A Literature Survey of the Fracking Economic and Environmental ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 – 176

International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction

A Literature Survey of the Fracking Economic and Environmental Implications in the United States Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany, Ph.D., PMPa*, Angela Guggemos, Ph.D.b a Assistant Professor, Missouri State University, Deprtment of Construction Management, Springfield, MO 65806, U.S. Associate Professor, Colorado State University, Department of Construction Management, Fort Collins, CO 80523, U.S.

b

Abstract This paper presents an intensive survey of literature focused on the different aspects of fracking as related to the environment, economy, energy security and sustainability and establishes an understanding of the economic benefits and negative impacts of fracking on the environmental sustainability. The paper is also suggesting the use of all of those implications in a more comprehensive framework that can identify the real cost and benefit in fracking such as the Life Cycle Costing which can use all these implications along with others that occur across all the phases of the fracking process to come up with the real value and worth of the fracking process. © Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2015 2015The The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and and Construction Construction 2015 2015. Keywords: Fracking; Energy Sustaibability; Environmental Sustainability

1. Introduction and Background The United States (US) is the world’s second largest energy consumer with primary energy consumption of 19% of the total world primary energy consumption [1]. The US is also considered the world’s second biggest energy producer with a 14.7% of the total world primary energy production. Fossil fuel has been the dominant energy source in the world over the past century. In the US, 82% of primary energy consumption is from fossil fuels (36% petroleum, 26% natural gas, 20% coal) [2].

* Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany Tel.: +1-417-836-5222; fax: +1-417-836-8556. E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-7058 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction 2015

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.415

170

Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany and Angela Guggemos / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 – 176

The US consumes (7.7 quadrillion Btu) more energy than it produces (6.6 quadrillion Btu) and makes up the difference through the import of fossil fuel [3]. This current situation is considered by many to be a national security issue since the US is partially dependent on imported fossil fuel. Some of the attempts at energy independence include the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007 [4; 5] and the 2008 “All Electricity from Renewable Sources” (AERS) initiative that was supported by the Center for Resource Resolution and President Barak Obama which pushes the US towards producing all electricity from renewable sources [6]. Approaches to energy independence are branched in three major directions. First, is increasing production from renewable energy sources (e.g. solar, hydro, wind). Second, is the reduction of the U.S. energy consumption, specifically in the transportation sector which consumes about 71% of the petroleum fossil fuels [2]. Third, is tapping more non-renewable resources such as the oil boom in North Dakota and the shale gas rush in the East Coast [7]. The last option is a natural step for the oil and gas industry rather than switching gears for renewable energy solutions. Tapping more fossil resources, specifically shale gas, has been facilitated with the advancement of the hydraulic fracturing process which is commercially known as “fracking” which was experimentally introduced to limestone deposits in 1947 [8]. Fracking is a process where a highly pressurized mixture of water and chemicals are injected into deep rock to create fissures and fractures in order to extract natural gas from deep shale or Coal Bed Methane (CBM) deposits. This process combined with horizontal and directional drilling allows far more access to the gas located in shale rocks at a depth of 2000-5000 feet underground or more [7]. Due to the evolution of the fracking process along with the large reserves of shale gas discovered (e.g. Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale formations) [9; 10], crude output has reached the highest level since 1989 with 7.745 million barrels a day by September 6th 2013 [11] and shale gas production increased from 1,293 billion cubic feet in 2007 to 7,994 billion cubic feet in 2011[2]. While tapping shale gas is being used to address the energy independence issue, it creates several issues that require consideration. These include energy stability, the economic effect of fracking, and environmental sustainability. This paper explains the different impacts and implications of fracking with respect to the economy, energy stability, and environmental sustainability assessment. Techniques/Tools for further evaluation of the fracking process are proposed and directions of future research are provided. 2. The Economic and Environmental Sustainability Implications of Fracking The main aspects of the fracking process during its various life cycle stages are its economic and energy stability benefits and the threats to environmental sustainability. These main implications of fracking can be identified as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 identifies many benefits from the fracking process: economic benefits of lower fuel prices, creating jobs and improving employment rates, and growth of domestic business. These benefits along with national security and all its implications represent the economic gains of the fracking process. On the other hand, the drawbacks of the fracking process due to the threat that it poses to environmental sustainability is significant. This occurs through many environmental factors including: extreme water consumption, infrastructure deterioration, increased carbon footprint, emissions from VOCs, contamination of water resources, and seismic effects.


