the social and environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing in the united states of america (2)
TRANSCRIPT
The Social and Environmental Effects of
Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States of
America
Imran Sean Khan
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science in Process Systems
Engineering
Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences
University of Surrey
September 2014
© Imran Sean Khan 2014
1 | P a g e
Declaration of Originality
"I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled ‘The Social and Environmental Effects
of Hydraulic Fracturing in the United Sates of America’ for the partial fulfilment of
the degree of MSc in Process Systems Engineering, has been composed by myself
and has not been presented or accepted in any previous application for a degree.
The work, of which this is a record, has been carried out by myself unless otherwise
stated and where the work is mine, it reflects personal views and values. All
quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks and all sources of
information have been acknowledged by means of references including those of the
Internet."
Student’s name: Imran Khan
Date: 15th September 2014
2 | P a g e
Abstract
Unconventional sources of natural gas are abundant in the United States and there
is a clear energy shift away from oil. Hydraulic fracturing has allowed once
inaccessible reservoirs of shale gas to now be developed. Global energy concerns
regarding our energy security means that fracking is a process that holds great
economic importance. However the shale-gas boom in America has created great
social unrest and there has been claims of adverse environmental effects. This paper
will investigate the social and environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing in the
United States and determine its true implications. Opponents of fracking and media
coverage have damaged the industries public image affecting the industries social
and legal licence to operate. The fracking debate has created sharp tensions however
it is clear that the process is a necessity to meet a rising populations energy
demands. This project will use the findings from reviewing and critically analysing
relevant publications to develop an implementation plan to reduce the social and
environmental effects. Based on the findings made in this study it was concluded
that fracking does have social and environmental implications however both
opponents and the gas industry are to blame. The proposed effects of fracking have
been magnified by opponents which in itself has created social unrest. However oil
and gas companies have undermined some of the effects and have displayed a lack
of transparency. The research shows that fracking can be integrated into society
however more can be done to minimise the effects.
Word Count: 13,508
3 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Declaration of Originality ............................................................................................ 1
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 2
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Process Description ....................................................................................... 9
1.3 Research Aims and Objectives .................................................................... 12
1.4 Project Scope................................................................................................ 12
1.5 Report Structure ........................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: Methodology ............................................................................................ 14
2.1 Research Approach and Questions .............................................................. 14
2.2 Data Collection and Literature Review........................................................ 15
2.3 Data Interpretation ....................................................................................... 16
2.4 Research Challenges..................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3: Literature Review ..................................................................................... 17
3.1 Social ................................................................................................................. 17
3.1.1 Community Impact .................................................................................... 17
3.1.2 Hydro-Social Cycle ..................................................................................... 30
3.1.3 Social Unrest ............................................................................................... 31
3.3 Environmental .................................................................................................. 34
3.3.1 Water Contamination ................................................................................. 35
3.3.2 Air Pollution ............................................................................................... 43
Chapter 4: Results ...................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................ 48
5.1 Social Plan ......................................................................................................... 48
5.2 Environmental Plan .......................................................................................... 50
Chapter 6: Conclusion................................................................................................ 52
4 | P a g e
6.1 Summary........................................................................................................... 52
6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 54
References .................................................................................................................. 55
5 | P a g e
oil Coal natural gas
Consumption change -18% -12% 21%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Ch
an
ge
in C
on
sum
pti
on
Shift in Energy Usage in the U.S.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
Global dependence upon fossil fuel is expanding and as the population rises our
energy security is increasingly scrutinised. An international energy outlook by the
U.S Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2014) highlights the worlds expected
energy growth; the findings are shown in the following table:
The rise in energy usage is evident as is the international reliance on fossil fuels.
However the growing population and increasing energy usage has depleted
international reserves, mainly coal and oil reserves. This has led to a shift in energy
consumption in the United States, BPs Energy Outlook 2035 projects energy usages
in the US over the next few decades. There is a clear reduction in the amount of oil
and coal consumed however natural gas consumption has grown, the following
graphic displays the changes:
Region 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Avg. Annual%
Change
Americas 120 121 126 130 133 137 144 0.6
Europe 82 82 85 89 91 93 95 0.5
Asia 40 41 43 44 45 46 46 0.5 Source: EIA
Table 1.1 World Energy Consumption, quadrillion Btu
Figure 1.1 Changes in energy consumptions in the U.S Source: BP
6 | P a g e
There is growing concern that global reserves will not meet our current demand and
there is a clear threat to our energy security. A study by the Rocky Mountain
Institute finds that our projected fossil fuel reserves will run out shortly after 2100,
but it also demonstrates a higher abundance of natural gas:
The growing pressure upon our energy security has led to investigating other
unconventional energy sources. A process called hydraulic fracturing (or fracking)
has resulted in a natural gas revolution in the United States. This unconventional
method of energy extraction used with horizontal drilling has unearthed once
inaccessible reserves of natural gas. The process is used on shale formations to
extract shale gas. Shale is a sedimentary rock which consists of mud, clay and other
minerals which was ‘deposited as muds in low-energy depositional environments’.
Shale gas is the natural gas extracted from these formations and is a dry gas which
is mainly methane (approximately 90%) (Arthur et.al, 2008).
An analysis by the EIA investigates the potential shale gas resources in the US.
Figure 1.3 shows the top 10 countries with technically recoverable shale gas:
Figure 1.2 Global Fossil Fuel Production, 1500-2200, Source: Rocky Mountain Institute
7 | P a g e
1161 1115
802707
573 545437 390
285 245
Shale Gas (trillion cubic feet)
Shale Gas (trillion cubic feet)
The graph shows that America has the highest amount of shale gas worldwide and
demonstrates why there has been a shift from oil and coal. The analysis by EIA
(2013) also states that 30% of the world’s natural gas resources are in shale
formations. The economic potential of shale gas is evident and with our rising
population and increasing energy demands the extraction of unconventional gas via
hydraulic fracking seems a necessity.
There are several shale formations across the U.S., the figure 1.4 shows the
distribution of these formations. From the graphic is can be seen that the largest
shales are the Marcellus, Barnett and Haynesville. The Barnett shale is located in
Texas, it has a 5,000 square mile reservoir, beneath 18 North Texas counties. It
contains an estimated 40 trillion cubic making it the third largest natural gas
reservoir in the U.S. The Marcellus shale stretches from New York south to
Pennsylvania to West Virginia and across some western parts of Ohio and is the
largest shale in the States (StateImpact, n.d). The Haynesville shale lies across
south-western Arkansas, East Texas and northwest Louisiana and is the second
largest shale in the United States.
Figure 1.3 Top 10 countries with technically recoverable shale gas, Source: EIA
8 | P a g e
There is a clear change in the primary source of energy in the United States and due
to its huge abundance, the rising population and concerns regarding energy security
it is a resource that cannot be ignored. However hydraulic fracturing has come
under heavy scrutiny regarding its implications. Environmentalists, opposition
groups and media coverage have created a negative public image for the gas
industry. This paper will aim to investigate the social and environmental
implications of fracking in the United States.
Figure 1.4 Distribution of shales in America, Source: EIA
9 | P a g e
1.2 Process Description
Originally, conventional extraction of energy used the natural pressure created
between a gas or oil reservoir and the wellbore as a result of gas (gas drive) and
water (water drive) to draw hydrocarbons to the surface. However as energy
extraction continued, drawing further resources of energy to the surface required
artificial lift. In 1940 artificial hydraulic pressure was used in order to fracture the
reservoir and increase the contact between the wellbore and the formation
(Spellman, 2013). In 1973 an oil embargo with the Middle East produced a domestic
search for energy in the United States and as a result the US department of Energy
(DOE) funded research to investigate the energy potentials from shale reservoirs.
However this research did not have initial success and the ‘DOE concluded that
stimulation alone was insufficient to achieve commercial shale gas production from
these wells’ (Soeder and Kappel, 2009). However the introduction of horizontal
drilling and its combination with hydraulic fracturing unlocked once inaccessible
reservoirs of natural gas.
Hydraulic fracturing is a process that requires a large amount of water, according to
BP (n.d) it requires several million gallons, therefore a brief insight into water and
its extraction is needed. Water is obtained from water wells which are excavations
in the ground created via drilling, digging or otherwise. The water is generally
removed by ‘penetrating the aquifer with a vertical well’ and then the water is
pumped to the surface. Fracking also involves drilling up to 6000ft into the ground
therefore there are difficulties with avoiding water in the soil or water aquifers.
Hydraulic fracturing is a ‘formation stimulation practise used to create additional
permeability in a producing formation’. This allows increased gas flow to wellbores
and overcomes issues with naturally occurring areas of low-permeability. The
process involves pumping fracturing fluid which consists of water, sand proppant
and chemicals at an elevated pressure in order to facture the formation. The
proppant keeps the cracks that have been created open when the pumping of fluids
has stopped. The amount of fracturing fluid used and the pressure alters from
formation to formation due to naturally occurring variation. This means that the
process conditions also including the length of fractures needs to be pre-determined,
as a result ‘modern formation simulation practises are sophisticated’. Hydraulic
fracturing occurs in stages; initially companies will perform a series of tests to
ensure the well will withstand the hydraulic pressures. Hydrochloric Acid is
pumped down the well to clean any existing cementing in the well casting and at
each stage varying fluid and proppant are pumped to further fracture the formation.
