Facts on Hydraulic Fracturing and its Safety Issues. Tomasz Chmal Luis A. Prieto

Tomasz Chmal Luis A. Prieto Warsaw, June 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Natural gas exploration and production plays a major role in the United States energy market. In recent years, the production of shale gas has increasingly become an important source of natural gas in the country. Throughout the lower 48 states, a wave of shale gas basins has been identified. While all the basins have different characteristics, all are being explored using a practice known as hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The procedure of hydraulic fracturing involves the pumping of fracking fluid under high pressure into the shale formation in order to generate fractures in the target rock formation. Fracking fluid is composed of a mixture of over 98% water and sand, and 2% chemical additives. The mixture enhances the created fractures allowing the migration of shale gas up the well in order for it to be store and use for energy. Since fracking maximizes production levels, many states have relied on the practice of hydraulic fracturing in order to meet the demand for in-house energy sources. The industry of oil and gas in the United States has been highly regulated by a set of complex and strict laws that govern every aspect of exploration and production. Both, federal and state laws and regulations ensure that fracking is performed to the industry s upmost standards of safety. Violations result in serious fines and penalties. As fracking becomes the preferred method of extracting natural gas, including shale gas, many people have voiced their concern for the potential environmental impacts the procedure may cause. Environmentalist, politicians, and the general public have allegedly reported various incidents of contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. A recent film, Gasland, made matters worse, when it falsely portrayed the truth behind hydraulic fracturing. Relying on these allegations and assumptions, various governmental bodies have placed moratoriums on hydraulic fracturing. In spite of the moratoriums, acknowledgement that the industry has been operating safely for decades has been accepted by these officials. Hydraulic fracturing of shale gas wells generally requires the use of two to four million gallons of water. While this number may seem incredibly large, the reality is that the total water usage during fracking makes up a very small fraction of the total available water. Major shale gas producing states, like Oklahoma and Texas, have reported that only about one to three percent of the total water available is used for hydraulic fracturing. When regulatory agencies have documented the availability of their natural resources, they have been able to determine whether the water extraction site will be affected before a drilling permit is issued. This allows the operator to identify another source where extraction will not be a problem. Regulations like this allocates for different varying water levels throughout the country. In addition, many companies have begun to recycle produced water in order to reduce the needed volume in future drilling sites. Many people argue that the fracturing procedure, in itself, is a major concern for contamination because the process creates fractures in the ground allowing for escaping gas and chemicals to infiltrate underground sources of drinking water (USDW). After conducting a study on the potential environmental impacts hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane could have posed to USDWs, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that such threat was nearly impossible. By using the same hydraulic fracturing procedure in the extraction of shale gas as in coalbed methane, one could only come to the same conclusion since shale gas is found in much deeper rock formations. States i

have determined that gas and chemical migration after fracking is only possible if the operator negligently cemented and cased the well during construction. Furthermore, certain shale formations are susceptible to re-closing, further explaining the impossibility of migration. Hydraulic fracturing has never been the actual cause of any migrating gas that has contaminated an USDW. After the actual fracking is completed the produced water, containing chemicals and minerals, returns to the surface. As mentioned above, underground seepage will only occur when the well is negligently built. Once the water has reached the surface it is either stored in protected lined pits located adjacent to the drill site or contained in steel tanks. As with the handling of any liquid, the probability of a leak or spill is inevitable, but with strict regulations and supervision, it can greatly be reduced. States take this very seriously and issue aadequate fines when they do occur. In the event that a surface spill is detected, immediate reporting and cleaning is mandated in order to prevent further contamination. Surface spills as a result of improper well construction or fluid mishandling poses the real dangers of contamination. Another major concern with hydraulic fracturing is the alleged possibility of earthquakes. These seismic activities have been felt in New York, Texas, and most recently, Scotland. Although scientists have explained that induced seismic activity as a result of hydraulic fracturing is a possibility, the felt seismic waves are of minimal threat and could only be detected by very sensitive instruments. Scientists have also explained the difference between hydraulic fractured induced seismic activity and the seismic activity as a result of deep water disposal injection requiring deeper and higher pressure procedures. Studies prove a connection between the latter, while no connection has been established between hydraulic fracturing of shale gas formations and the seismic activity. In fact, the seismic events recorded as a result of deep water disposal sites could have been prevented if operators would have noticed the geological faults that were disturbing near by. More research is being performed on this issue, but it is safe to say that both procedures are completely different and the extraction of shale gas poses minimal threat. While hydraulic fracturing continues to become a drilling choice for many operators, many citizens have commented on the reduction of air quality the procedure may cause. It has been determined, that many of these concerns pose little or no threat to the air quality or public concern. Despite the fact that airborne dust particles from construction activities and traffic operations may disturb the air, they are limited to small areas and operators are working on reducing this concern making it a very short lived disturbance. In addition, further technological advantages of hydraulic fracturing a horizontal well make it possible to fracture the same well multiple times; reducing the number of drilling sites and surface disturbance. Other air quality allegations include: that the lined pits allow for the evaporation of the chemical filled water, diesel fuel fumes from equipment operations, and the emission of greenhouse gases such as the methane that is being produced. Many states regulations require that the produced water store in the lined pits be collected after all drilling activity has stopped. This short amount of time allows for minimal air exposure, reducing the elimination of evaporation. In addition, many states have updated their regulations to contain produced water in steel storage tanks, reducing the exposure time to non-existing. Since a well cannot be drilled, completed, and produced without the emission of diesel fuels and other greenhouse gases, many studies have been conducted to minimize this threat. The EPA has already entered into an agreement with major oil and gas companies limiting the use ii

of diesel fuel in their fracking fluid to zero. In addition to not posing a threat to USDWs, this reduces air quality impacts because it is less diesel fuel needed in any drilling site, allowing for less spill potentials. As technology continues to advance, operators are working on ways to use less diesel fuel reducing the air emissions through different filtering stages of the operations. The emission of methane, as a greenhouse gas, is greatly reduced by adequate well construction because it allows the gas to safely be collected without any exposure and impact to air quality. Based on the information collected, it is clear that fracking does not pose any threatening environmental harm as many have attributed to it. The current trend of hydraulically fracturing horizontal wells, for the production of shale gas, has proven to be nothing but a major step forward to a greener, safer energy industry. The overwhelming numbers of wells that have been hydraulically fractured demonstrate that the practice is both harmless and beneficial to the environment. States like Colorado have hydraulically fractured over a million wells; Oklahoma has fracked over 100,000 wells; over 80,000 wells have been fracked in Ohio, with similar numbers in other states. Yet there has not been one single connection between water and air contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. While some challenges may exist as the technology continues to advance, environmental protection agencies will continue to amend their regulations protecting both their environment and their natural resources of oil and gas. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...1 INTRODUCTION...2 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING...3 EPA National Study on Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs...3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK...3 REGULATORY STATE AGENCIES STATEMENTS...4 Alabama...5 Alaska...6 Colorado...6 Louisiana...8 Michigan...9 New York...10 North Dakota...12 Ohio...12 Oklahoma...13 Pennsylvania...14 Texas...16 Wyoming...17 Summary...17 Acronyms and Abbreviations...19 State Agencies...20 Endnotes...21 1

INTRODUCTION Natural gas exploration and production plays a major role in the United States energy market. In recent years the production of shale gas has increasingly become an important source of natural gas in the country. Many states have relied on the practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in order to meet the demand for in-house energy sources. As fracking becomes a better method of extracting natural gases, including shale gas, many people have voiced their concern for the potential environmental impact the process may cause. Environmentalist, politicians, and the general public have allegedly reported various incidents of contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. A recent film, Gasland, made matters worst, when it falsely portrayed the truth behind hydraulic fracturing. Relying on these allegations and assumptions, various governmental bodies have placed moratoriums on hydraulic fracturing. In spite of the moratoriums, acknowledgement that the industry has been operating safely for decades has been accepted by these officials. This report intends to provide a summary of individual state s environmental protection agencies and their regulations on hydraulic fracturing. The states were chosen because they are amongst several of the major states that have been using hydraulic fracturing for decades, allowing extensive studies and investigations on the impacts fracking may pose. Included are official agency s statements confirming that hydraulic fracturing has not been a source of environmental contamination in their respective state. A brief summary is provided on both federal and state regulatory framework in order to explain how fracking has been regulated throughout the years. 2

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING Hydraulic fracturing is a process used to maximize the extraction of oil, natural gas, geothermal energy, and even water. 1 The process begins with the building of a well site and the proper infrastructure. Casing and cement are installed in order to protect fresh and treatable water aquifers. 2 The drilling and completion of shale gas wells can be either vertical or horizontal; the latter maximizes the extraction and thus it is being utilized more often. 3 After the well has been completed, the actual fracking begins. Hydraulic fracturing involves the pumping of fracking fluid, under high pressure, into shale formations to generate fractures or cracks in the target rock formation. 4 After the fractures are created, a propping agent is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing, thus allowing the flow of shale gas migrate up the well. 5 The fracking fluid is composed of over 98% water and sand, while the rest is a combination of different chemicals to improve the effectiveness of the fracture[ed] job. 6 Many people are concerned with the potential impacts the injection of fracking fluid has on the environment because millions of gallons of water are used, in addition to potential hazardous chemicals. While many believe that fracking allows for the movement of fracking fluid to move up rock formations and into drinkable water sources, the federal government, along with state agencies, has concluded that it is nearly impossible. EPA National Study on Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs After a court ruling in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals holding the injection of fluids, for the purpose of fracking, constitutes underground injection as defined under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and Alabama s underground injection control program (UIC), 7 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided to conduct a national study in order to evaluate potential risks to underground sources of drinking water (USDW). The study began in the fall of 2000, when EPA began collecting information on hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane (CBM) reservoirs. 8 After an extensive research on 11 major CBM formations, EPA concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat to USDWs. 9 EPA did find the use of diesel fuel as the greatest potential threat to USDWs and entered into an agreement with the three major services companies to eliminate diesel fuel from hydraulic fracturing fluids injected directly into USDWs, thus reducing the harm. 10 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The industry of oil and gas in the United States is highly regulated by a set of complex and strict laws that govern every aspect of exploration and production. The EPA, along with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), administers most of the federal laws. In addition to federal agencies, each oil and gas producing state has their own regulatory agencies. Many federal laws are implemented by the states under agreements and plans approved by the appropriate federal agencies. 11 The EPA Primer states: 3

A series of federal laws governs most environmental aspects of shale gas development. For example, the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates surface discharges of water associated with shale gas drilling and production, as well as storm water runoff from production sites. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates the underground injection of fluids from shale gas activities. The Clean Air Act (CAA) limits air emissions from engines, gas processing equipment, and other sources associated with drilling and production. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that exploration and production on federal lands be thoroughly analyzed for environmental impacts. 12 Although states and local municipalities may adopt their own standards, the regulations must, at least, be as protective as federal law requires. 13 This is allowed, because states can manage their own region with extra regulations that may not apply to their neighboring states. In addition, states have implemented voluntary review process; such as guidelines put in place by the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulation, Inc. (STRONGER), and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) to ensure that the state programs are as effective as possible. 14 It is to say that the exploration and production of oil and gas in the United States is without a doubt under strict regulation. Both the federal and state governments have passed regulations and laws that ensure the safe practice of hydraulic fracturing while protecting the environment. REGULATORY STATE AGENCIES STATEMENTS The following includes state environmental protection agencies statements on hydraulic fracturing and the environmental impact it has had on each individual state. This does not include every state in where shale gas production is currently in use, but instead it focuses on the major states that use the technology. Major North American Shale Basins and their Perspective Locations 15 4

Alabama The State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama is the regulatory agency responsible for preventing waste and promoting the conservation of oil and gas, while ensuring the protection of both the environment and the correlative rights of owners. 16 In a 2002 survey, 17 conducted by IOGCC, Alabama reported that the practice of fracturing has been in use in the state since the establishment of the agency in 1945. 18 Since then, the Alabama legislature has continued to amend the state s oil and gas statutes in order to be on par with safety regulations. The SDWA requires that the EPA approves only effective state UIC programs in order to protect underground sources of drinking water from potential dangers resulting from improper injection of fluids associated with, among other things, oil and gas production. 19 Alabama s UIC program was approved by EPA in 1982 20 after EPA concluded that Alabama s UIC program properly accomplished the SDWA s objective. 21 In 1994, the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF) petitioned EPA to initiate proceedings, withdrawing the approval of Alabama s UIC program, because it did not regulate hydraulic fracturing of methane gas production as required by the SDWA. 22 EPA denied the petition and LEAF brought an action to appeal EPA s decision to the 11th U.S. District Court of Appeals. 23 By interpreting the plain language of the statute, the Court ruled in favor of LEAF mandating EPA to include hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane under the restrictions imposed by state s UICs. 24 The Court made it clear that it was not assessing the risk of harm the process may or may not pose, but was only focusing on the SDWA statutory language. 25 In response, the State of Alabama revised its UIC program and implemented new regulations consistent with the Court s ruling. 26 LEAF filed another suit in the 11th U.S. District Court of Appeals appealing Alabama s new regulations but the Court ruled that the new regulations met the statutory criteria and thus needed no amending. 27 The LEAF cases are important court decisions that regulate the technology of hydraulic fracturing solely to statutory definitions and not on any environmental harm. Although there have been many environmental and health complaints associated with hydraulic fracturing, no evidence has been proven to connect the two together. The Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama reported that an investigation conducted by: the State Oil & Gas Board of Alabama, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, and the EPA had failed to discover any evidence that fracking had contaminated a family well. 28 In a testimony submitted by David E. Bolin, Ph.D., Deputy Director of the State Oil & Gas Board of Alabama, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Bolin reported that a survey conducted by the Ground Water Protection Council in 1999 concluded that there was no indication suggesting that the public health is at risk as a result of the hydraulic fracturing of coalbeds used for the production of methane gas. 29 The Alabama State Geologist and Oil & Gas Supervisor, Nick Tew, Ph.D., P.G., stated: there have been no documented cases of drinking water contamination that have resulted from hydraulic fracturing operations to stimulate oil and gas wells in the State of Alabama. 30 Dr. Tew goes further in explaining the fact that Alabama has not documented any contamination from hydraulic fracturing operations confirms that the rules and regulations, in addition to state and federal statutes, are effective ways the Board regulates the industry. 31 5

Alabama s oil and gas industry provides major economic benefits to not only its citizens, but to the state as well. Over $2.4 billion worth of oil and gas are produced annually in Alabama. The state receives direct benefits of approximately $500 million annually in the form of lease bonuses, royalties, trust-funds investment income, and severance taxes. 32 Officials in Alabama have repeatedly affirmed that fracking does not pose a threat to USDW s. Although Alabama has had limited attempts on the development of shale gas, Dr. Bolin affirms that there is no documented case of contamination resulting from hydraulic fracturing operations for any type of oil and gas well in Alabama. 33 It is thus clear, that hydraulic fracturing, for the development of shale gas, would not pose a threat to neither the environment nor to humans. Alaska Hydraulic fracturing began in Alaska in 1958. 34 Although the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) has no specific regulations governing hydraulic fracturing for conventional gas, it does have in place strict statutes and regulations on well construction requirements. 35 These strict regulations guarantee that underwater sources of drinking water are protected and not contaminated. If it is determined that a well does not meet the proper requirements or is malfunctioning, Alaska mandates the immediate shutdown of the well. 36 In addition, AOGCC is required, by federal statutes, to take the necessary measures in order to protect underwater sources of drinking water from nonconventional gas operations such as shale gas. 37 AOGCC s mission is [t]o protect the public interest in exploration and development of Alaska s valuable oil and gas resources through the application of conservation practices designed to ensure greater ultimate recovery and the protection of health, safety, fresh ground waters and the rights of all owners to recover their share of the resource. 38 In 2011, AOGCC issued a Hydraulic Fracturing White Paper stating that in over fifty years of oil and gas production, Alaska has not documented an instance in where hydraulic fracturing has affected the quality of drinking water. 39 In the report submitted by IOGCC, AOGCC s Commissioner, Cathy Foerster reaffirmed that not a single groundwater contamination case has been confirmed as a result of hydraulic fracturing. 40 Even with the lack of extra regulations, Alaska has taken the necessary precautions to protect its expansive environmental beauty. For over fifty years, the state has used the technology of hydraulic fracturing, and for over fifty years, Alaska has made a profit; not only a profit on direct royalty revenue; 41 but a profit in keeping their environment as pristine as always. History has proven that hydraulic fracturing is a secure and much needed technology to extract nonconventional gases. Colorado Amongst some of the goals of the State of Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) includes the exploration, development and conservation of Colorado s oil and gas natural resources while preventing and mitigating adverse impacts to public health, safety, welfare and the environment. 42 COGCC was established in 1951 when the General Assembly passed the Oil and Gas Conservation Act of 1951. 43 It has been documented that hydraulic fracturing has been used in Colorado since the inception of the Commission; 44 and with over a million wells hydraulically fractured, no contamination has been documented. 45 6

In 2009, David Neslin, director of COGCC, reported: there has been no verified instance of harm to groundwater caused by hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. 46 In addition, in a February 2011 report, COGCC made it clear that if any impact on water resources had occurred as a result of any hydraulic fracturing or other oil and gas operations, the Commission would have been able to identify them during their investigations. 47 Most recently, in a public report, COGCC again stated that they have not documented any instances of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater, 48 including an allegation that hydraulic fracturing had contaminated water wells in Southern Colorado. 49 Gasland Gasland is a 2010 documentary film directed by Josh Fox. The film focuses on hydraulic fracturing and the alleged environmental impacts the procedure has caused. After receiving $100,000 in exchange for a drilling lease permit in his property, Fox sets out on a cross-country journey, in order to find the truth behind hydraulic fracturing. He first encounters a Pennsylvanian family whose is able to light their tap water on fire. As his continues on his quest, he meets with families who have allegedly been affected by local fracking activity and have been victims of air and water contamination as well as health issues. After the film was released, many environmental protection agencies reported their investigational reports on the incidents seen in the movie. Not one case was found to be the result of hydraulic fractioning. Additional misleading claims include: the lack of regulatory laws, the chemicals used in fracking fluid, and the mischaracterization of the process. The documentary film Gasland featured three Weld County, Colorado citizens alleging that hydraulic fracturing had contaminated their water wells. As a result of Gasland s misconstrued facts, COGCC issued a public report correcting the film s errors. 50 All three landowners: Renee McClure, Mike Markham, and Aimee Ellsworth 51, alleged that the hydraulic fracturing extraction process made their water supply turn murky in color, bubble, and even caused it to burst into flames. COGCC conducted investigations on all three sites and found that none of the issues were associated with oil and gas extraction. 52 In their attempt to clarify the errors, COGCC explained the difference between biogenic methane and thermogenic methane, an important difference Gasland decides to overlook. Biogenic methane is created by the decomposition of organic material through fermentation or by the chemical reduction of carbon dioxide. 53 Biogenic methane is usually found in wetlands and shallow, water-bearing geologic formations, into which water wells are sometimes completed. 54 On the other hand, thermogenic methane is created by thermal decomposition or produced by drilling oil or gas wells that are hydraulic fractured. 55 Therefore, thermogenic methane is associated with oil and gas development, while biogenic methane is not. 56 In Ms. McClure s case, an investigation conducted by Terracon Inc. (under direction of COGCC) and an investigation conducted by LT Environmental, Inc. (under the direction of Noble Energy, Inc.) both concluded that the methane gas content present in her well was the product of natural bacteriological activity and unrelated to any oil and gas activities. 57 For that reason, both investigations concluded that the methane found in her well was biogenic methane and not thermogenic methane. Mr. Markham received similar results when COGCC concluded that the dissolved methane in his well appeared to be biogenic in origin. 58 COGCC confirms that the occurrence of methane in Weld County has been properly 7

documented by various state agencies, explaining why these wells have a high content of methane. 59 Mr. and Mrs. Ellsworth s well results identified a mixture of both thermogenic and biogenic methane. 60 As a result, COGCC conducted investigations on 37 oil and gas wells within a one-mile radius from the Ellsworth well. 61 In addition, it focused a field test study on all oil and gas wells within half a mile from the well, finding that none of the wells had suffered a leak or contamination. 62 COGCC also conducted an investigation on an old well that had been drilled sometime around 1946, finding the well as not being the cause of the thermogenic methane found. 63 In sampling an additional 26 other water wells in the area, thermogenic methane was not detected, which meant this contamination was an isolated issue. 64 COGCC was unable to identify the activity or existing well as the source of thermogenic methane. In an attempt to aid the Ellsworth s and put them in a better situation, Noble, voluntarily, began providing substitute water and eventually came to a settlement with the owners. 65 Gasland also fails to explain the difference between biogenic and thermogenic methane found in Ms. Bracken s well located in the Piceance Basin in Garfield County, Colorado. 66 On various occasions, COGCC took samples from Ms. Bracken s land and determined hydraulic fracturing was not the cause of any water, land, and soil contamination. 67 Gasland also claims that a West Side Creek gas seep was caused by hydraulic fracturing, when in reality it was caused by EnCana s failure of properly cementing a natural gas well. 68 COGCC conducted public hearing and fined EnCana Three Hundred Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred dollars ($371,200) for the violations. 69 Colorado has also been aware of induced seismicity related to human activity; including seismic events are the result of the oil and gas industry. The Colorado Geological Survey and the Colorado School of Mines, along with the University of Colorado, have been able to collect a wealth of data associated with these events and have been able to aid COGCC with necessary data determining that hydraulically fracturing wells does not pose any notable geological impacts. 70 Accordingly, Colorado has not been able to document an instance where fracking has affected or altered any drinking water resources. When contamination has occurred, it has been determined that it was the result of human error or company negligence. COGCC takes these action very seriously and imposes substantial fines against the operator. With this in mind, it is clear that hydraulic fracturing has no potential threat to the environment. Louisiana The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Office of Conservation, has primary statutory responsibility for regulation and conservation of oil, gas, lignite, and other natural resources. 71 Throughout its history, DNR has undergone several reviews of their hydraulic fracturing program in order to implement the safest and most up to date regulations possible. The first report was published in 1994, resulting in the modification of several sections as a response to the recommendations; these amended sections were later reported in a second report in 2004. 72 Louisiana began using hydraulic fracturing in the 1960s. 73 In an attempt to be up to date with hydraulic fracturing guidelines, DNR, Office of Conservation, volunteered to have its hydraulic fracturing program reviewed by STRONGER an agency that reviews issues 8

associated with hydraulic fracturing in order to develop regulatory guidelines. 74 After an indepth review of Louisiana s hydraulic fracturing regulatory program, the review team concluded the state s program was well-managed and met its objectives. 75 In fact, the report identified several strong practices that help generate the program s constant success. One of these strengths was the program s response to the high demand of water needed during fracking and the impact it has on domestic water supplies. 76 DNR was aware that in the initial development stages of Haynesville Shale fracking, groundwater was heavily relied on. 77 In a response to this issue, DNR was able to identify sources of groundwater of lower quality for human consumption, but that were suitable for hydraulic fracturing; thus reducing the impact hydraulic fracturing causes on domestic water. 78 Other strengths include: the recycling of flowback fluids, safeguards and regulations relating to the exploration and production gas, and a good public outreach program allowing the public to be well informed of industry activity. 79 In 2009, James Welsh, Commissioner of the Conservation, reported that the Office of Conservation was unaware of any instances of groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. 80 Two years later, in the STRONGER report, it was again affirmed that the State of Louisiana has not a single case identifying groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. 81 When hydraulic fracturing fluids is found, it usually comes from illegal discharge or leaks; Louisiana s Department of Environmental Quality immediately tries to resolve the issue and imposes fines to the company at fault. 82 Throughout the production and extraction of oil and gas in the State of Louisiana, the state has continuously amended its laws in order to keep the environment safe and reduce waste. In recent years, Louisiana has been victim to many environmental catastrophes, but for over 70 years, hydraulic fracturing has never caused a problem. Louisiana is a great example of how the improvement of technology, such as fracking, can continue to benefit the state both financially and environmentally. Michigan In Michigan, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for regulating hydraulic fracturing as well as any other activity related to oil and gas drilling and production. Over 12,000 wells have been hydraulically fractured in the state since the practice was first utilized in the 1960s. 83 For over 50 years, fracking has been utilized in the state without any reports of environmental harm. This success is largely due to the state s strict standards for oil production and water disposal. 84 Although, most of the wells that are hydraulically fractured in Michigan can be found in the Antrim Shale Formation, recently, there has been an interest in the Utica/Collingwood formations. 85 For that reason, DEQ issued Supervisor of Wells Instruction 1-2011 improving environmental protection measures. 86 DEQ addressed the concerns citizens have over hydraulic fracturing reassuring that hydraulic fracturing does not pose any environmental concerns. 87 In particular, DEQ addressed the following concerns: the migration of gas or fracture fluids into fresh water aquifers, water use required for fracking, the management of produced water, the possibility of surface spills, and chemical use identification. 88 DEQ stated that migration of gas or fracture fluid will only occur in cases where the well was negligently constructed and not a result of the hydraulic fracturing itself. 89 Furthermore, DEQ requires a water 9

withdrawal impact assessment, approving it, only if, it shows that the extraction will not impact ground or surface water sources. 90 As for the management of produced water and fluids, DEQ calls for strict rules of containment and disposal maintaining the number of spills to a minimum. 91 In cases where spills do occur, prompt reporting and cleaning is a must. 92 Lastly, Instruction 1-2011 requires a copy of additives used in the fluid mixture, unless they are exempted from disclosure under federal law. 93 Michigan has been able to protect its environment while at the same time advancing the technology of oil and gas exploration and extraction. It is clear that Michigan is another state where strict laws and regulations have made the technology of hydraulic fracturing nothing but an advantage. New York The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is responsible for regulating the development and production of oil and gas resources. New York has been fracking wells since 1962, 94 with no record of groundwater contamination. 95 In recent years, New York has attracted much attention from the oil and gas industry since the state lies on top of the Marcellus Shale a black shale formation believed to contain 168 trillion to 516 trillion cubic feet of natural. 96 With the great amount of potential shale gas, comes great responsibility, and New York has done everything in its power to protect their environment while producing and extracting natural gas. The documentary film Gasland and other environmental groups have attempted to misinform and over-exaggerate the impacts hydraulic fracturing imposes. In 2009, DEC prepared a draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dsgeis) in order to explain the process of hydraulic fracturing, the drilling permit requirements, the potential environmental issues it may raise, and other important information associated with the practice. 97 In New York, hydraulic fracturing fluid is typically composed of more than 98% fresh water and sand, with chemical additives comprising 2% or less. 98 DEC regulations require freshwater aquifers to be sealed and cemented behind steel pipes before the well is drilled to the depth where hydraulic fracturing will occur. Since this is typically thousands of feet below the aquifer, the injected fluid never comes in contact with groundwater. 99 In addition, the Marcellus Shale formation has a high concentration of clay that is sensitive to fresh water contact which makes the formation susceptible to re-closing if the flowback fluid and natural gas do not flow immediately after hydraulic fracturing operations. 100 Intense debate has risen over the chemicals use in fracking fluid, but in New York, DEC requires that companies disclose all chemical additives used in the formula before a permit can be granted. 101 Although the list can seem extensive, dsgeis reports that only a few of these chemicals are used at once for any fracking fluid mixture. 102 Despite the use of fracking in thousands of wells in the state, fracking fluid has not been the source of contamination. 103 In addition, when spills and leaks do occur, as a result of inadequate well construction, no documentation has been recorded of any of these leaks consisting of chemical fracturing fluids additives in their pure, undiluted liquid or solid form. 104 Once the fracking fluid is extracted as flowback water, opportunities for leaks, spills, operational errors and/or failures may rise, but with the proper care these can be prevented. 105 Direct discharges of fluids into the ground or surface water bodies from the well pad are prohibited. 106 10

In the dsgeis report, DEC acknowledges the potential water source impacts that may arise. Some of these impacts include: reduced stream flow from water withdrawals, impact to aquatic organisms that may be trapped by the intake pipes, and the impact to downstream wetlands. 107 Yet, none of these impacts are actual direct results of the fracking process. Turbidity may result, as it does from any aquifer penetration, but it is self-corrected in a short period of time. 108 Moreover, regulatory officials from 15 states have recently testified that groundwater contamination from the hydraulic fracturing procedures is not known to have occurred despite the procedure s widespread use in many wells over several decades. 109 IFC International s analysis shows no reasonable foreseeable risk of significant adverse environmental impacts to potential freshwater aquifers by movement of fracturing fluids out of the target fracture formation through subsurface pathways. 110 Several primary potential air contaminants could be attributed to gas well drilling and production. The first one is airborne dust from construction activities, including air drilling operations, or traffic on un-stabilized access roads; this is very short-term lived and limited to very small areas. 111 The second primary air contaminant is the uncommon accidental uncontrolled flows of methane and hydrogen sulfide which is very rare in New York. 112 A third primary air contaminant is diesel fumes from equipment operations. 113 Chemicals in the fracking fluid that are deposited into an onsite pit pose a fourth threat 114, but these must be reclaimed within 45 days after operation ends. 115 Another important issue is the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) that is associated with hydraulic fracturing. The three main GHG that are most relevant with the oil and gas industry are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and methane (CH 4 ). 116 Because N 2 O production is fairly small, the focus has been on CO 2 and CH 4. 117 Emissions of CH 4 and CO 2 occur at many stages of the drilling, completion and production phases, and can be dependent upon technologies applied and practices applied. 118 Since a well cannot be drilled, completed and produced without GHGs being emitted, there are many studies being conducted in order to identify the major sources of CH 4 and CO 2 emissions. 119 These studies will allow for technological advancements resulting in the decrease of emission levels and continuing the success of a responsible environmental practice. While New York studies are underway, other states have reported no air quality reduction as a result of these gases. Recently, many are concerned with the number of seismic events that have occurred in the region of hydraulic fracturing operations. This type of seismic activity is known as induced activity, and there are currently two types of induced seismic events that may be triggered as a result of hydraulic fracturing. 120 The first type is a result of energy released by the physical process of fracturing the rock which creates microseismic events that are detectable only with very sensitive monitoring equipment. 121 The second type is fluid injection of any kind, including hydraulic fracturing, which can trigger seismic events ranging from imperceptible microseismic, to small-scale, felt events, if the injured fluid reaches an existing geological fault. 122 Current and past studies have investigated small, felt, seismic events that may have been induced by injection of fluids in deep disposal wells. These small seismic events are not the same as the microseismic events triggered by hydraulic fracturing that can only be detected with the most sensitive monitoring equipment. 123 The felt seismic activity as a result of deep water disposal wells rarely cause damage and can be avoided by proper site selection (avoiding fault zones) and injection design. 124 Hydraulic fracturing, on the other hand, involves the injection of fluids for shorter periods of 11

time causing seismic activity of minimal threat that could only be measured by very sensitive instruments. 125 Avoiding pre-existing fault zones minimizes the possibility of triggering movement along a fault through hydraulic fracturing. 126 Despite the long history of hydraulic fracturing in New York, there are no records of induced seismicity caused by the process. 127 Studies have shown that the seismic activity that has occurred was caused by the disposal of waste fluid injection and a mine collapse. 128 In 2010, Gov. David Paterson issued Executive Order No. 41 ordering a seven month moratorium prohibiting high-volume hydraulic fracturing of horizontal drilled wells. 129 In an attempt to not shutdown an industry that has been operating safely for decades, the executive order vetoed a legislative bill that suspended all new natural gas drilling permits until May 15. 130 The Order stands until July 1, in which New York hopes to have the results from the current EPA study on hydraulic fracturing. In conclusion, the State of New York has been monitoring the process of hydraulic fracturing and all the possible impacts it could have on the environment. Several studies have been conducted and none have found hydraulic fracturing as the cause to any of the alleged issues. The current moratorium is simply a way for the state to affirm that the practice of hydraulic fracturing is a safe and responsible drilling practice. North Dakota North Dakota lies on top of what is known the Bakken Shale formation. Hydraulic fracturing was first used in the state in the 1950s, and for over 60 years, the practice has been safely used. 131 Since the practice was first introduced in North Dakota, the Department of Mineral Resources has not been able to confirm any cases where groundwater contamination has been associated as a hydraulic fracturing side effect. 132 Lynn Helms, director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Sources, has said: that the incidents of contamination seen in the movie Gasland are falsely portrayed as fracking issues. 133 He states that the contamination cases in the film are actually the result of poorly cemented wells before the fracking fluid was used. 134 In addition, Helms affirmed that the possibility of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing in the state of North Dakota is incredibly small since the department has strict regulations. 135 Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, adds that most hydraulic fracturing in the state occurs at a depth of two miles, which is a deep enough to find no suitable drinking water. 136 North Dakota is yet again, another state in where strict enforcement has lead to a great amount of oil and gas production. Not only doers the oil and gas industry benefit from the constant increase of production levels, but the state has seen prosperity in job openings and rising revenue. 137 It is thus clear that hydraulic fracturing, is a process that if continued to used, will improve the welfare of a community. Ohio The Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Mineral Resources Management is responsible for managing all aspects of oil and gas drilling. 138 ODNR reports the use of hydraulic fracturing in the state since the 1950s. 139 Although an estimated 80,000 wells have been fractured in Ohio, state agencies have not identified a single instance where groundwater has been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing operations. 140 12

Throughout the years, there has been a number of water well contamination complaints that have been thoroughly investigated with no identified problems as a result of hydraulic fracturing. One of these investigations was conducted in 2008 when officials responded to a home explosion in Geauga County, Ohio. 141 Having found dangerous levels of methane in the well, many people believed hydraulic fracturing as the initial suspect. The investigation revealed that once again, hydraulic fracturing was not the cause. 142 Instead, after fracking was completed, it was discovered that inadequate cementing and casing of the well trapped high-pressure gas, allowing it to seep its way to the well and eventually exploding. 143 Ohio mapped all of their freshwater aquifers in the early 1980s allowing the placement of proper steel-and-cement casing regulations in order to protect their drinking water. 144 In addition, it gives the drilling company knowledge on how deep they need to fracture in order to ensure fracking fluid does not travel upward between rock formations and into freshwater aquifers. 145 The bedrock between the deepest aquifer and the fractured zone is too dense to allow such contamination. 146 Currently, Ohio ranks fourth with the total most number of wells drilled in the country 147 and yet not a single case of contamination can be traced to hydraulic fracturing. This confirms that the technology of hydraulic fracturing proves to be an effective, environmental safe procedure to extract natural gas. Oklahoma The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) was established in 1907 by Article I of the Oklahoma Constitution. 148 The Commission began regulating oil and gas in 1914 when it restricted oil drilling and production in the Cushing and Healdton fields to prevent waste production exceeded pipeline transport capacity. 149 The Oil and Gas Conservation Act was passed in 1915 expanding the regulation to include the protection of the rights of all parties entitled to share in the benefits of oil and gas production. 150 Hydraulic fracturing has been performed in Oklahoma since the 1950s. 151 For over 60 years, more than 100,000 wells have been hydraulically fractured in Oklahoma, with no known instance where hydraulic fracturing has caused contamination to groundwater. 152 In 2010, OCC volunteered to have its hydraulic fracturing program reviewed by STRONGER. 153 The state review affirmed that hydraulic fracturing has not been the cause of any groundwater contamination. 154 Other state agencies have also verified that no such cases exist. 155 Although the movie Gasland correctly states that thousands, to millions of gallons of water may be used to hydraulically fracture a well, it failed to provide the actual percentage fracking water is of the total water use. In Oklahoma, it is reported that only about 2% of available water is used for oil and gas operations. 156 With a small percentage as this, OCC has continuously worked on reducing the number and recently revised its regulations in order to provide improved flowback water recycle system. 157 In addition, there are current studies being performed that will allow the use of storm and brackish water for fracking usage. 158 During the history of OCC, multiple studies on groundwater contamination have been performed and none have been documented to be a result of hydraulic fracturing. 159 These incidents have been associated with other oil and gas drilling and operation activities. 160 As a leading state in the practice of hydraulic fracturing, Oklahoma has proven that the process does not pose any threatening environmental issues. With proper regulations in place and the monitoring of every aspect of the drilling process, Oklahoma has been able to 13

successfully hydraulically fracture over 100,000 wells. This makes it clear that if properly used, hydraulic fracturing comes as great advantage to a state. Pennsylvania The Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (BOGM) is the division under the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) responsible for the exploration, development, and recovery of oil and gas reservoirs in the state. 161 While the bureau develops regulations for the oil and gas industry, it always maintains the Commonwealth s natural resources and environment as a main focus that should be protected. Pennsylvania is another state that lies on one of the leading shale basins in the country, the Marcellus Shale formation. In 2005, the first Marcellus gas production began in a Washington County, Pennsylvania well. 162 Nevertheless, Pennsylvania has been using hydraulic fracturing since the 1950s. 163 Thousands of well have been fractured in Pennsylvania over the years and yet DEP has been unable to identify any instances where groundwater had been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing. 164 The film Gasland makes several allegations about the practice of hydraulic fracturing within the state of Pennsylvania; however factual evidence confirms otherwise. Gasland emphasizes that neither government officials nor the public has any idea what types of chemicals are being used in the hydraulic fluid mixture. 165 The State of Pennsylvania ensures that all [d]rilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site in the Pollution Prevention and Contingency Plan that must be submitted to DEP as part of the permit application process. 166 In addition, DEP has been listing these chemicals on their website since 2008 167 - two years before Gasland began its misinformed allegations. Even if the chemical list may seem abundant, DEP makes it clear that not all the chemicals listed are used in every fracking fluid mixture, instead, only a couple are mixed together depending on the drilling site. 168 The film will also have the public believe that DEP lacks the manpower in order to properly enforce and regulate hydraulic fracturing throughout the state. 169 What the film does not mention is that BOGM is completely funded by well permit fees, which has allowed DEP to increase the number of staff. 170 The increase of drilling permit fees allowed for the hiring of 37 additional oil and gas staff in 2009, and an additional 68 employees in 2010. 171 Not only has the increase in fee allowed the hiring of staff, but it has also funded the opening of two BOGM offices: one in Williamsport, Lycoming County and the other in Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. 172 The new offices will allow for oil and gas personnel to regulate and conduct drill site inspections more often. With all the controversies associated with hydraulic fracturing, environmental impacts draw the most attention. Assuming any of these allegations were based on factual evidence, Pennsylvania has become ground zero for alleged contaminations. A major contamination case attributed to hydraulic fracturing in the movie is a 35-mile stretch of contaminated water in Dunkard Creek, Washington County, Pennsylvania that lead to many aquatic species to die. 173 The truth is that EPA conducted an investigation after fish began to belly up and concluded that the death was caused by an outbreak bloom of Prymnesium parvum, commonly known as golden algae. 174 In addition, it was reported that the bloom was a result of nearby mine drainage causing high levels salinity in the creek. 175 While there have been many reports of contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania, investigations confirm that none of these cases were the result fracking itself. 14

Dimock, Pennsylvania is a town with very high concentrations of natural gas wells and is a source of many of these allegations. In 2009, hydraulic fracturing was blamed for the pollution of a wetland and fish kill in a nearby creek in Dimock. After EPA conducted an investigation, it was found that a liquid gel spill, in a Cabot Oil and Gas well pad, caused the contamination. 176 A third spill was reported on the same site on September 22 and as a result, EPA fined Cabot a total of $56,650 for all three spills. 177 A $15,557 fine was issued to both Chesapeake Appalachia LLC and Schlumberger Technology Corp. when they had a similar spill the same year. 178 In 2010, residents in Dimock were being affected by migrating gas found in their drinking water supply. 179 After a thorough DEP investigation, it was found that Cabot had at least five defective wells that had not been properly designed and/or constructed, allowing the gas to migrate to sources of drinking water. In addition to a $240,000 fine paid to the Commonwealth, Cabot s pending permits for new drilling activities was suspended until it fixed the problem. 180 Talisman Energy USA was also fined $15,506 in 2010 for a spill involving hydraulic fracturing flowback fluid in Bradford County, PA; 181 while Atlas Resources was fined $97,350 for allowing fracking fluid overfill. 182 Other incidents that were allegedly linked to hydraulic fracturing were: elevated levels of methane in water wells 183, the explosion of a private well 184, and chronicled bubbling gas. 185 After proper investigations, it was concluded that all of these incidents were the results of improper cemented casing, unauthorized discharged of pollutant substances, and not the result of hydraulic fracturing. 186 Months after the explosion of the private well, Cabot had not done anything to prevent the additional spread of gas and suit was filed by Dimock residents. In a settlement negotiated by DEP and the company, Cabot was to pay the 19 families a total of $4.1 million for damages. 187 As 2011 came around, similar fines were issued for diesel fuel and fracking fluid spills. 188 In May, DEP issued its largest single penalty of $1,088,000 to Chesapeake Energy for contaminating private water supplies in Bradford County and for a tank that caught on fire at a drilling site in Washington County. 189 DEP determined that because of improper well casing and cementing in shallow zones, natural gas from non-shale shallow gas formations had experienced localized migration into groundwater and contaminated 16 families drinking water supplies. 190 In addition, the tank caught on fire due to improper handling and management of condensate, a wet gas only found in certain geologic areas. 191 It is important to note that these contaminations were not the results of fracking, but instead they were the result of human error and companies failure to follow regulations. Not only has there been controversial discussions about the impact hydraulic fracturing may have on drinking water sources, but there has also been a lot of talk on the impact it has on air quality. A report conducted early this year DEP concluded that there are no air quality impact or public heath concerns due to hydraulic fracturing. 192 The study was conducted in Bradford, Lycoming, Sullivan and Tioga counties and no concentration of air-related health issues compounds were found. 193 This again proves that hydraulic fracturing is not the cause of the alleged contaminations. The State of Pennsylvania has continuously updated their regulations to maintain the practice of hydraulic fracturing as safe as possible. In 2011, it updated existing requirements regarding the drilling, casing, cementing, testing, monitoring and plugging of oil and gas wells, and the protection of water supplies were finalized. 194 Discharges from gas exploration and production activities are required to meet effluent limits of 500 mg/l TDS, 15

250 mg/l chlorides, and 10 mg/l barium and strontium, 195 while recycling and reuse of the flowback water has seen an increase of encouragement in DEP s Operators Manual. 196 With adequate enforcement and rules, Pennsylvania has been able to produce shale gas without any environmental impacts. DEP s supervision over the process allows for the practice to continue its ongoing success. It is clear that Pennsylvania will continue to be proactive in its mission by enhancing the development of the oil and gas industry while at the same time protecting the environment s beauty. Texas The State of Texas has always played a major role in the exploration and production of the oil and gas industry. The Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) is the state agency with primary jurisdiction over the regulation of oil and gas exploration and production activities. 197 The Commission was established in 1891 and it has been regulating the energy industry for over 100 years. 198 Due, in large, to the close monitoring and strict regulations in the state, Texas has become the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the country. 199 Hydraulic fracturing has been in use in the state since the 1950s 200, but new technology developments in hydraulic fracturing made shale production profitable in the 1990s. 201 This has resulted in the use millions of gallons for fracking which still only amounts one to three percent of total water is used for drilling. 202 With all the fracking activity revolving around water, the possibility of contamination has been an issue. Elizabeth Ames Jones, RRC Chairman, recently reported that [n]ever in this period has hydraulic fracturing been a contributor to groundwater contamination. 203 Chairman Jones also states: in order for fresh water to be contained from produced water, a leak in the heavy steel surface casing and a breach of the other protections would have to occur, but there is no evidence of such events occurring in Texas. 204 In a state where three major shale formations are explored and produced each year (the Barnett, the Eagle Ford, and the Haynesville); 205 one would expect contamination as an inevitable issue. Texas is proud of their regulatory framework for well construction and water protection... because it extends well beyond just hydraulic fracturing and into every oil and gas activity. 206 This expansive regulatory program protects surface water and groundwater in a very effective manner allowing Texas to continue their current success. 207 In addition, RCCs inspectors conduct thousands of inspections each year in order to ensure compliance. 208 Additionally, in an attempt to continue their goal of protecting public health and safety, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Mobile Response Team (MRT) conducted an ambient air monitoring project in 2010. 209 The study found that [a]ll reported target carbonyl concentrations were either non-detect or below their respective short-term air monitoring comparison values (AMCVs) and are not of any short-term health or welfare concern. 210 TCEQ s report alleviates the community of any substantial health impact hydraulic fracturing has on the air quality. The Paleontological Research Institute recently stated that a swarm of seismic [ felt ]events with magnitudes up to 3.3 occurred in the Dallas, Fort Worth region beginning in October 2008 through 2010. 211 Recent research on induced seismicity in the area concluded that 16

hydraulic fracturing is not the source of recent earthquakes in the area. 212 The studies indicated that the cause of such earthquakes is related to the injection of waste water into disposal wells. 213 These deep disposal wells are near a small fault that extends beneath the Dallas, Forth Worth area and are deposited within different geological conditions, at higher pressures, and for substantially longer durations compared with methods used for natural gas hydraulic fracturing. 214 Despite all the criticism that has followed hydraulic fracturing, it has been proven that fracking is a safe and reliable process for states to explore and produce for natural gas. Texas alone has seen multiple economic benefits while protecting the natural resources of the state and its citizen s welfare. Once more it is proven that with proper regulations in place, hydraulic fracturing can lead us to better energy tomorrow. Wyoming The Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission (WOGCC) regulations on hydraulic fracturing require strict compliance on part of the oil and gas operators. It is reported that hydraulic fracturing has been in use in the state since the 1950s and that there has been no reported incidents of contamination as a result of fracking. 215 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) reported that the Pinedale contamination of some shallow industrial water supply wells was probably caused by a lack of backflow prevention on vacuum trucks using the wells. 216 Wyoming has been able to use hydraulic fracturing, while at the same time protecting its environment, because they continue to amend its regulations. Recently they adopted a regulation requiring the exact chemical content of operator s fracking fluid. 217 In cases, where the chemical is considered proprietary, DEQ would be provided with a chemical composition of the fracking fluid if contamination is ever an issue. 218 In addition, shale gas drilling is done at a depth of about 8,000 feet deep; allowing a vertical separation of thousands of feet between fracking and the source of water wells. 219 Well site monitoring; along with fracking fluid and flowback regulation prevents further contamination. 220 With its beautiful scenery and wildlife, Wyoming is another example of how state regulations allow the balancing of the oil and gas industry with its rich environment to coexist. Summary Based on the information collected, it is clear that hydraulic fracturing does not pose any threatening environmental harm as many have attributed to it. The current trend, of hydraulically fracturing horizontal wells for the production of shale gas, has proven to be nothing but a major step forward to a greener, safer energy industry. Hydraulic fracturing allows for less surface disturbance while increasing the number of produced shale gas. Although potentially hazardous chemicals are injected into the ground as part of the fracking fluid, the potential risk of contamination is minimal. In their 2004 report, EPA concluded that hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs pose no risk to sources of underground drinking water, although the coalbed are closer in distance to such water sources. Since shale formations can be found at a much deeper depth, it only makes sense that such contamination is nearly impossible. In addition to the natural barrier of several thousands layers of rock between aquifers and hydraulic fracturing zone, both federal and state regulations make it illegal to purposely contaminate drinkable water. Many states have 17

stricken their casing and cementing regulations in order to minimize the probability of seepage or leaks. Additional studies have proven that areas, with particular heavy drilling activities, have not resulted in the diminution of air quality. Other emissions, like greenhouse gases, are currently being studied and evaluated in order to provide a better understanding on its potential impacts. Yet, with technology improving faster than ever, many advances have allowed for the reduction of these gases. Further studies have also been able to explain the seismic activity that has been recorded in areas like Texas and New York. It is important to note that the process used for deep well disposal is different than the process used for hydraulic fracturing of shale gas and other formations. Studies show that the former process has been correlated to such induced seismic activity, while the latter has not. While EPA issued a report in 2009 finding the technology of hydraulic fracturing as a safe and effective method used to supply the country with the growing demand of natural gas, it is currently conducting an additional study to understand the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water sources. EPA asserts to finalize the research by summer 2012 with a second follow up study in 2014. The Primer, along with the research on hydraulic fracturing on coalbed methane basins, gives us an idea on what the future results will be. Every now and then, movies like Gasland, spark a line of endless controversies in order to receive public attention. There is a fine distinction between fact and fiction and although the events in the movie are accurate, the explanation behind them is not. The overwhelming number of wells that have been hydraulically fractured in the United States has proven that the procedure is both harmless and beneficial to the environment. States like Colorado have hydraulically fractured over a million wells; Oklahoma has fracked over 100,000 wells; over 80,000 wells have been fracked in Ohio, with similar numbers in other states. Yet there has not been one single connection between water and air contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing. All the reported cases have been investigated by the proper federal and state agencies and results have identified other causes for the contamination. Oil and gas companies should be expected to use due diligence when dealing with the oil and gas. High fines should be assessed in order to deter companies from engaging in potential harmful activity. With additional research and technological advances the process will allow for less reliance on foreign countries and will increase home production to 100%. Hydraulic fracturing is the natural gas technology of the past, present, and future. 18

Acronyms and Abbreviations AMCVs Air Monitoring Comparison Values AOGCC Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission BLM Bureau of Land Management BOGM Bureau of Oil and Gas Management CAA Clean Air Act CBM Coalbed Methane CH 4 Methane CO 2 Carbon Dioxide COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission CWA Clean Water Act DEC Department of Environmental Conservation DEP Department of Environmental Protection DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DNR Department of Natural Resources dsgeis draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency GHG Greenhouse Gases IOGCC Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission LEAF Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation mg/l Milligrams Per Liter MRT Mobile Response Team NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OCC Oklahoma Corporation Commission ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources RRC Texas Railroad Commission SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act STRONGER State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulation, Inc. TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TDS Total Dissolve Solids TWDB Texas Water Development Board UIC Underground Injection Control USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission 19

State Agencies Alabama Alabama Department of Environmental Management Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama Ground Water Protection Council State Oil and gas Board Alaska Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Colorado Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Louisiana Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Conservation Michigan Department of Environmental Quality New York New York State Department of Environmental Conservation North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources North Dakota Petroleum Council Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Management Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management Texas Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Mobile Response Team Texas Railroad Commission Texas Water Development Board Wyoming Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission 20

Endnotes 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information. Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm. 2 EPA. (2009). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. Dated April 2009. Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/98c1ae492f70249c852576ef004a35d6/$file/bkgrd+d oc-+modern+shale+gas+dev+in+the+us-a+primer.pdf. 3 4 5 EPA. (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information. Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm. 6 EPA. (2009). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. Dated April 2009. Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/98c1ae492f70249c852576ef004a35d6/$file/bkgrd+d oc-+modern+shale+gas+dev+in+the+us-a+primer.pdf. 7 Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 118 F.3d 1467 (11th Cir. 1997) 8 EPA. (2004). Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs; National Study Final Report. Dated June 2004. Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_coalbedmethanestudy.cfm. 9 10 11 EPA. (2009). Modern Shale Gas. Development in the United States: A Primer. Dated April 2009. Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/98c1ae492f70249c852576ef004a35d6/$file/bkgrd+d oc-+modern+shale+gas+dev+in+the+us-a+primer.pdf. 12 13 14 15 http://politicalclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/us-shale-gas-formations.png 16 Geological Survey of Alabama (2006) Alabama State and Oil Gas Board, GSA/OGB. http://www.gsa.state.al.us/ogb/ogb.html 17 IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf 18 Geological Survey of Alabama (2006) Alabama State and Oil Gas Board, Statutory Charg., GSA/OGB. http://www.gsa.state.al.us/ogb/charge.html 19 Federal Register (1999), State of Alabama; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Revision; Withdrawal of Alabama s Class II UIC Program. Dated May 13, 1999. http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/1999/05/21/99-12747/state-of-alabama-underground-injectioncontrol-uic-program-revision-withdrawal-of-alabamas-class-ii 20, see also, IOGCC (2009), Regulatory Statements on Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at http://groundwork.iogcc.org/sites/default/files/09iog5571_regulatorystatements_hydfrac_0.pdf 21 22 Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 118 F.3d 1467, 1471 (11th Cir. 1997) 23 at 1472 24 at 1478 25 26 IOGCC (2009), History of Litigation Concerning Hydraulic Fracturing to Produce Coalbed Methane Wells. Dated June 18, 2009. Available at http://groundwork.iogcc.org/sites/default/files/09iog5571_histlitconchydrfraccoalmethwells_atta ch_a.pdf 27 Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 276 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2001) 28 Lathem, D. (2009) Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama, LEAF v. EPA, A Challenge to Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane WELLS In Alabama. Dated May 29, 2009. http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/leaf_epa_history.pdf 21

29 Bolin, D. (2007) Testimony Submitted to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Dated October 31, 2007. http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/websites/iogcc/images/10.31.2007%20- %20Congressional%20Testimony%20on%20Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20-%20David%20Bolin.pdf 30 IOGCC (2009) Regulatory Statements on Hydraulic Fracturing Submitted by the States. Dated June 2009. http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/websites/iogcc/images/2009stateregulatorystatementsonhydraulic%20f racturing.pdf 31 32 Geological Survey of Alabama (2006) Alabama State Oil and Gas Board. Oil and Gas in Alabama. http://www.gsa.state.al.us/documents/oginfo/og_industry.pdfv 33 Bolin, DE (2011) email correspondence between Luis A. Prieto and David E. Bolin, Ph.D. Dated June 1, 2011. 34 Geological Survey of Alabama (2006) Alabama State and Oil Gas Board, GSA/OGB. http://www.gsa.state.al.us/ogb/ogb.html 35 AOGGC (2011) Hydraulic Fracturing White Paper. Dated March 2011, Revised 06 April 2011. http://doa.alaska.gov/ogc/report-studies/hydraulicfracwhitepaper.pdf 36 37 38 Alaska Department of Administration (2011) Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. http://doa.alaska.gov/ogc/ 39 AOGGC (2011) Hydraulic Fracturing White Paper. Dated March 2011, Revised 06 April 2011. http://doa.alaska.gov/ogc/report-studies/hydraulicfracwhitepaper.pdf 40 IOGCC (2009), Regulatory Statements on Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at http://groundwork.iogcc.org/sites/default/files/09iog5571_regulatorystatements_hydfrac_0.pdf 41 Alaska Division of Natural Resources (2011) Division of Oil and Gas. Distribution of Funds Received from Oil and Gas Leases (2001-present). http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/ 42 Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) (2011) Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Mission Statement and Strategic Plan. http://cogcc.state.co.us/ 43 Pasternak, A. (1999) Statutory Authority of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Dated July 27, 1999. Memorandum available at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2fpdf&blobkey=id& blobtable=mungoblobs&blobwhere=1239161615540&ssbinary=true 44 IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf 45 COGCC (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing. Dated May, 2011. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/hot_topics/hydraulic_fracturing/cogcc_fracing_br iefing_052011.pdf. 46 IOGCC (2009) Regulatory Statements on Hydraulic Fracturing Submitted by the States. Dated June 2009. http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/websites/iogcc/images/2009stateregulatorystatementsonhydraulic%20f racturing.pdf 47 IOGCC (2011) Use of Diesel Fuel for Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado. Dated February 18, 2011. Memorandum available at http://oilgas.state.co.us/announcements/dieselfuelforhydraulicfracturing.pdf 48 IOGCC (2011) New Website to Provide Date on Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals in Colorado. Dated April 7, 2011. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/fracking_disclosure_doc.pdf 49 50 COGCC (2010). Gasland Correction Document. Dated October 29, 2010. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/gasland%20doc.pdf 51 COGCC spells Aimee Ellsworth s name with an i whereas, the film, Gasland, it is spelled Amee (without the i ). 52 IOGCC (2008-09). Taken from the reports that were sent out to each individual explaining the result of the studies conducted on the sample taken for the property. A copy of all files mailed to the individuals could be fund at http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/mccluremarkhamellsworthcorrespondence.pdf 53 COGCC (2010). Gasland Correction Document. Dated October 29, 2010. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/gasland%20doc.pdf 54 22

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 IOGCC (2009). Stable Isotope and Gas Analytical Results for Your Water Well. Letter to Renee McClure dates April 3, 2009. See also, Noble Energy (2009). Water Well Sampling Results. Letter to Ms. Renee McClure from Noble Energy, dated April 7, 2009. Both letter can be fund at http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/mccluremarkhamellsworthcorrespondence.pdf COGCC (2008). Water Quality Analytical Results for Domestic Water Well (Permit #63252). Letter to Mike W. Markham dated September 30, 2008. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/mccluremarkhamellsworthcorrespondence.pdf Documented date dates back to at least 1976 with a publication by the Colorado Division of Water Recourses. Other agencies include the United States Geological Survey and the Colorado Geological Survey. COGCC (2010). Gasland Correction Document. Dated October 29, 2010. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/gasland%20doc.pdf COGCC (2009). Ellsworth Water Well Investigation (WW Permit no. 201558). Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Ellsworth dated August 7, 2009. Copy available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/mccluremarkhamellsworthcorrespondence.pdf 64 65 66 COGCC (2010). Gasland Correction Document. Dated October 29, 2010. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/gasland%20doc.pdf 67 COGCC (2008). Alleged Gas Seep Investigation. Letter to MS. Lisa Bracken dated December 31, 2008. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/bracken_data.pdf 68 COGCC (2010). Gasland Correction Document. Dated October 29, 2010. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/gasland%20doc.pdf 69 ; See also, COGCC Public Hearing (2004). Cause No. 1V. Order No. 1V-276. Dated as of August 16, 2004. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/orders/orders/1v/276.html. 70 COGCC. (2011). Frequently Asked Questions About Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/announcements/hot_topics/hydraulic_fracturing/frequent_questions _about_hydraulic%20fracturing.pdf. 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Department of Natural Resources (2011). Office of Conservation website http://dnr.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=46 State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, Inc. (STRONGER) (2011). Louisiana Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated March, 2011. Report available at http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/news_releases/finallouisiana-hfreview-2011.pdf IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf. See also, State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, Inc. (STRONGER) (2011). Louisiana Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated March, 2011. Report available at http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/news_releases/finallouisiana-hfreview-2011.pdf ; STRONGER is a non-profit, multi-stakeholder organization formed by IOGCC in 1998. The purpose of STRONGER is to assist states in documenting the environmental regulations associated with the exploration development and production of crude oil and natural gas. http://www.strongerinc.org/about/ IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf. STRONGER (2011). Louisiana Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated March, 2011. Report available at http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/news_releases/finallouisiana-hfreview-2011.pdf Welborn, V. (2010). Chesapeake, Schlumberger fined $22,000 each in cow s deaths. Dated March 25, 2010. Available http://un-naturalgas.org/weblog/2010/04/chesapeake-schlumberger-fined-22000-each- 23

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 in-hydraulic-fracturing-related-deaths-of-cattle/; See also, Water Contamination From Shale. (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing in Louisiana. Available at http://www.water-contamination-fromshale.com/louisiana/hydraulic-fracturing-in-louisiana/ Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing of Natural Gas Wells in Michigan. Dated May, 31, 2011. Available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/hydrofrac- 2010-08-13_331787_7.pdf; See also, DEQ (2011). Regulations Increase Environmental Protection and Public Transparency. Dated May 25, 2011. Available at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-- 256844--,00.html Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing of Natural Gas Wells in Michigan. Dated May, 31, 2011. Available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/hydrofrac- 2010-08-13_331787_7.pdf IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf DEC (2011). Marcellus Shale. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46288.html New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf DEC (2009). Final Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dsgeis) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low- Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated February 6, 2009. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/finalscope.pdf New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf DEC (2009). Final Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dsgeis) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low- Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated February 6, 2009. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/finalscope.pdf New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf DEC (2009). Final Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dsgeis) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low- 24

Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated February 6, 2009. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/finalscope.pdf 104 105 106 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf 107 108 109 110 111 DEC (2009). Final Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dsgeis) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low- Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated February 6, 2009. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/finalscope.pdf 112 113 114 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf 115 DEC (2009). Final Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dsgeis) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low- Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated February 6, 2009. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/finalscope.pdf 116 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf. 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Esch, M. (2010). NY Fracking Ban: Governor David Paterson orders Natural Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Moratorium For Seven Months in New York. Dated December 12, 2010. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/13/ny-fracking-ban-david-paterson_n_795730.html. 130 131 IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf. See also, Ness, Ro. (2010). Hydraulic Fracturing Critical. Dated August 20, 2010. Available at the Bismarck Tribune http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_5a66db8e-acdd-11df-8dae- 001cc4c03286.html. 25

132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Ness, Ro. (2010). Hydraulic Fracturing Critical to ND. Dated August 20, 2010. Available at the Bismarck Tribune http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/article_11220e84-ac75-11df- 886d-001cc4c03286.html. Beitsch, R. (2010). Lynn Helms Not Happy to be in Gasland. Dated July 3, 2010. Available at the Bismarck Tribune http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/rebeccabeitsch/article_567cdf5a-8659-11df-97b9-001cc4c002e0.html. Ness, Ro. (2010). Hydraulic Fracturing Critical to ND. Dated August 20, 2010. Available at the Bismarck Tribune http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/article_11220e84-ac75-11df- 886d-001cc4c03286.html. Ness, Ro. (2010). Hydraulic Fracturing Critical to ND. Dated August 20, 2010. Available at the Bismarck Tribune http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/article_11220e84-ac75-11df- 886d-001cc4c03286.html. See also, marcellusdrilling.com (2010) Hydraulic Fracturing Used in North Dakota Oil Fields Gives that State the Lowest Unemployment Rate in the Nation. Dated February 3, 2010. Available at http://marcellusdrilling.com/2011/02/hydraulic-fracturing-used-in-north-dakota-oilfields-gives-that-state-the-lowest-unemployment-rate-in-the-nation/. Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Mineral Resources Management. (2011). Shale Development. Available at http://ohiodnr.com/mineral/shale/tabid/23415/default.aspx. State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, Inc. (STRONGER). Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Management (2011). Ohio Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated January 13, 2011. Available at http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/11/oil/pdf/stronger_review11.pdf. ODNR (2008). Report on the Investigation of the Natural Gas Invasion of Aquifers in Bainbridge Township of Geauga County, Ohio. Dated September 1, 2008. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/ohio_methane_report_080901.pdf. ODNR. (2011). Environmental Safety at the Well. Available at http://ohiodnr.com/linkclick.aspx?fileticket=e2ugcupveww%3d&tabid=23415. ODNR (2011). The Facts About Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at http://ohiodnr.com/linkclick.aspx?fileticket=b7sxirrtyb4%3d&tabid=23415. ODNR (2011). Oil and Gas Program History. Available at http://ohiodnr.com/mineral/program/tabid/17865/default.aspx Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). (2011). Oklahoma Corporation Commission History. Available at http://www.occeweb.com/comm/commissionhist.htm. ; See also, OCC. (2010). Annual Report Snapshot: FY 2010. Available at http://www.occeweb.com/ad/snapshot2010-a.pdf. Anthony, B. (2011). Response to Attacks on Hydraulic Fracturing: A Proven Well Completion Technology for Shale Gas. Dated March 30, 2011. Available at http://www.occeweb.com/comm/anthony/woodford%20summit%2003302011v_final3.pdf. State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations. (2011). Oklahoma Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated January, 2011. Available at http://www.occeweb.com/stronger%20review-ok-201-19-2011.pdf. Agencies include: Pollution Abatement Department, Field Operations Department, Technical Services Department, and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. IOGCC (2009), Regulatory Statements on Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at http://groundwork.iogcc.org/sites/default/files/09iog5571_regulatorystatements_hydfrac_0.pdf. State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations. (2011). Oklahoma Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated January, 2011. Available at http://www.occeweb.com/stronger%20review-ok-201-19-2011.pdf. 26

159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 IOGCC (2009), Regulatory Statements on Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at http://groundwork.iogcc.org/sites/default/files/09iog5571_regulatorystatements_hydfrac_0.pdf. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (2011) Bureau of Oil and Gas Management. Home Page. Available at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/oilgas.htm. Geology.com (2011). Marcellus Shale Appalachian Basin Natural Gas Play: Nee Research Results Surprise Everyone on the Potential of his well-known Devonian Black Shale. Available at http://geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml. IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf. See also, STRONGER (2010). Pennsylvania Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated September, 2010. Available at http://www.strongerinc.org/documents/pa%20hf%20review%20print%20version.pdf. STRONGER (2010). Pennsylvania Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated September, 2010. Available at http://www.strongerinc.org/documents/pa%20hf%20review%20print%20version.pdf. Fox, J. (2010). Gasland: A Film by Josh Fox. International WOW Co. Milanville, PA. (1:00:56). See also, Energy in Depth (2010). Debunking Gasland. Dated June 09, 2010. Available at http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/. DEP (2011). Drilling for Natural Gas in the Marcellus Shale Formation: Frequently Asked Questions. Available at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellusfaq.pdf. DEP. (2010). Chemicals Used by Hydraulic Fracturing Companies in Pennsylvania For Surface and Hydraulic Fracturing Activities. Dated June 330, 2010. Available at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/reports/frac%20list%206-30-2010.pdf. See also, DEP. Marcellus Shale: Tough Regulations, Greater Enforcement. Available at http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/get/document-84024/0130-fs-dep4288.pdf. DEP. (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing Overview. Available at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/reports/dep%20fracing %20overview.pdf. Fox, J. (2010). Gasland: A Film by Josh Fox. International WOW Co. Milanville, PA. (1:28:06). See also, Energy in Depth (2010). Debunking Gasland. Dated June 09, 2010. Available at http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/. STRONGER (2010). Pennsylvania Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated September, 2010. Available at http://www.strongerinc.org/documents/pa%20hf%20review%20print%20version.pdf DEP. Marcellus Shale: Tough Regulations, Greater Enforcement. Available at http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/get/document-84024/0130-fs-dep4288.pdf. See also, STRONGER (2010). Pennsylvania Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated September, 2010. Available at http://www.strongerinc.org/documents/pa%20hf%20review%20print%20version.pdf. Fox, J. (2010). Gasland: A Film by Josh Fox. International WOW Co. Milanville, PA. (1:23:15). EPA Region 3. (2009). Update on Dunkard Creek. Dated November 23, 2009. Available at http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/epa_dunkard_creek.pdf. ; See also Energy in Depth (2010). Debunking Gasland. Dated June 09, 2010. Available at http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/. DEP. (2009) DEP Issues Violation Notice to Cabot Oil and Gas. Dated September 23, 2009. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=2373&typeid=1. DEP. (2009). DEP Fines Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. $56,650 for Susquehanna County Spills. Dated October 22, 2009. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=2399&typeid=1. DEP. (2009). DEP Fines Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, Schlumberger Technology Corp. for Hydrochloric Acid Spill in Bradford County. Dated December 7, 2009. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=2452&typeid=1. DEP. (2010). DEP Takes Aggressive Action Against Cabot Oil & Gas Corp to Enforce Environmental Laws Protect Public in Susquehanna County. Dated April 15, 2010. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=10586&typeid=1. 27

181 DEP. (2010). DEP Fines Talisman Energy USA for Bradford County Drilling Wastewater Spill, Polluting Nearby Water Resource. Dated August 2, 2010. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=13249&typeid=1. 182 DEP. (2010). DEP Fines Atlas Resources for Drilling Wastewater Spill in Washington County. Dated August 17, 2010. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=13595&typeid=1. 183 DEP. (2010). DEP Investigating Source of Stray Methane Gas in Bradford County. Dated September 7, 2010. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/search_articles/14292. 184 DEP. (2010) Public Water Lines to Provide Safe, Permanent Water Supply to Susquehanna County Residents Impacted by Natural Gas Migration. Dated September 30, 2010. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=14522&typeid=1. 185 DEP. (2010). DEP Secretary Issues Open Letter to Citizens of Susquehanna County Community Impacted by Ongoing Gas Migration Issues. Dated October 19, 2010. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/search_articles/14292. 186 DEP. (2009). Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, Dimock and Springville Townships, Susquehanna County Findings. Dated November 4, 2009. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/final_cabot_co-a.pdf. 187 DEP. (2010). Dimock Residents to Share $4.1 Million, Receive Gas Mitigation Systems Under DEP- Negotiated Settlement with Cabot Oil and Gas. Dated December 16, 2010. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/search_articles/14292. 188 DEP. (2011). DEP Fines Talisman Energy USA Inc. $24,608 for Bradford County Diesel Fuel Spill. Dated January 1, 2011. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/search_articles/14292. See also, DEP. (2011) DEP Investigating Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Well Control Incident in Tioga County. Dated January 25, 2011. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/search_articles/14292. 189 DEP. (2011). DEP Fines Chesapeake Energy More Than $1 Million. Dated May 17, 2011. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/search_articles/14292. 190 191 192 DEP. (2011). DEP Report: Marcellus Operations in Northcentral Region Show No Impact on Short- Term Air Quality. Dated May 19, 2011. Available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/search_articles/14292. 193 194 DEP. Marcellus Shale: Tough Regulations, Greater Enforcement. Available at http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/get/document-84024/0130-fs-dep4288.pdf. 195 STRONGER (2010). Pennsylvania Hydraulic Fracturing State Review. Dated September, 2010. Available at http://www.strongerinc.org/documents/pa%20hf%20review%20print%20version.pdf. 196 197 Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). (2011). http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/. 198 RCC (2011). History of the Railroad Commission. Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about/history/index.php.; See also, Jones, E.A. (2011). Testimony on the Obama Administration s De Facto Moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico: Community and Economic Impacts. Dated March 16, 2011. Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/commissioners/jones/press/eaj-testimony-03-1611.pdf. 199 Jones, E.A. (2011). Testimony on the Obama Administration s De Facto Moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico: Community and Economic Impacts. Dated March 16, 2011. Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/commissioners/jones/press/eaj-testimony-03-1611.pdf.; See also, Jones, E.A. (2011). Testimony for the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology. Dated May 12, 2011. Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/commissioners/jones/press/eaj-written%20testimony-final-5-9-2011.pdf. 200 IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf. 201 Jones. E.A. (2011). Testimony for the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology. Dated May 12, 2011. Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/commissioners/jones/press/eaj-written%20testimony-final-5-9-2011.pdf. 202 RCC. 2011). Water Usage in the Barnett Shale. Dated January 24, 2011. Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/barnettshale/wateruse_barnettshale.php.; See also, Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). (2007). Northern Trinity/Woodbine Aquifer Groundwater Availability Model 28

Assessment of Groundwater Use in the Northern Trinity Aquifer Due to Urban Growth and Barnett Shale Development. Dated January 2007. Available at http://rio.twdb.state.tx.us/rwpg/rpgm_rpts/0604830613_barnetshale.pdf. 203 204 205 Jones, E.A. (2011). Testimony on the Obama Administration s De Facto Moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico: Community and Economic Impacts. Dated March 16, 2011. Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/commissioners/jones/press/eaj-testimony-03-1611.pdf. 206 Jones. E.A. (2011). Testimony for the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology. Dated May 12, 2011. Available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/commissioners/jones/press/eaj-written%20testimony-final-5-9-2011.pdf. 207 208 209 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Mobile Response Team (MRT). (2011). Health Effects Evaluation of Region 4 Carbonyl Monitoring Project, November 6 10, 2010, Sampling for Carbonyl Compounds in Dish and Fort Worth, Texas. Dated February 24, 2011. Available at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/barnett_shale/healtheffects/2011.02.24- CarbonylMonitoringProject.pdf. 210 211 Paleontological Research Institution (2011). Making the Earth Shake: Understanding Induced Seismicity. A Discussion of the Possibility of Induced Seismicity Resulting from Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Dated May 2011. Available on Geology of the Marcellus Shale: A paleontological Perspective on a Modern Resource papers, Issue No. 3. http://cce.cornell.edu/energyclimatechange/naturalgasdev/documents/pri%20papers/marcellus_iss ue3.pdf. 212 ; See also New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High- Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf 213 214 DEC, Division of Mineral Resources. (2009). DRAFT. Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. Dated September 2009. Available at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dmn/download/ogdsgeisfull.pdf 215 IOGCC (2002), States Experience with Hydraulic Fracturing, A survey of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Available at http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/iogcc_survey_july2002.pdf. See also, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Water Quality Division. (2011). Niobrara Shale Development. Water Quality Questions and Answers. Available at http://deq.state.wy.us/out/downloads/niobrara%20shale%20qa%20%2012-09a.pdf. 216 DEQ, Water Quality Division. (2011). Niobrara Shale Development. Water Quality Questions and Answers. Available at http://deq.state.wy.us/out/downloads/niobrara%20shale%20qa%20%2012-09a.pdf. 217 218 219 220 29