The Costs of Fracking - The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling's Environmental Damage
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Costs of Fracking
The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling’s
Environmental Damage
The Costs of Fracking
The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling’s
Environmental Damage
PennEnvironment
Research & Policy Center
Tony Dutzik and Elizabeth Ridlington,
Frontier Group
John Rumpler,
Environment America
Research & Policy Center
Fall 2012
Acknowledgments PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center sincerely thanks Emily Wurth of Food and Water Watch, Martin Levin of Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin, and Jonathan Shefftz of JShefftz Consulting for their review of drafts of this document, as well as their insights and suggestions. Thanks also to Erika Staaf of PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center and Luke Metzger of Environment Texas Research & Policy Center for their perspectives and contributions. PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center thanks the Colcom Foundation for making this report possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. © 2012 PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting our air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard in lo- cal, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.pennenvironmentcenter.org. Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org. Layout: Harriet Eckstein Design Photo Credits: Main cover photo: Robert Donnan; Photos used on inset of cover, as icons and in infographics: Boy drinking water, Ken Bosma, flickr, Creative Commons; Construction Roadwork, Doug Tone, flickr, Creative Com- mons; Doctor and Patient, AntoAB, cc, flickr, Creative Commons; House for Sale, David Smith, flickr, Creative Commons; Fracking from Above, Allegheny Defense Project. Note that these photos are intended to illustrate the relevant concepts, not to provide editorial content or to represent any specific activity described in the report.
Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 Fracking: The Process and its Impacts 7 Defining “Fracking” 7 The Fracking Process 8 Fracking and the New Gas/Oil Rush 10 The Costs of Fracking 12 Drinking Water Contamination 12 Health Problems 15 Damage to Natural Resources 19 Impacts on Public Infrastructure and Services 24 Broader Economic Impacts 29 Who Pays the Costs of Fracking? 32 Accounting for the True Costs of Fracking: Conclusion and Recommendations 35 Notes 37
THE COSTS OF FRACKING
The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling’s
Environmental Damage
DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES
$$ Threats to rivers and streams
$$ Habitat loss and fragmentation
$$ Contribution to global warming
DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION
$$ Groundwater cleanup
$$ Water replacement
$$ Water treatment costs BROADER ECONOMIC IMPACTS
$$ Value of residents’ homes at risk
$$ Farms in jeopardy
HEALTH PROBLEMS
$$ Nearby residents getting sick
$$ Worker injury, illness and death
$$ Air pollution far from the wellhead
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
$$ Road damage
$$ Increased demand for water
$$ Cleanup of orphaned wells
$$ Emergency response needs
$$ Social dislocation and social service costs
$$ Earthquakes from wastewater injection
Infographic design: Jenna Leschuk
Executive Summary
O
ver the past decade, the oil and gas can expect is for the oil and gas industry
industry has fused two technolo- to be held accountable for the damage it
gies—hydraulic fracturing and hori- causes. Such accountability must include
zontal drilling—to unlock new supplies up-front financial assurances sufficient to
of fossil fuels in underground rock forma- ensure that the harms caused by fracking
tions across the United States. “Fracking” are fully redressed.
has spread rapidly, leaving a trail of con-
taminated water, polluted air, and marred Fracking damages the environment,
landscapes in its wake. In fact, a growing threatens public health, and affects
body of data indicates that fracking is an communities in ways that can impose
environmental and public health disaster a multitude of costs:
in the making.
However, the true toll of fracking does Drinking water contamination –
not end there. Fracking’s negative impacts Fracking brings with it the potential for
on our environment and health come with spills, blowouts and well failures that con-
heavy “dollars and cents” costs as well. In taminate groundwater supplies.
this report, we document those costs—rang-
ing from cleaning up contaminated water to • Cleanup of drinking water contami-
repairing ruined roads and beyond. Many nation is so expensive that it is rarely
of these costs are likely to be borne by the even attempted. In Dimock, Penn-
public, rather than the oil and gas industry. sylvania, Cabot Oil & Gas reported
As with the damage done by previous ex- having spent $109,000 on systems to
tractive booms, the public may experience remove methane from well water for
these costs for decades to come. 14 local households, while in Colo-
The case against fracking is compelling rado, cleanup of an underground gas
based on its damage to the environment seep has been ongoing for eight years
and our health alone. To the extent that at a likely cost of hundreds of thou-
fracking does take place, the least the public sands of dollars, if not more.
Executive Summary 
• The provision of temporary replace- Natural resources impacts – Fracking
ment water supplies is also expensive. converts rural and natural areas into indus-
Cabot Oil & Gas reported having trial zones, replacing forest and farm land
spent at least $193,000 on replacement with well pads, roads, pipelines and other
water for homes with contaminated infrastructure, and damaging precious
water in Dimock, Pennsylvania. natural resources.
• Fracking can also pollute drinking • The clearance of forest land in Penn-
water sources for major municipal sylvania for fracking could lead to in-
systems, increasing water treatment creased delivery of nutrient pollution
costs. If fracking were to degrade the to the Chesapeake Bay, which already
New York City watershed with sedi- suffers from a vast nutrient-generated
ment or other pollution, construction dead zone. The cost of reducing the
of a filtration plant would cost same amount of pollution as could be
approximately $6 billion. generated by fracking would be ap-
proximately $1.5 million to $4 million
Health problems – Toxic substances in per year.
fracking fluid and wastewater—as well as
air pollution from trucks, equipment and • Gas operations in Wyoming have
the wells themselves—have been linked to fragmented key habitat for mule deer
a variety of negative health effects. and pronghorn, which are important
draws for the state’s $340 million
• The National Institute of Occupation- hunting and wildlife watching indus-
al Safety and Health recently warned tries. The mule deer population in one
that workers may be at elevated risk of area undergoing extensive gas extrac-
contracting the lung disease silicosis tion dropped by 56 percent between
from inhalation of silica dust at frack- 2001 and 2010.
ing sites. Silicosis is one of a family of
dust-induced occupational ailments • Fracking also produces methane
that imposed $50 million medical care pollution that contributes to global
costs in the United States in 2007. warming. Emissions of methane
during well completion from each
• Residents living near fracking sites uncontrolled fracking well impose
have long suffered from a range of approximately $130,000 in social costs
health problems, including headaches, related to global warming.
eye irritation, respiratory problems
and nausea—potentially imposing Impacts on public infrastructure and
economic costs ranging from health services – Fracking strains infrastructure
care costs to workplace absenteeism and public services and imposes cleanup
and reduced productivity. costs that can fall on taxpayers.
• Fracking and associated activities also • The truck traffic needed to deliver
produce pollution that contributes water to a single fracking well causes
to the formation of ozone smog and as much damage to local roads as
particulate soot. Air pollution from gas nearly 3.5 million car trips. The
drilling in Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale state of Texas has approved $40
region imposed estimated public health million in funding for road repairs
costs of more than $10 million in 2008. in the Barnett Shale region, while
The Costs of Fracking
Pennsylvania estimated in 2010 Broader economic impacts – Frack-
that $265 million would be needed ing can undercut the long-term economic
to repair damaged roads in the prospects of areas where it takes place. A
Marcellus Shale region. 2008 study found that Western counties
that have relied on fossil fuel extraction
• The need for vast amounts of water are doing worse economically compared
for fracking is helping to drive with peer communities and are less well-
demand for new water infrastructure prepared for growth in the future.
in arid regions of the country. Texas’
official State Water Plan calls for • Fracking can affect the value of
the expenditure of $400 million on nearby homes. A 2010 study in Texas
projects to support the mining sector concluded that houses valued at more
over the next 50 years, with fracking than $250,000 and within 1,000 feet
projected to account for 42 percent of of a well site saw their values decrease
mining water use by 2020. by 3 to 14 percent.
• The oil and gas industry has left • Fracking has several negative im-
thousands of orphaned wells from pacts on farms, including the loss of
previous fossil fuel booms. Taxpayers livestock due to exposure to spills of
may wind up on the hook for the fracking wastewater, increased dif-
considerable expense of plugging and ficulty in obtaining water supplies for
reclaiming orphaned wells—Cabot farming, and potential conflicts with
Oil & Gas claims to have spent organic agriculture. In Pennsylvania,
$730,000 per well to cap three shale the five counties with the heaviest
gas wells in Pennsylvania. Marcellus Shale drilling activity saw
an 18.5 percent reduction in milk
• Fracking brings with it increased production between 2007 and 2010.
demands for public services. A 2011
survey of eight Pennsylvania counties As with previous fossil fuel booms
found that 911 calls had increased in that left long-term impacts on the envi-
seven of them, with the number of ronment, there is every reason to believe
calls increasing in one county by 49 that the public will be stuck with the bill
percent over three years. for many of the impacts of fracking.
Defining “Fracking”
I n this report, when we refer to the impacts of “fracking,” we include impacts
resulting from all of the activities needed to bring a well into production using
hydraulic fracturing, to operate that well, and to deliver the gas or oil produced
from that well to market. The oil and gas industry often uses a more restrictive
definition of “fracking” that includes only the actual moment in the extraction
process when rock is fractured—a definition that obscures the broad changes to
environmental, health and community conditions that result from the use of frack-
ing in oil and gas extraction.
Executive Summary 
• Existing legal rules are inadequate of certainty required in legal
to protect the public from the costs proceedings.
imposed by fracking. Current bonding
requirements fail to assure that The environmental, health and com-
sufficient funds will be available for munity impacts of fracking are severe
the proper closure and reclamation and unacceptable. Yet the dirty drilling
of well sites, and do nothing at all practice continues at thousands of sites
to ensure that money is available to across the nation. Wherever fracking
fix other environmental problems or does occur, local, state and federal govern-
compensate victims. Further, weak ments should at least:
bonding requirements fail to provide
an adequate incentive for drillers to • Comprehensively restrict and
take steps to prevent pollution before regulate fracking to reduce its
it occurs. environmental, health and community
impacts as much as possible.
• Current law also does little to protect
against impacts that emerge over • Ensure up-front financial
a long period of time, have diffuse accountability by requiring oil and
impacts over a wide area, or affect gas companies to post dramatically
health in ways that are difficult higher bonds that reflect the true costs
to prove with the high standard of fracking.
The Costs of Fracking
Introduction
I
n Appalachia, more than 7,500 miles those who profited from the boom have
of streams are polluted with acid mine left the scene.
drainage—the legacy of coal mining. Today, America is in the midst of a new
Many of those streams still run orange- resource extraction boom, one driven by a
colored and lifeless decades after mining process colloquially known as “fracking.”
ended. The ultimate cost of cleaning up In just over a decade, fracking has spread
acid mine drainage in Pennsylvania alone across the country, unlocking vast supplies
has been estimated at $5 billion.1 of previously inaccessible oil and gas from
Texas has more than 7,800 orphaned underground rock formations.
oil and gas wells—wells that were never The costs of fracking—in environmen-
properly closed and whose owners, in many tal degradation, in illness, and in impacts
cases, no longer exist as functioning busi- on infrastructure and communities—are
ness entities.2 These wells pose a continual only just now beginning to be understood
threat of groundwater pollution and have and tallied. It is also now becoming clear
cost the state of Texas more than $247 that the nation’s current system of safe-
million to plug.3 guards is incapable of protecting the public
In the western United States, uranium from having to shoulder those sizable costs
mining and milling have contaminated in the years and decades to come.
both water and land. The cost to taxpayers The burdens imposed by fracking are
of cleaning up the uranium mills has been significant, and the dangers posed to the
estimated at $2.3 billion, while the cost environment and public health are great.
of cleaning up abandoned mines has been If fracking is to continue, the least the
estimated at $14 million per mine.4 American people should expect is for our
Over and over again, throughout Ameri- laws to ensure that those who reap the
can history, short-term resource extraction benefits also bear its full costs.
booms have left a dirty long-term legacy, The landscapes of Appalachia, Texas and
imposing continuing costs on people and the American West are living testaments
the environment years or decades after to the need to hold industries accountable
Introduction for cleaning up the damage they cause. As this history does not repeat itself in the
fracking unleashes yet another extractive 21st century.
boom, the time has come to ensure that
The Costs of FrackingFracking: The Process and its Impacts
O
ver the past decade, the oil and gas process with fewer impacts than the tech-
industry has married two technolo- nology being used in oil and gas fields
gies—horizontal drilling and hy- today—to create a false narrative about the
draulic fracturing—to create a potent new safety of fracking. It is only according to
combination that is being used to tap fossil this carefully constructed definition that
fuels locked in previously difficult-to-reach ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson could
rock formations across the United States. say, as he did in a Congressional hearing in
This technology, known as high-volume 2011, that “[t]here have been over a million
horizontal hydraulic fracturing—or, collo- wells hydraulically fractured in the history
quially, “fracking”—has broad implications of the industry, and there is not one, not
for the environment and public health. one, reported case of a freshwater aquifer
having ever been contaminated from hy-
draulic fracturing.”5
Just as only a small portion of an ice-
berg is visible above the water, only a
Defining “Fracking” small portion of the impacts of fracking
are the direct result of fracturing rock.
Public debates about fracking often de- Each step in the process of extracting oil
scend into confusion and contradiction due or gas from a fracked well has impacts on
to a lack of clarity about terms. To the oil the environment, public health and com-
and gas industry, which seeks to minimize munities. Thus, any reasonable assessment
the perceived impacts, “fracking” refers of fracking must include the full cycle of
only to the actual moment in the extraction extraction operations before and after the
process where rock is fractured by pumping moment where rock is cracked open with
fluid at high pressure down the well bore. fluid under high pressure.
Limiting the definition of fracking in this In this report, when we refer to the
way also allows the oil and gas industry to impacts of “fracking,” we include impacts
include its long history of using hydraulic resulting from all of the activities needed
fracturing in traditional, vertical wells—a to bring a well into production using hy-
Fracking: The Process and its Impacts Fracking imposes a range of environmental, health and community impacts. Above, a fracking well
site is built in a forested area of Wetzel County, W.Va. Credit: Robert Donnan
draulic fracturing, to operate that well, and volume hydraulic fracturing used tens of
to deliver the gas or oil extracted from that thousands of gallons of water per well,
well to market. today’s high-volume hydraulic fractur-
ing operations use millions of gallons of
water, along with a different combination
of sand and chemical additives, to extract
gas or oil.
The Fracking Process A vast amount of activity—much of it
Fracking is used to unlock gas or oil with impacts on the environment and near-
trapped in underground rock formations, by communities—is necessary to bring a
allowing it to flow to the surface, where it fracking well into production and to deliver
can be captured and delivered to market. the gas extracted from that well to market.
Fracking combines hydraulic fracturing, Among those steps are the following:
which uses a high-pressure mixture of wa-
ter, sand and chemicals to break up under- Well Site Preparation and Road
ground rock formations, with horizontal Construction
drilling, which enables drillers to fracture Before drilling can begin, several acres of
large amounts of rock from a single well. land must be cleared of vegetation and lev-
The combination of hydraulic fractur- eled to accommodate drilling equipment,
ing with horizontal drilling has magnified gas collection and processing equipment,
the environmental impacts of oil and gas and vehicles. Additional land must be
extraction. Whereas traditional, low- cleared for roads to the well site, as well
The Costs of Frackingas for any pipelines needed to deliver gas Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing
to market. Once the necessary machinery and ma-
terials are assembled at the drilling site,
Materials Assembly drilling can begin. The well is drilled to
Hydraulic fracturing requires massive the depth of the formation that is being
amounts of water, sand and chemicals—all targeted. In horizontally drilled wells, the
of which must be obtained and delivered well bore is turned roughly 90 degrees
to the well site. Water for fracking comes to extend along the length of the forma-
either from surface waterways, groundwa- tion. Steel “casing” pipes are inserted to
ter or recycled wastewater from previous stabilize and contain the well, and the
fracking activities, with millions of gal- casing is cemented into place. A mix of
lons of water required for each well. The water, sand and chemicals is then injected
special grade of sand used in fracking must at high pressure—the pressure causes the
be extracted from the ground—often from rock formation to crack, with the sand
silica mines in the upper Midwest—and propping open the gaps in the rock. Some
transported to the well site. Water, sand of the injected water then flows back out
and other materials must be carried to of the well when the pressure is released
well sites in trucks, tearing up local roads, (“flowback” water), followed by gas and
creating congestion, and producing local water from the formation (“produced
level air pollution. water”).
Equipment is put in place in preparation for hydraulic fracturing at a well site in Troy, Pa. In
hydraulic fracturing, a combination of water, sand and chemicals is injected at high pressure to
fracture oil or gas-bearing rock formations deep underground. Credit: New York Department
of Environmental Conservation
Fracking: The Process and its Impacts Figure 1. Shale Gas and Oil Plays6
Gas Processing and Delivery wells must be properly plugged and the
As natural gas flows from the fracked land around them restored to something
well, it must be collected, purified and approaching its original vegetated condi-
compressed for injection into pipelines and tion. This involves plugging the well with
delivery to market. cement, removing all unnecessary struc-
tures from the well pad, and replanting
Wastewater Management and the area.
Disposal
Flowback and produced water must be
collected and disposed of safely. Waste-
water from fracking wells is often stored
onsite temporarily in retention ponds
or tanks. From there, the fluid may be
Fracking and the New
disposed of in an underground injection Gas/Oil Rush
well or an industrial wastewater treatment From its beginnings in the Barnett Shale
plant, or it may be treated and re-used in region of Texas at the turn of the 21st centu-
another fracking job. ry, the use of fracking has spread across the
United States with breathtaking speed. A
Plugging and Reclamation decade later, the combination of high-vol-
To prevent future damage to the envi- ume hydraulic fracturing with horizontal
ronment and drinking water supplies, drilling has been used in thousands of oil
10 The Costs of Frackingand gas wells across the country—despite Center found that 104 day care centers
persistent questions about the impact of and 14 schools in Pennsylvania were
the technology and supporting activities located within a mile of a shale gas
on the environment, public health and well; that figure is certainly higher
communities. today.9
Roughy half of U.S. states, stretching
from New York to California, sit atop shale • In Colorado, fracking has taken off
or other rock formations with the potential in the oil-producing Niobrara Shale
to produce oil or gas using fracking. As formation. Weld County, Colorado,
fracking has made oil and gas extraction located just north of Denver and just
viable in more of these formations, it is east of Fort Collins, has seen the per-
bringing drilling closer to greater num- mitting of more than 1,300 horizontal
bers of people as well as precious natural wells since the beginning of 2010.10
resources.
Oil and gas companies are aggressively
• Between 2003 and 2010, more than seeking to expand fracking to places where
11,000 wells were drilled in the Fort more people live (including the city of
Worth basin of Texas’ Barnett Shale Dallas) and to treasured natural areas (in-
formation.7 The Barnett Shale under- cluding the Delaware River Basin, which
lies one of the most populous regions provides drinking water for 15 million
of the state—the Dallas-Fort Worth people). Wherever this new gas rush is
Metroplex—and drilling has taken allowed, it will impose significant impacts
place in urban and suburban neigh- on the environment, public health and
borhoods of the region. communities. To add insult to injury, these
impacts also come with heavy price tags
• In Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, that will all too often be borne by individ-
more than 6,300 shale gas wells have ual residents and their communities. The
been drilled since 2000; permits following section of this report provides a
have been issued that would allow breakdown of fracking impacts along with
for more than 2,400 additional wells examples of the real-life costs already being
to be drilled.8 A 2011 analysis by imposed on America’s environment and
PennEnvironment Research & Policy our communities.
Fracking: The Process and its Impacts 11The Costs of Fracking
A
great deal of public attention has Less dramatic, but just as important,
been focused on the immediate are the long-term implications of frack-
impacts of fracking on the environ- ing—including the economic burdens
ment, public health and communities. imposed on individuals and communities.
Images of flaming water from faucets, In this paper, we outline the many eco-
stories of sickened families, and incidents nomic costs imposed by fracking and show
of blowouts, spills and other mishaps have that, absent greatly enhanced mechanisms
dramatically illustrated the threats posed of financial assurance, individuals, commu-
by fracking. nities and states will be left to bear many
of those costs.
Drinking Water
Contamination
Fracking can pollute both
groundwater and surface
waterways such as rivers,
lakes and streams. In rural areas, where
the bulk of fracking takes place, residents
may rely on groundwater for household
Residents of Dimock, Pennsylvania, are among and agricultural use. Alternative sources
those who have reported drinking water contami- of water—such as municipal water sup-
nation in the wake of nearby fracking activity. plies—may be unavailable or prohibitively
Here, discolored water from local wells illustrates expensive.
the change in water quality following fracking. Fracking has polluted drinking water
Photo: Hudson Riverkeeper sources in a variety of ways.
12 The Costs of Frackingit can take years, decades or even centuries
• Spills and well blowouts have released for groundwater sources to clean them-
fracking chemicals and flowback or selves naturally.16 As a result, the oil and
produced water to groundwater and gas industry must be held responsible for
surface water. In Colorado and New restoring groundwater supplies to their
Mexico, an estimated 1.2 to 1.8 per- natural condition.
cent of all gas drilling projects result Methane contamination of well water
in groundwater contamination.11 poses a risk of explosion and is often ad-
dressed by removing it from water at the
• Waste pits containing flowback and point of use. In Dimock, Pennsylvania,
produced water have frequently failed. Cabot Oil & Gas reported having spent
In New Mexico, substances from $109,000 on meth-
oil and gas pits have contaminated ane removal sys- “In Dimock,
groundwater at least 421 times.12 tems for 14 local Pennsylvania,
households in the Cabot Oil & Gas
• Faulty well construction has caused wake of drilling-
reported having
methane and other substances to find related methane
spent $109,000 on
their way into groundwater.13 contamination of
methane removal
local groundwater
Recent studies have suggested that supplies. In addi- systems for
fracking may also pose a longer-term threat tion, the company 14 households.”
of groundwater contamination. One study spent $10,000 on
used computer modeling to conclude that new or extended vent stacks to prevent
natural faults and fractures in the Mar- the build-up of methane gas in residents’
cellus Shale region could accelerate the homes.17 Such measures do not remove
movement of fracking chemicals—possibly methane from groundwater supplies, but
bringing these contaminants into contact merely eliminate the immediate threat to
with groundwater in a matter of years.14 In residents’ homes.
addition, a recent study by researchers at Removing other toxic contaminants
Duke University found evidence for the ex- from groundwater is so costly that it it
istence of underground pathways between rarely attempted, with costs of hundreds
the deep underground formations tapped of thousands of dollars or more.
by Marcellus Shale fracking and ground- In 2004, improper cementing of a frack-
water supplies closer to the surface.15 The ing well in Garfield County, Colorado,
potential for longer-term groundwater caused natural gas to vent for 55 days into
contamination from fracking is particu- a fault terminating in a surface waterway,
larly concerning, as it raises the possibility West Divide Creek.18 In response to the
that contamination will become apparent leak, the company responsible for drill-
only long after the drillers responsible have ing the well, Encana, engaged in regular
left the scene. testing of nearby wells and installed equip-
A mong the costs that result from ment that injects air into the groundwater,
drinking water contamination are the fol- enabling chemical contaminants in the
lowing: water to become volatile and be removed
from the water, using a process known as
air sparging. These activities began in 2004
Groundwater Cleanup and were still ongoing as of mid-2012.19
Groundwater is a precious and often lim- The cost of groundwater remediation
ited natural resource. Once contaminated, in the Garfield County case is unknown,
The Costs of Fracking 13but likely runs into the hundreds of delivery” to homes within a two-mile area
thousands of dollars, if not more. A 2004 of the West Divide Creek gas seep, at an
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated cost of $350,000.24 These deliv-
document, referring to the work of a fed- eries continued into 2006. In Pennsylvania,
eral roundtable on environmental cleanup Cabot Oil & Gas provided at least $193,000
technologies, estimated the cost of air worth of water to homes affected by con-
sparging at $150,000 to $350,000 per acre.20 tamination there.25 A permanent solution
Adjusting for inflation, and assuming that to water issues in Dimock—the extension
the extent of the seep was correctly esti- of municipal water to the neighborhood—
mated by Encana at 1.3 acres, one could was estimated to cost $11.8 million.26
estimate the cost of the sparging operation
in 2012 dollars at $248,000 to $579,000.21
In addition, as of May 2012, Encana and Water Treatment Costs Due to
its contractors had collected more than Surface Water Contamination
1,300 water samples since the seep began.22 Fracking and related activities may reduce
Again, the cost of this sampling and testing the quality of rivers and streams to the point
is unknown, but could be conservatively where municipali-
estimated to be in the tens of thousands of ties must invest in “Should gas
dollars. Cabot Oil & Gas, for example, in- additional water drilling require
curred $700,000 in water testing expenses treatment in or- drinking water to
in the wake of concerns about groundwater der to make water
undergo additional
contamination from a fracking well in Di- safe to drink.
treatment, New York
mock, Pennsylvania.23 The most sig-
The Colorado example shows that would be required
nificant impacts
the process of cleaning up contaminated of fracking on riv- to build one of the
groundwater can take years to complete, ers and streams world’s largest
underscoring the need for protections used for drinking filtration plants at
to ensure that drillers have the financial water come not an estimated cost of
wherewithal to fulfill their obligations to from individual $6 billion.”
clean up pollution. spills, blowouts or
other accidents, but rather from the effects
of fracking many wells in a given area at the
Water Replacement same time. Widespread fracking can dam-
As noted above, the process of cleaning up age waterways through water withdrawals
contaminated groundwater can take years. from river basins, the dumping of fracking
In the meantime, wastewater into rivers, or increased sedi-
“Cabot Oil & residents must be mentation resulting from land clearance
Gas provided at provided with clean, for well pads, pipelines and other natural
least $193,000 temporary sources gas infrastructure.
worth of water to of drinking water. Damage from widespread fracking may
homes affected by T he C olor ado require water utilities to invest in expensive
contamination.” and Pennsylvania additional treatment. New York City’s wa-
exa mples above ter supply, for example, comes from upstate
demonst rate t he New York watersheds that are sufficiently
high cost of supplying replacement water pristine that water filtration is not required.
to households dependent on contami- Should gas drilling—or any other pollut-
nated wells. In Colorado, Encana offered ing activity—require additional treatment,
“complete water systems and potable water New York would be required to build one
14 The Costs of FrackingThe disposal of fracking wastewater in open pits contributes to air pollution, while leakage from improperly
lined pits has contaminated groundwater and surface water. Chemicals present in fracking wastewater
have been linked to serious health problems, including cancer. Credit: Mark Schmerling
of the world’s largest water filtration plants. have been linked to a variety of negative
New York has already had to take this step health effects. Chemical components of
for one major source of drinking water, fracking fluids, for example, have been
spending $3 billion to build a filtration linked to cancer, endocrine disruption,
plant for the part of the watershed east of and neurological and immune system
the Hudson River.27 The cost of doing the problems.29
same for areas west of the Hudson, which The legal system often offers little re-
sit atop the Marcellus Shale formation, lief for those whose health is impacted by
was estimated in 2000 to be as much as chemically tainted air or water. In order
$6 billion.28 to prevail in court, an individual affected
by exposure to toxic chemicals must prove
that he or she has been exposed to a spe-
cific toxic chemical linked to the health
effects that they are experiencing and that
Health Problems the exposure was caused by the defendant
Fracking produces pollu- (as opposed to the many other sources
tion that affects the health of possible exposure to toxic chemicals
of workers, nearby residents that most people experience every day).30
and even people living far Meeting that high legal standard of proof is
away. Toxic substances in fracking chemi- costly—usually requiring extensive medi-
cals and produced water, as well as pollu- cal and environmental testing and expert
tion from trucks and compressor stations, testimony—and difficult, given corporate
The Costs of Fracking 15attorneys’ track record of exploiting gaps Residents living near fracking sites
in scientific knowledge to cast doubt on have long suffered from a range of health
claims of harm from toxic chemical ex- problems, including headaches, eye irrita-
posures. As a result, many citizens whose tion, respiratory problems and nausea.34
health has been affected by fracking may be In western Pennsylvania, for example,
discouraged from taking their complaints residents living near one fracking well site
to court. have complained of rashes, blisters and
Individuals and taxpayers, therefore— other health effects that they attribute to a
rather than polluters—may bear much of wastewater impoundment.35 An investiga-
the financial burden for health costs result- tion by the investigative journalism website
ing from fracking. ProPublica uncovered numerous similar
reports of illness in western states.36
A recent study by researchers at the
Nearby Residents Getting Sick Colorado School of Public Health found
Emissions from fracking wellsites contain that residents living within a half-mile of
numerous substances that make people natural gas wells in one area of Colorado
sick. were exposed to air pollutants that in-
In Texas, monitoring by the Texas creased their risk of illness.37 The report
Department of Environmental Quality de- noted that “health effects, such as head-
tected levels of benzene—a known cancer- aches and throat and eye irritation re-
causing chemical—in the air that were high ported by residents during well completion
enough to cause immediate human health activities occurring in Garfield County,
concern at two sites in the Barnett Shale are consistent with known health effects
region, and at levels that pose long-term of many of the hydrocarbons evaluated in
health concern at an additional 19 sites. this analysis.”38
Several chem- These health impacts are unacceptable
“Residents living near icals were also regardless of the economic cost. But they
fracking sites have long found at levels also have significant economic impacts,
suffered from a range that can cause including:
of health problems, foul odors. 31
including headaches, Less ex ten- • Health care costs, including inpatient,
sive test i ng outpatient and prescription drug costs;
eye irritation,
conducted
respiratory problems
by the Penn- • Workplace absenteeism;
and nausea—imposing
sylvania De-
economic costs ranging partment of • “Presenteeism,” or reduced productiv-
from health care Environmen- ity at work.39
costs to workplace t a l P r ot e c -
absenteeism and tion detected Major health problems such as cancer
reduced productivity.” components are obviously costly. The average case of
of natural gas, cancer in the United States in 2003 im-
particularly methane, in the air near posed costs in treatment and lost produc-
Marcellus Shale drilling operations.32 Air tivity of approximately $30,000.40
monitoring in Arkansas has also found The economic impacts of less severe
elevated levels of volatile organic com- problems such as headaches and respiratory
pounds (VOCs)—some of which are also symptoms can also add up quickly. Each
hazardous air pollutants—at the perimeter day of reduced activity costs the economy
of hydraulic fracturing sites.33 roughly $50 while a missed day of work
16 The Costs of Frackingcosts approximately $105.41 The economic is specific to fracking: inhalation of silica
value to individuals of avoiding one ex- sand.
posure to hydrocarbon odors per week is Silica sand is used to prop open the
approximately $26 to $36 per household.42 cracks formed in underground rock forma-
As fracking continues to spread, particu-
larly in areas close to population centers, “The National Institute of Occupational
the number of residents affected by these Safety and Health recently warned that
health problems—already substantial—is workers at fracking sites may be at risk of
likely to increase. contracting the lung disease silicosis from
inhalation of silica dust. Silicosis is one
of a family of dust-induced occupational
Worker Injury, Illness, and Death
ailments that imposed $50 million in
Fracking is dangerous business for workers.
medical care costs in 2007.”
Nationally, oil and gas workers are seven
times more likely to die on the job than
other workers, with traffic accidents, death tions during fracking. As silica is moved
from falling objects, and explosions the from trucks to the well site, silica dust can
leading causes of death. Between 2003 and become airborne. Without adequate pro-
2008, 648 oil and gas workers nationwide tection, workers who breathe in silica dust
died from on-the-job injuries.43 Workers at can develop an elevated risk of contracting
fracking well sites are vulnerable to many silicosis, which causes swelling in the lungs,
of these same dangers, as well as one that leading to the development of chronic
Fracking can be a dangerous business for workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health recently found dangerous levels of airborne silica at fracking sites in several states, while
workers also risk injury from traffic accidents, falling objects, explosions and other hazards. Workers,
their families and the public often bear much of the costs of workplace illness and injury. Credit: Mark
Schmerling
The Costs of Fracking 17cough and breathing difficulty.44 Silica and those with respiratory disease.
exposure can also cause lung cancer.45 Fracking produces a variety of pol-
A recent investigation by the National lutants that contribute to regional air
Institute for Occupational Safety and pollution problems. VOCs in natural gas
Health (NIOSH) found that workers at formations contribute to the formation
some fracking sites may be at risk of lung of ozone “smog,” which reduces lung
disease as a result of inhaling silica dust. function among healthy people, trig-
The NIOSH investigation reviewed 116 gers asthma attacks, and has been linked
air samples at 11 fracking sites in Arkansas, to increases in
Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania school absences, “Air pollution from
and Texas. Nearly half (47 percent) of the hospit a l v isit s drilling in Arkansas’
samples had levels of silica that exceeded and premature Fayetteville Shale in
the Occupational Safet y and Health deat h. 4 9 S ome 2008 likely imposed
Administration’s (OSHA) legal limit for VOCs are also
public health costs
workplace exposure, while 78 percent considered “haz-
greater than
exceeded OSHA’s recommended limits. ardous air pol-
$10 million in 2008.”
Nearly one out of 10 (9%) of the samples lutants,” which
exceeded the legal limit for silica by a fac- have been linked
tor of 10, exceeding the threshold at which to cancer and other serious health effects.
half-face respirators can effectively protect Emissions from trucks carrying water
workers.46 and materials to well sites, as well as from
Silicosis is one of a family of dust-in- compressor stations and other fossil fuel-
duced occupational ailments (including fired machinery, also contribute to the
asbestosis and black lung disease) that have formation of smog and soot that threatens
long threatened the health of industrial public health.
workers. A recent study estimated that this Fracking is a significant source of
category of occupational disease imposed air pollution in areas experiencing large
costs in medical care alone of $50 million amounts of drilling. A 2009 study in five
in 2007.47 Dallas-Fort Worth-area counties experi-
Workers, their families and taxpayers encing heavy Barnett Shale drilling activity
are often forced to pick up much of the cost found that oil and gas production was a
of workplace illnesses and injuries. A 2012 larger source of smog-forming emissions
study by researchers at the University of than cars and trucks.50 Completion of a sin-
California, Davis, estimated that workers gle uncontrolled natural gas well produces
compensation insurance covers only about approximately 22.7 tons of volatile organic
20 percent of the total costs of workplace compounds (VOC) per well—equivalent to
illness and injury, with government pro- the annual VOC emissions of about 7,000
grams such as Medicaid and Medicare, as cars—as well as 1.7 tons of hazardous air
well as workers and their families, bearing pollutants and approximately 156 tons
much of the burden in health care costs and of methane, which contributes to global
lost productivity.48 warming.51
Well operations, storage of natural
gas liquids, and other activities related to
Air Pollution Far from the fracking add to the pollution toll, playing
Wellhead a significant part in regional air pollution
Air pollution from fracking also threatens problems. In Arkansas, for example, gas
the health of people living far from the production in the Fayetteville Shale re-
wellhead—especially children, the elderly gion was estimated to be responsible for
18 The Costs of Fracking2.6 percent of the state’s total emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOx).52 An analysis
Damage to
conducted for New York State’s revised Natural Resources
draft environmental impact statement Fracking threatens valu-
on Marcellus Shale drilling posited that, able natural resources all
in a worst case scenario of widespread across the country. Fracking converts rural
drilling and lax emission controls, shale and natural areas into industrialized zones,
gas production could add 3.7 percent to with forests and agricultural land replaced
state NOx emissions and 1.3 percent to by well pads, roads, pipelines and natural
statewide VOC emissions compared with gas infrastructure. The effects of this
2002 emissions levels.53 development are more than just aesthetic,
The public health costs of pollution as economists have increasingly come to
from fracking are significant. The fi- recognize the value of the services that
nancial impact of ozone smog on public natural systems provide to people and the
health has been estimated at $1,648 per economy.
ton of NOx and VOCs.54 Applying those
costs to emissions in five counties of the
Dallas-Fort Worth region with signifi- Threats to Our Rivers
cant Barnett Shale drilling, the average and Streams
public health cost of those emissions Damage to aquatic ecosystems has a direct,
would be more than $270,000 per day negative impact on the economy. The loss
during the summer ozone season.55 In of a recreational or commercial fishery
Arkansas, the nearly 6,000 tons of NOx due to spills, excessive withdrawals of
and VOCs emitted in 2008 would impose water, or changes in water quality caused
an annual public health cost of roughly by the cumulative effects of fracking in an
$9.8 million.56 area can have devastating impacts on local
Various aspects of fracking also create businesses.
particulate—or soot—pollution. A 2004
EPA regulatory impact analysis for new
standards for stationary internal combus- “The clearance of forest land in
tion engines often used on natural gas Pennsylvania for fracking could lead
pipelines and in oil and gas production, to increased delivery of nutrient
for example, estimated the benefit of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay,
reducing one ton of particulates under which suffers from a nutrient-
10 microns in diameter (PM10) at $8,028 generated dead zone. The cost of
per ton.57 Using this figure, the economic reducing an amount of pollution
benefit of eliminating PM10 emissions equivalent to that produced by
from Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale would fracking would be approximately $1.5
be roughly $5.4 million per year. million to $4 million per year.”
Air pollution from drilling in Arkan-
sas’ Fayetteville Shale in 2008, therefore,
likely imposed public health costs greater In Pennsylvania, for example, fishing
than $10 million in 2008, with additional, had an estimated economic impact of $1.6
unquantified costs imposed in the form billion in 2001.58 Allocating that impact to
of lost agricultural production and lower the roughly 13.4 million fishing trips taken
visibility. in Pennsylvania each year (as of the late
1990s) would result in an estimated impact
of $119 per trip.59
The Costs of Fracking 19The Monongahela River, shown here at Rices Landing, Pa., has been affected by discharges of fracking
wastewater and by water withdrawals for fracking. A 2011 Army Corps of Engineers report concluded that
“the quantity of water withdrawn from streams [in the Monongahela watershed] is largely unregulated
and is beginning to show negative consequences.” Credit: Jonathan Dawson
Spills, blowouts and other accidents Excessive water withdrawals also play
related to fracking have caused numer- havoc with the ecology of rivers and
ous fish kills in Pennsylvania. In 2009, a streams. In Pennsylvania, water has been
pipe containing freshwater and flowback illegally withdrawn for fracking numer-
water ruptured in Washington County, ous times, to the extent of streams being
Pennsylvania, triggering a fish kill in a sucked dry. Two streams in southwestern
tributary of Brush Run, which is part of a Pennsylvania—Sugarcamp Run and Cross
high-quality watershed.60 That same year, Creek—were reportedly drained for water
in the same county, another pipe rupture withdrawals, triggering fish kills.63
at a well drilled in a public park killed fish Water withdrawals also concentrate
and other aquatic life along a three-quar- pollutants, reducing water quality. A 2011
ter-mile length of a local stream.61 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study of the
The clearing of land for well pads, roads Monongahela River basin of Pennsylvania
and pipelines can increase sedimentation of and West Virginia concluded that, “The
nearby waterways and degrade the ability quantity of water withdrawn from streams
of natural landscapes to retain nutrients. A is largely unregulated and is beginning to
recent preliminary study by the Academy show negative consequences.”64 The Corps
of Natural Sciences of Drexel University report noted that water is increasingly
found an association between increased being diverted from the relatively clean
density of natural gas drilling activity streams that flow into Corps-maintained
and degradation of ecologically important reservoirs, limiting the ability of the Corps
headwaters streams.62 to release clean water to help dilute pollu-
20 The Costs of Frackingtion during low-flow periods.65 It described intensive Marcellus Shale fracking activity,
the water supply in the Monongahela basin creating the potential for additional pol-
as “fully tapped.”66 lution that will make the bay’s pollution
On a broader scale, the clearance of reduction goals more difficult to meet.
forested land for well pads, roads and A rapid expansion of shale gas drilling
pipelines reduces the ability of the land to could contribute an additional 30,000
prevent pollution from running off into to 80,000 pounds per year of nitrogen
rivers and streams. Among the waterways and 15,000 to 40,000 pounds per year of
most affected by runoff pollution is the phosphorus to the bay, depending on the
Chesapeake Bay, where excessive runoff amount of forest lost.68 While this addi-
of nutrients such as nitrogen and phospho- tional pollution represents a small fraction
rus causes the formation of a “dead zone” of the total pollution currently reaching
that spans as much as a third of the bay in the bay, it is pollution that would need to be
the summertime.67 The Chesapeake Bay offset by reductions elsewhere in order to
watershed overlaps with some of the most ensure that the Chesapeake Bay meets pol-
Many waterways in the Marcellus Shale region drain into the Chesapeake Bay. The loss of forests to
natural gas development could add to pollution levels in the bay, threatening the success of state and
federal efforts to prevent the “dead zone” that affects the bay each summer. Sources: Skytruth, U.S.
Energy Information Administration, Chesapeake Bay Program
The Costs of Fracking 21of well pads drove away female mule deer
in the Pinedale Mesa area of Wyoming,
which was opened to fracking in 2000, and
that the deer stayed away from areas near
well pads over time. The study suggested
that natural gas development in the area
was shifting mule deer from higher quality
to lower quality habitat.75 The mule deer
population in the area dropped by 56 per-
cent between 2001 and 2010 as fracking in
the area continued and accelerated.76
Concerns have also been raised about
the impact of natural gas development on
pronghorn antelope. A study by the Wild-
Pronghorn antelope are among the species that life Conservation Society documented
have been affected by intense natural gas develop- an 82 percent reduction in high-quality
ment in Wyoming. Credit: Christian Dionne pronghorn habitat in Wyoming’s natural
gas fields, which have historically been key
lution reduction targets designed to restore wintering grounds.77
the bay to health. 69 Based on an estimate of The Wyoming Game & Fish Depart-
the cost per pound of nitrogen reductions ment assigns “restitution values” for
from a recent analysis of potential nutrient animals illegally killed in the state, with
trading options in the Chesapeake Bay pronghorn val-
watershed,70 the cost of reducing nitrogen ued at $3,000 per “The decline of
pollution elsewhere to compensate for the animal and mule approximately
increase from natural gas development deer at $4,000 per 2,910 mule deer
would run to approximately $1.5 million animal.78 The de- in the Pinedale
to $4 million per year. cline of approxi- Mesa, using this
mately 2,910 mule
valuation, would
deer estimated to
represent lost
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation have occurred in
value of more than
Extensive natural gas development requires the Pinedale Mesa
the construction of a vast infrastructure between 2001 and $11.6 million.”
of roads, well pads and pipelines, often 2010, using this
through remote and previously undis- valuation, would represent lost value of
turbed wild lands. The disruption and more than $11.6 million, although there
fragmentation of natural habitat can put is no way to determine the share of the
species at risk. decline attributable to natural gas develop-
Hunting and other forms of outdoor ment alone.79
recreation are economic mainstays in sev- The impact of fracking on wildlife-
eral states in which fracking is taking place. based recreation is, of course, only one
In Wyoming, for example, non-resident of many ways in which harm to species
hunters and wildlife watchers pumped $340 translates into lasting economic dam-
million into the state’s economy in 2006.73 age. Wildlife provides many important
Fracking, however, is degrading the habitat ecosystem goods and services. (See next
of several species that are important attrac- page.) Birds, for example, may keep insect
tions for hunters and wildlife viewers.74 and rodent populations in check, help to
A 2006 study found that the construction distribute seeds, and play other roles in
22 The Costs of FrackingLoss of Ecosystem Services
F orests and other natural areas provide important services—they clean our air,
purify our water, provide homes to wildlife, and supply scenic beauty and rec-
reational opportunities. Many of these services would be costly to replicate—for
example, as noted on page 14, the natural filtration provided by the forests of upstate
New York has thus far enabled New York City to avoid the $6 billion expense of
building a water filtration plant to purify the city’s drinking water.
In recent years, economists have worked to quantify the value of the ecosystem
services provided by various types of natural land. The annual value of ecosystem
services provided by deciduous and evergreen forests, for example, has been esti-
mated at $300 per acre per year.71 Researchers with The Nature Conservancy and
various Pennsylvania conservation groups have projected that 38,000 to 90,000 acres
of Pennsylvania forest could be cleared for Marcellus shale development by 2030.
The value of the ecosystem services provided by this area of forest, therefore, ranges
from $11.4 million to $27 million per year.72 Widespread land clearance for fracking
jeopardizes the ability of the forest to continue to provide these valuable services.
Other natural features affected by fracking—including groundwater, rivers and
streams, and agricultural land—provide similar natural services. The value of all
of those services—and the risk that an ecosystem’s ability to deliver them will be
lost—must be considered when tallying the cost of fracking.
Oil and gas development fragments valuable natural habitat. Above, the Jonah gas field in Wyoming.
Credit: Bruce Gordon
The Costs of Fracking 23the maintenance of healthy ecosystems. greater than, and perhaps double, leakage
Adding these impacts to the impacts on from conventional natural gas wells.82
hunters, anglers and wildlife-watchers Global warming threatens costly dis-
magnifies the potential long-term costs of ruption to the environment, health and
fracking from ecosystem damage. infrastructure. Economists have invested
significant energy into attempting to quan-
tify the “social cost” of emissions of global
Contribution to Global Warming warming pollutants—that is, the negative
Global warming is the most profound chal- impact on society per ton of emissions. A
lenge of our time, threatening the survival 2011 EPA study estimated the social cost of
of key species, the health and welfare of methane as lying within a range of $370 to
human populations, and the quality of our $2,000 per ton. Each uncontrolled fracking
air and water. Fracking produces pollution well produces approximately 156 tons of
that contributes methane emissions.83 At a modest discount
“Emissions of to the warming rate (3 percent) the social cost was $895 per
methane during well of the planet in ton in 2010.84 Emissions of methane during
completion from greater quanti- well completion from a single uncontrolled
ties than conven- fracking well, therefore, would impose
each uncontrolled
tional natural gas $139,620 in social costs related to global
fracking well impose
extraction. warming.85 This figure does not include
approximately
Fr a c k i n g ’s emissions from other aspects of natural gas
$139,000 in social extraction, transmission and distribution,
primary impact
costs related to on the climate is such as pipeline and compressor station
global warming.” through the re- leaks. Leakage from those sources further
lease of methane, increases the impact of fracking on the cli-
which is a far more potent contributor to mate—imposing impacts that may not be
global warming than carbon dioxide. Over fully realized for decades or generations.
a 100-year timeframe, a pound of methane
has 21 times the heat-trapping effect of a
pound of carbon dioxide.80 Methane is even
more potent relative to carbon dioxide at
shorter timescales.
Leaks during the extraction, transmis- Impacts on Public
sion and distribution of natural gas release
substantial amounts of methane to the
Infrastructure
atmosphere. Recent air monitoring near a and Services
natural gas field in Colorado led researchers Fracking imposes both
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric immediate and long-term burdens on
Administration and the University of taxpayers through its heavy use of public
Colorado, Boulder, to conclude that about infrastructure and heavy demand for public
4 percent of the extracted gas was lost to services.
the atmosphere, not counting the further
losses that occur in transportation.81
Research by experts at Cornell Univer- Road Damage
sity suggests that fracking is even worse for Fracking requires the transportation of
the climate than conventional gas produc- massive amounts of water, sand and fracking
tion. Their study finds that methane leak- chemicals to and from well sites, damaging
age from fracking wells is at least 30 percent roads. In the northern tier of Pennsylvania,
24 The Costs of FrackingYou can also read