Fracking Process (LCC)

Environmental Sustainablity

Economics

Water Consumption

Lower Fuel Prices

Infrastructure Use

Employment

Carbon Footprint

171

Domestic Business Growth

VOCs

Water Resources Contamination

Seismic Effects

Fig. 1. The main Economic and Environmental Implications of Fracking

Since the fracking process provides both benefits and threats, its feasibility is an outstanding topic of argument between its economic and energy stability benefits against its environmental sustainability threats. For this reason, an unbiased in-depth literature review is needed and an evaluation tool should be recommended. The following sections of this paper provide supporting evidence from the literature and discuss both the economic and environmental impacts of the fracking process. 2.1. Economic Impacts There is no doubt that the fracking process increased the accessibility to reserves of natural gas and oil which in turn has an impact on the U.S. economy. The positive economic impacts are represented in lower energy and fuel prices, higher employment rates, and domestic business growth. The number of employees in the extraction process alone has increased by 67% from 2003 to 2012 [12]. In 2011, an extensive HIS Global Insight study sponsored by America’s Natural Gas Alliance focused on the economic and employment inputs for the shale gas industry in the US concluded that the shale gas industry supported 600,000 jobs in 2010 which was distributed between the different sectors (45% Agriculture, 10-14% for each of Trade, Manufacturing, Construction, Mining, 7% Transportation & Utilities & 1% for each of Government & Services) and is expected to increase to 870,000 jobs in 2015 and more than 1.6 million jobs by 2035 [13]. That same study estimated the total added value of shale gas to the GDP was $76 billion in 2010 and projected to be $118 billion by 2015 and more than $231 billion by 2035. Another study that included Colorado, Wyoming, and Texas concluded that for each $1 million in gas production, there are 2.35 local jobs created [14]. Nationwide, the aforementioned benefits along with projected decreasing energy prices for fuel and electricity can definitely improve the domestic economy and local business growth. On the state level, a study by the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute studied the economic contributions of shale development for the state of New York. The study estimated over $11.4 billion in GDP along with $1.4 billion in tax revenue and 75,000 to 90,000 job creation opportunities in the case of full accessibility of the shale sites in New York including the Marcellus and Utica shale sites [15]. Another state level study in West Virginia found that due to fracking advancements, in 2009 the state collected $65.9 million in state

172


revenue taxes from the natural gas industry alone and a total of $88.4 million in property taxes from the oil and gas industry. It also concluded that the shale development in West Virginia impacted the state economy by adding $2.35 billion of business volume and generated about 76,000 jobs [16]. Although natural gas supports about 25% of the U.S energy supply currently, the industry claims to have the ability to provide up to 50% of the energy supply by 2035 [17]. Along with all of these economic benefits and the predictions for future economic growth due to the fracking technological advances, there is still another side of the argument that questions the economic impact of the fracking industry. This argument questions the economic stability of the industry and the estimates of the future economic benefits and questions whether it is worthy of the environmental risks and its associated costs. The arguments have a lot of different bases, one of them is the fact that the production at wells can drop off by as much as 60-90% within the first year which will make it hard to sustain the production and the stability of that energy source [18]. Another issue is that most existing studies are industryfunded and report inflated estimates of reserves and projections along with the fact that the current and projected consumption rates will make the shale gas source last for only 23 years [19]. Another paper explored the job creation and development in shale gas drilling communities and found, as an example, that the economic growth in four core gas drilling counties in Texas was between 10% – 16% compared to 21.2% for the whole state of Texas [20]. 2.2. Environmental Sustainability Impacts In contrast to the economic benefits, there are numerous negative impacts on environmental sustainability due to the fracking process. These negative impacts include: excessive water consumption, deterioration from overloading infrastructure, increased carbon footprint, VOC emissions, possibility of water contamination, and seismic effects of fracking. 2.2.1. Excessive Water Consumption An average fractured well will consume an average of 6 million gallons of pressurized water along with very large volumes of chemicals, sand, and other materials to keep the fissures of the well open for extraction [21]. According to a 2011 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study, approximately 35,000 fractured wells across the U.S required an estimated 70 to 140 billion gallons of water each year which is equivalent to the total amount of water used annually to support 40 to 80 cities with a population of 50,000 or about 1 to 2 cities of 2.5 million people [22]. Considering that the most valuable and vast majority of the shale gas is located within the east coast where coastal communities can lose up to 50 percent more of their fresh water supplies than previously thought, according to a study from Ohio State University and other studies that note that the coastal cities also have a higher risk of inundation or increased erosion from sea level rise, it is paramount to pay attention to the water consumption issue in such cities [23; 24]. The real problem is not just the consumption of water; it is the geographical locations of the wells and whether they are threatening drinking water resources. In July 2012, when a record heat and drought struck the mid-Atlantic region, the Susquehanna River Basin suspended 64 water withdrawal permits, the majority of which were for in-state Marcellus shale gas drillers [25]. 2.2.2. Infrastructure Use One underestimated aspect of the fracking process is its effect on infrastructure. The fracking process consumes vast amounts of water, chemicals, and other liquids which are hauled from their sources to the drilling sites by a large number of tanker fleets along with other fleets for carrying other components to the drilling site. These heavy truck fleets put a large amount of miles and deterioration on road and bridge infrastructure and consequently have to be calculated and accounted for in the fracking process evaluation. The Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) has reported a preliminary estimate of $2 billion dollars in damage to farm-to-market and local Texas roads by drilling activity not including the costs of maintaining interstate and state highways [26]. TXDOT also estimated that 1,200 loaded trucks are needed to bring one gas well into production, which is a traffic equivalent of about 8 million cars. In New York, the impacts on the transportation infrastructure were preliminary estimated at $0.4 billion dollars [27]. This road, bridge, and railway deterioration along with other infrastructure services such as the increased presence of emergency services and law enforcement to account for the industrial accidents that comes along with the drilling process need to be taken into consideration when evaluating the fracking process.


