Illustration of the water cycle of Hydraulic fracturing in the United States began in 1949. According to the, by 2013 at least two million oil and gas wells in the US had been hydraulically fractured, and that of new wells being drilled, up to 95% are hydraulically fractured. The output from these wells makes up 43% of the oil production and 67% of the production in the United States.

Environmental safety and health concerns about hydraulic fracturing emerged in the 1980s, and are still being debated at the state and federal levels. In March 2017, became the first state in the US with proven gas reserves to ban fracking. New York banned drilling in 2012 and Vermont which has no known frackable gas reserves banned fracking preventatively in May 2012. Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • History [ ] Non-hydraulic fracturing [ ] Fracturing as a method to stimulate shallow, hard rock oil wells dates back to the 1860s.

Oil producers in,,, and used (liquid at first, and later solid) to break up the oil-bearing formation. The method was later applied to water and natural gas wells.

Download Free Fluid Flow And Heat Transfer In Wellbores Pdf Printer. A - Switch controlled, zone- type heating cable and method. Google Patents. This is a continuation of co- pending application Ser. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION1. Field of the Invention. The present invention.

The idea of using acid as a nonexplosive fluid for well stimulation was introduced in the 1930s. Kept fractures open and enhanced productivity. Water injection and (injection of cement slurry) had a similar effect. Quarrying [ ] The first industrial use of hydraulic fracturing was as early as 1903, according to T.L. Watson of the U.S.

Geological Survey. Before that date, hydraulic fracturing was used at Mt. Airy, near, where it was (and still is) used to separate granite blocks from bedrock. Oil and gas wells [ ] The relationship between well performance and treatment pressures was studied by Floyd Farris of. This study became a basis of the first hydraulic fracturing experiment, which was conducted in 1947 at the in of southwestern by Stanolind. For the well treatment 1,000 US gallons (3,800 l; 830 imp gal) of gelled gasoline and sand from the was injected into the gas-producing limestone formation at 2,400 feet (730 m). The experiment was not very successful as deliverability of the well did not change appreciably.

The process was further described by J.B. Clark of Stanolind in his paper published in 1948. A patent on this process was issued in 1949 and an exclusive license was granted to the Oil Well Cementing Company. On March 17, 1949, Halliburton performed the first two commercial hydraulic fracturing treatments in, and. The practice caught on quickly, and in June 1950, Newsweek reported that 300 oil wells had been treated with the new technique. In 1965, a publication wrote of hydraulic fracturing: 'Many fields are in existence today because of these fracturing techniques for, without them, many producing horizons would have been bypassed in the past 15 years as either barren or commercially nonproductive.'

Massive hydraulic fracturing [ ]. Tight non-shale gas plays using massive hydraulic fracturing In the 1960s, American geologists became increasingly aware of huge volumes of gas-saturated rocks with too low (generally less than 0.1 milli) to recover the gas economically. The US government experimented with using underground nuclear explosions to fracture the rock and enable gas recovery from the rock. Such explosions were tried in the of (, 1967), and the of Western Colorado (, 1969, and, 1973) but the results were disappointing, and the tests were halted. The petroleum industry turned to the new massive hydraulic fracturing technique as the way to recover tight gas. The definition of a massive hydraulic fracturing varies somewhat, but is generally used for treatments injecting greater than about 300,000 pounds of (136 ).

Applied the first massive hydraulic fracturing (also known as high-volume hydraulic fracturing) treatment in the non-communist world to a well in in 1968. The treatment injected half a million pounds of proppant into the rock formation. In 1973, introduced massive hydraulic fracturing to the of the of, to recover gas from the low-permeability J Sandstone. Before massive hydraulic fracturing, the Wattenberg field was uneconomic. Injected volumes of 132,000 or more gallons, and 200,000 or more pounds of sand proppant, succeeded in recovering much greater volumes of gas than had been previously possible. In 1974, Amoco performed the first million-pound frac job, injecting more than a million pounds of proppant into the J Sand of a well in Wattenberg Field.

The success of massive hydraulic fracturing in the Wattenberg Field of Colorado was followed in the late 1970s by its use in gas wells drilled to tight sandstones of the of the of western Colorado. Starting in the 1970s. Thousands of tight-sandstone gas wells in the US were stimulated by massive hydraulic fracturing. Examples of areas made economic by the technology include the Clinton-Medina Sandstone play in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York; the in and Colorado; numerous fields in the of; and the Cotton Valley Sandstone trend of and. Coalbed methane wells [ ] wells, which first began to be drilled in the 1980s, are commonly hydraulically fractured to increase the flow rates to the well. Hydraulic fracturing is commonly used in some coalbed methane areas, such as the and the, but not in others, such as the, depending on the local geology. Injected volumes tend to be much smaller than those of either tight gas wells or shale gas wells; a 2004 EPA study found a median injected volume of 57,500 US gallons (218,000 l; 47,900 imp gal) for coalbed methane wells.

Horizontal wells [ ] The combination of horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing was pioneered in Texas’ play in the 1980s. Stephen Holdich, head of the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University, commented: “In fact, the Austin Chalk is the model for modern shale development methods.” The Austin Chalk play started in 1981 with vertical wells, but died with the decline in the oil price in 1982. In 1983, Maurer Engineering designed the equipment to drill the first medium-range horizontal well in the Austin Chalk.

Horizontal drilling revived the play by increasing production, and lengths of the horizontal parts of the wellbores grew with greater experience and improvements in drilling technology. Union Pacific Resources, since absorbed by, entered the Austin Chalk play in a major way in 1987, and drilled more than a thousand horizontal wells in the Austin Chalk, with multistage massive slickwater hydraulic fracture treatments, making major improvements in drilling and fracturing techniques. A hydraulic fracturing operation at a Marcellus Shale well Hydraulic fracturing of shales goes back at least to 1965, when some operators in the Big Sandy gas field of eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia started hydraulically fracturing the Ohio Shale and Cleveland Shale, using relatively small fracs.

The frac jobs generally increased production, especially from lower-yielding wells. From 1976 to 1992 the United States government funded the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public-private hydro-fracturing pilot demonstration projects. The program made a number of advances in hydraulic fracturing of shales. During the same period, the, a gas industry research consortium, received approval for research and funding from the. In 1997, Nick Steinsberger, an engineer of Mitchell Energy (now part of ), applied the slickwater fracturing technique, using more water and higher pump pressure than previous fracturing techniques, which was used in East Texas by Union Pacific Resources (now part of ), in the Barnett Shale of north Texas. In 1998, the new technique proved to be successful when the first 90 days gas production from the well called S.H. 3 exceeded production of any of the company's previous wells.

This new completion technique made gas extraction widely economical in the Barnett Shale, and was later applied to other shales. Has been called the 'father of fracking' because of his role in applying it in shales. The first horizontal well in the was drilled in 1991, but was not widely done in the Barnett until it was demonstrated that gas could be economically extracted from vertical wells in the Barnett. Between 2005 and 2010 the shale-gas industry in the United States grew by 45% a year. As a proportion of the country's overall gas production, shale gas increased from 4% in 2005 to 24% in 2012. According to oilfield services company, as of 2013 more than 1.1 million hydraulic fracturing jobs have been done in the United States (some wells are hydraulically fractured more than once), and almost 90% of new US onshore oil and gas wells are hydraulically fractured. Typical extraction process [ ] The process of extracting shale oil or gas typically has several stages, including some legal preliminaries.

First, a company must negotiate the mineral rights with the owners.: 44 After a company has leased the mineral rights, it must obtain a permit to drill a well.: 44 Permits are regulated by state agencies and the requirements vary. Once it has obtained the permit, the company clears an area of 4–5 acres for a stage bed; it may also construct roads, a waste water site, and a temporary gas storage facility. Next is the drilling and casing of the well. In a process similar to that for constructing water wells, a bore machine drills vertically in the ground, and two or more steel casings are set in the well in a reverse telescope manner. The casing helps keep the well open by providing structural support and preventing fluid and gas flow into the surrounding ground. Once the casing is in place, cement is pumped down inside the casing and back up on the outside of the casing. This is done to cement the casing in the formation and to prevent any leakage or flow of the gas and fluids behind the casing.

The next step is the fracturing itself. A mixture of water and chemical additives are pumped down the well at high pressure. This creates fractures in the rock, and a such as sand is injected to keep the fracture open. This allows the natural gas to flow to the well and up to the surface.

The fracturing phase takes a few days. After all this preparation, the well has a few years of production where natural gas is brought to the surface, treated, and carried off. This may be punctuated by workovers during which the well is cleaned and maintained to increase production. When the well has been exhausted, it is plugged. The area around it is restored to the level required by state standards and the agreement with the owner. Economic impact [ ]. This article needs to be updated.

Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (November 2016) Hydraulic fracturing of tight oil and shale gas deposits has the potential to alter the geography of energy production in the US. [ ] In the short run, in counties with hydrofracturing employment in the oil and gas sector more than doubled in the last 10 years, with spill-overs in local transport-, construction but also manufacturing sectors. [ ] The manufacturing sector benefits from lower energy prices, giving the US manufacturing sector a competitive edge.

On average, natural gas prices have decreased by more than 30% in counties above shale deposits compared to the rest of the US. Some research has highlighted the negative effects on house prices for properties in the direct vicinity of fracturing wells. Local house prices in Pennsylvania decrease if the property is close to a hydrofracking gas well and is not connected to city water, suggesting that the concerns of ground water pollution are priced by markets. Oil and gas supply [ ].

EIA forecast for US gas production through 2040.: 2 Of US gas production in 2010, 26% came from tight sandstone reservoirs and 23% from shales, for a total of 49%. As production increased, there was less need for imports: in 2012, the US imported 32% less natural gas than it had in 2007. In 2013, the US projected that imports will continue to shrink and the US will become a net exporter of natural gas some time around 2020. Increased US oil production from hydraulically fractured wells was mostly responsible for the decrease in US oil imports since 2005 (decreased oil consumption was also an important component).

The US imported 52% of its oil in 2011, down from 65% in 2005. Hydraulically fractured wells in the,, and other tight oil targets, enabled US crude oil production to rise in September 2013 to the highest output since 1989.

Proponents of hydraulic fracturing touted its potential to make the United States the world's largest oil producer and make it an energy leader, a feat it achieved in November 2012 having already surpassed Russia as the world's leading gas producer. Proponents say that hydraulic fracturing would give the. In 2012, the projected that the United States, now the world's third-largest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, will see such an increase in oil from shales that the US will become the world's top oil producer by 2020. In 2011 the US became the world's leading producer of natural gas when it outproduced Russia. In October 2013, the US Energy Information Administration projected that the US had surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world's leading producer of combined oil and natural gas hydrocarbons. Globally, gas use is expected to rise by more than 50% compared to 2010 levels, and account for over 25% of world energy demand in 2035. Anticipated demand and higher prices abroad have motivated non-US companies to buy shares and invest in US gas and oil companies, and in the case of the Norwegian company, to buy an American company with hydraulic fracturing expertise and US shale oil production.

Some geologists say that the well productivity estimates are inflated and minimize the impact of the reduced productivity of wells after the first year or two. A June 2011 investigation of industrial emails and internal documents found that the profitability of unconventional shale gas extraction may be less than previously thought, due to companies intentionally overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves.

The same article said, 'Many people within the industry remain confident.' Said that he was not worried about shale companies and that he believed they would make good money if prices rise.

Pickens also said that technological advances, such as the repeated hydraulic fracturing of wells, was making production cheaper. Some companies that specialize in shale gas have shifted to areas where the gas in natural gas liquids such as and. The article was criticized by, among others, The New York Times ' own public editor for lack of balance in omitting facts and viewpoints favorable to shale gas production and economics.

Gas price [ ]. Comparison of natural gas prices in Japan, United Kingdom, and United States, 2007-2011 According to the World Bank, as of November 2012, the increased gas production due to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the US had driven US gas prices down to 29% of natural gas prices in Europe, and to one-fifth of natural gas prices in Japan. Lower natural gas prices in the US have encouraged the replacement of coal- with gas-fired power plants, but have also discouraged the switch to renewable sources of energy.

Facing a supply glut and consequent further price drops in 2012, some large US gas producers announced plans to cut natural gas production; however, production rates rose to all-time highs, and natural gas prices remained near ten-year lows. The high price of gas overseas has provided a strong incentive for producers to export it. Exports [ ] U.S.-based refineries have gained a competitive edge with their access to relatively inexpensive and Canadian crude.

Is exporting more refined petroleum products, and also more (LP gas). LP gas is produced from hydrocarbons called, released by the hydraulic fracturing of petroliferous shale, in a variety of that's relatively easy to export., for example, costs around $620 a ton in the U.S. Compared with more than $1,000 a ton in China, as of early 2014. Japan, for instance, is importing extra LP gas to fuel power plants, replacing idled nuclear plants., the third-largest independent trader of crude oil and refined products, said at the start of 2014 that 'growth in U.S.

Shale production has turned the distillates market on its head.' In 2012, the U.S. Imported 3,135 billion cubic feet (88.8 billion cubic metres) of natural gas and exported 1,619 billion cubic feet (45.8 billion cubic metres). Of the exports, 1,591 billion cubic feet (45.1 billion cubic metres) was sent by to Canada and Mexico; 18 billion cubic feet (510 million cubic metres) was re-exports of foreign shipments (bought at low prices and then held until the price went up); and the remaining 9.5 billion cubic feet (270 million cubic metres) was exported as (LNG) - natural gas that has been liquefied by cooling to about -161 degrees Celsius, reducing the volume by a factor of 600.

The US has two export terminals: one owned by Cheniere Energy in, Louisiana, and a terminal in North, Alaska. Companies that wish to export LNG must pass a two-step regulatory process required by the. First, the (DOE) must certify that the project is consistent with the public interest. This approval is automatic for export to the twenty countries that have a free trade agreement with the United States. Applications for export to non-FTA countries are published in the Federal Register and public comment is invited; but the burden of proof for any public harm rests with opponents of the application, so opposition by groups such as the Sierra Club has so far not blocked any approvals. In addition, the (FERC) must conduct an environmental review and approve the. As of 2013, only one facility – the Sabine Pass terminal in, run by Cheniere Energy – had both DOE and FERC approval and was under construction.

Three others – in; in; and a terminal in – have DOE approval and await FERC approval. On January 30, 2014, Cheniere Energy signed an agreement to supply 3.5 million tons to Korean Gas Corporation. A partnership of three companies (, and Capitol Energy Ventures) has proposed building a new pipeline connecting the Marcellus Shale formation with markets in Pennsylvania and Maryland. The pipeline would also supply LNG export terminals in. Critics have charged that exporting LNG could threaten the national energy security provided by gas from hydraulically fractured shale gas wells.

Jobs [ ] Economic effects of hydraulic fracturing include increases in jobs and by extension and increases in business. The states that it is unclear on a local level how and for how long hydraulic fracturing affects a community economically. It is hypothesized that hydraulic fracturing may not provide jobs to local communities due to the specialized nature of hydraulic fracturing tasks. Also, communities’ local resources could potentially be taxed due to the increase in industry traffic or if an accident occurs. Property owners [ ] In most countries belong to the government, but in the United States the default ownership is, meaning that a land owner also has the rights to the subsurface and the air above the property.

However, the of 1916 split the ownership, reserving mineral rights for the federal government in large parts of western states. The owners of the rights can also choose to split the rights. Since the hydraulic fracturing boom started, home builders and developers – including, the nation's biggest home builder;;; and – have retained the subsurface rights to tens of thousands of homes in states where shale plays exist or are possible.

In most states, they are not legally required to disclose this, and many of the home buyers are unaware they do not own the mineral rights. Under law, the surface owner must allow the mineral rights owner reasonable access. Protections for the surface owner vary; in some states an agreement is required that compensates them for the use of the land and reclaims the land after extraction is complete.: 45 Since the presence of oil or gas is uncertain, the company usually signs a with a and a percentage of the value at the wellhead as a.

Concerns have been raised regarding the terms and clarity of the leases energy companies are signing with landowners, as well as the manner in which they are sold and the tactics used by companies in implementing them. A well on one property can drain oil or gas from neighboring properties, and horizontal drilling can facilitate this. In some parts of the U.S., the gives the landowner rights to any resources they extract from their well.: 21 Other states have unitization rules for sharing royalties based on the geometries of the reservoir and the property lines above it.

A lease of oil and gas rights violates the terms of many mortgage agreements, including those used by and, because it devalues the property and allows hazardous materials on the property. As a result, some banks are refusing to make mortgages on land if with such a lease. Does not cover hydraulic fracturing related damage because it considered the risks of problems like water contamination made the financial exposure too great. However, to date there have been no substantial claims that targeted companies other than those owning or operating wells. Environmental and health impact [ ]. Schematic depiction of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, showing potential.

Potential include, risks to, the potential migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, the potential mishandling of waste, and the resulting effects on health such as an increased rate of cancer and related environmental contamination. While gas drilling companies are reluctant to reveal the proprietary substances in the fluid, the includes kerosene, benzene, toluene, xylene, and formaldehyde.