The final stage involves flushing the well and different wells require more extensive
10 | P a g e
treatments than others (Spellman, 2014). Figure 1.1 maps out the process and
configuration of a typical well:
As previously stated hydraulic fracturing requires the use of large amounts of
water-based fracturing fluid. The fluid is mainly water however there are a number
of additives added which depends on the conditions of the well. Slickwater is one of
the additions to the fracturing fluid which is used to reduce friction; this allows
higher flow rates to be pumped into the formation at a lower pressure. Other
additives include biocides, oxygen scavengers, stabilizers to reduce corrosion and
acid to clean the well. The fluid that is pumped into the well serves two purposes,
firstly to generate a greater crack and then to transport the proponent the full length
of the fracture. Table 1.1 shows the percentage of additives used in a Fayetteville
shale well. The table shows that approximately 0.5% of the fracturing fluid consists
Figure 1.5 Hydraulic Fracturing Process, Source: BP
11 | P a g e
of additives, as stated this changes from well to well however generally additives
only consist of 0% to 2% (Spellman, 2013).
As previously stated fracking requires large amounts of water, commonly 3
million gallons per well. However this varies from well to well, table 1.2 shows
the variation in water usage for different shales. The water used for fracking is
obtained from several different sources including lakes, rivers, groundwater,
private water sources and reused produced water (Spellman, 2013).
Shale Gas Play Total Volume of water
per Well (gal)
Barnett Shale 2,700,000
Fayetteville
Shale 3,060,000
Haynesville
Shale 3,700,000
Marceulls Shale 3,880,000
Source: Environmental Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing, Frank.R.Spellman
Table 1.2
Source: Environmental Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing, Frank.R.Spellman
Table 1.3
12 | P a g e
1.3 Research Aims and Objectives
The aim of this project is to investigate and critically analyse the social and
environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing in the United States and to develop an
implementation plan for gas companies to reduce these effects. The project will meet
these aims by meeting a set of objectives:
i. Collect and critically analyse the relevant social literature.
ii. Collect and critically analyse the relevant environmental literature.
iii. Determine whether the effects are being exaggerated or undermined and
what the true effects are.
iv. Analyse the findings and determine steps to reduce these effects.
The original aim of this study as stated in the proposal was to investigate the social,
economic and environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing. However as the project
developed and more research was done the gap in social studies became more
evident. This required a greater analysis in order to address the disparity and
therefore economic issues were not investigated. The economic issues also were not
covered also because the economic benefits of hydraulic fracturing are apparent and
rising populations and increasing energy demands mean that hydraulic fracturing is
an essential part of our future. Therefore the paper was reduced to two elements to
give a greater insight into frackings implications.
1.4 Project Scope
The scope of this project will be to cover the social and environmental implications
of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. However studies from England will
also be used in order to build upon the information collected from American
resources. The way fracking is altering human perceptions and communities’
structures will also be investigated. The social and environmental implications upon
oil and gas companies’ license to operate will also be reviewed.
The conclusions made from this project will be used to develop an implementation
plan for the industry in order to minimise the effects.
13 | P a g e
1.5 Report Structure
This project will comprise of 6 chapters however its structure will slightly deviate
from the norm. As the research is qualitative no data collection will take place,
therefore the results section will consist of an implementation plan. This plan will
use the research carried out in the literature review and will map out steps that the
oil and gas industry can utilise in order to minimise the social and environmental
effects of hydraulic fracturing. The methodology of a report typically comes before
the results section, however as the main findings of this project come from
qualitative research the methodology will come before the literature review. The full
report structure is as follows:
o Chapter 1, Introduction: introduction to the area, a process description and
the scope and aims and objectives of the project.
o Chapter 2, Methodology: description of the methodology in this project, the
data collection methods and research challenges.
o Chapter 3, Literature Review: an investigation and analysis of the social and
environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Using and
critically analysis relevant literature.
o Chapter 4, Results: implementation of a plan that the fracking industry can
utilise in order to reduce social and environmental impacts. Plan developed
from the findings in the literature review.
o Chapter 5, Discussion: a further insight and discussion of the plan developed
from the findings in the literature review.
o Chapter 6, Conclusion: a summary of the findings from the paper and
recommendations for future research.
14 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Methodology
2.1 Research Approach and Questions
This paper will be entirely non-empirical and use a qualitative approach to analyse
the implications of fracking in the United States. This method was used as data
collection for hydraulic fracturing is extremely difficult. The majority of published
literature also struggles with data limitation as gaining access to well sites and
obtaining samples is a challenging aspect for researchers (Soeder et.al, 2014).
Hydraulic fracturing also has a bigger impact upon rural communities and data
collection in rural areas can also be extremely difficult. This study will use journals,
books, company reports and other forms of secondary data to analyse the effects of
fracking and therefore will be a review in terms of methodology and philosophy.
Qualitative research is essentially ‘exploratory research’, it aims to provide a greater
understanding and provide insight into reasons, opinions and motivations behind a
problem (Wyse,2011). The following figure highlights the main steps of qualitative
research:
Figure 2.1 Steps of qualitative research, Source: The potential Impact of Shale gas Production in
the Asia-Pacific Region, Khairul Hussein
15 | P a g e
For this study a set of research questions were defined to determine the area of
research. The area of research was also defined by location, America was chosen to
allow a more detailed investigation. This was due to America’s global importance
and their abundant recourses of shale. Qualitative research is more suited to
investigating social aspects and it originated from sociologists asking questions
regarding ‘people’s lives, the ways in which they understood their worlds and so on’
(Merriam, 2009). As a result this study mainly focuses on the social implications as
a result of fracking but also because social studies in this area are surprisingly
sparse. The gap in research therefore provided an opportunity for this paper to
develop a greater understanding of these social issues. The research questions were
also structured around the environmental issues as these issues have created great
social unrest in the United States and there appeared to be conflicting conclusions
published din literature.
An analysis of relevant secondary sources was then used to understand the
implications of fracking. As stated this involved published journals, books,
company reports and other forms of secondary data. To fully understand the
implications and to avoid bias a wide range of literature was reviewed and analysed.
The data and information collected was then used to determine what can be done to
reduce the social and environmental impacts and improve social image. This used
the research of the paper to develop recommendations for fracking companies. Then
after all the information had been analysed and processed the findings and
conclusion of the paper was constructed.
The research questions for this paper are as follows:
i. What are the social effects of hydraulic fracturing?
ii. Is hydraulic fracturing the only cause of these social effects?
iii. What are the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing in the United
States?
iv. Are these environmental impacts being exaggerated or undermined?
v. What can be done to reduce these impacts and better integrate fracking?
2.2 Data Collection and Literature Review
As this paper uses qualitative research the data collected will be primarily
secondary data. Secondary data is data that is collected that is not the authors, this
includes reports, journals, studies, media reports and other dissertations. As
16 | P a g e
previously stated collecting data for fracking is extremely difficult and there are
several data limitations.
2.3 Data Interpretation
From collecting and critically analysing relevant information an implementation
plan was developed for fracking companies to improve public image and reduce
environmental and social effects. This provided a purpose to the research and
allowed the findings from this paper to be presented. The recommendations are
entirely from the analysed the data collected in this paper and the plan developed is
unique to this paper.
2.4 Research Challenges
The main research challenges for this paper were as follows:
o Lack of published literature regarding the social effects of fracking…
There was clear disparity in research with respect to the social implications
of fracking. The researchers that have investigated frackings socials effects
also reinforced the lack of research being done in this area. There was also a
lack of data relating to social issues such as crime rates. This was because
fracking has a greater social impact on rural communities where it is difficult
to accurately monitor and collect data.
o Conflicting data and conclusions…
The actual impact of fracking was difficult to determine as there was large
discrepancies found between sources. This related to both the social and
environmental elements of this paper, with opponents of fracking,
environmentalists and media coverage generally magnifying the effects but
with gas companies undermining the effects. The data presented from both
sides was also difficult to interpret as in a lot of cases it was not a fair
representation of the issues.
17 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Literature Review
3.1 Social
This section will investigate how much of an impact fracking is having upon
communities and the public. The theorised social implications and relevant
literature will be analysed to further understand the impacts and how we can
improve them. This section will also determine whether social implications are
being over-exaggerated by media and opposition groups or if fracking is to blame.
Social studies in this area are surprisingly sparse, this section will aim to determine
how vital social studies are in relation to unconventional energy development.
Fracking has created huge controversy in America and the process is having an
extensive effect on human life, behaviour and perceptions. The proposed
repercussions of fracking have produced great social unrest and community
volatility, which has negatively impacted oil and gas companies licence to operate.
Willow and Wylie (2014) state that social studies of unconventional energy
development holds a huge significance to ‘begin building vital bridges between
technical discourse and human experience’. This exemplifies the importance of
critically analysing the social implications of fracking and illuminating its
consequences. However, critical analyses of the consequences, implications and
cultural practises of fracking have not appeared in significant volume (Willow and
Wylie, 2014). This section will aim to address the disparity in research and
investigate the social effects of fracking in the US and how the process is affecting
human life and communities.
3.1.1 Community Impact
Unconventional energy extraction re-shapes community structures and the social
fabric within that community, resulting in numerous complications for near-by
residents. The impact energy development has upon communities is well
documented, Kohrs (1974) and Gilmore (1976) both of which are widely quoted
papers, talk extensively about the effects that occur. Kohrs illustrates a social pattern
commonly experienced by communities including drunkenness, criminal activity
and other social problems, while Gilmore (1976) highlights that the rapid increase in
population ‘strains the capacity of a small community to provide goods services and
intangibles’ (Wilkinson et. al, 2014). Further Research (Dooley and Ruzicka, 2012;
Goldenburg, 2008; Hanson and Limerick, 2009) indicates that the civil disarray
18 | P a g e
predominantly occurs in rural areas during the initial development and are
primarily due to increasing populations and economic growth.