173

2.2.3. Carbon Footprint, VOCs and Emissions Natural gas is often portrayed as a clean energy source that has a smaller carbon footprint and emissions, but that may not be the case. Natural gas is mainly composed of methane which is more potent than carbon dioxide and has a great probability to escape to the atmosphere during the fracking process. In 2012, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder conducted a study on the DenverJulesburg basin where it was found that natural gas producers are losing an average of 4% of the gas to atmosphere [28]. Another very intriguing study focused on the fractured-obtained shale gas’s greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint and found that it was more than that produced by conventional fuels represented in conventional gas, coal and diesel oil over a 20 and a 100 year time frame [21]. According to EPA records, the fractured concentrated drilling areas in Wyoming have recoded an ozone level of 124 parts per billion (ppb) which is more than twice the EPA’s maximum healthy limit of 75 ppb and more than the worst day in Los Angeles of 114 ppb [29]. Other fractured drilling violations of the 2008 EPA ground level ozone included Bakersfield, California; Jamestown, New York; multicounty regions around Denver, Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Columbus, and Cleveland; and three counties in southwestern Wyoming [30]. Although shale gas might replace more carbon-intensive fuels, the methane emissions might counteract these benefits and might make it even worse [31]. 2.2.4. Water Resource Contamination Water resource contamination has been one of the most debated issues between the public and the oil and gas industry. Main causes of water contamination can be attributed to unlined and leaky storage pits of fracturing backflow liquids, faulty well cementing, and the possible connection of deep fractures with surface water. Howarth, et. al [32] attributed most of the water contamination in the fracking process to three main reasons: (1) accidental blowouts, (2) surface spills from storage facilities, and (3) improper disposal of fracking fluids. The industry debates this issue. However, there have been several cases reported of actual contamination specifically on the east coast of the US. A study that analyzed samples from over 60 private drinking water wells found methane in 51 of those overlying the Marcellus Shale in northeastern Pennsylvania and the Utica Shale in upstate New York in which the research team attributed the contamination to faulty cementing [33]. Many other cases have been documented for different infractions due to the fracking process which led to contamination of several water resources such as the tributaries of the Ohio River coming from Pennsylvania and New York [32]. Other cases have been also reported in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, Colorado, and British Colombia in Canada [34; 35]. 2.2.5. Seismic Effects The seismic effects from the fracking process are difficult to quantify because the probability and consequences vary drastically and because of the lack of sufficient data and research on this subject. However, several studies have related significant seismic activity to the fracking process in drilled wells including a study by the Colorado School of Mines which related seismic activities to the pore fluid change and subsurface stresses around ground faults during the fracking process [36; 37]. There have been several incidents where seismic activity was caused by the different aspects of the fracking process, specifically underground injection by or through a fault such as in Fort Worth, Dallas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Britain [38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44]. Estimating seismic effects is still in its infant stage.