It has been predicted that exposure to chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluid will increase as gas wells using this technology proliferate. In April 2011, the Ground Water Protection Council launched FracFocus.org, an online voluntary disclosure database for hydraulic fracturing fluids. The site is funded by oil and gas trade groups and the DOE. The site has been met with some skepticism relating to proprietary information that is not included, although President Obama's energy and climate adviser Heather Zichal has said of the database: “As an administration, we believe that FracFocus is an important tool that provides transparency to the American people.” At least five states – including Colorado and Texas – have mandated fluid disclosure and incorporated FracFocus as the tool for disclosure. As of March 2013, FracFocus had more than 40,000 searchable well records on its site., a non-profit organization, provides oil and gas-related data storage, analyses, and online and customized maps related to hydraulic fracturing. Their website, FracTracker.org, also includes a photo library and resource directory. EPA hydraulic fracturing study [ ] In 2010 Congress requested that the (EPA) undertake a new, broader study of hydraulic fracturing.

The report was released in 2015. The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of hydraulic fracturing on the water supply, specifically for human consumption. The research aims to examine the full scope of the water pathway as it moves through the hydraulic fracturing process, including water that is used for the construction of the wells, the fracturing mixture, and subsequent removal and disposal. Fundamental research questions include: • How might large volume water withdrawals from ground and surface water impact drinking water resources? • What are the possible impacts of releases of flowback and produced water on drinking water resources? • What are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewaters on drinking water resources? The Scientific Advisory Board reviewed the study plan in early March 2011.

In June 2011, the EPA announced the locations of its five retrospective case studies, which will examine existing hydraulic fracturing sites for evidence of drinking water contamination. They are: • - Kildeer, and Dunn Counties, North Dakota • - Wise and Denton Counties, Texas (Hydraulic Fracturing is currently banned in Denton County as of November 4, 2014) • - Bradford and Susquehanna Counties, Pennsylvania • - Washington County, Pennsylvania • () - Las Animas County, Colorado Dr.

Robin Ikeda, Deputy Director of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health at the noted that none of the following EPA investigation sites were included in the final version of EPA’s Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources:; LeRoy, Pennsylvania;;;. The completed report draft was posted in 2015 and is available on the EPA website. The report concluded that while very few cases of water contamination have been found relative to the abundance of fracking, there are several concerns for potential contamination in the future. The report was not regulatory in nature but instead was created to inform local governments, the public, and industry, of current data for use in future decision making. A majority of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board advised the EPA to scale back proposed toxicity testing of fracking chemicals, and not pursue development of tracer chemicals to be added to frack treatments, because of time limitations.

Chesapeake Energy agreed with the recommendation. The study's Science Advisory Board advised the EPA to delete proposed toxicity tests from the study scope, due to limited time and funds. However, some members of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) urged the SAB to advise the EPA to reinstate the toxicity testing of hydraulic fracturing chemicals. Chesapeake Energy agreed, stating “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.” Thus, despite concerns about the elevated levels of (a radioactive tracer used in hydraulic fracturing) in drinking water in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, downstream from hydraulic fracturing sites, iodine-131 is not listed among the chemicals to be monitored in the draft plan for the study. Other known radioactive tracers used in hydraulic fracturing but not listed as chemicals to be studied include isotopes of gold, xenon, rubidium, iridium, scandium, and krypton. Water use [ ] Hydraulic fracturing uses between 1.2 and 3.5 million US gallons (4,500 and 13,200 m 3) of water per well, with large projects using up to 5 million US gallons (19,000 m 3).

Additional water is used when wells are refractured. An average well requires 3 to 8 million US gallons (11,000 to 30,000 m 3) of water over its lifetime. According to, a federation of state-based, citizen-funded environmental advocacy organizations, there are concerns for farmers competing with oil and gas for water. A report by questions whether the growth of hydraulic fracturing is sustainable in Texas and Colorado as 92% of Colorado wells were in extremely high water stress regions (that means regions where more than 80% of the available water is already allocated for agricultural, industrial and municipal water use) and 51% percent of the Texas wells were in high or extremely high water stress regions. Consequences for have already been observed in North America. Agricultural communities have already seen water prices rising because of that problem. In the region, in Texas and New Mexico, drinking water wells have dried as hydraulic fracturing water has been taken from an used for residential and agricultural use.

Well blowouts and spills of fracturing fluids [ ] A well blowout in on June 3, 2010, sent more than 35,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the air and onto the surrounding landscape in a forested area. Campers were evacuated and the company and the well completion company C.C. Forbes were ordered to cease all operations in the state of Pennsylvania pending investigation. The called it a 'serious incident'. Fluid injection and seismic events [ ] Injection of fluid into subsurface structures, such as and fractures, reduces the effective normal stress acting across these structures. If sufficient is present, the structure may slip in shear and generate events over a range of magnitudes; natural gas drilling may have caused earthquakes in North Texas.

Reports of minor of no greater than 2.8 on the were reported on June 2, 2009, in, the first in the town's 140-year history. In July 2011, the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission voted to shut down four produced water disposal wells, and to impose a permanent moratorium on Class II disposal wells in a faulted area of Faulkner, Van Buran, and Cleburne counties which has experienced numerous earthquakes. Geological Survey is working on ways to avoid quakes from wastewater disposal wells. In 2014, Oklahoma had with a magnitude of 3.0 or greater. Between the years 1978 and 2008 the state averaged 1.6 quakes of these magnitudes a year. The quakes are very likely related to the deep injection of oil and gas wastewater, a significant portion of which comes from wells which have been hydraulically fractured.

The fluid travels underground, often changing the pressure on fault lines. The later put in place regulations of waste water injection to limit the induced earthquakes. Fluid withdrawal and land subsidence [ ] Subsidence (the sinking of land) may occur after considerable production of oil or ground water. Oil, and, less commonly, gas extraction, has caused land subsidence in a small percentage of fields. Significant subsidence has been observed only where the hydrocarbon reservoir is very thick, shallow, and composed of loose or weakly cemented rock.

In 2014, the British Department of Energy and Climate change noted that there are no documented cases of land subsidence connected with hydraulic fracturing, and that land subsidence due to extraction from shale is unlikely, because shale is not easily compressed. Air and health [ ] Many particulates and chemicals can be released into the atmosphere during the process of hydraulic fracturing, such as sulfuric oxide, nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOC), benzene, toluene, diesel fuel, and hydrogen sulfide, all of which can have serious health implications. A study conducted between August 2011 and July 2012 as part of Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP) found chemical contaminants in the air and water of rural communities affected by the Shale extraction process in central New York and Pennsylvania. The study found disproportionately high numbers of adverse health effects in children and adults in those communities. A potential hazard that is commonly overlooked is the venting of bulk sand silos directly to atmosphere. When they are being filled, or emptied during the fracture job, a fine cloud of silica particulate will be vented directly into atmosphere. This dust has the potential to travel many kilometers on the wind directly into populated areas.

While the immediate personnel are wearing personal protective equipment, other people in the area of a well fracture can potentially be exposed. A 2012 study out of Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine by Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine, and veterinarian Michelle Bamberger, DVM, soon to be published in 'New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy,' suggests that hydraulic fracturing is sickening and killing cows, horses, goats, llamas, chickens, dogs, cats, fish and other wildlife, as well as humans. The study covered cases in Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

The case studies include reports of sick animals, stunted growth, and dead animals after exposure to hydraulic fracturing spills from dumping of the fluid into streams and from workers slitting the lining of a wastewater impoundment (evaporation ponds) so that it would drain and be able to accept more waste. The researchers stated that it was difficult to assess health impact because of the industry's strategic lobbying efforts that resulted in legislation allowing them to keep the proprietary chemicals in the fluid secret, protecting them from being held legally responsible for contamination. Bamberger stated that if you don't know what chemicals are, you can't conduct pre-drilling tests and establish a baseline to prove that chemicals found postdrilling are from hydraulic fracturing. The researchers recommended requiring disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluids, that nondisclosure agreements not be allowed when public health is at risk, testing animals raised near hydraulic fracturing sites and animal products (milk, cheese, etc.) from animal raised near hydraulic fracturing sites prior to selling them to market, monitoring of water, soil and air more closely, and testing the air, water, soil and animals prior to drilling and at regular intervals thereafter. CNN has reported flammable tap water in homes located near hydraulic fracturing sites in.

On October 18, 2013, the Ohio Department of Natural Resource-Division of Oil & Gas Resources Management found that the Kline's pre-drilling water sample showed methane was present in August 2012 before gas wells were drilled near their home. The report further states the gas was microbial in origin and not thermogenic like gas produced from gas wells. Research done by the ODNR found that naturally occurring methane gas was present in the aquifers of Nelson and Windham Townships of Portage County, Ohio.

A 2014 study of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania found that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were found in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. People with clinically significant skin problems increased from 3% to 13% over the same distances.