Residents in rural areas of Pennsylvania, which contains a large portion of the
Marcellus Shale, have experienced a vast spectrum of changes to their towns and
own lives. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2005-2011)
show that the amount of wells drilled in the state increased approximately 250 times
from 8 in 2005 to 1,972 in 2011. The scale upon which fracking is occurring on and
the rate at which it is expanding, has intensified the effects in Pennsylvania and
quickly transformed the characteristics of the towns and the perspectives of the
residents. A Senate Republican Policy Committee meeting in 2011 outlined the
positives and negatives of the fracking in the Marcellus Shale. The positives
included increased local revenue, over $1 billion in land royalties paid to local land
owners and investment for improved roads to deal with increased volumes of traffic.
Whereas the negative side included increased crime, housing shortages, higher
levels of traffic and accidents (Allen, 2012). The Associated Press in Pennsylvania
also summarised the problems the community was having, stating that towns ‘are
seeing a sharp increase in drunken driving, bar fights, and other hell-raising’
primarily due to a large ‘influx of young men who find themselves with lots of
money in their pockets and nothing to do after they get off work’ (Marc, 2011).
Rural communities in America are bearing the majority of the impacts and feel
almost powerless to these rapid changes, the citizens ‘are discovering their lack of
ability to influence the expansion of shale gas into their communities’ (Willow and
Wylie, 2014). The increasing activity in many areas has resulted in a large amount of
heavy trucks coming in and out of the area due to the large amounts of water, sand
and various other chemicals required for the process. In the North of Pennsylvania
wells require 400 truck trips and 25 rail cars of sand (Ridlington and Rumpler,
2013) .Figure 3.1 displays the amount of new drilled wells and reinforces the rate of
growth in Pennsylvania and the increased activity in rural areas compared to urban.
19 | P a g e
3.1.1.1 Community Crime and Social Disorganisation
Inflated levels of crime, traffic, accidents and even sexually transmitted infections
have been associated with fracking. This had led to perceived social disorganisation
and the issue has been covered extensively by the media and several published
reports. However Brad Gill the executive director of Independent Oil and Gas
Association of New York said that ‘anti natural gas folks will say just anything’ and
‘local governments are well equipped to deal with the benefits and challenges’ that
are associated with fracking (James and Smith, 2014). Many rural areas of America
have been subject to expanding populations of short term workers socially detached
from the community. These temporary workers who ‘earn large salaries and have
little stake in these communities’ have provoked disorder, elevated crime, induced
imbalanced sex ratios and disrupted normal patterns of interaction (Ruddel et. al,
2014). The seeming incursion of workers to these rural areas has also strained local
policies and resources with makeshift housing, increased pressures on local health
and police departments and local governments.
A report by Food & Water Watch maps out the social costs of fracking in
Pennsylvania and reinforces the social dissolution created. The rise in short term
workers has created hostile atmospheres, especially for young woman, with the
Source: Food & Water Watch
Figure 3.1 New Shale Gas Wells Drilled in Pennsylvania, 2005-2011
20 | P a g e
state of Pennsylvania now having the third highest single male to female ratio.
Disorderly conduct arrests also rose sharply, with an increase of almost a third in
heavily fracked rural counties. Fracking has also had an impact upon public health,
‘including an increase in the incidence of occupational injuries, traffic accidents,
mental illness, substance abuse and sexually transmitted infections’. This is reflected
by a 32.4 % increase in gonorrhoea and chlamydia and by figure 3.2 which displays
the increase in heavy truck crashes. The report concludes that findings of ‘negative
social consequences’ as a result of expanding boomtowns are supported by a
‘wealth of academic literature’, however there is still a lack of understanding and
more research is required to understand the long term effects of fracking (Food &
Water Watch, 2013).
The Food & Water Watch report maps our several impacts of fracking ranging from
traffic to crime to public health however no effects are investigated with any great
depth. There is a brief insight into the methodology used and where the data was
collected from, however the method used is very basic. The data was analysed using
two simple methods, data sets were either compared before and after the fracking
boom or on a year to year annual rate of change. Analysing levels of traffic does not
require a detailed investigation and it is clear that fracking will undoubtedly raise
traffic levels and the frequency of accidents. The paper however does not address
how an increase in population will affect traffic levels but instead places the blame
Source: Food & Water
Figure 3.2 Post-Fracking Changes in Average Number of Heavy-
Truck Crashes
21 | P a g e
solely on fracking. The conclusions in relation to the elevated levels of crime and
disorder are misleading as there is little explanation of the data collection methods,
the level of the crime recorded (UCR Part I or Part II) and the difficulties with
measuring crime in rural areas. It is obvious from that report that fracking has
indeed had some effect upon communities, there are several reports published that
map out detrimental effects in relation to fracking based upon statistics that are not
completely evaluated. The literature in this field is sparse and is mainly restricted to
case studies and company reports. To fully understand the impact fracking has
upon crime and public health a more detailed analysis is required.
Drilling Down, a paper examining the relationship between crime and energy
development in boom towns by Ruddel et. al (2014) provides a greater insight into
the apparent correlation. The paper finds that there was no ‘significant association
between oil or natural gas production and property or violent crime’. The paper also
questions the accuracy of data provided and that ‘missing crime data’ is a limitation
for these studies. The paper does not however completely disregard the impact of
resource extraction on boom towns, with the capacity of towns to support
accelerated population growth questioned as crime, substance abuse and health
problems place stress upon public services. Figure 3.3 presents the increase in
service calls experienced in Montana and North Dakota. It can be seen from the data
that there has been a 81% increase in service calls from 2008-2011.
However Ruddel et. al (2014) highlights that the service and police data is summed
and not all counties experienced an increased volume of service calls and some were
actually more stable. The reliability of the data is also questioned as not all
‘indicators of crime, disorder or community dysfunction’ will appear in the official
crime statistics provided by the FBI. Most cases of crime are also mainly Part II of
the UCR, which is generally less reliably monitored when compared to more serious
Part I offences. Ruddel et. al (2014) conclude the paper by again highlighting their
‘data-challenges’ and the lack of concrete evidence to firmly correlate energy
development to heightened levels of crime. This is because of the lack of ‘county
level data’ and the difficulty with monitoring Part II crimes in rural areas. Many
reports, pieces of literature and media stories have claimed that there has been a
direct correlation to crime and fracking, however several researchers (Brown, 2010;
Forsyth et. al, 2007, Kowalski and Zajac, 2012) also found uncertain relations
between crime and energy development, or that there was only a slight increase in
crime.
22 | P a g e
Drilling Down (Ruddel et.al ,2014) gives a more comprehensive analysis of the
effects of fracking in relation to crime. The study uses three analytical methods.
Firstly the crime rates were compared between non drilled counties and drilled
counties using t-tests, secondly pre and post boom statistics were compared again
between drilled and non-drilled counties and thirdly, ‘ordinary least square (OLS)
regression was estimated’ to determine the effect of resource extraction on police
related crime. Crimes in the U.S are put into different parts such as Part I or Part II
UCR, Part I crimes tend to be more serious offences such as assault, murder and
rape. This paper compares Part II crimes which are less serious and include simple
assault, disorderly conduct and drug offences The initial comparison of part II crime
rates between non-oil producing counties and oil producing counties with similar
populations, per capita personal income and male populations revealed similar
results, however the drilled counties showed a greater increase in population
between 2008 and 2012. The results revealed that violent crime in the oil producing
counties was 22.1% higher and the property crime was 24.6% greater. Despite the
elevated rates, ’t-tests revealed that those differences were not statically significant’.
This paper gives a better understand of the effect of fracking, however it states that
further investment of resources and time is needed to better understand the
relationship between resource extraction and crime.
Source: The MND Report, Montana All Threat Intelligence Centre and North Dakota State & Local
Intelligence Centre
Figure 3.3 Service Calls from 2005-2001, Montana and North Dekota
23 | P a g e
A more recent paper, There Will be Blood (James and Smith, 2014) gives further
understanding into crime rates in shale-rich counties. The paper finds evidence that
as a result of the ‘ongoing shale-energy boom, shale-rich counties experienced faster
growth in rates of both property and violent crimes including rape, assault murder,
robbery, burglary, larceny and grand theft auto’. The paper backs up the general
consensus that studies relating to crime and energy booms are ‘surprisingly scant’
and that existing studies are limited to ‘case studies or regional examinations’. The
lack of unconditional evidence to support the relation is also addressed as well as
the confliction between studies, with Putz et.al (2011) and Luthra (2006) backing the
absence of decisive information and the Ecosystem Research Group (2009) finding
evidence of increased crime to the gas boom. The paper investigates the increase of
Part I UCR crimes rather than Part II which Rudell et.al (2012) covered. Figure 3.5
shows the increase of Part I UCR crimes across America for the full set of boom
counties. The data shows the increase in crime from the year 2000 to 2010 with
assault having the most rapid incline. The paper concludes that the increase in most
categories of crime is ‘moderately robust’ but more documentation of the relation
between energy booms and crime is needed.
Source: There Will Be Blood: Crime Rates in Shale -Rich US Counties Figure 3.4: Crime Effects, Full National Sample
24 | P a g e
The data collection methods used by James and Smith (2014) are more extensive
when compared to the Food & Water Watch Report. For investigating crime rates a
county that has no crime in a year is dropped (under the assumption that crime
rates have not been properly monitored), Illinois, Kansas and Kentucky were also
dropped as they displayed ‘implausible patterns of year-to year changes in crime’
and cities in a large metro area with a million residents or more are omitted as the
impacts for urban areas are minimal. Several models are also used to estimate the
effects of the shale boom in the counties, the crime variables are displayed in
relation to population and are normalised by taking natural logs and several
robustness tests are used. Both James and Smith (2014) and Ruddel et. al (2014)
show that there are increases in crime, Rudel et. al (2012) investigated Part II
offences and deems the rise statistically insignificant but James and Smith( (2014)
analysed Part I offences and claims the increase in crime is relevant. Both however
state that more research is needed to fully understand the problem and to address it.