3. Evaluation Recommendation It is evident that the fracking process has several positive and negative impacts and implications which beg the question of a fair evaluating process using the right tool. Currently, there are few assessment tools that were mostly directed towards the environmental impact of the fracking process or towards the fracking impacts on a specific geographical location. Among these tools is spatial analysis of environmental impacts [45] and the integrated assessment of fracking in Michigan, USA [46]. A recommended evaluation tool that can use the aforementioned impacts and implications in a more holistic approach is the Life Cycle Costing (LCC). LCC can be defined briefly as

174


an economic assessment of a process that considers all significant costs of ownership over its economic life expressed in terms of equivalent dollars [47]. LCC can be used for evaluating the fracking process during all of its life cycle phases taking into account the aforementioned economic gains and environmental impacts, along with all of the other factors and costs to come up with a net value of the fracking process. One of the challenges is to find cost estimates for certain environmental issues such as the seismic effects. Hopefully, the awaited 2014 EPA report studying hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on drinking water resources can answer some questions or provide more data for better evaluation [48; 49]. 4. Conclusion and Recommendation Review of existing literature has shed light on the different impacts and implications of the fracking process which provides several opportunities for future research. An LCC analysis of the fracking process will require extensive multidisciplinary efforts to cover all the economic and environmental aspects identified in this framework. The disciplines required for an LCC study should include, but are not limited to, engineering and construction, oil and gas industry, environmental engineering, economy, ecology, geology, computer engineering, and atmospheric science. Also, additional detailed case studies that can address different fracking sites around the U.S. will be helpful to provide more representative samples of the process. These case studies can compare the different fracking sites in terms of similarities and differences and their environmental and economic influences throughout the different regions including those that have oil and gas industry booms like the East Coast, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, etc. Additional research should include the prediction of water consumption by the fracking process and its impact on drinking water supplies. A geographical and precipitation analysis will be very helpful to address this aspect of the fracking process with the help of scientists in the atmospheric science discipline. Oil and shale gas fracking is increasing, yet major decisions about the process validity have not yet been made. The development of more innovative ways to limit the environmental damages of the fracking process should be on the priority list of the construction and engineering community’s research agendas. Finally, an international assessment of fracking would be very useful in addressing the opportunities and threats of the fracking process. 5. References [1]EIA. (2012). International Energy Statistics. from U.S Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=44&pid=44&aid=1. [2]EIA. (2011). US Energy Information Administration, Shale Gas Production. Retrieved September 30th 2013: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_shalegas_s1_a.htm. [3]EIA. (2013). International Energy Statistics. from U.S Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#summary. [4] U. S. Government. (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act 2007. [5] Sissine, F. (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A Summary of Major Provisions. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. [6] Melvin, J., & Zabarenko, D. (2008). Gore: Make All US Electricity From Renewable Sources. Planet Ark. [7] Domm, P. (2013). US Is on Fast-Track to Energy Independence: Study. CNBC-Market Insider. [8] Charlez, P. A. (1997). Rock Mechanics: Petroleum Applications (Vol. 2). Paris: E'ditions Technip. [9] GWPC, & ALL. (2009). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. Oklahom City and Tulsa, OK: Ground Water Protection Council, ALL Consulting, U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Fossil Energy. [10] Solomon, D. (2011). SEC Bears Down on Fracking. The Wall Street Journal: Business. Retrieved from http://online. wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576528484179638702.html?mod=googlenews_wsj[8/31/2011. [11] Loder, A. (2013). Fracking Moves U.S. Crude Output to Highest Level Since 1989. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-11/fracking-pushes-u-s-crude-output-to-highest-level-since-1989.html. [12] Hassett, K. A., & Mathur, A. (2013). Benefits of hydraulic fracking. Oxford Energy Forum, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. , (91), 1113. [13] Bonakdarpour, M., Flanagan, B., Holling, C., & Larson, J. W. (2011). The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States. Washington DC: IHS Global Insight (USA) Inc. [14] Weber, J. G. (2012). The effects of a natural gas boom on employment and income in Colorado, Texas, and Wyoming. Energy Economics, 34(5), 1580-1588.


