You are on page 1of 22

Measuring the Impacts of Proposed Policies to

Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing on State Economies

Task 3 Report

PREPARED FOR:

American Petroleum Institute

PREPARED BY:

IHS Global Insight
24 Hartwell Ave.
Lexington, MA 02421
USA

2009
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
PART 1 – STUDY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 2
UIC Compliance Scenario ........................................................................................................................ 3
Fluid Restrictions Scenario ....................................................................................................................... 5
No Fracturing Scenario ............................................................................................................................. 6
PART 2 – METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 8
Introduction
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has engaged IHS Global Insight to perform an
independent study to determine the impact potential policy changes pertaining to hydraulic
stimulation or fracturing of oil and natural gas wells (hereafter referred to as hydraulic fracturing)
would have on future hydrocarbon production and the consequent impact on economic
performance. IHS Inc., IHS Global Insight's parent company, holds an extensive well and
production database that provided the basis for assessing national and state-level oil and gas
production under different scenarios. IHS Global Insight prepared the economic assessment using
its U.S. Macroeconomic and state economic models. National economic impacts are described in
the section of the report entitled, “Measuring the Economic Impacts of Proposed Policies to
Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing: Task 2 Report"
This study measures the economic consequences of three alternative scenarios in which
increasingly stringent restrictions on hydraulic fracturing lead to three different paths for the U.S.
economy, starting from the deep recession in 2009. The study investigated three scenarios:
• Implementation of regulations similar to those used by EPA to regulate the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) program,
• Restrictions on the use of certain fluids that are being highlighted by policymakers as
having the potential to impact underground aquifers, and
• Elimination of hydraulic fracturing.

This report documents the methodologies and assumptions used to produce the forecast scenarios
for each state economy, and highlights and summarizes key observations and conclusions. The
economic results for the states reflect the US macroeconomic scenarios as presented in the Task 1
and Task 2 reports.

Page 1
Part 1 – Study Results
The oil and natural gas production declines resulting from each of the restricted hydraulic
fracturing scenarios are expected to take a toll on economic activity in every state. But, while all
states will feel the negative impacts on output and employment relative to the reference case, the
depth of the declines depends on the each state's industrial composition. The leading natural gas
producing states (Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma) are generally expected to see the
sharpest declines, though many states with little actual oil and natural gas production are
significantly impacted by the indirect effects which ripple through the entire economy. Though
the changing macroeconomic environment is relevant to each state's economy, some states are
more responsive to changes in the national economy and some are less sensitive depending on
their economic structure and resource base. The states which have stronger links with the national
economy will tend to have more severe impacts in response to changes in the macro economy of
the US. The complete set of employment and gross output impacts for all states in five reference
years are contained in the Appendix. The states most impacted by the restrictions on hydraulic
fracturing are summarized below in Figure 1.

Figure 1. States Most Impacted by Hydraulic Fracturing Scenarios

States Most Impacted:

Texas, California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
By Employment Losses
Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina
Wyoming, West Virginia, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana,
By Percent of Employment Loss
Colorado, Kentucky, Florida, Arizona
California, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia, Illinois, Virginia,
By Output Losses
Pennsylvania North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado
Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Louisiana. Texas, Colorado,
By Percent of Output Loss
Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico

Indirect and Spillover Effects. The indirect effects result in large negative impacts in states that
rely heavily on consumer spending, travel and transportation, and new residential and commercial
construction. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Nevada each will experience more severe
employment and output declines. Spillover effects will also disproportionately impact states
which neighbor the natural gas producing regions as their economies rely heavily on demand for
goods and services generated by the nearby energy industry. As a result more severe negative
impacts will be felt in Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, Utah, and Virginia.
Large Economies. States with large economies, by virtue of their size and exposure in many
sectors, experience a large amount of the economic impacts of the three scenarios. In looking at
numbers of jobs lost or lost economic output, Texas, Florida, California, and New York are, as
one might expect, among the worst hit. This is compounded by the fact that large states like
Texas and California are oil and natural gas producers. In each of the scenarios the state of Texas
experiences the greatest economic dislocation in terms of numbers of jobs lost. In 2015 it loses
78,000 jobs under the UIC Compliance scenario, 178,000 jobs under the Fluid Restrictions

Page 2
scenario, and up to 364,000 jobs under the No Fracturing scenario. California, New York,
Florida, and Pennsylvania also see hundreds of thousands of lost jobs owing to the generally
lower levels of economic activity which result in part from the indirect impacts across other
economic sectors arising from the scenarios.
Though not so large in terms of the absolute number of jobs lost, other states experience the
harshest economic impacts in percentage terms. The greatest relative dislocation occurs in the
natural gas producing states of West Virginia and Wyoming. Economic activity in the UIC
Compliance scenario declines by 1.9% in West Virginia. In Wyoming, economic output falls by
1.6% under the UIC Compliance scenario, 4.6% under the Fluid Restrictions scenario, and 7.5%
under the No Fracturing scenario.
The increasing severity of economic consequences follow closely the increasingly stringent
restrictions on hydraulic fracturing. Economic impacts reach their maximum severity in 2015
with a 2.3% loss in real GDP accompanied by a 2.1% reduction in employed workers nationwide
under the production losses stemming from the No Fracturing Scenario. The path of rising energy
prices affects the performance of each state economy through both demand and supply channels.
On the demand side, higher energy prices reduce consumer spending due to rising fuel costs and
higher prices of both domestically-produced and imported consumer goods. On the supply side,
higher energy costs raise costs of producing goods and services, causing corporations to cut back
investment as demand for their products declines.

UIC Compliance Scenario
In the UIC Compliance Scenario, natural gas wellhead revenue in West Virginia and Kentucky is
down close to 60% in 2015 when compared to the reference case. As a result, these states are
among the top 5 in terms of percentage loss in employment and Gross State Product (GSP)1.
Wyoming and Oklahoma are also expected to see steep declines in employment and output.
While wellhead revenues are not expected to drop as much in these states, both Wyoming and
Oklahoma are highly dependent on their energy sector and will see significant spillover effects
from reduced drilling and investment in this sector. Meanwhile, Nevada appears in the top 5 not
because of direct impacts on its mining sector (which depends little on oil and natural gas
extraction) but because of the macroeconomic impacts on its large construction and travel and
entertainment sectors.

1
Gross State Product is a measure of economic output.

Page 3
Figure 2. Estimated Impact of UIC Compliance Scenario on Employment and GSP
(Difference from Reference Case in 2015)

States with the Largest Negative Impacts Employment Employment Real GSP Real GSP
by Percent of Jobs Lost: (%) (thousands) (%) (Millions 2000$)
West Virginia -2.02% -15.9 -1.93% -965
Wyoming -1.49% -4.6 -1.62% -359
Kentucky -0.93% -18.1 -0.98% -1,401
Nevada -0.77% -10.5 -0.66% -810
Oklahoma -0.77% -13.1 -0.81% -996
Texas -0.67% -78.4 -0.75% -8,335
Colorado -0.66% -16.6 -0.76% -1,803
Florida -0.65% -55.6 -0.69% -5,049
Louisiana -0.64% -13.0 -0.74% -1,253
Virginia -0.61% -24.8 -0.70% -2,702

In terms of employment, the largest absolute losses are in Texas, which loses 78,000 jobs in 2015.
In terms of lost real output, Texas ranks second, following California, where real GSP is expected
to decline by more than $10 billion when compared to the reference case. California and other
large states like Florida and New York join Texas at the top in terms of number of jobs lost by
virtue of their size. Losses in these states are driven not by the direct impact on the energy sector,
but by the macroeconomic impacts of the restrictions on income, consumer spending and business
investment.

Figure 3. Estimated Impact of UIC Compliance Scenario on Employment and GSP
(Difference from Reference Case in 2015)

States with the Largest Negative Impacts Employment Employment Real GSP Real GSP
by Number of Jobs Lost: (%) (thousands) (%) (Millions 2000$)