Data presenting the ascending levels of crime due to fracking appear to be skewed.
The inconsistency in the data does not allow for accurate correlations to be made but
also when a population experiences growth, whether that be erratically or
sustainably, increases in crime will occur. However several reports and the majority
of media coverage seem to ignore other factors that could affect the levels of crime
and conclude that there is a direct correlation to crime and fracking. Even more
thorough research papers show varying conclusions and the exact implications of
fracking upon crime and social organisation is still unfamiliar. The conflicting
interpretations indicate the disparity in this area of research and the need for more
investment of time and recourses. It is clear that fracking is having an impact upon
communities and if the increase in crime is significant or not there is still a rise.
However some publications exaggerate the effects and this reinforces the notion that
opponents of fracking unjustly intensify the impact of fracking. To develop our
insight into the effects of fracking upon crime a more extensive analysis of fracking
is required. Both Part I and II crimes of the UCR need to be investigated, this will
improve the accuracy of the results as Part I crimes are reported more reliably in
comparison to less serious Part II. Estimating population data is also a big difficulty
for these studies as many of the short term workers live in temporary
accommodation and migrate from other areas of the States. When part time workers
move to a state they are not included in the population census data, therefore
researchers have to use estimates. Including migration data would allow for a
better grasp of how the population increase is affecting the crime rates. The void in
research emphasises the need to develop our understanding, not just for crime
related issues but all social issues as a whole. Until this shift in concern materialises
25 | P a g e
the effect of fracking upon crime and community social disorganisation will remain
ambiguous.
If the effects of fracking do not have a direct correlation to social disorder and crime,
the perception of inflated levels of crime can still have an adverse effect on
community structure and human behaviour. Archbold (2013) interviewed officers
and deputies in the Bakken region, it was found that one third of the officers felt
that the fear of crime in the community had risen and another 27% reported that the
quality of life had decreased because of the energy boom. The illusion of crime can
directly affect human behaviour and make residents feel like they require extra
precautions. This demonstrates how the process is altering human perceptions and
changing the social fabric of many communities. The contrasting views seen across
literature indicate that the claims of adverse effects in relation to social disorder may
be over exaggerated by many sources. The lack of accessible data is an imposing
hurdle to overcome if the social effects of fracking are to be wholly understood.
There is a large void in this area of research, however there are an increasing level of
researchers and scholars who are more conscious of the social implications of
fracking and the importance it holds. More than 30 years ago Laura Nader stated
that ‘the energy problem is not a technological one, it’s a social problem’ (Willow
and Wylie, 2014). Bridging the disparity in the research will develop our collective
knowledge about fracking and humanity and also allow us to establish a more
sustainable future.
3.1.1.2 Community Health
The wide range of potentially hazardous chemicals used in fracking and the threats
to water and air quality pose potential risk to the human health. This section will
address the public health issues and the threat to health of those living in close
proximities and the workers themselves. The environmental section of this project
will further investigate the chemicals used, the impact fracking has had upon air
and water quality and how this can be addressed.
There has been growing unrest in America due to the lack of disclosure from
fracking companies. The lack of information provided has made it difficult to
understand the full health risks that the processes possess. Investors from five
companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, EOG Resources, Occidental Petroleum and
Pioneer Resources) recently demanded more information regarding the risk, in 2013
ExxonMobil produced a report to address the lack of clarity however it received ‘a
failing grade for its transparency’ (Kelly, 2014).
26 | P a g e
There are several health problems that have been experienced by shale rich
communities, a paper by Mcdermott-Levy et.al (2013) states the common symptoms
as:
o Fatigue
o Burning eyes
o Dermatologic irritation
o Headaches
o Respiratory, musculosketla, neurological, immunologic, sensory, vascular
and bone marrow problems
o Endocrine disruption
o Changes in quality of life and sense of well being
To further develop our understanding of health risks, how the chemicals affect
human health and how much danger they pose needs to be investigated. Natural
Gas Operations from A Public Health Perspective (Colborn et. al, 2011) investigates
the effects of fracking and provides a greater insight in to the potential health risks.
The paper states that ‘75% of the chemicals affect the skin, eyes and other sensory
organs, and the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems’, 40-50% affecting the brain
and nervous system, immune and cardiovascular system and kidneys. The
endocrine system is also affected by 37% of the chemicals and 25% could result in
cancer. Table 3.1 shows the various categories of chemicals used in the fracking
process and figure 3.5 highlights the percentage of chemicals that affect that health
category.
The table shows the wide array of chemicals that the process uses and it is obvious
that if these aren’t properly contained then they could have detrimental effects upon
local residents. The graph highlights the categories of human health that are effects
and it can be seen that there are a large percentage of chemicals present that
influence human well-being. The data presented only presents the potential threats
to human health. Actually determining the long term effects and how likely they are
is a difficultly when trying to address the dangers to public health. To fully
understand the likelihood of deterioration in health then the efficiency of the
process will have to be investigated and the handling of the chemicals. This will be
covered in the environmental section of this study.
27 | P a g e
Table 2.1 Categories of chemicals used in fracking
Figure 3.5 Percentages of Chemicals that Affect Certain Health Categories
Source: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health
Perspective
28 | P a g e
The paper determined the chemicals being used from Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDSs), which are present for each product produced via fracking. The MSDSs
were taken from numerous sources including the U.S forest service, state
government departments and from the gas industry itself. State Tier II reports were
also collected which are required for products that contain a certain amount of
hazardous chemicals .However Colborn et.al (2012) highlights their data limitations
as MSDSs and Tier II reports are ‘fraught with gaps in information about the
formulation of the products’ and ‘uninformative’. The health effects were also
obtained from MSDSs and government databases regarding toxic chemicals
(TOXNET and the Hazardous Substances Databse) and through biomedical
literature studies. The paper concludes by reinforcing the fact that fracking
companies are undermining the effects of these chemicals because of their low
concentrations, however ‘many of the chemical on the list should not be ingested at
any concentration’. The long term health issues are also addressed with possibilities
of ‘life-long effects on individuals and / or their offspring’. The danger with these
long term effects is how to monitor them? If they are not tackled then communities
are potentially at risk to some severe health concerns
It is clear that the chemicals used in the fracking process pose a potential threat to
local communities; however there are also risks from process emissions. A paper by
Mckenzie et. al (2012) investigates the human health risk of air emissions from the
development of unconventional natural gas resources. The paper analysed the
impact of both the well development and well completion stage on residents who
lived under half a mile and over half a mile away. The study used standard U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methodologies to determine health risks to
residents, this included non- cancer hazard indexes (HIs) and cancer risks.
‘Residential exposure scenarios’ were developed and used alongside ‘air toxics data’
that were obtained between 2008 and 2010 and ‘air monitoring program data’. The
study collected and analysed the air samples in accordance with EPA methods.
Figure 3.6 shows how the study was carried out and the relationship between the
two different samples and the distance of the residents from well. A 30 year
exposure scenario was created for both sets of people, which included a 5-year well
development period, a 20-30 year production period and it was assumed that a
resident would remain in the area for 24 hours a day, 350 days of the year and their
Source: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health
Perspective
29 | P a g e
Cancer Risks
> ½ mile
< ½ mile
Non-Cancer HIs
> ½ mile
< ½ mile
expected life span would be 70 years in accordance to EPA reasonable maximum
exposure de-faults.
The study found that there were 66% more hydrocarbons and higher median
concentrations of alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons in the completion samples.
Using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, the concentrations of the hydrocarbons were
deemed significantly higher in completion samples. Figure 3.7 and 3.8 present the
difference in non-cancer HI and cumulative cancer risks per million between the
two residents. The graphics clearly shows the greater health risk to those living in a
closer proximity to the wells:
Fig 3.7 Cumulative Cancer Risks per million Fig 3.8 Non-Cancer Hazard Indexes
Source: Human Health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural
gas resources
Figure 3.6 Relation between two samples and the distance of the residents from the well,
Source: human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional
NG resources
30 | P a g e
The paper concludes by stating workers and residents within a close proximity to
the wells are at a greater risk. The data limitations are also addressed with many
hazardous pollutants not monitored due to a lack of available data. It is also
recommended that our focus should be to protect workers and those living close to
the wells.
It is clear that the process of fracking has the potential to damage the health of
nearby communities and the workers themselves. It is also evident that people
living closer to wells are exposed to the greatest danger .Any process that uses
chemicals in a close proximity to communities will create possible danger and
emissions are a commonly experienced problem with secondary energy sources.
Short term health effects are apparent and expected, however it is the long term
effects that are the hardest to monitor and pose the greatest threat. As stated the
effects are potential repercussions of fracking, and the belief among oil and gas
companies is that fracking does not pose any threat if the process is carried out as it
in accordance to regulation. A report from Public Health England concluded that if
‘operations are properly run and regulated’ there is little health risk to close by
communities (Torjesen, 2013). The safety of fracking and what is being done by
companies to reduce their emissions and the release of chemicals will be covered in
the environmental section of this paper. Similarly with the crime correlation, even
potential or perceived threats can negatively impact communities and human
behaviour. The extensive media coverage results in communities feeling unsafe and
has left many seriously concerned about their own wellbeing.
3.1.2 Hydro-Social Cycle
This section will address the socio-economic factors in relation to the hydro-social
cycle and the control of related economic factors. Fracking has not only shaped
rural community structures but it has had an adverse effect upon our views on
water and has shifted the control of economic factors. The Hydro-Social is the
‘conceptualisation of the inextricable linked relationship between water and society’
(Finewood and Stroup, 2012) and fracking is changing how we perceive the
importance water has upon society. The change in attitudes to the hydro-social
cycle is a result of neoliberalization, which is the transfer of the control of economic
factors away from the public sector to the private sector.
A paper by Finewood and Stroup (2012) investigates how fracking and
neoliberalization has affected the hydro-social cycle. The paper explains that there
are a wide array of decisions that stakeholders must make when deciding whether
to allow drilling near their communities and that the hydro-social cycled is deemed
31 | P a g e
‘critical to understanding this decision-making process’. Proponents of fracking are
quantifying water only economically using ‘neoliberal benefit cost-analysis’, this
means that stakeholders must determine the risk of water contamination and how
much of an economic implication this will have upon themselves, their communities
and America. However opponents of fracking ‘frame a more complex narrative
about water’, they are quantifying water not just economically but also socially.
They are deeming it a ‘life-giving resource’ which is essential for human life. The
paper then highlights how neoliberals are altering stakeholder’s perceptions and in
effect normalizing the implications fracking has upon the hydro-social cycle.
Stakeholders’ decisions are being shifted to only consider economic factors and this
is changing perceptions about a resource that is essential to human life. The paper
concludes by stating that neoliberals cloud the understanding of fracking and the
impact it is having on the hydro-social cycle. The need to develop a better
understanding of the decision-making process of stakeholders in relations to costs
and benefits in order to develop better land-use is highlighted.
The changing structures to our communities, human relationships and perceptions
as a result of fracking are clear. There again is a clear disparity in the research and
similarity to the proposed health and crime impacts the full implications of fracking
and neoliberalization are unclear. More research is again needed to further develop
our understanding. More information needs to be provided to stakeholders and the
total risk of fracking needs to be analysed before a land-use decision is made.
3.1.3 Social Unrest
The potential social effects of fracking are not fully understood and attention
towards this area is needed if fracking is to succeed. There are also apparent
discrepancies between publications investigating social impacts. Media reports and
case studies generally over exaggerate the effects of fracking without fully analysing
the available data and more comprehensive research is not able to come to a
conclusive decision due to data limitations. Even without fully knowing the real
extent of these social implications caused by fracking, media coverage in particular
has created great social anxiety. The growing unrest across the states is apparent
with a growing number of anti-fracking groups forming and also a national
coalition to ban fracking. The coalition aims to simply ban fracking and includes 28
national organisations and countless states organisations (Americans Against
Fracking). Whether fracking is directly or indirectly altering the social fabric of
communities is unclear, however the growing unrest and expanding negative public
32 | P a g e
opinion is apparent. Fracking companies must also focus on bettering their
damaged public image if fracking is to be successful on a commercial level.
A report by Linley (2011) covers some of the potential impacts of the growing
‘negative media attention’ and how this is damaging the reputation of the shale
industry. The report highlights how the current social unrest as a result of fracking
is making it increasingly challenging for the industry to ‘obtain both the legal and
social license to operate’. The unfavourable feelings towards fracking have resulted
in increased regulatory risk for companies as a result moratoriums have been placed
in several locations one of which is New York. The rise of confining restrictions
placed upon the industry is an imposing hurdle to overcome. Table 3.2 displays
some of the more recent regulations that have been put in place. The table clearly
displays how the scrutiny that is being placed upon these industries is rising.
Table 3.2 Recent Fracking Regulations
Regulatory
Initiative
Enforcer Date Goal
Hydraulic
Fracturing
Study/Report
EPA
2012-2014
Understand the correlation between
fracking and water resources
Expert Panel
U.S Energy Secretary
2011
Identify any steps to improve safety
of fracking and inform US agencies on procedures to ensure the
protection of public health and the
environment
Air Regulations EPA 2011 To reduce air pollution from the
process Source: Fracking Under Pressure, Linley
Another paper by Jones et.al (2013) maps out the relationship between fracking and
public relations in England. The paper highlights how fracking has been challenged
by environmentalists and communities who are ‘vociferously opposed’ and how the
opponents of fracking are ‘well organised’ and have strongly utilised ‘information
and communication technologies and social media’. The importance of public
relations is reinforced as well as the necessity for fracking companies to improve
their public image if shale gas is to be successfully execrated commercially.
For companies to improve their public image they need to improve transparency.
The escalated media coverage and exaggerated effects of fracking is also the gas
industries fault. The lack of information that has been provided regarding the
33 | P a g e
impacts of the process has hindered the progress of the company on a social level.
Information regarding all the of the chemicals used in the process needs to be
provided as well as greater assistance to land owners exposed to increasing
pressures from neoliberalization. Greater community engagement is need as well
which would ease the ease the socially volatility among local residents. A further
insight into the findings of the social impacts will be covered in the result and
discussion chapter of this paper, including a suggested social programme for
companies to implement. It is clear that the social impacts of fracking are well
covered publically via media coverage and various reports however academic
research is limited. Data is a huge limitation when trying to analyse most potential
social impacts and this is due to the lack of transparency from fracking companies,
lack of research and resources and difficulty collecting rural data. It is apparent that
even if some of the social impacts such as crime and health effects are not in fact
significant even their theorized implications are significant. The changes to our
social fabric, human interactions and perceptions are also apparent. Correcting the
pessimistic public outlook on fracking needs to be prioritised and it is the key for a
sustainable future.
34 | P a g e
3.3 Environmental
The environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing are well documented and have
caused concern in the United States. The main issues are related to the potential
contamination of water, excessive water usage, methane migration and air pollution.
This section will aim to investigate the possible environmental impacts of fracking.
Opponents of fracking, environmentalists and media coverage have claimed
adverse effects; figure 3.9 displays the common environmental implications:
Figure 3.9 Overview of Fracking Environmental Impacts
Source: Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop? Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder
35 | P a g e
Table 3.3Environmental Implications of Fracking
The negative image that has been created as a result of these claimed environmental
affects has exerted great pressure upon oil and gas companies. Table 3.3 expands on
the potential effects and demonstrates that there is a clear affect as a result of
fracking.
However companies’ stress that with proper procedure the effects are minimised.
BP (n.d) stated in a recent report that they ‘apply responsible well design and
construction, surface operation and fluid handling practises to mitigate these risks’.
This section will address the conflicting information being provided and whether
the effects are being inflated or if they are being undermined.
3.3.1 Water Contamination
Concerns regarding the contamination of water as a result of gas and chemical
migration or from naturally occurring radioactive material have been well
documented in the United States. Media coverage, environmentalists and
opposition groups have claimed that fracking possess a serious danger to drinking
water. However many oil and gas companies state that with proper operation then
the chances of water contamination are minimal. The main concerns stem from the
fact that more than ’40 million U.S citizens drink water from private wells’ (Vidic
et.al, 2013) and methane or chemicals from the process can potentially seep into
these wells. This section will investigate the potential impacts of fracking upon
water contamination and aim to determine how much of a risk there actually is.
A story posted by the Guardian (2014) highlights that fracking has had more of an
impact than US state reports are saying. The story talks about the main findings
from a report done by the Associated Press (AP) in Pennsylvania, which
investigated the impacts of fracking upon water quality. The AP’s review found that:
Source: Fracking by the Numbers, Ridlington and Rumpler
36 | P a g e
o Since 2005 Pennsylvania has had 106 cases of water-well contamination
o Ohio has seen an increasing number of complaints and confirmed
contamination. In 2010 37 complaints were recorded with no confirmed
cases of contamination. This increased to 59 complaints in 2012 with two
confirmed cases of water contamination.
o West Virginia has had 120 complaints over the last four years and 4 of the
complaints warranted ‘corrective action’ from drillers.
o Texas has received over 2,000 complaints and 62 were possibly a result from
fracking.
The story concludes by highlighting the lack of information and how the issue is ‘no
longer about just science but trust’ and how the ‘lack of transparency fuels mistrust’.
There is clear unrest being caused as a result of potential water contamination and
the link between society and fracking is highlighted. Even though water
contamination is regarded as an environmental issue fracking companies are having
extreme difficulties with public image as media coverage and the number of
opponent’s increase. The social implications of fracking have been previously
covered in this paper however it is clear that almost all of the effects are having a
profound implication upon society. To further understand the threats posed to
water contamination the potential causes need to be investigated.
A paper by Vidic et.al (2013) investigates the impact of fracking upon regional water
quality and maps out the potential causes. The paper highlights methane migration
and the spillages of chemicals as the two main causes of water contamination, firstly
the migration of methane is addressed. Methane is a main component of natural
gas therefore it can potentially migrate into drinking water wells, however this can
either be the result of human activity or from natural sources. As methane has a low
solubility (26 mg/L at 20° at 1atm) it readily dissolves in water however it is not
regulated as a hazard in the U.S. It does however become a threat if it is oxidised by
bacteria as this results in oxygen depletion, which causes elements such as arsenic
and iron to have increased solubility. If the methane present ‘degasses’ it can
potentially explode, however the paper states that this is only in ‘extreme cases’. The
paper then highlights faulty seals in the ‘annular space around castings’ which are
in place to stop migration as the main problem. Figure 3.11 shows the typical casing
on a well. In Pennsylvania the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
found that out of 3.4% of wells had problems with casing, the paper also states that
gas leakages are ‘minor and can be remedied’.