175

[15] Considine, T. J., Watson, R. W., & Considine, N. B. (2011). The Economic Oppurtunities of Shale Energy Development. Manhattan, NY: Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute. [16] Higginbotham, A., Pellillo, A., Gurley-Calvez, T., & Witt, T. S. (2010). The Economic Impact of the Natural Gas Industry and the Marcellus Shale Development in West Virginia in 2009. West Virginia University. [17] Manuel, J. (2010). MINING: EPA Tackles Fracking. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(5). [18] Ahmed, N. M. (2013). The Great Oil Swindle. Foreign Policy in Focus, 2. [19] Williams, C. (2013). Why I’m against fracking. http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/why-im-against-fracking. [20] Barth, J. M. (2012). The Economic Impact of Shale Gas Development: Can New York Learn from Texas? Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/93169057/Shale-Gas-Texas-Impacts. [21] Howarth, R., Santoro, R., & Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic Change, 106(4), 679-690. [22] EPA. (2011). Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [23]Science Daily. (2007). Climate Change Threatens Drinking Water, As Rising Sea Penetrates Coastal Aquifers. Science News - Science Daily, State University (2007, November 7). Retrieved October 2, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com Ohio /releases/2007/11/071106164744.htm. [24] Gornitz, V. M., Daniels, R. C., White, T. W., & Birdwell, K. R. (1994). The Development of a Coastal Risk Assessment Database: Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise in the U.S. Southeast. Journal of Coastal Research, 327-338. [25] Magyar, R. (2012). Near drought conditions impacting Marcellus shale gas drilling. The Examiner, Industry. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/near-drought-conditions-impacting-marcellus-shale-gas-drilling. [26] Shlachter, B. (2012). Drilling trucks have caused an estimated $2 billion in damage to Texas roads. Retrieved from http://www.startelegram.com/2012/07/02/4075195/drilling-trucks-have-caused-an.html. [27] NYDOT, & DEC. (2011). Transportation Impacts of Potential Marcellus Shale Gas Development. New York: New York Department of Transportation. [28] Tollefson, J. (2012). Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field. Nature, 482(7384), 139-140. [29] Gruver, M. (2011). Wyoming's natural gas boom comes with smog attached. Environment - NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41971686/ns/us_news-environment/. [30] Weinhold, B. (2012). The Future of Fracking: New Rules Target Air Emissions for Cleaner Natural Gas Production. Environ Health Perspective, 120(7). [31] Weber, C. L., & Clavin, C. (2012). Life Cycle Carbon Footprint of Shale Gas: Review of Evidence and Implications. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(11), 5688-5695. [32] Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. (2011). Natural gas: Should fracking stop? [10.1038/477271a]. Nature, 477(7364), 271-275. [33] Jackson, R. B., Vengosh, A., Darrah, T. H., Warner, N. R., Down, A., Poreda, R. J., et al. (2012). Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. [34] Mooney, C. (2011). The Truth about Fracking Scientific American, 305(5), 80-85. [35] Earthwork. (2013). Hydraulic Fracturing 101. Retrieved 9-15-2013, 2013, from http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#GROUNDWATER. [36] Showstack, R. (2012). Induced seismicity from fracking and carbon storage is focus of study and hearing. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 93(27), 251-251. [37] Balcerak, E. (2012). Studies investigate effects of hydraulic fracturing. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 93(47), 475-475. [38] Henry, T. (2012). How Fracking Disposal Wells Are Causing Earthquakes in Dallas-Fort Worth. State Impact - Texas Energy and Environment Reporting. Retrieved from http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/08/06/ how-fracking-disposal-wells-are-causing-earthquakesin-dallas-fort-worth/. [39] Choi, C. Q. (2013). Confirmed: Fracking practices to blame for Ohio earthquakes. NBC News - Science. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/science/fracking-practices-blame-ohio-earthquakes-8C11073601#fracking-practices-blame-ohio-earthquakes8C11073601. [40] Choi, C. Q. (2011). Did Fracking Cause Oklahoma's Largest Recorded Earthquake? . Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-fracking-cause-oklahomas-largest-recorded-earthquake. [41] BGS. (2011a). Fracking and Earthquake Hazard. British Geological Survey, Research. Retrieved from http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquake_hazard_shale_gas.html. [42] BGS. (2011b). Blackpool earthquake | Magnitude 1.5 | 27 May 2011. British Geological Survey, Research. Retrieved from http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquakes/blackpoolMay2011.html. [43] Begley, S. (2013). Distant seismic activity can trigger quakes at 'fracking' sites. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/11/science-fracking-earthquakes-idUSL1N0FG0VT20130711. [44] Griffiths, S. (2013). Fracking could lead to an 'earthquake domino effect' as it weakens fault lines deep in the earth's crust, scientists claim. Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2361876/Fracking-lead-earthquake-domino-effect-weakensfault-lines-deep-earths-crust-scientists-claim.html. [45] Meng, Q., & Ashby, S. (2014). Distance: A critical aspect for environmental impact assessment of hydraulic fracking. The Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 124-126. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.07.004.

176


[46] HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN - INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT. (2015). http://graham.umich.edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulicfracturing. [47] Kirk, S., Dell’Isola, A. (1995) Life Cycle Costing for Design Professionals, McGraw-Hill, New York, second edition. [48] EPA. (2012). Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources - Progress Report. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. [49] EPA. (2013). EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources. Retrieved 9-25-2013, 2013, from http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy.