[28][29][30]As of 2013, in addition to the United States several countries are planning to use hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil and gas production.[31][32][33]Induced hydraulic fracturingAccording to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hydraulic fracturing is a process to stimulate a natural gas, oil, or geothermal energy well to maximize the extraction. The broader process, however, is defined by EPA as including the acquisition of source water, well construction, well stimulation, and waste disposal.[34]UsesThe technique of hydraulic fracturing is used to increase the rate at which fluids, such as petroleum, water, or natural gas can be recovered 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 5,00020,000 feet (1,5006,100m)), which is typically greatly below groundwater reservoirs of basins if present. 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.[35] Fractures provide a conductive path connecting a larger volume of the reservoir to the well. So-called "super fracing", which creates cracks deeper in the rock formation to release more oil and gas, will increase efficiency of hydraulic fracturing.[36] The yield for a typical shale gas well generally falls off after the first year or two, although the full producing life of a well can last several decades.[37]While the main industrial use of hydraulic fracturing is in arousing production from oil and gas wells,[38][39][40] hydraulic fracturing is also applied: To stimulate groundwater wells[41] To precondition or induce rock to cave in mining[42] As a means of enhancing waste remediation processes, usually hydrocarbon waste or spills[43] To dispose of waste by injection into deep rock formations[44] As a method to measure the stress in the Earth[45] For heat extraction to produce electricity in enhanced geothermal systems[46] To increase injection rates for geologic sequestration of CO2[47]Hydraulic fracturing of water-supply wellsSince the late 1970s, hydraulic fracturing has been used in some cases to increase the yield of drinking water from wells in a number of countries, including the US, Australia, and South Africa.[48][49][50]MethodA hydraulic fracture is formed by pumping the fracturing fluid into the wellbore at a rate sufficient to increase pressure downhole at the target zone (determined by the location of the well casing perforations) to exceed that of the fracture gradient (pressure gradient) of the rock.[51] 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. Fractures are localized because pressure drop off with frictional loss attributed to the distance from the well. 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 removed. 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 and fluids introduced to the formation during completion of the well during fracturing.[51]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.[52]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. Hydraulic fracturing is performed in cased wellbores and the zones to be fractured are accessed by perforating the casing at those locations.[53]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.[54] Chemical additives are typically 0.5% percent of the total fluid volume. Fracturing equipment operates over a range of pressures and injection rates, and can reach up to 100 megapascals (15,000psi) and 265 litres per second (9.4cuft/s) (100 barrels per minute).[55]Well typesA 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.[56] 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".[40]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 (3,000m) in the Bakken formation in North Dakota. In contrast, a vertical well only accesses the thickness of the rock layer, typically 50300 feet (1591m). 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,[57] but is not typically administered in this way.Fracturing fluids

Water tanks preparing for a frac jobMain articles: Proppants and fracking fluids and List of additives for hydraulic fracturingHigh-pressure fracture fluid is injected into the wellbore, with the pressure above the fracture gradient of the rock. The two main purposes of fracturing fluid is to extend fractures, add lubrication, change gel strength 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 high-rate (slickwater) fracturing causes small spread-out micro-fractures.[citation needed]This fracture fluid contains water-soluble gelling agents (such as guar gum) which increase viscosity and efficiently deliver the proppant into the formation.[58]

Process of mixing water with fracking fluids to be injected into the groundThe fluid injected into the rock is typically a slurry of water, proppants, and chemical additives.[59] Additionally, gels, foams, and compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide and air can be injected. Typically, of the fracturing fluid 90% is water and 9.5% is sand with the chemical additives accounting to about 0.5%.[51][60][61] However, fracturing fluids have been developed in which the use of water has been made unnecessary, using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and propane.[62]A proppant is a material that will keep an induced hydraulic fracture open, during or following a fracturing treatment, and can be gel, foam, or slickwater-based. 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. 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.[63]The fracturing fluid varies in composition depending on the type of fracturing used, the conditions of the specific well being fractured, and the water characteristics. A typical fracture treatment uses between 3 and 12additive chemicals.[51] Although there may be unconventional fracturing fluids, the more typically used chemical additives can include one or more of the following: Acidshydrochloric acid (usually 5%-28%), or acetic acid is used in the pre-fracturing stage for cleaning the perforations and initiating fissure in the near-wellbore rock.[61] Sodium chloride (salt)delays breakdown of the gel polymer chains.[61] Polyacrylamide and other friction reducersminimizes the friction between fluid and pipe, thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface.[61] Ethylene glycolprevents formation of scale deposits in the pipe.[61] Borate saltsused for maintaining fluid viscosity during the temperature increase.[61] Sodium and potassium carbonatesused for maintaining effectiveness of crosslinkers.[61] Glutaraldehydeused as disinfectant of the water (bacteria elimination).[61] Guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agentsincreases viscosity of the fracturing fluid to deliver more efficiently the proppant into the formation.[58][61] Citric acidused for corrosion prevention. Isopropanolincreases the viscosity of the fracture fluid.[61]The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 20052009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.[64]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 pH9 onwards and are used to carry proppants. After the fracturing job the pH is reduced to 34 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.[58] 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.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.[65] 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.[58] 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 fracturing job, since many require a pH buffer system to stay viscous.