Methane leakage is one hazard associated with hydraulic fracturing natural gas. Is a prominent. Over a twenty-year period, it is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

In 2012 it accounted for 9% of all US greenhouse gas emissions. Natural Gas and Petroleum Systems are the largest contributor, providing 29% of the emissions.

Natural gas drilling companies are beginning to incorporate technologies called green completion to minimize methane leakage. The indirect effects of the increase in the supply of natural gas from fracking have only recently started to be measured. A 2016 study of air pollution from coal generation in the US found that there may have been indirect benefits from fracking through the displacement of coal by natural gas as an energy source. The increase in fracking from 2009 led to a drop in natural gas prices that made natural gas become more competitive with coal. This analysis estimates coal generation decreased as a result by 28%, which led to an average reduction of 4% in air pollution yielding positive health benefits.

However, this is only the case in the US and may not be applicable to other countries with lower coal generation rates. Impacts on human health [ ] The evidence about the potential detrimental health effects as a result of fracking have been mounting; threatening the well being of humans, animals and our environment. These pollutants, even when exposed to at low levels, can lead to a multitude of both short and long term symptoms. Many of these health consequences start off as acute issues, but due to long term exposure turn into chronic diseases. Volatile organic compounds and diesel particulate matter, for example, result in elevated air pollution concentrations that exceed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks.

According to the National Resources Defense Council, cancer causing pollutants such as benzene, formaldehyde, and diesel have been found in the air near fracking sites. These pollutants generate wastewater, which is linked to groundwater contamination, threatening nearby drinking water and causing concern for anyone who is exposed. Studies done by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, found that “Fracking also uses crystalline silica, which is a type of sand that’s used to keep the fractures open.” Exposure to this, along with dust and other air pollutants produced from fracking, can cause respiratory problems. The Environmental Working Group states that; 'Silica can impede breathing and cause respiratory irritation, cough, airway obstruction and poor lung function and Chronic or long-term exposure can lead to lung inflammation, bronchitis and emphysema and produce a severe lung disease known as silicosis, a form of pulmonary fibrosis.

Silica-related lung disease is incurable and can be fatal.' One of the most common types of pollutants released into the air from fracking is methylene chloride, thought to be one of the most concerning due to its potentially severe impact on neurological functioning. Once again, the impacts can range from acute and moderate to chronic and more severe. Dizziness, headaches, seizures and loss of consciousness have all been observed in people exposed to this deadly chemical. Longer-term impacts tend to present themselves in areas such as memory loss, lower IQ and delayed mental development. Expecting mothers are also being cautioned. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons released into the air from fracking has been linked to potential reproductive problems.

A study conducted by the Colorado Department of Environmental and Occupational Health found that “Mothers who live near fracking sites are 30 percent more likely to have babies with congenital heart defects.” The National Resource Defense Council also claims there’s the potential for “Harm to the developing heart, brain and nervous system. Because even short-term exposures to these pollutants at critical moments of development can result in long-lasting harm.” Despite researcher’s knowledge about the adverse health effects these pollutants can have on humans and the environment, it’s challenging to fully understand the direct health impacts that are a result from fracking and assess the potential long term health and environmental effects. This is because the oil and gas industry is legally protected from disclosing what is in the chemical compounds they use for fracking.

“Policies are also lacking in requiring full health impact assessments to be required before companies are given the go-ahead to drill” Workplace safety [ ] In 2013 the United States the (OSHA) and the (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 () during hydraulic fracturing.' 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. The EPA states in their Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan (2011) that the exposure to hydraulic fracturing chemicals in an occupational setting needs to be examined to determine the acute and chronic effects on health. The exposure risks such as “transport, mixing, delivery, and potential accidents” have not been properly assessed (p. 57). A 2012 OSH article outlined the risk of worker radiation exposure. Lawsuits [ ] The natural gas industry has responded to state and local regulations and prohibitions with two primary types of lawsuits: challenges, which argue that federal law prevents state governments from passing fracking restrictions, and challenges, which argue that the federal entitles a company to compensation when a fracking ban or limitation renders that company’s land useless.

In September 2010, a lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania alleging that contaminated aquifers through a defective cement casing in the well. There have been other cases as well. After court cases concerning contamination from hydraulic fracturing are settled, the documents are sealed, and information regarding contamination is not available to researchers or the public.

While the American Petroleum Institute deny that this practice has hidden problems with gas drilling, others believe it has and could lead to unnecessary risks to public safety and health. In June 2011, Northeast Natural Energy sued the town of, for its ban on hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale within a mile of the town's borders. The ban had been initiated to protect the municipal water supply as well as the town's inhabitants, in the absence at the state level of regulations specific to hydraulic fracturing. Regulation [ ] The number of proposed state regulations related to hydraulic fracturing has dramatically increased since 2005.

The majority specifically address one aspect of natural gas drilling, for example wastewater treatment, though some are more comprehensive and consider multiple regulatory concerns. The regulation and implementation process of hydraulic fracturing is a complex process involving many groups, stakeholders, and impacts. The EPA has the power to issue permits for drilling and underground injection, and to set regulations for the treatment of waste at the federal level. However, the scope of its authority is debated, and the oil and gas industry is considering lawsuits if guidance from the EPA is overly broad. States are required to comply with federal law and the regulations set by the EPA. States, however, have the power to regulate the activities of certain companies and industries within their borders - they can create safety plans and standards, management and disposal regulations, and public notice and disclosure requirements.

Land-use ordinances, production standards, and safety regulations can be set by local governments, but the extent of their authority (including their power to regulate gas drilling) is determined by state law. Pennsylvania’s Act 13 is an example of how state law can prohibit local regulation of hydraulic fracturing industries. In states including Ohio and New Mexico, the power to regulate is limited by provisions and other exemptions exist that preclude companies from disclosing the exact chemical content of their fluids.

Other challenges include abandoned or undocumented wells and hydraulic fracturing sites, regulatory loopholes in EPA and state policies, and inevitable limitations to the enforcement of these laws. Federal versus state regulation debate [ ] Since 2012 there has been discussion whether fracking should be regulated at the state or federal level.

Advocates of state level control of energy sources (e.g., oil, gas, wind and solar), argue that a state-by-state approach allows each state to create regulations and review processes that fit each state's particular geological, ecological and citizen concerns. Critics say that this would create a patchwork of inconsistent regulations. They also note that the components and consequences of energy development (e.g., emissions, commerce, wastewater, earthquakes, and radiation) may cross state lines. Local and state governments may also lack resources to initiate and defend against corporate legal action related to hydraulic fracturing. Those supporting federal regulation think it will provide a more consistent, uniform standard as needed for national environment and public health standards, like those related to water and air pollution (e.g., public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, protection of drinking water sources, and control of air pollutants). A compromise called, 'cooperative federalism' has been proposed like an approach used for coal since 1977.

Here, the federal government sets baseline standards rather than detailed specifications, and allows states to be more flexibile in meeting the standards. It would require the federal government to remove some regulatory exemptions for hydraulic fracturing (e.g., the, which exempted oil and gas producers from certain requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act), and develop a comprehensive set of regulations for the industry.

The EPA and the industry group the each provided grants to fund the organization State Review of Oil and Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER), to promote better state oversight of oil and gas environmental issues. At the invitation of a state the organization reviews their oil and gas environmental regulations in general, and hydraulic fracturing regulations in particular, and recommends improvements.

As of 2013 [ ], STRONGER has reviewed hydraulic fracturing regulations in six states: Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania (reviews available on the STRONGER website). [ ] [ ] Regulation at the state level of sets lower standard of regulations in terms of environmental issues than federal ones for different reasons. Firstly, states only have over their own territory so the potential areas affected by regulation may be more limited than the one.

Related to that, the EPA has power over inter-state or boundary resources such as rivers, thus a broader regulative power. Secondly, environmental issues at the scale of states are usually related to energetic and economic issues through energy administrations, leaving the often subsidiary to economic considerations, whereas the EPA's unique mandate concerns environmental issues, regardless of their economic or energetic aspect, since it is more independent from energy administrations. State regulations are therefore considered to be generally weaker than federal ones. Thirdly, state-level policies are more subject to discreet political majority changes and whereas theoretically work more independently from and thus deliver more continuity in terms of policy-making. The academic literature has increasingly stressed often competing regulatory of natural gas advocates and environmentalists. Environmentalists and the supporters of a approach have advocated federal and powerful inter-state regulation as well as democratic of local communities. They have therefore supported inter-state organizations that gather state and federal actors such as the when “natural gas policy” ones might not include federal actors.

However, natural gas production advocates have favored state-level and weaker inter-state regulations and the withdrawal of regulatory powers such as from local communities and institutions. They have only supported a subset of interstate organizations, typically those pledging support for weaker regulations and which do not include advocacy for regulatory powers such as the.

Proponents for state, rather than federal regulation argue that states, with local and historical knowledge of their unique, are better able to create effective policy than any standardized federal mandate. As well as industry leaders have had a major impact on the regulatory exemptions of hydraulic fracturing and continue to be the dominant voice in determining regulation in the United States. Federal [ ] Hydraulic fracturing has known impacts on the environment and potential unknown direct or indirect impacts on the environment and human health. It is therefore part of the EPA's area of regulation.

The EPA assures surveillance of the issuance of drilling permits when hydraulic fracturing companies employ. This is its main regulatory activity but it has been importantly reduced in its scope by the that excluded hydraulic fracturing from the ’s Underground Injection Control’s regulation, except when diesel is used. This has raised concerns about the efficiency of permit issuance control. In addition to this mission, the EPA works with states to provide safe disposal of from hydraulic fracturing, has partnerships with other administrations and companies to reduce the air emissions from hydraulic fracturing, particularly from methane employed in the process, and tries to ensure both compliance to regulatory standards and transparency for all stakeholders implied in the implementation process of hydraulic fracturing. On August 7, 1997, the ordered the United States Environmental Protection Agency to reevaluate its stance on hydraulic fracturing based on a lawsuit brought by the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation. Until that decision, the EPA deemed that hydraulic fracturing did not fall under the rules in the.

While the impact of this decision was localized to Alabama, it forced the EPA to evaluate its oversight responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act for hydraulic fracturing. In 2004, the EPA released a study that concluded the threat to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing was “minimal”. In the, Congress exempted fractured wells from being re-classified as, which fall under a part of the Safe Drinking Water Act that was originally intended to regulate disposal wells. The act did not exempt hydraulic fracturing wells that include diesel fuel in the fracturing fluid. Some members have petitioned the EPA to interpret 'diesel fuel' broadly to increase the agency's regulatory power over hydraulic fracturing. They argue that the current limitation is intended not to prevent the use of a small subset of diesel compounds, but rather as a safety measure to decrease the probability of accidental groundwater contamination with toxic BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes) that are present in diesel compounds.

Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The, introduced in June 2009, would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved UIC programs. In November 2012, the was considering to study a potential link between fracturing and drinking water contamination. House energy leaders advised (HHS) Secretary to be cautious in the study. They argued the study, if not properly done, could hinder job growth. They worried that the study could label naturally occurring substances in groundwater as contaminants, that the CDC would limit hydraulic fracturing in the interest of public health, and that the 'scientific objectivity of the [HHS] [wa]s being subverted' as the CDC was considering whether to study the question.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the EPA would use its power to protect residents if drillers endangered water supplies and state and local authorities did not take action. In March 2015, Democrats in Congress reintroduced a series of regulations known as the 'Frack Pack.' These regulations were imposed on the domestic petroleum industry. The package would regulate hydraulic fracturing under the and require chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid to be disclosed to the public. It would require pollution tests of water sources before and during petroleum development.

It would require oil and gas producers to hold permits in order to increase runoff. New regulations set safety standards for how used chemicals are stored around well sites and necessitate companies to submit information on their well geology to the Bureau of Land Management, which is a section of the Interior Department. The 'Frack Pack' has received criticism, especially from The Western Energy Alliance petroleum industry group, for duplicating state regulations that already exist.

On January 22, 2016, the Obama administration announced new regulations for emissions from oil and gas on federal lands to be regulated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to decrease impacts made on global warming and climate change. This became known as the “BLM fracking rule”, and would take effect on March 31 extending into Federal, Indian, and Public lands.

This rule would apply to more than 750 million areas of Federal and Indian lands and regulated chemical disclosure, well integrity, and flowback water management. This rule would require companies to identify the chemicals being used in hydraulic fracturing and their purpose. This requirement would only extend to chemicals used after, not before, fracking to protect company chemical mix recipes. But, not knowing the chemicals beforehand eliminates the government's ability to test the water for a baseline reading to know if the process is contaminating water sources or not.

Well integrity is vital to ensure that oil, gas, and other fracking chemicals are not being leached into direct drinking water sources. The rule would require operators to submit a cement bond log to ensure that drinking water has been properly isolated from the water that will be used. Finally, the BLM requires companies to provide their estimated waste water totals along with a disposal plan.

The fracking rule was met with critiques for not requiring more transparency from corporations on chemicals being used before drilling into wells. On March 2, 2017, the EPA announced that they were withdrawing their request that operators in the oil and natural gas industry provide information on equipment and emissions until further data is collected that this information is necessary. Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act [ ] Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by supporting The, introduced in June 2009, but has so far refused. In June 2009 two identical bills named the were introduced to both the United States House and the Senate. The House bill was introduced by representatives, D-Colo., D-N.Y., and, D-Colo. The Senate version was introduced by senators, D-Pa., and, D-N.Y. These bills are designed to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act.

This would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate hydraulic fracturing that occurs in states which have not taken primacy in UIC regulation. The bill required the energy industry to reveal what chemicals are being used in the sand-water mixture. The adjourned on January 3, 2011, without taking any significant action on the FRAC Act. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the. In the Senate, Sen. (D-PA) introduced S.

587 on March 15, 2011. In the House, Rep.

(D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011. As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The bills.

The oil and gas industry contributes heavily to campaign funds. Federal lands [ ] In May 2012, the Department of Interior released updated regulations on hydraulic fracturing, for wells on federal lands. However, Guggenheim Washington Research Group found that only about 5% of the shale wells drilled in the past 10 years were on federal land.

Voluntary disclosure of additives [ ]. See also: and In April 2011, the Ground Water Protection Council, in conjunction with the industry, began releasing well-by-well lists of hydraulic fracturing chemicals. Disclosure is still on a voluntary basis; companies are still not required to provide information about their hydraulic fracturing techniques and fluids that they consider to be proprietary. Lists do not include all substances used; a complete listing of the specific chemical formulation of additives used in hydraulic fracturing operations is still not currently made available to landowners, neighbors, local officials, or health care providers, let alone the public. This practice is under scrutiny. [ ] Two studies released in 2009, one by the DOE and the other released by the Ground Water Protection Council, discuss hydraulic fracturing safety concerns. [ ] Chemicals which can be used in the fracturing fluid include,,,, and.

State and local [ ] The controversy over hydraulic fracturing has led to legislation and court cases over primacy of state regulation versus the rights of local governments to regulate or ban oil and gas drilling. Some states have introduced legislation that limits the ability of municipalities to use zoning to protect citizens from exposure to pollutants from hydraulic fracturing by protecting residential areas. Such laws have been created in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York. Local regulations can be a dominant force in enacting drilling ordinances, creating safety standards and production regulations, and enforcing particular standards. However, in many cases state law can intervene and dominate local law. In Texas, the has the authority to regulate certain industries and the specifics of their safety standards and production regulations. In this case, the state determined the zoning, permitting, production, delivery, and safety standards.

In New York, local land use laws are considered in state regulations, and in Pennsylvania, the state's Oil and Gas Act superseded all local ordinances purporting to regulate gas well operations.” Additionally, in 2013 become the largest city in the US to pass a hydraulic fracturing moratorium. Alaska [ ] Hydraulic fracturing has been conducted at the North Slope and the Kenai Peninsula on the South coast of Alaska.

Due to potential harm to Alaska's fragile environment, there have been hearings on new regulations for this type of oil extraction. California [ ] In May 2012 the California Senate defeated a bill, introduced by state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), requiring drillers to notify local property owners and water authorities in advance that hydraulic fracturing was going to occur, and requiring the testing of groundwater before and after the hydraulic fracturing to determine whether contamination had occurred. Pavley said that this monitoring and reporting approach would help to address citizens' concerns. The state Senate defeated the bill in a bipartisan 18-17 vote. The California legislature passed Senate Bill 4 to regulate hydraulic fracturing in September 2013.

The bill, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, provided for disclosure of chemical used, pre-testing of nearby water wells, and a study on environmental and safety issues. These regulations, which went into effect on January 1, 2015, require 'oil companies to obtain permits for fracking as well as acidizing, the use of hydrofluoric acid and other chemicals to dissolve shale rock.' Democratic Senator Fran Pavley, who introduced the bill, hoped that it would comprehensively regulate and oversee hydraulic fracturing, as well as create transparency for the public.

The bill seemed to be a step in the right direction for environmentalists, but some criticized the bill as being too lax. Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity said: “SB 4 was amended in the final hours of the legislative session to take it from to a bill that didn't go far enough to protect Californians from fracking to a bill that actually gave away important protections to oil companies.' Some environmentalists promised not to rest until fracking is banned completely. Oil industry representatives also criticized the bill as too restrictive. The measure was supported by state Sen. Fran Pavley, author of a fracking bill defeated the previous year. Municipal level [ ] Several cities within California are working toward banning or placing strict restrictions on hydraulic fracturing.

The two cities most actively fighting hydraulic fracturing are Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. Los Angeles is working toward a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and Beverly Hills has banned the process altogether. Beverly Hills [ ] Beverly Hills, which is built above the, has become the first California Municipality to effectively ban hydraulic fracturing. On April 21, 2014, the city council met and members voted unanimously to ban hydraulic fracturing in their city. Along with members in the Beverly Hills' council, there were also anti-fracking representatives from other cities hoping to achieve similar outcomes. Environmentalists conclude that there is no safe way to frack and that the process can lead to air and water pollution, as well as an increase in earthquakes. For these reasons, fracking needs to be banned not just regulated.

The second and final vote to enact the ban on hydraulic fracturing was held on May 6. The vote was again unanimous, and Beverly Hills became the first city in California to actively ban the technique for extracting natural gas and oil. There were no official plans to implement hydraulic fracturing in Beverly Hills, but the process was taking place in surrounding areas in the Los Angeles county. The ban will take effect on June 6. Colorado [ ] In November 2013, voters in three Colorado cities (Boulder, Fort Collins, and Loveland) approved ballot initiatives to impose or extend moratoria on hydraulic fracturing. At the same time, Broomfield voters narrowly defeated an anti-fracking initiative.

Fracking in Colorado remains tight and regulations unclear. There are several anti-fracking groups that continue to offer instances of environmental endangerment in debates for regulations, while the pro-fracking community continues to probe towards these endangerments as a past concern with new regulations being constructed. Part of these regulations include the Oil and Gas Task Force being required to disclose the chemicals being used during fracking. These types of rulings are slowing the fracking process down in Colorado and continue to come up only, making it more difficult for Oil and Gas companies to continue fracking while complying with the regulations.

[ ] History of fracking in Colorado [ ] While relatively new in the public spotlight of Colorado fracking in the state has actual been going on since the 1973 when the first large scale fracking operation began in the Wattenberg gas field in weld county, CO. 1992 there were two landmark decisions made in Colorado that were upheld by the supreme court, these were La Plata and Voss counties in Colorado. The La Plata county ruling held up an ordinance that oil and gas companies must receive special permitting from the county commissioner or planning staff before drilling can begin.

The ruling in Voss county upheld a ban on hydraulic fracturing in Greeley, CO as it is a home-ruled municipality, this ban was being challenged by the oil and gas industry. The next major ruling on fracking in Colorado came in 2012 when Longmont passed ballot measure 300, banning hydraulic fracturing and other uses of hydrocarbons for the extraction of gas and oil. The Colorado oil and gas association is currently suing Longmont over the ballot measure and the case has yet to be argued. In 2013 flooding in the Colorado front range caused 14 oil spills totaling 48,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Colorado front range. Future ballot initiatives [ ] There are currently two ballot initiatives in Colorado that deal directly with fracking policy. • ^ Montgomery, Carl T.; Smith, Michael B. JPT Online.: 26–41.

Archived from (PDF) on November 14, 2012. Retrieved 22 September 2014. Of Energy,, Apr. • ^ Marie Cusick (August 27, 2013).. State Impact Pennsylvania..

Retrieved October 19, 2013. • ^ Urbina, Ian (August 3, 2011).. The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2012. • • Fox, Josh (June 18, 2010).. Science Friday (Interview). Interview with Ira Flatow.:.

Retrieved June 21, 2010. • Margot Roosevelt (June 18, 2010).. Retrieved June 21, 2010. June 21, 2010. Retrieved June 21, 2010. March 17, 2011.

Retrieved October 6, 2012. December 8, 2011. Retrieved December 9, 2011. • ^ Pamela Wood (27 March 2017).. The Baltimore Sun. • Watson, Thomas L.

(1910), (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin (426), retrieved 22 September 2014 [ ] • Charlez, Philippe A. Paris: Editions Technip. Retrieved May 14, 2012. • 'Plowing back oil,' Newsweek, 26 June 1950, p.49.

• Zaffarano, R.F.; Lankford, J.D. 'Petroleum and natural gas'.. Washington, D.C. UNT Digital Library: US Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 630. Retrieved 22 September 2014. Law and Charles W.

Spencer, 1993, 'Gas in tight reservoirs-an emerging major source of energy,' in David G. Howell (ed.),, US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1570, p.233–252. Holman, and R. 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:, 1977) 293-300. • Russ Rountree, 'Rocky Mountain Oil History,' Western Oil Reporter, v.41 n.10, Oct. • 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:, 1977) 285-291. • US Environmental Protection Agency,, EPA 816-R-04-003 (2004) p3-11, 5-14. • Stephen Holditch,, Texas A&M Univ. • E&P Magazine, 4 Sept. • C.E Bell and others,, Society of Petroleum Engineers conference paper, 1993. Ray,, US Energy Research and Development Administration, 1976. •; Committee to Review the Gas Research Institute's Research; Development Demonstration Program; (1989).

A review of the management of the Gas Research Institute. National Academies. • ^ Robbins, Kalyani (2013). Case Western Reserve Law Review. Archived from (PDF) on 2014-03-26. Retrieved 2016-09-18.

• Gold, Russell (2014). The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World. New York: Simon & Schuster. • Zukerman, Gregory (2013-11-06).. The Atlantis.

Retrieved 2016-09-18. • • SPE production & operations. • • Zuckerman, Gregory (2013-11-15).. Retrieved 15 November 2013.

The Economist (June 2, 2012). Retrieved June 2, 2012. • Hallibuton, April 11, 2013, at the. • ^ Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting (April 2009). Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy; and National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Retrieved 8 October 2014. • Rowland, Sebastian (29 May 2012).. University of Pennsylvania Law School. Penn Program on Regulation. Archived from on 8 October 2014. Retrieved 8 October 2014.

Land & Water: Conserving Natural Resources in Illinois. University of Illinois Extension - College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (16). September 2007. Retrieved 8 October 2014. • Moniz (chair), Ernest J.; Jacoby (Co-Chair), Henry D.; Meggs (Co-Chair), Anthony J.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Archived from (PDF) on March 12, 2013.

Retrieved October 8, 2014. • ^, Fetzer, Thiemo (2014) •, Alcott and Kenniston (2013) • 'The housing market impacts of shale gas development', by Lucija Muehlenbachs, Elisheba Spiller and Christopher Timmins. NBER Working Paper 19796, January 2014.

• ^ (PDF) (Report). Energy Information Administration.

Retrieved 17 September 2014. • National Petroleum Council, Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, 15 September 2011. • IHS Global Insight,, 2009. • US Energy Information Administration, United States Annual Energy Outlook 2012, p.208. • US Energy Information Administration, • Adam Sieminski,, US Energy Information Administration, 14 Mar.

• Jad Mouwad,, The New York Times, April 2012. •, Bloomberg, 11 Sept. • Danny Fortson (September 11, 2011)... Retrieved March 4, 2012. Goldman Sachs, the investment bank, has predicted that US production will hit 10.9m barrels a day by 2017, a one-third rise over its current level of 8.3m barrels a day.... Jeffrey Currie, Goldman's head of commodities, said the reversal of fortune for America was a combination of 'technological innovation, as shale technologies developed in gas were applied to oil, and a surge of investment into the US oil industry'.

• Paul Ames (30 May 2013).. Retrieved May 30, 2012.

• Rich Miller; Asjylyn Loder; Jim Polson (February 7, 2012).. Retrieved February 21, 2012. • Benoit Faucon and Sarah Kent, 'IEA pegs U.S.

As top producer by 2020,' The Wall Street Journal, 12 Nov. • US EIA,, 4 October 2013. International Energy Agency. November 9, 2011. Retrieved March 3, 2012. Based on the assumptions of the GAS Scenario, from 2010 gas use will rise by more than 50% and account for over 25% of world energy demand in 2035—surely a prospect to designate the Golden Age of Gas. • Polson, Jim; Haas, Benjamin (January 4, 2012)..

Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from on August 17, 2013. Retrieved February 4, 2014.

• Carroll, Joe; Polson, Jim (January 9, 2012).. Bloomberg Businessweek.

Retrieved February 4, 2014. • Scott, Mark (October 17, 2011)..

The New York Times. Retrieved March 4, 2012. The Geology Society of America. January 3, 2012. Retrieved March 4, 2012. • Urbina, Ian (June 25, 2011)..

The New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2011.

• Urbina, Ian (June 27, 2011).. The New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2011. Brisbane, The New York Times, 16 July 2001.

• Global Macroeconomics Team.. Prospects Weekly.

The World Bank Group. Archived from on November 27, 2012. Retrieved 15 September 2014. • Editorial (February 16, 2012).. Retrieved February 21, 2012.

• McAllister, Edward (March 7, 2012) Drivers License Center Snydersville Pa Hours. .. Retrieved March 8, 2012. StateImpact Pennsylvania.

Retrieved 16 September 2014. •, The Wall Street Journal, 1 January 2014 • ^ Taraska, Gwynne.. Energy and Environment. Center for American Progress. Retrieved 15 September 2014. Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved 15 September 2014.

• Rascoe, Ayesha (February 7, 2012).. Retrieved February 4, 2014. • ^ Gies, Erica (February 24, 2012)..

Retrieved February 4, 2014. • Maykuth, Andrew (2 March 2012).. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 16 September 2014. • Barnhardt, Laura (April 19, 2006).. The Baltimore Sun.

Retrieved March 6, 2012. • Prezioso, Jeanine (July 28, 2011).. Retrieved March 6, 2012. Environmental Protection Agency's Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan Draft 2011. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved May 3, 2011.

• ^ King, Hobart.. Retrieved 9 October 2014. • Whittmeyer, Hannah (17 June 2013).. Retrieved 13 October 2014. • Conlin, Michelle; Grow, Brian (9 October 2013).

Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 9 October 2014. • Ian Urbina; Jo Craven McGinty (December 1, 2011).. The New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2012.

• Lovejoy, Wallace F.; Homan, Paul T. Economic aspects of oil conservation regulation. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.. • Peters, Andy (13 October 2014).. American Banker.

Retrieved 13 October 2014. • Ian Urbina (October 19, 2011).. The New York Times.

Retrieved February 23, 2012. • Ian Urbina (November 24, 2011)..

The New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2012. • Mary Esch; Rik Stevens (July 13, 2012).. Associated Press. Archived from on October 13, 2014. Retrieved July 14, 2012. • ^ (PDF) (Report).

Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives. April 18, 2011. Archived from (PDF) on October 4, 2013. • ^ Brown, Valerie J.

(February 2007). 'Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas'. Environmental Health Perspectives (115(2).). US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. December 2011. Retrieved February 23, 2012.

• Ian Urbina (March 3, 2011).. The New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2012. • (March 30, 2010)... Retrieved February 21, 2012.

• Daphne Wysham (February 6, 2012)... Retrieved February 22, 2012.

• ^ Ramanuja, Krishna (March 7, 2012).. Cornell Chronicle Online. Cornell University. Retrieved March 9, 2012.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation. • Hass, Benjamin (14 August 2012).. Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 27, 2013. • Soraghan, Mike (13 December 2013).. Retrieved March 27, 2013. Environmental Defense Fund.

Retrieved March 27, 2013. • Maykuth, Andrew (22 January 2012).. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved March 27, 2013. • Grant, Alison (4 April 2013)...

Retrieved July 28, 2013. Retrieved July 28, 2013. • Environmental and Energy Study Institute..

• Ikeda, Robin (April 26, 2013).. CDC Washington. US Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved May 11, 2013.

• ^ DiCosmo, Bridget (May 15, 2012).. US Environmental Protection Agency.

Retrieved May 19, 2012. 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.” • Deborah L. Swackhamer and David Dzomback,, 4 Aug. • Satterfield, John (June 30, 2011). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved May 19, 2012.

Bartrand; Jeffrey S. Rosen (October 2013). (PDF) (Report).

Water Research Foundation. Retrieved November 11, 2013. • Jeff McMahon (April 10, 2011).. Retrieved February 22, 2012.

June 30, 2011. Archived from on January 31, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2012. • Sandy Bauers (July 21, 2011).. The Philadelphia Inquirer, Carbon County Groundwater Guardians.

Retrieved February 25, 2012. • Scott III, George L. (03-June-1997) US Patent No. 5635712: Method for monitoring the hydraulic fracturing of a subterranean formation.

US Patent Publications. • Fertl; Walter H. (15-Nov-1983) US Patent No. US4415805: Method and apparatus for evaluating multiple stage fracturing or earth formations surrounding a borehole. US Patent Publications. • Scott III, George L. (15-Aug-1995) US Patent No.

US5441110: System and method for monitoring fracture growth during hydraulic fracture treatment. US Patent Publications.

• April 17, 2012, at the. • Andrews, Anthony; et al. (30 October 2009). (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 22 February 2012.

• ^ Abdalla, Charles W.; Drohan, Joy R. (PDF) (Report).. 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) • Ground Water Protection Council; ALL Consulting (April 2009). (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 24 February 2012. Daniel; Uretsky, Mike; Wilson, Preston (May 5–6, 2010).

Meeting of the American Institute of Professional Geologists.: ALL Consulting. Retrieved 2012-05-09. • Cothren, Jackson.

(PDF) (Report). Geological Survey, Arkansas Water Science Center Arkansas Water Resources Center, American Water Resources Association, Arkansas State Section Fayetteville Shale Symposium 2012. 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 • Ridlington, Elizabeth; John Rumpler (October 3, 2013).. Environment America. • Lubber, Mindy (28 May 2013)... Retrieved 20 October 2013.

• ^ Ridlington, Rumpler, Environment America, October 2013 [ ] •, The River Reporter, June 10–16, 2010 • Anya Litvak,, Pittsburgh business Times, June 9, 2010. • Casselman, Ben (August 13, 2009).. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 8, 2011. Associated Press. June 12, 2009. • Caroline Zilk,, Arkansas Online, 31 July 2011.

• Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, April 18, 2015, at the., 20 Jun. • Joyce, Christopher,, National Public Radio, January 5, 2012. • David Brown, AAPG Explorer, Oct.

Office of the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Government of Oklahoma. April 21, 2015. Retrieved April 24, 2015. Office of the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Government of Oklahoma.

April 21, 2015. Retrieved April 24, 2015. Earthquake Hazards Program. United States Geological Survey. September 24, 2014. Archived from (PNG) on April 25, 2015. Retrieved April 24, 2015.

• Wertz, Joe (9 December 2016).. Retrieved 6 March 2017. • Press, Associated (2 December 2016)..

The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 March 2017. Geertsma,, Journal of Petroleum Technology, June 1973, v.25 n.6 p.734-743. • Department of Energy and Climate Change, October 9, 2015, at the., Feb. • McHaney, Sarah (October 21, 2012).. Retrieved October 21, 2012. Retrieved May 8, 2011.

[ ] • Hanson, Hilary (January 12, 2013).. The Huffington Post. • ^ • Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) Environ Health Perspect DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732 [ ] [ ] • ^ • • Johnsen, Reid; LaRiviere, Jacob; Woff, Hendrik. Retrieved 10 November 2016.

• Finkel; Hays (2015). 'Environmental and health impacts of 'fracking': why epidemiological studies are necessary'. Epidemiol Community Health. 70 (3): 221–222.. National Resource Defense Council. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. • Glauser, Wendy (2014).

'New legitimacy to concerns about fracking and health'. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal. 186 (6): E245–E246.. • McKenzie; Guo; Witter; Savitz; Newman; Adgate (April 2014).. Environmental Health Perspectives: Children's Health. National Resource Defense Council. Retrieved 22 October 2016.

• Kron, A (2015). Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. 16 (4): 586.. • Hoffman, J.. Retrieved 26 October 2016. Retrieved 15 January 2013.

• Eric Esswein, MSPH; Max Kiefer, MS; John Snawder; Michael Breitenstein, BS (23 May 2012).. NIOSH Science Blog.. Retrieved September 8, 2012.

• Gayle Nicoll (October 1, 2012).. Occupational Health and Safety. Retrieved October 6, 2012. • RegBlog (August 18, 2015)..

Retrieved October 22, 2015. • Rubinkam M, Esch M. (September 10, 2010). September 7, 2011, at the. • Associated Press (June 27, 2011).. Bloomberg Businessweek.

Retrieved June 28, 2011. • Pless, Jacquelyn.. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved 15 September 2014. • ^ Negro, Sorrell E. (February 2012).

Zoning and Planning Law Report.. 35 (2): 1–14. Retrieved 2014-05-01. •, Trade Secrets Watch, October 2013 • Kiparsky, Michael; Hein, Jayni Foley (April 2013). Archived from (PDF) on May 13, 2013. Retrieved 2014-05-01.

• ^ Freeman, Jody (July 5, 2012)... Retrieved October 19, 2012. • ^ Eggert, David (October 19, 2012)..

Retrieved October 19, 2012. • Karlin, Rick (July 31, 2012).. Retrieved October 19, 2012. • Nicholson, Barclay; Blanson, Kadian (December 5, 2012)..

Retrieved October 19, 2012. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 10 October 2014. • State Review of Oil and Gas Environmental Regulations, • ^ Davis C and Hoffer K, Policy Science, Volume 45, September 2012 •, Environmental Protection Agency •. Virginia Environmental Law Journal.

November 11, 2008. Archived from on June 12, 2009. Environment and Natural Resources. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved 22 September 2014.

• • ^ Mulkern, Anne C. (May 7, 2009).. The New York Times.

Retrieved May 4, 2010. • Colman, Zack (November 30, 2012).. The Hill (E 2 Wire).

Retrieved February 4, 2014. • Staff (30 November 2012).. Beltway Confidential.

The Examiner. Retrieved December 1, 2012. • Wayne, Alex; Klimasinska, Katarzyna (January 4, 2012).. Retrieved February 4, 2014. Archived from on April 2, 2015. Retrieved April 2, 2015. • • 'Fracking in the United States - Ballotpedia'.

Retrieved 2017-05-02. • ^ 'BLM issues final rules on hardrock mining'. Engineering and Mining Journal.

• ^ O'Neil, Lauren (May 14, 2012). [go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&sw=w&u=cmu_main&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA290857971&it=r&asid=41e960d5cb6a2222bf8cef 'Greens, industry both shellacking middle-ground BLM fracking rule'] Check url= value (). Natural Gas Week. Check date values in: date= () • 'BLM's Proposed Fracking Rule' (PDF). • EPA, OA, OEAEE, OMR, US. 'EPA Withdraws Information Request for the Oil and Gas Industry'.

Retrieved 2017-05-02. Retrieved March 9, 2012. Retrieved March 9, 2012. Retrieved March 9, 2012. • Litvak, Anya (20 April 2011).. • Mireya Navarro (12 July 2011)..

The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2012. • Suddes, Thomasn (January 14, 2012)... Retrieved March 26, 2012. McDermott Will & Emery. April 1, 2012.

Retrieved July 3, 2012. • • Hiltzik, Michael (9 June 2012)... Retrieved June 9, 2012. •, NBC Bay Area, 12 Sept. • Bernstein, Sharon. 'California Fracking Bill Signed Into Law By Governor Jerry Brown.' The Huffington Post.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Sept. • ^ Stock, Stephen (13 Sep 2013).. NBC Bay Area. National Broadcasting Company.

Retrieved 18 September 2014. • Mark Melincoe,, Bloomberg, 12 Sept, 2013. • ^ Feldman, Dana. 'Beverly Hills Bans Fracking; First City In California To Do So.' The Huffington Post 7 May 2014. 14 May 2014.. • O'Connor, Lydia.

'California City Becomes First to Vote to Ban Fracking.' The Huffington Post 24 Apr. • Streeja VN,, International Business Times, 6 Nov. 2013 • Elliott, Dan.. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 9 July 2015. • ^ Minor, Joel (January 2014)...

33 (1): 61–122. • Ray, Kelsey.. The Colorado Independent. • Minor, Joel (Journal 61, 2014).

'Local Government Fracking Regulation: A Colorado Case Study'. Stanford Environmental Law. Check date values in: date= () • 'Local Government Liable Fracking Ban Oil And Gas Moratorium Colorado General Assembly'. Retrieved 2017-05-02. Colorado State University Department of Atmospheric Science. Retrieved 20 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.

Colorado School of Public Health. Retrieved 2 October 2016. • Adler, Ben..

Retrieved 22 October 2016. • Adler, Ben.. Retrieved 22 October 2016. • Wheeler, Tim (September 12, 2012)... Retrieved February 4, 2014. The Baltimore Sun. April 5, 2017.

• ^ Jim, Malewitz (24 September 2012).. The Daily News Service of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved 13 November 2013. The Huffington Post. 10 January 2012. Retrieved 13 November 2013.

• Navarro, Mireya (30 November 2010).. The New York Times Company. • Navarro, Mireya (20 September 2012).. The New York Times Company. Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and New York City water supply. Sci Total Environ. 2013 Sep 1;461-462:158-69.

Doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.093. Epub 2013 May 28. • Editorial Board (17 December 2014)... Retrieved 18 December 2014.

• Brady, Jeff (December 18, 2014).. National Public Radio. Retrieved 6 January 2015. • • Barnes, Shawnee (12 July 2011)..

Ithaca Journal. Retrieved July 14, 2011. [ ] • Munzer, Aaron (30 June 2011).. Asesinato En El Canadian Express Pdf Online. Ithaca Journal. Retrieved July 14, 2011.

[ ] • Martin, Alyson (13 July 2011).. Ithaca Journal. Retrieved July 14, 2011.

[ ] • AP (July 8, 2011).. Ithaca Journal. Archived from on February 4, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2011. • NYC DEP, 2011 • ^ Gerken, James (March 6, 2012).. The Huffington Post.

Associated Press. Retrieved March 8, 2012. • James Zehringer,, 16 May 2013. May 24, 2012. Retrieved June 9, 2012. May 25, 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2012.

• John Funk (May 24, 2012).... Retrieved June 9, 2012. • John Funk (May 20, 2012).... Retrieved June 9, 2012.

• Jordan Cohen,, Vindy, 19 Sept. • 'House Bill 50 - Summary The Ohio Legislature'. Retrieved 2017-05-02. • Goldstein, B. D.; Kriesky, J; Pavliakova, B (April 2012)..

Environmental Health Perspectives. 120 (4): 483–486.... • November 9, 2012, at the. Marcellus.psu.edu, Marcellus Center at Pennsylvania State University • • Matt Kelso (August 20, 2013).. StateImpact Pennsylvania.

Retrieved October 19, 2013. • Susan Phillips (2 November 2012).. StateImpact Pennsylvania. Retrieved November 10, 2012. • David Caruso (2011-01-03).. NBC Philadelphia. Associated Press.

Retrieved April 28, 2012. • Howarth, Robert W.; Santoro, Renee; Ingraffea, Anthony (13 March 2011). Climatic Change..

106 (4): 679–690.:. Retrieved May 7, 2012. • Howarth, Robert W.; Ingraffea, Anthony; Engelder, Terry (15 September 2011). 'Should Fracking Stop?

Extracting gas from shale increases the availability of this resource, but the health and environmental risks may be too high. Point: Yes, it's too high risk'.. 477 (7364): 271–275.. • ^ (March 8, 2012)...

Retrieved February 21, 2012. • ^ Don Hopey (February 24, 2011)..

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved March 7, 2012. Associated Press. March 3, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2012. [ ] • Conrad D. Volz; Kyle Ferrar; Drew Michanowicz; Charles Christen; Shannon Kearney; Matt Kelso; Samantha Malone (March 28–29, 2011).

EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Technical Workshop 3, Fate and Transport. Retrieved February 4, 2014. Baumann (July 20, 2012).. Archived from on October 4, 2013.

Retrieved July 21, 2012. •, Marcellus Outreach Butler • Sheppard, Kate (March 23, 2012)..

Mother Jones. Retrieved March 23, 2012. Associate Press. March 6, 2012. Retrieved May 11, 2013. March 5, 2012.

Retrieved May 11, 2013. November 17, 2011. • ^ Ian Urbina (February 26, 2011).. The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2012. • Olson, Laura (Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau) (July 7, 2011)..

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved March 7, 2012. • • ^ • • • • •. May 17, 2012. Retrieved August 15, 2012.

• CNN Wire Staff (May 17, 2012).. Archived from on May 27, 2012. Retrieved June 9, 2012. • White, Rodney (May 4, 2012).. Washington (Platts). Retrieved May 4, 2012. • Cook, Jeffery (June 2014).

'RESEARCH ARTICLE: Who's Regulating Who? Analyzing Fracking Policy in Colorado, Wyoming, and Louisiana'.

Environmental Practice. • Brendan, Casey,; Annie, McDonald-Schwartz,; Julia, Pershken,; Derek, Porter,; Tara, Sharp, (2013-01-01). 'Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations'. Williams,, June 8, 2010, The Colorado Independent.

•, June 9, 2010, trib.com • 'Vision - Center for Responsible Shale Development'. Center for Responsible Shale Development. Retrieved 2017-05-02. • Center for Responsible Shale Development. 'Accreditation Process' (PDF).

• Javers, Eamon (November 8, 2011)... • Phillips, Susan (November 9, 2011)... • Adam Aigner-Treworgy (February 9, 2012).. Retrieved February 24, 2012. • • July 15, 2010, at the., Investopedia Further reading [ ] • Wilber, Tom (2012).

Under the Surface: Fracking, Fortunes, and the Fate of the Marcellus Shale. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.. External links [ ] • – United States Geological Survey • – Bureau of Land Management • – California Department of Conservation • – Michigan Department of Environmental Quality • – City of New York.