37 | P a g e
Figure 3.11 Casing present in a typical well, Source: Impact of shale gas development on
regional water quality, Vidic et.al
The amount of methane was investigated for 60 ground wells in upstate New York
and the paper found that the
average and maximum
concentrations of were both
higher for wells within 1km
of an active gas well, (shown
in figure 3.10). However,
the paper then reinforces the
fact that the sources of
methane can from either
natural or anthropogenic
sources. It states that some
regions (Pennsylvania)
experience high levels of
methane as a result of it
forming naturally at depth
and in shallow formations. But other regions such as Fayetteville in Arkansas ‘have
not reported major issues with respect to methane’. The paper also highlights the
human sources from which it can originate such as ‘gas storage fields, coal mines
and landfills’ and how approximately 90,000 wells have been left unplugged in the
US. This highlights the many sources that methane can migrate from and how
fracking may not be the sole factor.
Figure 3.10 methane concentrations in water wells New York,
Source: Impact of shale gas development on regional water
quality, Vidic e t.al
38 | P a g e
The paper then states the result of a study done in Pennsylvania, which compares
pre- and post-drilling water chemistry. The study finds that out of 48 water wells
investigated between 2010 and 2011 there was no statistical difference in dissolved
methane before or after drilling. The higher levels of methane detection in
Pennsylvania are stated (80 to 85%) however this is linked to a possible small
sample size and the fact that the ‘hydrogeolical regime’ is more susceptible to gas
migration
The paper then covers the potential threat that fracking fluid possess to drinking
water. After the fracking process the fracturing liquid needs to be recovered, the
paper states that in Pennsylvania the amount of fracturing fluid recovered as flow
back is between 9 and 53%.The paper then states that shales generally have low
permeability and that the remaining fluid is absorbed into the shale. But does this
absorbed fluid pose a threat to drinking water? A study by Boyer et.al (2012)
analysed 233 drinking water wells in Pennsylvania and reported that there was no
considerable influence on drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. Vidic et.al (2013)
then states the findings of a paper from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which found that water well in Jackson County was contaminated as a result
of fracturing well. These varying conclusions show that there is minimal threat to
water contamination as a direct result of fracking, however it shows that there is a
risk .The paper concludes by stating the low amounts of water contamination
recorded and that they have been ‘quickly mitigated’ It also states the fracking could
however result in ‘cumulative impacts’ that slowly develop and are therefore hard
to monitor.
Vidic et.al (2013) give a valuable insight into the potential risks of water
contamination as a result of shale gas development. Various data is given from
different reports and studies indicating that there has been some impact upon water
contamination. However relevant influences are explain and described highlighting
that fracking is not the defining reason for occasional water contamination. The
small percentages of issues related to casing, the low frequency of incidents and the
quickness of response highlights that proper procedure effectively minimises any
potential threats. This reinforces claims by many oil and gas companies that their
procedures are in fact safe. Despite the positive outlook there are definite risks to
water quality and therefore human health. The one issue with the paper is that the
source of methane is not fully investigated but the fact that some areas have high
natural levels of methane is covered. To fully understand the correlation between
hydraulic fracturing and water contamination the source of this methane needs to
be analysed. To further the analysis the source of methane in Pennsylvania needs to
be investigated due to increased reports of contamination and the higher natural
levels.
39 | P a g e
A paper by Osborn et.al (2011) investigates methane contamination of drinking
water as a result of fracking. The paper investigates the Pennsylvania area, which as
stated by Vidic et.al (2013) has naturally high levels of methane. The paper finds
‘systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with
shale-gas extraction’. It is found that in active regions (within 1km of a gas well) the
‘average and maximum methane concentration’ in water wells increased the closer
it was to an active well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 and that these numbers
indicate a ‘potential explosion hazard’. In comparison water wells not near active
regions (no gas well within 1km) only had an average of 1.1 mg L-1. Figure 3.12
displays the findings:
The paper then investigated the different in concentrations of thermogenic methane
and biogenic methane. This is to determine the difference in source of the methane,
thermogenic methane is dominant in the last stage of hydrocarbon production and
biogenic methane is a result of bacterial activity (Booth, Rowe and Fischer, 1996).
Osborn et.al (2011) used the δ13 C-CH4 and δ14 C-CH4 values and the ratio to other
hydrocarbons to determine the origin of the methane. It was found that shallow
ground water in active areas had higher levels of thermogenic methane and ground
water from non-active areas had more biogenic methane.
Figure 3.12 Methane concentrations between water wells in active and non-
active areas Source: Impact of shale gas development on regional wa ter quality, Vidic
et.al
40 | P a g e
The paper then investigates the potential impacts of fracturing fluid on drinking
water. It also highlights the fact that deep water formations as a result of fracking
may contain traces of ‘toxic elements’ and ‘naturally occurring radioactive material’.
The study compared the hydrochemistry of 68 water well samples and compared it
to historical data of another 124 wells. The following three indicators were used for
‘potential mixing’ with the fracturing fluids:
o Major inorganic chemicals
o Stable isotope signatures of water
o Isotopes of dissolved constituents (δ13 C-DIC, δ11 and 226Ra)
The study found ‘no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active
drilling sites’ as a result of fracturing fluid. The paper concludes by stating the need
to further investigate the potential threats that methane possess to water quality and
that there is potential risk.
Osborn et.al (2011) gives an extensive analysis of the impacts of fracking upon
drinking water. The study gives a greater understanding of the sources of methane
and shows that natural methane is present and can pose threats to drinking water
however in Pennsylvania thermogenic methane is contaminating water. It also
reinforces the fact that the release of chemicals is generally not contaminating water.
The methods used to analyse each of the effects are detailed and give a good
representation of the implications fracking has upon water quality. However it
should be noted that the methane investigation was in Pennsylvania which has had
the greatest problems with water contamination as a result of natural methane
formations. However the paper does show that fracking does also have an influence
in the region and it is not primarily biogenic methane.
It is clear that fracking does pose a threat to drinking water quality however
primarily due to methane migration rather than the fracturing fluid used. It is also
evident that more research, monitoring and data collection is needed to understand
the effects. The research collected shows that media coverage is in fact over
exaggerating the effects but also that companies like BP are slightly undermining
the effects. One of the few true messages coming out of anti-protest groups and
media coverage is the lack of transparity. It is becoming more and more evident that
fracking companies are playing to their own downfall. Working with
environmentalists and the public is needed, rather than withholding information
full disclosure is needed. It is also more evident that environmental impacts are
being over exaggerated and fracking like any other form of energy extraction is not
more harmful than previous methods. More insight into what can be done to
41 | P a g e
improve the impacts fracking has upon the environment will be provided in the
results section
3.3.1.1 Water Usage
The large volume of water used in fracking has also caused concern in America. As
previously shown in table 1.2 the average amount of water used per well is between
3 and 4million gallons. Some environmentalists and opposition groups state much
higher water usages, Gasland a movement to try and stop fracking in the U.S states
that between 2-8 million gallons can be used but sometimes more. To understand
how much water is used first an accurate estimate is needed. A study by Jenkins
(2013) investigated the amount of water used by hydraulic fracturing. Figure 3.13
shows the average water consumption in America per frack:
This graphic shows a similar average (between 2-3 million gallons) to that shown in
table 1.2 (3-4 million gallons) however Jenkins (2013) states that the data may be
skewed as:
o Some wells are fractured more than once
o Bias in data set from FracFocus
The study estimates the average to be approximately 5million as a result of these
factors. There is slight variance in the amount of water that is assumed to be used,
however from reviewing the different sources it can be assumed that the average
water usage is between 3 and 5 million gallons. This amount of water needs to be
quantified, Jenkins (2013) states that the total water usage across America in 2011
Figure 3.13 Water distributions per frack job in the U.S,
Source: FracFocus
42 | P a g e
was approximately 135 billion gallons. The study then compares this to the total
water usage in the U.S in 2005, figure 3.14 demonstrates the total water usage in
America in 2005:
The total water usage is estimated to be 127,750 billion gallons, the study then
compares
this to the
estimated
water usage
of fracking
in 2011.
This
comparison
shows that
fracking
uses
approximat
ely 0.1% of
the total
Figure 3.14 Water usage in the United States (2005
Figure 3.15 Water Life Cycle, Source: BP
Source: How Much Water Does Fracking for Shale Gas Consumer? Jenkins
43 | P a g e
U.S freshwater. This highlights that the water usage is actually minimal and the
numbers are again being over exaggerated by opposition groups. Despite this
minimal water usage fracking has still come under much scrutiny mainly as a result
of opposition groups and negative media attention. BP (n.d) has been trying to
minimise the amount of water used and has set up research and development with
universities in the states such as Texas and MIT. Figure 3.15 shows BPs attitude
towards water and how there is a focus placed upon minimising water losses. It
shows the life cycle of their water has been addressed.
3.3.2 Air Pollution
All forms of secondary energy extraction or the use of fossil fuels will cause damage
to our environment. Concerns regarding global warming have intensified in recent
years, however it needs to be investaged whether fracking has a greater impact in
comparison to other forms of energy extraction.
A paper by Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder (2011) addresses the issue of air
pollution stating that fracking causes air pollution at ‘dangerous levels’. The
following graphic (figure 3.16) shows the amount of emissions from fracking in
relation to conventional gas and coal. It can be seen from the graphic that levels of
C02 are similar to conventional gas and less than coal, however the levels of
methane are much higher.
Figure 3.16 Shale gas emissions in comparison to other energy forms.
Source: Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop? Howarth, Ingraffea and Engelder
44 | P a g e
The paper however does not give much explanation to the data set or how the data
was obtained. It perhaps exhibits another case of opponents unfairly targeting
fracking. No insight is given into methane sources and the paper just collects
different facts and statements without giving adequate explanation. To determine
how much of an environmental impact fracking will have a better analysis is needed.
The Department of Energy & Climate Change England (2014) released a report
addressing the local air quality as a result of fracking in the UK. The paper first
highlights the responsibilities of the operator and their requirements to ‘provide
their results to the relevant environmental regulator’. The operators must ensure
that the process is not leading to ‘air pollution levels higher than those set out in
their environmental permits’. Methane emissions are also covered, the amount
emitted must be in accordance to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Waste gas is also flared rather than vented which reduces emissions by
approximately 80%. Green completions are also used which collects and separates
any methane present in the fracturing fluid. The combination of flaring and green
completions reduces methane emissions by approximately 95% when compared to
only venting. The government has also ensured that using shale gas and oil will
meet legal climate change targets. A study by Professor Mackay and Dr.Stone (2013)
investigated the implications of fracking in relation to emissions and they concluded
that if the procedures are correctly followed then the impacts will be comparatively
small.
It can be seen from the relevant literature that the emissions from hydraulic
fracturing will not have an adverse effect. There will of course be emissions but the
issue mirrors other environmental issues with correct procedure and regulation
minimising the effects. What can be done to reduce environmental impact will be
addressed in the results section of this paper. It can be seen that all the majority of
environmental issues have been over-exaggerated however there are still serious
implications if the process is not correctly regulated or operated.
45 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Results
This chapter will display a set of steps that oil and gas companies can use to reduce
the social and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing and also improve
public image. The set of steps will be included in a social and environmental plan,
which has been derived from the information gathered in the literature view and its
critical analysis. This section will just display the suggested procedures and an
explanation and discussion of the plan will been given in chapter 5. This chapter
will not address recommendations for further research into the social and
environmental effects this will be provided in the conclusion of this paper. The
social and environmental plan will be shown on the following two pages.
Community Engagement
Social impact tools
Participatory rural appraisal (PRA)
Beneficiary assessment (BA)
Utlilise social media
Research
Improve social image
Health impact of chemicals
Training
Improve workers behaviour and social
image
Transparency
Full disclosure of information
Impact of emissions on public health
Social Plan
47 | P a g e
Innovation
Process Changes
Increased well testing
Increased well casing
Greener Products
Reduce chemical usage
Transparency
Full disclosure of information
Increased recycling of fracturing fluid
Environmental Plan
Will allow for more research and improve
process
Reduce emissions
Baseline water testing
Reduce environmental impact
Improve process as a whole
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1 Social Plan
The social plan derived for fracking companies to operate is split into four sections,
community engagement, research, training and transparency. The following
sections will be explained and expanded in this section:
o Community Engagement
Greater community engagement is needed, this will improve public image
and social licence to operate. The fracking industry needs to show that the
communities and people who may be affected are important. Neglecting
communities will only hinder the process. The following methods can be
used in order to increase community engagement:
i. Social impact tools
Rural Appraisal (PRA) is a tool which ‘emphasises local
knowledge and action’, it is a tool that has had success in a
wide range of different areas and was originally designed for
rural areas. The tool will allow ‘local people to work together
to plan community appropriate developments’ (EIA, 2002).
This will ensure that communities feel more engaged with the
changes that will occur to their communities and have some
voice in the matter.
Beneficiary Assessment (BA) is a tool which ensures that the
views and concerns of beneficiaries and stakeholders are
heard and incorporated into a project. This ensures that they
have a voice and allows oil and gas companies to receive
feedback.
49 | P a g e
ii. Utilise social media
As previously stated in the paper opponents of fracking have
utilised social media to voice their opinions and a result
fracking public image has been negatively affected. A lot of
the information being published on the web and portrayed
through social media is exaggerated. If fracking companies
had more of a presence on social media more information
could be provided and their public image could improve.
o Research
i. Improve social image
From reviewing the relevant literature it was apparent that
the true social implications of fracking are unknown. So for
fracking companies to reduce their social impacts then the full
extent of the implications needs to be understood. Greater
research into this area will provide oil and gas companies
with an improved insight and therefore allow them to
improve their social image.
ii. Health impacts of chemicals
More research is needed to understand the long term effects
upon the public if chemicals from hydraulic fracturing do
contaminate drinking water. Oil and gas companies
undermine the potential effects of these chemicals because of
their low concentrations. But even at low concentrations these
chemicals may potentially pose a threat. The potential impact
of these chemicals at their low concentrations therefore needs
to be researched further.
iii. Impact of emission on public health
More research is needed to understand the effect of emissions
especially for workers and those living in close proximity.
50 | P a g e
o Transparency
Oil and gas companies have generally withheld information regarding the
process and it has made it difficult to fully assess the impacts. Allowing full
disclosure of the information will improve public image and help research
into minimising the effects
5.2 Environmental Plan
The environmental plan is split into four sections, process changes, greener
products, transparency and innovation. The following sections will be explained
and expanded in this section:
o Process Modifications
The best way to minimise the environmental impacts of fracking is to make
process modifications. The following can be done to improve the process
environmentally:
i. Increased well testing
Increasing the frequency of tests done on the integrity of the
wells will reduce the amount of incidents.
ii. Increased well casing
Increasing the amount of casing or improving it will also
reduce the amount of incidents.
iii. Increasing recycling of fracturing fluid
Improving the efficiency of the process in relation to the
amount of fluid recycled will not only improve the process
environmentally but also put less of a strain on resources.
iv. Baseline water testing
This will not only reduce the amount of water contamination
but also provide a greater insight into the frequency of water
contamination.
51 | P a g e
o Innovation
A higher rate of innovation will reduce environmental impact and improve
the general process. This will also improve public image if the industry is
continually aiming to develop innovate technology.
o Greener Products
Reducing the amount of chemicals and aiming to reduce emissions will
reduce frackings environmental impact. This will also improve public image.
52 | P a g e
Chapter 6: Conclusion
This project investigated the social and environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing
in the United States. The aim of the paper was to determine the true implications of
fracking and to develop steps to reduce its effects. This chapter will summarise the
findings and suggest recommendations for future research. The general finding
however was that social and environmental effects of fracking are not as adverse
and stated by opponents and in the media. The process can be integrated into
society, however there are several advances that are needed to continue to minimise
the effects and to gain a better grasp of the true implications.
6.1 Summary
o Social effects
This paper found that hydraulic fracturing has several social implications;
however not all the effects are directly related to the process itself. It was
found that hydraulic fracturing has increased social disorganisation in rural
communities in America however there is conflicting findings from
comparing the surprisingly scant relevant literature. Elevated levels of traffic
and accidents were experienced by communities, however this is expected
due to the population increase experienced. The increased levels of crime
were recorded but some studies deemed this significantly insignificant. No
decisive conclusion could be made with regards to crime due to data
limitations and difficulties with monitoring rural crime. However the social
implications have been exaggerated by opponents of fracking and media
coverage and this has also contributed to the alteration in social fabric. The
illusion of crime and social disorder has altered communities and changed
human perceptions and this cannot be solely blamed on oil and gas
companies.
This study also found that there is an increased threat to public health as a
result of chemicals and air pollution. The threat posed by migration of
chemicals was however a potential threat, the chance of contamination and
how much of an impact the chemicals used in the process was covered in the
environmental section of this paper. Air pollution was found to pose the
greatest threat to those living in a closer proximity. However all these effects
53 | P a g e
are difficult to quantify as it is the long term threats that are more dangerous
and data limitations was also an difficulty when trying to determine the
effects.
It was also found that hydraulic fracturing has resulted in a shift in the
control of economic factors. Neoliberals are altering stakeholder’s
perceptions and water is being quantified only economically.
The investigation of the social effects of fracking found that because of the
lack of research and data limitations it is difficult to determine frackings true
social implications. However whether fracking is directly altering
communities’ social structure the social unrest that it has created is apparent.
Frackings public image has been damaged and it has affected the industries
social and legal license to operate.
o Environmental effects
This paper found that environmental effects of fracking are generally
exaggerated by opponents and the media however there are still some
environmental implications. Water contamination due to the chemicals used
in the process was found to be unlikely however still a possibility. The
biggest threat to water quality was due to methane migration; however the
methane can either be from a natural or human recourse. It was found that
most regions have little problems with water contamination however
Pennsylvania has had several issues. Even though Pennsylvania has
naturally high levels of methane it was found that fracking has caused water
contamination in this region. The amount of water used by the process was
found to be minimal and this has been extorted by opponents.
It was also found that fracking does have an effect upon air quality and with
any form of secondary energy extraction emissions are present. It was
however found that the effects are not adverse and if properly regulated can
be controlled.
In general it was found that the environmental effects of fracking are being
exaggerated but oil and gas companies are also slightly undermining the
effects. If the process is regulated and operated correctly the environmental
impacts of fracking are minimal however there is still a threat. The lack of
transparency was again evident with fracking companies not providing full
disclosure.
54 | P a g e
6.2 Recommendations
The aim of project was met and the social and environmental effects of hydraulic
fracturing were determined along with a plan to minimise these implications.
However data limitation’s, lack of relevant social literature, oil and gas companies
lack of transparency and varying conclusions were all a problem. The following
needs to be done to address these problems:
o Increased transparency from oil and gas companies.
o Greater monitoring and data collection in rural areas.
The following points are recommendations for further research:
o When investigating the correlation between crime and fracking part I and II
UCR crimes need to be investigated and migration data needs to be included
to fully determine exact population increase.
o More investigation into the long term health effects as a result of fracking.
o Investigation of a greater range of states to determine the cause of the
methane contamination (i.e. whether it be biogenic or thermogenic)
o A detailed risk assessment of the environmental impacts of fracking in the
United States and using only properly regulated and operated fracks.
55 | P a g e
References
1. Allen, K. (2012). Big Fracking Deal: Marcellus Shale-Pennsylvania's
Untapped Resource, The. Vill. Envtl. LJ, 23, p.51.
2. Americansagainstfracking.org, (2014). Americans Against Fracking. [online]
Available at: http://www.americansagainstfracking.org/ [Accessed 12 Sep.
2014].
3. Americansagainstfracking.org, (n.d.). Americans Against Fracking. [online]
Available at: http://www.americansagainstfracking.org/ [Accessed 4 Sep.
2014].
4. Archbold, C., Dahle, T. and Jordan, R. (2013). Policing the patch: An
examination of the impact of the oil boom on small town policing and crime
in western North Dakota. North Dakota State University: Author.
5. Arthur, J., Bohm, B., Coughlin, B., Layne, M., Cornue, D. and others, (2008).
Evaluating the environmental implications of hydraulic fracturing in shale
gas reservoirs. ALL Consulting. http://www. all-llc.
com/publicdownloads/ArthurHydrFracPaperFINAL. pdf.
6. Booth, J., Rowe, M. and Fischer, K. (1996). Offshore Gas Hydrate Sample
Database with an Overview and Preliminary Analysis. USGC.
7. Boyer, E., Swistock, B., Clark, J., Madden, M. and Rizzo, D. (2012). The impact
of Marcellus gas drilling on rural drinking water supplies. The Center for Rural
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania General Assembly.
8. BP, (n.d.). BP Energy Outlook 2035, US.
9. BP, (n.d.). Unconventional gas and hydraulic fracturing. Issue briefing. BP
sustainability. BP.
10. Brown, T. (2010). Social Change, Social Capital and Civic Community: A
Qualitative Study of the Long Term Effects of Industrial Restricting on a Coastal
56 | P a g e
Community. Louisiana State University.
11. Colborn, T., Kwiatkowski, C., Schultz, K. and Bachran, M. (2011). Natural
gas operations from a public health perspective. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment: An International Journal, 17(5), pp.1039--1056.
12. Department of Energy & Climate Change England, (2014). Local air quality.
Fracking UK Shale.
13. Department of Energy & Climate Change England, (2014). Potential
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use .
14. Dooley, L. and Ruzicka, R. (2012). Law Enforcement Survey on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault. Rural Crime and Justice Center, Minot State
University.
15. Ecosystems Research Group, (2008). Sublette county socioeconomic study, Phase
II-Final report.
16. Eia.gov, (2014). Analysis & Projections - U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). [online] Available at:
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/ [Accessed 14 Sep. 2014].
17. Eia.gov, (2014). U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). [online]
Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/world.cfm [Accessed 14 Sep.
2014].
18. Finewood, M. and Stroup, L. (2012). Fracking and the Neoliberalization of
the Hydro-Social Cycle in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale. Journal of
Contemporary Water research & education, 147(1), pp.72--79.
19. Food & Water Watch, (2013). The Social Costs of Fracking, A Pennsylvania Case
Study.
20. Forsyth, C., Luthra, A. and Bankston, W. (2007). Framing perceptions of oil
development and social disruption. The Social Science Journal, 44(2), pp.287--
57 | P a g e
299.
21. Frack.skytruth.org, (2014). FracFocus Chemical Database Download -
Skytruthing Fracking. [online] Available at: http://frack.skytruth.org/fracking-
chemical-database/frack-chemical-data-download [Accessed 14 Sep. 2014].
22. Gasland, (2014). Gasland. [online] Available at:
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/faq/water-used [Accessed
14 Sep. 2014].
23. Goldenberg, S., Shoveller, J., Ostry, A. and Koehoorn, M. (2008). Youth
sexual behaviour in a boomtown: implications for the control of sexually
transmitted infections. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 84(3), pp.220--223.
24. Hanson, J. and Limerick, P. (2009). What Every Westerner Should Know About
Oil Shale: A Guide to Shale Country. Colorado: Center of the American West,
University of Colorado.
25. Howarth, R., Ingraffea, A. and Engelder, T. (2011). Natural gas: Should
fracking stop?. Nature, 477(7364), pp.271--275.
26. James, A. and Smith, B. (2014). There Will Be Blood: Crime Rates in Shale-
Rich US Counties.
27. Jenkins, J. (2013). Energy Facts: How Much Water Does Fracking for Shale Gas
Consume? | The Energy Collective. [online] Theenergycollective.com.
Available at: http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/205481/friday-
energy-facts-how-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume [Accessed
14 Sep. 2014].
28. Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D. (2013). Fracking and public relations:
rehearsing the arguments and making the case. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(4),
pp.384--390.
29. Kelly, S. (2014). Responding to Investor Pressure, ExxonMobil Agrees to Disclose
Fracking Risks. [online] DeSmogBlog. Available at:
58 | P a g e
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/06/exxonmobil-agrees-disclose-
fracking-risks-investors [Accessed 24 Aug. 2014].
30. Kowalski, L. and Zajac, G. (2012). A preliminary examination of Marcellus
shale drilling activity and crime trends in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State
University, Justice Center for Research, 9.
31. Levy, M. (2011). Towns see crime, carousing surge amid gas boom. [online]
Yahoo News UK. Available at: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/towns-see-crime-
carousing-surge-amid-gas-boom-135643480.html#in5iGpf [Accessed 12 Aug.
2014].
32. Linley, D. (2011). The Environmental and Social Impacts and Risks of Shale Gas
Development. Fracking Under Pressure. Sustainalytics.
33. Lower 48 states shale playes. (2011). [online] Available at:
http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/rpd/shale_gas.pdf [Accessed 14 Sep. 2014].
34. Luthra, A. (2006). The relationship of crime and oil development in the coastal
regions of Louisiana . Doctoral dissertation. Louisiana State University.
35. McDermott-Levy, R., Kaktins, N. and Sattler, B. (2013). Fracking, the
environment, and health. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 113(6), pp.45--
51.
36. McKenzie, L., Witter, R., Newman, L. and Adgate, J. (2012). Human health
risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional
natural gas resources. Science of the Total Environment, 424, pp.79--87.
37. Merriam, S. and Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research. 1st ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
38. Montana All Threat intelligence Center and North Dakota State & Local
Intelligence Center, (2012). Impact of Population Growth on Law Enforcement in
the Williston Basin Region.
59 | P a g e
39. Osborn, S., Vengosh, A., Warner, N. and Jackson, R. (2011). Methane
contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and
hydraulic fracturing. proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(20),
pp.8172--8176.
40. PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center, (2012). The Costs of Fracking.
The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling's Environmental Damage.
41. Putz, A., Finken, A. and Goreham, G. (2011). Sustainability in Natural
Resource-Dependent Regions that Experienced Boom-Bust-Recovery Cycles:
Lessons Learned from a Review of the Literature. Center for Community
Vitality Working Paper.
42. Ridlington, E. and Rumpler, J. (2013). Fracking by the Numbers.
43. Rmi.org, (2014). Fossil fuels: global production, 1800–2200. [online] Available at:
http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-Fossil_fuels_global_production [Accessed 15
Sep. 2014].
44. Ruddell, R., Jayasundara, D., Mayzer, R. and Heitkamp, T. (2014). Drilling
Down: An Examination of the Boom-Crime Relationship in Resource-Based
Boom Counties. Western Criminology Review, 15(1).
45. Soeder, D. and Kappel, W. (2009). Water Resources and Natural Gas
Production from the Marcellus Shale. USGS.
46. Soeder, D., Sharma, S., Pekney, N., Hopkinson, L., Dilmore, R., Kutchko, B.,
Stewart, B., Carter, K., Hakala, A. and Capo, R. (2014). An approach for
assessing engineering risk from shale gas wells in the United States.
International Journal of Coal Geology, 126, pp.4--19.
47. Spellman, F. (2013). Environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. 1st ed. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
48. StateImpact Texas, (n.d.). What Is The Barnett Shale?. [online] Available at:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/barnett-shale/ [Accessed 14 Sep. 2014].
60 | P a g e
49. The Guardian, (2014). Fracking contamination more common than US states
report, says new review. [online] Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/06/drilling-pollution-
complaints-state-reports-pennsylvania [Accessed 8 Sep. 2014].
50. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, (2014). Wells
Drilled By County. [online] Available at:
http://www.depreportingservices.state.pa.us/ReportServer/Pages/ReportVie
wer.aspx?/Oil_Gas/Wells_Drilled_By_County [Accessed 4 Sep. 2014].
51. Torjesen, I. (2013). Fracking poses little risk to public health, but evidence is
limited. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 347.
52. Vidic, R., Brantley, S., Vandenbossche, J., Yoxtheimer, D. and Abad, J. (2013).
Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science,
340(6134), p.1235009.
53. Wilkinson, K., Thompson, J., Reynolds Jr, R. and Ostresh, L. (1982). Local
social disruption and western energy development: a critical review. Pacific
Sociological Review, pp.275--296.
54. Willow, A. and Wylie, S. (2014). Politics, ecology, and the new anthropology
of energy: exploring the emerging frontiers of hydraulic fracking. Journal of
Political Ecology, 21, pp.222--236.
55. Wyse, S. (2011). Difference between Qualitative Research vs. Quantitative
Research. [online] Snapsurveys.com. Available at:
http://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-
qualitative-research-and-quantitative-research/ [Accessed 14 Sep. 2014].