[65] 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 continually being developed and improved to better handle waste water and improve re-usability.[51]Fracture monitoringMeasurements 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.[51]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.[66] 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.[67] Radioactive isotopes chemically bonded to glass (sand) and/or resin beads may also be injected to track fractures.[68] 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.[67] Radiotracers such as Tc-99m and I-131 are also used to measure flow rates.[67] 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.[68]Microseismic monitoringFor 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.[69]Microseismic mapping is very similar geophysically to seismology. In earthquake seismology seismometers scattered on or near the surface of the earth record S-waves and P-waves that are released during an earthquake event. This allows for the motion along the fault plane to be estimated and its location in the earths subsurface mapped. During formation stimulation by hydraulic fracturing an increase in the formation stress proportional to the net fracturing pressure as well as an increase in pore pressure due to leakoff takes place.[70] Tensile stresses are generated ahead of the fracture/cracks tip which generates large amounts of shear stress. The increase in pore water pressure and formation stress combine and affect the weakness (natural fractures, joints, and bedding planes) near the hydraulic fracture. Dilatational and compressive reactions occur and emit seismic energy detectable by highly sensitive geophones placed in nearby wells or on the surface.[71]Different methods have different location errors and advantages. Accuracy of microseismic event locations is dependent on the signal to noise ratio and the distribution of the receiving sensors. For a surface array location accuracy of events located by seismic inversion is improved by sensors placed in multiple azimuths from the monitored borehole. In a downhole array location accuracy of events is improved by being close to the monitored borehole (high signal to noise ratio).Monitoring of microseismic events induced by reservoir stimulation has become a key aspect in evaluation of hydraulic fractures and their optimization. The main goal of hydraulic fracture monitoring is to completely characterize the induced fracture structure and distribution of conductivity within a formation. This is done by first understanding the fracture structure. Geomechanical analysis, such as understanding the material properties, in-situ conditions and geometries involved will help with this by providing a better definition of the environment in which the hydraulic fracture network propagates.[72] The next task is to know the location of proppant within the induced fracture and the distribution of fracture conductivity. This can be done using multiple types of techniques and finally, further develop a reservoir model than can accurately predict well performance.Horizontal completionsSince 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.[73]In North America, shale reservoirs such as the Bakken, Barnett, Monterey, 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".[74]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.[75]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]

SleevesThese 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.[76]Economic impactsSee also: Shale gasHydraulic 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 (208,000km3), tight gas to 76 trillion cubic metres (76,000km3), and coalbed methane to 47 trillion cubic metres (47,000km3). 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 economically viable. The multi-stage fracturing technique has facilitated the development of shale gas and light tight oil production in the United States and is believed to do so in the other countries with unconventional hydrocarbon resources.[6]The National Petroleum Council estimates that hydraulic fracturing will eventually account for nearly 70% of natural gas development in North America.[77] Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling apply the latest technologies and make it commercially viable to recover shale gas and oil. In the United States, 45% of domestic natural gas production and 17% of oil production would be lost within 5 years without usage of hydraulic fracturing.[78]A number of studies related to the economy and fracking, demonstrates a direct benefit to economies from fracking activities in the form of personnel, support, ancillary businesses, analysis and monitoring. Typically the funding source of the study is a focal point of controversy.[79] Most studies are either funded by mining companies or funded by environmental groups, which can at times lead to at least the appearance of unreliable studies.[79] A study was performed by Deller & Schreiber in 2012, looking at the relationship between non-oil and gas mining and community economic growth. The study concluded that there is an impact on income growth; however, researchers found that mining does not lead to an increase in population or employment.[79] The actual financial impact of non-oil and gas mining on the economy is dependent on many variables and is difficult to identify definitively.Environmental impactMain article: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturingSee also: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United StatesSee also: Exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal lawHydraulic fracturing has raised environmental concerns and is challenging the adequacy of existing regulatory regimes.[80] 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.[7][51][64] Because hydraulic fracturing originated in the United States,[81] its history is more extensive there than in other regions. Most environmental impact studies have therefore taken place there.Research issuesSeveral organizations, researchers, and media outlets have reported difficulty in conducting and reporting the results of studies on hydraulic fracturing due to industry[82][83] and governmental pressure, and expressed concern over possible censoring of environmental reports.[82][84][85] Concerns have been raised about the role of wealthy foundations in financing research[86] that some have argued was designed to inflate the risks of development,[87] and lobbying by the gas industry to promote its activities.[88] The broader debate over these topics provides an example of the research challenges on this subject. Researchers have recommended requiring disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluids, testing animals raised near fracturing sites, and closer monitoring of environmental samples.[89] After court cases concerning contamination from hydraulic fracturing are settled, the documents are sealed, and at least one recent case bears that out,[90] while others believe it has and could lead to unnecessary risks to public safety and health.[91] The American Petroleum Institute denies that this practice has hidden problems with gas drilling.[citation needed]AirSee also: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Air emissionsWhen petroleum crude oil is extracted and produced from onshore or offshore oil wells, raw natural gas associated with the oil is produced to the surface as well. One gas which is commonly flared is hydrogen sulfide, which is an irritant and a chemical asphyxiant that can alter both oxygen utilization and the central nervous system, according to the U.S. OSHA.[92] Excessive H2S production in previously nonsour environments are "primarily anthropogenic and caused by certain operational practices".[93] In areas of the world lacking pipelines and other gas transportation infrastructure, vast amounts of such associated gas are commonly flared as waste or unusable gas. In June 2013, the Enbridge corporation obtained an order to reject from its system crude that had high levels of sour gas.[92] Enbridge had found in one instance concentration levels of 1,200ppm.[92] The US FERC regulator sets 10ppm as a maximum for this noxious gas. A concentration 120 times as high "could cause death, or serious injuries".[92]A Pennsylvania family was forced to abandon because of fracking pollution of their 10-acre farm. The family was paid 750,000USD by Range Resources Corporation to depart from a more recently installed petroleum well plant, though the family was oddly required to sign an agreement which stated that they now nor ever will suffer any adverse medical effects from the toxic exposure.[94]The air emissions from hydraulic fracturing are also related to methane leaks originating from wells, and emissions from the diesel or natural gas powered equipment such as compressors, drilling rigs, pumps etc.[51] Also transportation of necessary water volume for hydraulic fracturing, if done by trucks, can cause high volumes of air emissions, especially particulate matter emissions.[95] There are also reports of health problems around compressors stations[96] or drilling sites,[97] although a causal relationship was not established for the limited number of wells studied[97] and another Texas government analysis found no evidence of effects.[98]Natural gas produced by hydraulic fracturing causes higher well-to-burner emissions than gas produced from conventional wells. Although a recent report coauthored by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energys National Renewable Energy Laboratory [99] found emissions from shale gas, when burned for electricity, were very similar to those from so-called conventional well natural gas, hydraulic fracturing's higher emissions profile 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.[80] Other studies have found different effects, and a debate has arisen particularly around a study by professor Robert W. Howarth finding shale gas significantly worse for global warming than oil or coal[100] and various others criticizing the analysis.[101][102] Howarth has responded that "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."[103] The U.S. EPA has estimated the methane leakage rate to be about 2.4% well below Howarths estimate. The American Gas Association, and industry trade group, calculated a 1.2% leakage rate [104] based on the EPA's latest greenhouse gas inventory, although the EPA has not publicly stated a change to its prior estimate.WaterThis section should be summarized and a link to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing provided by using the main template per the guidance in Wikipedia:Summary style. (December 2012)

Appropriating large quantities of water for hydraulic fracturing diverts water from other beneficial uses such as human consumption or stream flow.[105] In Barnhart, Texas the aquifer ran dry because of industrial fracking: one landowner had 104 water wells (designed to supply fracking) dug into his land by his fracker tenants, and the population is left with little recourse for their dry taps.[106]The large volumes of water required have raised concerns about hydraulic fracturing in arid areas, such as Karoo in South Africa[81] and drought prone areas of North America.[107] 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.[108]Hydraulic fracturing uses between 1.2 and 3.5 million US gallons (4.5 and 13 Ml) of water per well, with large projects using up to 5 million US gallons (19Ml). Additional water is used when wells are refractured.[58][109] An average well requires 3 to 8 million US gallons (11,000 to 30,000 m3) of water over its lifetime.[51][108][109][110] Using the case of the Marcellus Shale as an example, as of 2008 hydraulic fracturing accounted for 650 million US gallons per year (2,500,000m3/a) or less than 0.8% of annual water use in the area overlying the Marcellus Shale.[108][111] The annual number of well permits, however, increased by a factor of five[112] and the number of well starts increased by a factor of over 17 from 2008 to 2011.[113] 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.[114] To minimize water consumption, recycling is one possible option.[80] In the Spring of 2013, new hydraulic fracturing water recycling rules were adopted in the state of Texas by the Railroad Commission of Texas. The Water Recycling Rules are intended to encourage Texas hydraulic fracturing operators to conserve water used in the hydraulic fracturing process for oil and gas wells.[115] Another possible option is to use carbon dioxide instead of water.[116]Injected fluidSee also: List of additives for hydraulic fracturingThere 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.[117][118] 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.[80] In 2009 state regulators from at least a dozen states have also stated that they have seen no evidence[119] of the hydraulic fracturing process polluting drinking water. In May 2011, former U.S. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson (appointed by President Barack Obama) has said on at least two occasions that there is either no proven case of direct contamination by the hydraulic fracturing process, or that the EPA has never made a definitive determination[120] of such contamination. By August 2011 there were at least 36 cases of suspected groundwater contamination due to hydraulic fracturing in the United States. In more recent congressional testimony in April 2013, Dr. Robin Ikeda, Deputy Director of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health at the CDC listed several sites where EPA had documented contamination.[121] In several cases EPA has determined that hydraulic fracturing was likely the source of the contamination.[91][122][123][124][125][126]While some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are common and generally harmless, some are known carcinogens at high enough doses.[64] A report prepared for House Democratic members Henry Waxman, Edward Markey and Diana DeGette stated that out of 2,500hydraulic 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".[64] 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".[64] 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.[127]Another 2011 study identified 632chemicals used in natural gas operations. Only 353 of these are well-described in the scientific literature. 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 hydraulic fracturing's exemption from regulation under the US Safe Drinking Water Act be rescinded.[128] Industry group Energy In Depth, a research arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, contends that fracking "was never granted an 'exemption' from it... How can something earn an exemption from a law that never covered or even conceived of it in the first place?[129]Governments are responding to questions about the contents of hydraulic fracturing fluid by requiring disclosure via government agencies and public web site. The Irish regulatory regime requires full disclosure of all additives to Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland). The European Union also requires such disclosure.[130] In the US, the Ground Water Protection Council launched FracFocus.org, an online voluntary disclosure database for hydraulic fracturing fluids funded by oil and gas trade groups and the U.S. Department of Energy. The site has been met with some skepticism relating to proprietary information that is not included.[131][132] Some states have mandated fluid disclosure and incorporated FracFocus as the tool for disclosure.[133][134] Also in the US, FracTracker Alliance provides oil and gas-related data storage, analyses, and online and customized maps related to hydraulic fracturing on FracTracker.org.[135][136]FlowbackAs 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 3070% of the original fracture fluid volume.[citation needed] In addition, natural formation waters may flow to the well and need treatment or disposal. 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.[137] Hydraulic fracturing can concentrate levels of uranium, radium, radon, and thorium in flowback.[138] 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.[137] However, the quantity of waste water being treated, and the improper configuration of sewage plants to treat it, have become an issue in the northeast United States. Much of the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations in Pennsylvania is processed by public sewage treatment plants, which are not equipped to remove radioactive material and are not required to test for it.[139][140]When waste brine is discharged to surface waters through conventional wastewater treatment plants, the bromide in the brine usually passes through undiminished. Although not posing a health hazard by itself, in western Pennsylvania some downstream drinking water treatment plants using the surface water have experienced increases in brominated trihalomethanes in 2009 and 2010. Trihalomethanes, undesirable byproducts of the chlorination process, form when the chlorine combines with dissolved organic matter in the source water, to form the trihalomethane chloroform. If bromine is present, it will substitute for some of the chlorine, forming brominated trihalomethanes. Because bromine has a higher atomic weight than chlorine, the partial conversion to brominated trihalomethanes increases the concentration by weight of total trihalomethanes.[141][142][143] In 2011, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection asked gas well operators to stop discharging wastewater through sewage treatment plants. By late 2012, bromine concentrations had declined back to previous levels in the Monongahela River, but remained high in the Allegheny.[144]A study from Duke University found: Contrary to current perceptions, Marcellus [Shale] wells produce significantly less wastewater per unit gas recovered (~35%) compared to conventional natural gas wells.[145] Estimates of the amount of injected fluid returning to the surface vary. Some say approximately 15-20% of the injected fluid returns to the surface with the gas[146] and other that higher amounts return.[147] Some remains underground[146] and some may return to the surface through abandoned wells or other pathways.[148] Although not necessarily indicative of broader industry trends, several reports [149][150] have also highlighted an industry-wide shift toward greater water recycling in the Marcellus Shale.MethaneGroundwater methane contamination is also a concern as it has adverse impact on water quality and in extreme cases may lead to potential explosion.[140][151] In 2006, over 7 million cubic feet (200,000m3) of methane were released from a blown gas well in Clark, Wyoming and shallow groundwater was found to be contaminated.[152] However, methane contamination is not always caused by hydraulic fracturing. 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.[153][154]According to the 2011 study of the MIT Energy Initiative, "there is evidence of natural gas (methane) migration into freshwater zones in some areas, most likely as a result of substandard well completion practices i.e. poor quality cementing job or bad casing, by a few operators."[155] 2011 studies by the Colorado School of Public Health and Duke University also pointed to methane contamination stemming from hydraulic fracturing or its surrounding process.[151][154] 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.[153] A 2013 Duke study suggested that both defective cement seals in the upper part of wells and faulty steel linings within deeper layers may be allowing methane and injected fluid to seep into surface waters.[118] Abandoned gas and oil wells also provide conduits to the surface.[148]In April 2013 the EPA dramatically lowered its estimate of how much methane gas is released to the atmosphere during the fracking process by 20 percent.[156]Hydrogen sulfideHydrogen sulfide (H2S, sour gas), a gas which is toxic to humans and flammable, has been detected in some fracked crude by the Enbridge corporation.[157] The academic community commented in 2011 that increased concentration of H2S was observed in the field and presented challenges such as "health and environmental risks, corrosion of wellbore, added expense with regard to materials handling and pipeline equipment, and additional refinement requirements".[93] Holubnyak et al. write, further, that the crude "may become soured through current oil field practices".RadioactivitySee also: Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturingThere are concerns about the levels of radioactivity in wastewater from hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on public health. A Popular Mechanics article stated, however, that although shale does have a radioactive signature, testing conducted in Pennsylvania in 2009 found no evidence of elevated radiation levels in waterways.[158] The EPA called for more testing.[159] In 2009, Conrad Dan Volz, former Director of the Center for Health Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh, said that radiation concerns are one of the least pressing issues.[158]In 2011 The New York Times reported radium in wastewater from natural gas wells is released into Pennsylvania rivers,[140][160] and has compiled a map of these wells and their wastewater contamination levels,[161] and stated that some EPA reports were never made public.[117] The Times' reporting on the issue has come under some criticism.[162][163] Recycling this wastewater has been proposed as a partial solution, but this approach has limitations.[164] A 2012 study examining a number of hydraulic fracturing sites in Pennsylvania and Virginia by Pennsylvania State University, found that water that flows back from gas wells after hydraulic fracturing contains high levels of radium.[165] Solid waste such as drill clippings is also radioactive. In 2012 there were 1325 radiation alerts from all sources at dumps in Pennsylvania, up from 423 alerts in 2008. At least 1,000 of the 2012 alerts were set off by waste from gas and oil drilling hydraulic fracturing operations.[166]SeismicityHydraulic fracturing routinely produces microseismic events much too small to be detected except by sensitive instruments. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the fracturing.[167] However, as of late 2012, there have been three instances of hydraulic fracturing, through induced seismicity, triggering quakes large enough to be felt by people: one each in the United States, Canada, and England.[168]A 2012 USGS study reported that a "remarkable" increase in the rate of M 3 Richter earthquakes in the US midcontinent "is currently in progress", having started in 2001 and culminating in a 6-fold increase over 20th century levels in 2011.[169] While analysis suggested that the increase is "almost certainly man-made", the connection with a specific activity such as fracking had yet to be established. The injection of waste water from oil and gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing, into saltwater disposal wells may cause bigger low-magnitude tremors, being registered up to 3.3(Mw).[170]Induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturingThe United States Geological Survey (USGS) has reported earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing, and by disposal of hydraulic fracturing flowback into waste disposal wells, in several locations. Bill Ellsworth, a geoscientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has said, however: We dont see any connection between fracking and earthquakes of any concern to society. [171] The National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences) has also observed that hydraulic fracturing, when used in shale gas recovery, does not pose a serious risk of causing earthquakes that can be felt.[172]A British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission investigation concluded that a series of 38 earthquakes (magnitudes ranging from 2.2 to 3.8 on the Richter scale) occurring in the Horn River Basin area between 2009 and 2011 were caused by fluid injection during hydraulic fracturing in proximity to pre-existing faults. The tremors were small enough that only one of them was reported felt by people; there were no reports of injury or property damage.[173]A report in the UK concluded that hydraulic fracturing was the likely cause of two small tremors (magnitudes 2.3 and 1.4 on the Richter scale) that occurred during hydraulic fracturing of shale.[174][175][176]Induced seimicity from water disposal wellsAccording to the USGS only a small fraction of roughly 40,000 waste fluid disposal wells for oil and gas operations in the United States have induced earthquakes that are large enough to be of concern to the public.[177] Although the magnitudes of these quakes has been small, the USGS says that there is no guarantee that larger quakes will not occur.[178] 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.[179] There are also concerns that quakes may damage underground gas, oil, and water lines and wells that were not designed to withstand earthquakes.[178][180]Several earthquakes in 2011, including a 4.0 magnitude quake on New Year's Eve that hit Youngstown, Ohio, are likely linked to a disposal of hydraulic fracturing wastewater, according to seismologists at Columbia University.[181] 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.[182]Health impactsConcern has been expressed over the possible long and short term health effects of air and water contamination and radiation exposure by gas production.[138][183][184] A study on the effect of gas drilling, including hydraulic fracturing, published by the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, concluded that exposure to gas drilling operations was strongly implicated in serious health effects on humans and animals [185] although scientists have raised concerns about that particular report.[186] 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.[187][188]The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers radioactive material in flowback a hazard to workers at hydraulic fracturing sites. Workers may inhale radon gas released by the process, raising their risk of lung cancer. They are also exposed to alpha and gamma radiation released during the decay of radium-226 and to gamma radiation and beta particles released by the decay of radium-228, according to EPA. EPA reports that gamma radiation can also penetrate the skin and raise the risk of cancer.[189]A 2012 study concluded that risk prevention efforts should be directed towards reducing air emission exposures for persons living and working near wells during well completions.[190] In the United States the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released a hazard alert based on data collected by NIOSH that workers may be exposed to dust with high levels of respirable crystalline silica (silica dioxide) during hydraulic fracturing.[191] 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.[192]According to the United States Department of Energy, hydraulic fracturing fluid is composed of approximately 95% water, 4.5% sand and 0.5% different chemicals.[51] These percentages are by weight, so hydraulically fracturing a well uses 4-7 million gallons of water (15000-27000 tons) and 80-140 tons of chemicals. There can be up to 65 chemicals and often include benzyne, glycol-ethers, toluene, ethanol and nonphenols.[193] [64] Some[who?] have argued that although many of these chemicals are harmful, some of them are either non toxic or are non toxic at lower dosages.[194] However, their concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid have proven toxic to animals and humans.[185] Many chemicals used in fracking, such as 2-BE ethylene glycol, are carcenogenic. This chemical is listed under chronic oral RFD assessment, chronic inhalation RFC assessment, and carcinogenicity assessment records of the US environmental protection agencys website. In a study done by the US Environmental Protection Agency, it found statistically significant effects observed in mice included forestomach ulcers and epithelial hyperplasia, hematopoietic cell proliferation and hemosiderin pigmentation in the spleen, Kupffer cell pigmentation in the livers, and bone marrow hyperplasia (in males only, suggesting tissue damage due to exposure above 125-250ppm.[195] The study also found statistically significant decreases in automated and manual hematocrit (Hct) values, hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations, and red blood cell (RBC) for both males and females at exposure of 250ppm and for female in the 125ppm exposure group.[195]In a study done by Colborn and colleagues, they examined 353 out of 994 fracking chemicals identified by TEDX in hydraulic fracking operation. They found over 75% of the 353 chemicals affected the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs,52% affected the nervous system, 40% affected the immune system and kidney system, and 46% affected the cardiocascular system and blood.[196]In a second study done by Colborn and colleagues, they examined the airborne chemicals due to the fracking process. The group categorized the human tissue types into 12 categories and found 35 chemicals affected the brain/nervous system, 33 the liver/ metabolism, and 30 the endocrine system, which includes reproductive and developmental effects. The categories with the next highest numbers of effects were the immune system (28), cardiovascular/blood (27), and the sensory and respiratory systems (25 each). Eight chemicals had health effects in all 12 categories.[197]Airborne chemicals during the fracking process, such as benzene and benzene derivatives, naphthalene, methylene chloride, are either carcinogenic or suspected as a human carcinogen to the human body.[197][198]Public debate

Poster against fracking in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, October 2012Politics and public policyTo control the hydraulic fracturing industry, some governments are developing legislation and some municipalities are developing local zoning limitations.[199] In 2011, France became the first nation to ban hydraulic fracturing.[8][9] Some other countries have placed a temporary moratorium on the practice.[200] The US has the longest history with hydraulic fracturing, so its approach to hydraulic fracturing may be modeled by other countries.[81] In August 2013 the Church of England, in an official statement, criticized those who advocate blanket opposition to fracking[201]The considerable opposition against hydraulic fracturing activities in local townships has led companies to adopt a variety of public relations measures to assuage fears about hydraulic fracturing, 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 hydraulic fracturing opponents. Matt Pitzarella, spokesman for 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 hydraulic fracturing.[202][203]Police officers have recently been forced, however, to deal with intentionally disruptive and even potentially violent opposition to oil and gas development. In March 2013, ten people were arrested [204] during an "anti-fracking protest" near New Matamoras, Ohio, after they illegally entered a development zone and latched themselves to drilling equipment. In northwest Pennsylvania, there was a drive-by shooting at a well site, in which an individual shot two rounds of a small-caliber rifle in the direction of a drilling rig, just before shouting profanities at the site and fleeing the scene.[205] And in Washington County, Pa., a contractor working on a gas pipeline found a pipe bomb that had been placed where a pipeline was to be constructed, which local authorities said would have caused a catastrophe had they not discovered and detonated it.[206]Media coverageJosh Fox's 2010 Academy Award nominated film Gasland became a center of opposition to hydraulic fracturing of shale. The movie presented problems with ground water contamination near well sites in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Colorado.[207] Energy in Depth, an oil and gas industry lobbying group, called the film's facts into question.[208] In response, a rebuttal of Energy in Depth's claims of inaccuracy was posted on Gasland's website.[209] The Director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) offered to be interviewed as part of the film if he could review what was included from the interview in the final film but Fox declined the offer.[210] Exxon Mobil, Chevron Corporation and ConocoPhillips aired advertisements during 2011 and 2012 that claim to describe the economic and environmental benefits of natural gas and argue hydraulic fracturing is safe.[211]The film Promised Land, starring Matt Damon, takes on hydraulic fracturing.[212] The gas industry has made plans to counter the film's criticisms of hydraulic fracturing with informational flyers, and Twitter and Facebook posts.[211]On January 22, 2013 Phelim McAleer, journalist and filmmaker, released a crowdfunded[213] documentary called FrackNation as a response to Gasland. FrackNation premiered on Mark Cuban's AXS TV. The premiere corresponded with the release of Promised Land.[214]One New York Times report claimed that an early draft of a 2004 EPA study discussed "possible evidence" of aquifer contamination but the final report omitted that mention.[82] Some have criticized the narrowing of EPA studies, including the EPA study on hydraulic fracturing's impact on drinking water to be released in late 2014,[215] such that hydrocarbon extraction processes not unique to hydraulic fracturing, such as drilling, casing, and above ground impacts, are considered beyond scope.[83][84][216][217][218]See also Hydraulic fracturing by country Hydraulic fracturing in the United States In-situ leach Directional drilling Environmental concerns with electricity generation Environmental impact of petroleum Environmental impact of the oil shale industry ExxonMobil ElectrofracReferences1. ^ a b Helman, Christopher (23 January 2013). "Energy's Latest Battleground: Fracking For Uranium". Forbes. Retrieved 11 August 2013. "Fracking for uranium isnt vastly different from fracking for natural gas. UEC bores under ranchland into layers of highly porous rock that not only contain uranium ore but also hold precious groundwater. Then it injects oxygenated water down into the sand to dissolve out the uranium. The resulting solution is slurped out with pumps, then processed and dried at the companys Hobson plant."2. ^ a b Charlez, Philippe A. (1997). Rock Mechanics: Petroleum Applications. Paris: Editions Technip. p.239. ISBN9782710805861. Retrieved 2012-05-14.3. ^ "Fracking legislation, California", The LA times (editorial), 2013-05-26.4. ^ 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): 2641. Retrieved 13 May 2012.5. ^ King, George E (2012), Hydraulic fracturing 101 (PDF), Society of Petroleum Engineers, Paper 152596.6. ^ a b IEA (29 May 2012). Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas. World Energy Outlook Special Report on Unconventional Gas (PDF). OECD. pp.1827.7. ^ 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. PMC1817691. PMID17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01.8. ^ a b Patel, Tara (31 March 2011). "The French Public Says No to 'Le Fracking'". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 22 February 2012.9. ^ a b Patel, Tara (4 October 2011). "France to Keep Fracking Ban to Protect Environment, Sarkozy Says". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 22 February 2012.10. ^ Bakewell, Sally (13 December 2012). "U.K. Government Lifts Ban on Shale Gas Fracking". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 26 March 2013.11. ^ "Draft EU-Canada trade treaty threatens Europe's fracking bans". 8 May 2013. Retrieved 7 June 2013.12. ^ Fjaer, E. (2008). "Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing". Petroleum related rock mechanics. Developments in petroleum science (2 ed.). Elsevier. p.369. ISBN978-0-444-50260-5. Retrieved 2012-05-14.13. ^ Price, N.J.; Cosgrove, J.W. (1990). Analysis of geological structures. Cambridge University Press. pp.3033. ISBN978-0-521-31958-4. Retrieved 5 November 2011.14. ^ Manthei, G.; Eisenbltter, J.; Kamlot, P. (2003). "Stress measurement in salt mines using a special hydraulic fracturing borehole tool" (PDF). In Natau, Fecker & Pimentel. Geotechnical Measurements and Modelling. pp.355360. ISBN90-5809-603-3. Retrieved 6 March 2012.15. ^ Zoback, M.D. (2007). Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University Press. p.18. ISBN9780521146197. Retrieved 6 March 2012.16. ^ 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): 967982. Bibcode:2004JSG....26..967L. doi:10.1016/j.jsg.2003.08.019. Retrieved 5 November 2011.17. ^ Sibson, R.H.; =Moore, J.; Rankin, A.H. (1975). "Seismic pumping--a hydrothermal fluid transport mechanism". Journal of the Geological Society (London: Geological Society) 131 (6): 653659. doi:10.1144/gsjgs.131.6.0653. (subscription required). Retrieved 5 November 2011.18. ^ Gill, R. (2010). Igneous rocks and processes: a practical guide. John Wiley and Sons. p.102. ISBN978-1-4443-3065-6. Retrieved 5 November 2011.19. ^ Energy Institute (February 2012) (PDF). Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development (Report). University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 29 February 2012.20. ^ A. J. Stark, A. Settari, J. R. Jones, Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing of High Permeability Gas Wells to Reduce Non-darcy Skin Effects, Petroleum Society of Canada, Annual Technical Meeting, Jun 8 - 10, 1998, Calgary, Alberta.21. ^ a b Mader, Detlef (1989). Hydraulic Proppant Fracturing and Gravel Packing. Elsevier. pp.173174; 202. ISBN9780444873521.22. ^ a b c Ben E. Law and Charles W. Spencer, 1993, "Gas in tight reservoirs-an emerging major source of energy," in David G. Howell (ed.), The Future of Energy Gasses, US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1570, p.233-252.23. ^ C.R. Fast, G.B. Holman, and R. J. Covlin, "The application of massive hydraulic fracturing to the tight Muddy 'J' Formation, Wattenberg Field, Colorado," in Harry K. Veal, (ed.), Exploration Frontiers of the Central and Southern Rockies (Denver: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 1977) 293-300.24. ^ Robert Chancellor, "Mesaverde hydraulic fracture stimulation, northern Piceance Basin - progress report," in Harry K. Veal, (ed.), Exploration Frontiers of the Central and Southern Rockies (Denver: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 1977) 285-291.25. ^ C.E> Bell and others, Effective diverting in horizontal wells in the Austin Chalk, Society of Petroleum Engineers conference paper, 1993.26. ^ a b c Robbins K. (2013). Awakening the Slumbering Giant: How Horizontal Drilling Technology Brought the Endangered Species Act to Bear on Hydraulic Fracturing. Case Western Reserve Law Review.27. ^ 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.?.28. ^ "US Government Role in Shale Gas Fracking: An Overview"29. ^ SPE production & operations 20. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2005. p.87.30. ^ The Breakthrough Institute. Interview with Dan Steward, former Mitchell Energy Vice President. December 2011.31. ^ Wasley, Andrew (1 March 2013) On the frontline of Poland's fracking rush The Guardian, Retrieved 3 March 201332. ^ (7 August 2012) JKX Awards Fracking Contract for Ukrainian Prospect Natural Gas Europe, Retrieved 3 March 201333. ^ (18 February 2013) Turkey's shale gas hopes draw growing interest Reuters, Retrieved 3 March 201334. ^ "Hydraulic fracturing research study" (PDF). EPA. June 2010. EPA/600/F-10/002. Retrieved 2012-12-26.35. ^ "The Barnett Shale" (PDF). North Keller Neighbors Together. Retrieved 2012-05-14.36. ^ David Wethe (19 January 2012). "Like Fracking? You'll Love 'Super Fracking'". Businessweek. Retrieved 22 January 2012.37. ^ "Production Decline of a Natural Gas Well Over Time". Geology.com. The Geology Society of America. 3 January 2012. Retrieved 4 March 2012.38. ^ Gidley, John L. (1989). Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE Monograph 12. SPE. p.?. ISBN9781555630201.39. ^ Ching H. Yew (1997). Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing. Gulf Professional Publishing. p.?. ISBN9780884154747.40. ^ a b Economides, Michael J. (2000). Reservoir stimulation. J. Wiley. p.P-2. ISBN9780471491927.41. ^ Banks, David; Odling, N.E., Skarphagen, H., and Rohr-Torp, E. (May 1996). "Permeability and stress in crystalline rocks". Terra Nova 8 (3): 223235. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.1996.tb00751.x.42. ^ Brown, Edwin Thomas (2007) [2003]. Block Caving Geomechanics (2nd ed.). Indooroopilly, Queensland: Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, UQ. ISBN978-0-9803622-0-6. Retrieved 2012-05-14.43. ^ 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". Journal of Hazardous Materials 40 (2): 191201. doi:10.1016/0304-3894(94)00069-S. ISSN0304-3894. (subscription required)44. ^ Bell, Frederic Gladstone (2004). Engineering Geology and Construction. Taylor & Francis. p.670. ISBN9780415259392.45. ^ Aamodt, R. Lee; Kuriyagawa, Michio (1983). "Measurement of Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure in Crystalline Rock". Hydraulic fracturing stress measurements. National Academies. p.139.46. ^ "Geothermal Technologies Program: How an Enhanced Geothermal System Works". .eere.energy.gov. 2011-02-16. Retrieved 2011-11-02.47. ^ Miller, Bruce G. (2005). Coal Energy Systems. Sustainable World Series. Academic Press. p.380. ISBN9780124974517.48. ^ Waltz, James; Decker, Tim L (1981), "Hydro-fracturing offers many benefits", Johnson Driller's Journal (2nd quarter): 49.49. ^ Williamson, WH (1982), "The use of hydraulic techniques to improve the yield of bores in fractured rocks", Groundwater in Fractured Rock, Conference Series (5), Australian Water Resources Council.50. ^ Less, C; Andersen, N (Feb 1994), "Hydrofracture: state of the art in South Africa", Applied Hydrogeology: 5963.51. ^ a b c d e f g h i j 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. 5666. DE-FG26-04NT15455. Retrieved 24 February 2012.52. ^ 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): 10711081. doi:10.2118/12486-PA. Retrieved 2012-05-10.53. ^ 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. Retrieved 2012-05-07.54. ^ Chilingar, George V.; Robertson, John O.; Kumar, Sanjay (1989). Surface Operations in Petroleum Production 2. Elsevier. pp.143152. ISBN9780444426772.55. ^ Love, Adam H. (December 2005). "Fracking: The Controversy Over its Safety for the Environment". Johnson Wright, Inc. Retrieved 2012-06-10.56. ^ "Hydraulic Fracturing". University of Colorado Law School. Retrieved 2 June 2012.57. ^ Wan Renpu (2011). Advanced Well Completion Engineering. Gulf Professional Publishing. p.424. ISBN9780123858689.58. ^ a b c d e Andrews, Anthony et al. (30 October 2009) (PDF). Unconventional Gas Shales: Development, Technology, and Policy Issues (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 7; 23. Retrieved 22 February 2012.59. ^ Ram Narayan (August 8, 2012). "From Food to Fracking: Guar Gum and International Regulation". RegBlog. University of Pennsylvania Law School. Retrieved 15 August 2012.60. ^ Hartnett-White, K. (2011). The Fracas About Fracking- Low Risk, High Reward, but the EPA is Against it (PDF). National Review Online. Retrieved 2012-05-07.61. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Freeing Up Energy. Hydraulic Fracturing: Unlocking America's Natural Gas Resources (PDF). American Petroleum Institute. 2010-07-19. Retrieved 2012-12-29.62. ^ Brainard, Curtis (June 2013). "The Future of Energy". Popular Science Magazine. p.59. |accessdate= requires |url= (help)63. ^ "CARBO ceramics". Retrieved 2011.64. ^ 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.?.65. ^ a b ALL Consulting (June 2012) (PDF). The Modern Practices of Hydraulic Fracturing: A Focus on Canadian Resources (Report). Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Retrieved 2012-08-04.66. ^ Reis, John C. (1976). Environmental Control in Petroleum Engineering. Gulf Professional Publishers.67. ^ 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. 3940. 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-99m, I-131, Ag-110m, 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"68. ^ 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. Retrieved 19 April 2012. "labeled Frac Sand...Sc-46, Br-82, Ag-110m, Sb-124, Ir-192"69. ^ Bennet, Les, et.al.. "The Source for Hydraulic Fracture Characterization" (PDF). Oilfield Review (Schlumberger) (Winter 2005/2006): 4257. Retrieved 2012-09-30.70. ^ Fehler, Michael C. (1989). "Stress Control of seismicity patterns observed during hydraulic fracturing experiments at the Fenton Hill hot dry rock geothermal energy site, New Mexico". International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts. 3 26. |accessdate= requires |url= (help)71. ^ Le Calvez, Joel (2007). "Real-time microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracture treatment: A tool to improve completion and reservoir management". SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. |accessdate= requires |url= (help)72. ^ Cipolla, Craig (2010). "Hydraulic Fracture Monitoring to Reservoir Simulation: Maximizing Value". SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. |accessdate= requires |url= (help)73. ^ Seale, Rocky (July/August 2007). "Open hole completion systems enables multi-stage fracturing and stimulation along horizontal wellbores" (PDF). Drilling Contractor (Fracturing stimulation ed.). Retrieved October 1, 2009.74. ^ "Completion Technologies". EERC. Retrieved 2012-09-30.75. ^ "Energy from Shale". 2011.76. ^ Mooney, Chris (2011). "The Truth About Fracking". Scientific American 305 (305): 8085. Bibcode:2011SciAm.305d..80M. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1111-80.77. ^ National Petroleum Council, Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North Americas Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, September 15, 2011.78. ^ IHS Global Insight, Measuring the Economic and Energy Impacts of Proposals to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing, 2009.79. ^ a b c Deller, Steven; Schreiber, Andrew (2012). "Mining and Community Economic Growth". The Review of Regional Studies 42. pp.121141. Retrieved 3 March 2013. "The results presented here suggest that a higher level of dependency on nonoil and gas based mining, such as frack sand mining or other mineral mining, does not lead to higher levels of population and employment growth, but does have a positive impact on income growth. Indeed, we find that mining may have a detrimental impact on population growth..."80. ^ a b c d IEA (2011). World Energy Outlook 2011. OECD. pp.91; 164. ISBN9789264124134.81. ^ a b c 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."82. ^ 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"83. ^ 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). 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.""84. ^ a b "The Debate Over the Hydrofracking Study's Scope". The New York Times. 3 March 2011. 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"85. ^ "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."86. ^ Soraghan, Mike (12 March 2012). "Quiet foundation funds the 'anti-fracking' fight". E&E News. Retrieved 27 March 2013. "In our work to oppose fracking, the Park Foundation has simply helped to fuel an army of courageous individuals and NGOs, or non-governmental organizations, said Adelaide Park Gomer, foundation president and Park heir, in a speech late last year."87. ^ Entine, Jon (23 January 2012). "Killing drilling with farcical 'science'". New York Post. Retrieved 27 March 2013.88. ^ Snyder, Jim (27 March 2013). "Natural Gas Lobbyist Takes on Obama on Fracking". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 21 June 2013.89. ^ Ramanuja, Krishna (7 Martch 2012). "Study suggests hydrofracking is killing farm animals, pets". Cornell Chronicle (Cornell University). Retrieved 9 March 2012.90. ^ Begos, Kevin (21 March 2013). "Gas Drillers Paid $750,000 Settlement to Pennsylvania Family". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 27 March 2013. "The documents released Wednesday also show the Hallowichs agreed there was no medical evidence that drilling harmed their health or their children's health."91. ^ a b Urbina, Ian (3 August 2011). "A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May be More". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 February 2012.92. ^ a b c d Bloomberg 13 Aug 2013 report93. ^ a b Holubnyak et al, SPE 141434-MS94. ^ Guardian 5 Aug "Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking"95. ^ Fernandez, John Michael; Gunter, Matthew. Hydraulic Fracturing: Environmentally Friendly Practices (PDF). Houston Advanced Research Center. Retrieved 2012-12-29.96. ^ 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 2012.97. ^ a b Schmidt, Charles (1 August 2011). "Blind Rush? Shale Gas Boom Proceeds Amid Human Health Questions". Environmental Health Perspectives 119 (8): a348a353. doi:10.1289/ehp.119-a348. PMC3237379.98. ^ "DISH, TExas Exposure Investigation". Texas DSHS. Retrieved 27 March 2013.99. ^ Logan, Jeffrey (2012) (PDF). Natural Gas and the Transformation of the U.S. Energy Sector: Electricity (Report). Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis. Retrieved 27 March 2013.100. ^ 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): 679690. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5. Retrieved 2012-05-07.101. ^ Cathles, Lawrence M.; Brown, Larry; Taam, Milton; Hunter, Andrew (2011). "A commentary on "The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations" by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea". Climatic Change 113 (2): 525. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0333-0.102. ^ Leahy, Stephen (24 January 2012). "Shale Gas a Bridge to More Global Warming". IPS. Retrieved 4 February 2012.103. ^ 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) 113 (2): 537. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0401-0. Retrieved 4 February 2012.104. ^ "The Importance of Accurate Data". True Blue Natural Gas. Retrieved 27 March 2013.105. ^ John Upton (August 15, 2013). "Fracking company wants to build new pipeline for water". Grist. Retrieved August 16, 2013.106. ^ "A Texan tragedy: ample oil, no water" 11 Aug Guardian107. ^ Staff (16 June 2013). "Fracking fuels water battles". Politico (Associated Press). Retrieved 26 June 2013.108. ^ a b c Arthur, J. Daniel; Uretsky, Mike; Wilson, Preston (May 56, 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 2012-05-09.109. ^ a b Abdalla, Charles W.; Drohan, Joy R. (2010) (PDF). Water Withdrawals for Development of Marcellus Shale Gas in Pennsylvania. Introduction to Pennsylvanias Water Resources (Report). The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved 16 September 2012. "Hydrofracturing a horizontal Marcellus well may use 4 to 8 million gallons of water, typically within about 1 week. However, based on experiences in other major U.S. shale gas fields, some Marcellus wells may need to be hydrofractured several times over their productive life (typically five to twenty years or more)"110. ^ 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. 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"111. ^ Satterfield, J; Mantell, M; Kathol, D; Hiebert, F; Patterson, K; Lee, R (September 2008). "Managing Water Resources Challenges in Select Natural G