Texas -0.67% -78.4 -0.75% -8,335

California -0.42% -66.4 -0.57% -10,395

Florida -0.65% -55.6 -0.69% -5,049

New York -0.36% -32.4 -0.43% -4,734

Pennsylvania -0.42% -25.3 -0.47% -2,348

Virginia -0.61% -24.8 -0.70% -2,702

Georgia -0.56% -24.8 -0.63% -2,569

Ohio -0.41% -22.2 -0.43% -1,854

Illinois -0.33% -20.1 -0.42% -2,418

North Carolina -0.42% -18.4 -0.54% -2,173

Page 4
Fluid Restrictions Scenario
The Fluid Restrictions Scenario results in the sharpest production declines in Louisiana,
Wyoming, and Oklahoma. Under this scenario, Louisiana is expected to see producer wellhead
revenue decline nearly 35% in 2015 compared to the reference case. In Wyoming and Oklahoma
revenue will be down by more than 20%. Wyoming's economy, which is sensitive to natural gas
drilling and revenues, contracts by more than 4% in terms of both employment and output.
Louisiana, West Virginia, and Oklahoma see economic activity contract overall by nearly 2%.
Indirect impacts on consumer spending push Nevada, Colorado, and Florida down by nearly
1.5%.
Texas, with an expected wellhead revenue drop of more than 18% in 2015, again has the largest
absolute level of job losses – 178,000. California, also a big loser in terms of number of jobs,
suffers slightly greater declines in output, of $22 billion by 2015.

Figure 4. Estimated Impact of Fluid Restrictions Scenario on Employment and GSP
(Difference from Reference Case in 2015)

States with the Largest Negative Impacts Employment Employment Real GSP Real GSP
by Percent of Jobs Lost: (%) (thousands) (%) (Millions 2000$)
Wyoming -4.30% -13.2 -4.55% -1,010
Louisiana -1.85% -37.8 -2.06% -3,509
West Virginia -1.77% -13.9 -1.58% -790
Oklahoma -1.75% -30.0 -1.85% -2,265
Nevada -1.71% -23.4 -1.49% -1,832
Texas -1.52% -178.3 -1.69% -18,790
Colorado -1.42% -36.0 -1.63% -3,889
Florida -1.36% -116.0 -1.43% -10,544
New Mexico -1.35% -12.3 -1.51% -1,079
Arizona -1.28% -36.0 -1.47% -3,687

Page 5
Figure 5. Estimated Impact of Fluid Restrictions Scenario on Employment and GSP
(Difference from Reference Case in 2015)

States with the Largest Negative Impacts Employment Employment Real GSP Real GSP
by Number of Jobs Lost: (%) (thousands) (%) (Millions 2000$)
Texas -1.52% -178.3 -1.79% -18,790
California -0.89% -141.0 -1.20% -21,935
Florida -1.36% -116.0 -1.43% -10,544
New York -0.70% -63.1 -0.86% -9,337
Georgia -1.16% -51.1 -1.30% -5,307
Pennsylvania -0.74% -44.5 -0.84% -4,211
Illinois -0.70% -42.5 -0.89% -5,111
Virginia -1.04% -42.2 -1.22% -4,729
Ohio -0.71% -38.4 -0.75% -3,242
North Carolina -0.86% -38.0 -1.12% -4,492

No Fracturing Scenario
The No Fracturing Scenario is the most restrictive of the three scenarios. Oklahoma, West
Virginia, Kentucky and Texas suffer the largest natural gas production declines under this
scenario. They join Wyoming at the top in terms of employment and real output declines.
Wyoming's declines in excess of 7% are the largest state-level negative impacts found in this
study. West Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana all experience declines in excess of 3% of
employment and output, resulting from large losses in the energy sector.
In addition, spillover impacts are very large in Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Kentucky, Arizona,
and Florida. In this scenario, Texas still has the largest number of jobs lost, with employment
declining by 364,000 and a GSP loss of nearly $37 billion.

Page 6
Figure 6. Estimated Impact of No Fracturing Scenario on Employment and GSP
(Difference from Reference case in 2015)

States with the Largest Negative Impacts Employment Employment Real GSP Real GSP
by Percent of Jobs Lost: (%) (thousands) (%) (Millions 2000$)
Wyoming -7.24% -22.2 -7.53% -1,672
West Virginia -3.92% -30.8 -3.79% -1,898
Nevada -3.65% -50.1 -3.11% -3,816
Oklahoma -3.56% -61.0 -3.67% -4,508
Texas -3.10% -364.5 -3.31% -36,796
Louisiana -3.04% -62.1 -3.32% -5,653
Colorado -2.93% -74.1 -3.22% -7,686
Montana -2.71% -12.9 -2.48% -768
Kentucky -2.71% -52.7 -2.86% -4,098
Arizona -2.69% -75.7 -2.92% -7,334

Figure 7. Estimated Impact of No Fracturing Scenario on Employment and GSP
(Difference from Reference case in 2015)

States with the Largest Negative Impacts Employment Employment Real GSP Real GSP
by Number of Jobs Lost: (%) (thousands) (%) (Millions 2000$)
Texas -3.10% -364.5 -3.31% -36,796
California -1.85% -291.9 -2.39% -43,689
Florida -2.68% -228.2 -2.78% -20,441
New York -1.59% -143.1 -1.91% -20,795
Pennsylvania -1.80% -108.3 -2.07% -10,357
Georgia -2.39% -105.5 -2.50% -10,174
Illinois -1.72% -104.3 -2.15% -12,361
Ohio -1.83% -98.9 -1.92% -8,254
Virginia -2.15% -87.2 -2.60% -10,028
North Carolina -1.95% -85.9 -2.25% -9,054

Page 7
Part 2 – Methodology and Assumptions
The economic results for the states reflect the US macroeconomic scenarios as presented in the
preceding sections. IHS Global Insight's state econometric modeling system allows us to fully
incorporate alternative macroeconomic forecasts as they impact the economic performance of
each state. Macroeconomic outcomes are key drivers in the demand for the goods and services
produced by firms in each state, and in the demand for labor services which generate income for
state residents. In addition, market prices in national or international markets, especially energy
prices in these cases, constitute key determinants of household budget constraints and business
cost functions, thus affecting a broad range of economic activity within each state economy.
For each of the US simulations described above we derive the state forecast outcomes determined
by, and consistent with, the US outcome. These projected impacts, or differences from the
reference case forecast, vary in magnitude across the states. They do so because states vary
considerably in their industrial structure, that is, the composition of industries and firms which
make up their economic base. Sectors across the US economy are affected to different degrees by
the alternative simulations and the impact on each state will be influenced by the degree to which
its industries suffer greater or lesser impacts. Also, our model equations are estimated
econometrically from state-specific, bottom-up, data. This allows differential responsiveness,
even across sectors or industries, as a result of the unique make-up of the state's industry,
demographics, taxes, climate, real estate markets, and other factors.
But this solution is just one part of our hydraulic fracturing analysis. The direct impact of the
simulated policy restrictions are of course felt by the natural gas industry in each state. The
industry is a significant driver in some state economies, less so in others. This dependence is
represented in the employment, earnings, and output data in our models. Moreover, the three
alternative scenarios differentially affect the particular oil and natural gas drilling industries of the
states by virtue of their geography, geology, and drilling industry.

Page 8
Estimated Economic Impacts of the UIC Compliance Scenario
Total Employment
Difference from Baseline, Thousands
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
Texas TX -17.9 -51.7 -78.4 -63.0 -43.0
California CA -13.5 -39.9 -66.4 -51.0 -32.1
Florida FL -10.8 -31.9 -55.6 -48.2 -32.9
New York NY -7.4 -21.2 -32.4 -21.2 -10.6
Pennsylvania PA -5.0 -14.8 -25.3 -18.9 -10.4
Virginia VA -4.1 -13.1 -24.8 -26.2 -23.6
Georgia GA -4.4 -14.3 -24.8 -17.2 -2.8
Ohio OH -5.0 -14.4 -22.2 -13.9 -4.4
Illinois IL -4.4 -13.2 -20.1 -10.1 0.2
North Carolina NC -3.8 -11.4 -18.4 -10.0 3.6
Kentucky KY -3.6 -11.2 -18.1 -14.5 -9.2
Arizona AZ -3.1 -9.6 -16.9 -14.0 -9.2
Colorado CO -3.1 -9.8 -16.6 -13.9 -9.5
West Virginia WV -3.0 -9.2 -15.9 -15.9 -13.6
New Jersey NJ -2.7 -8.6 -14.4 -8.3 2.0
Oklahoma OK -3.3 -9.1 -13.1 -10.8 -7.7
Louisiana LA -2.6 -8.1 -13.0 -12.1 -9.9
Massachusetts MA -2.5 -7.7 -12.1 -6.1 2.8
Michigan MI -3.1 -8.3 -11.8 -5.3 0.7
Washington WA -2.5 -7.6 -11.8 -5.3 4.0
Tennessee TN -2.4 -7.1 -11.2 -5.7 3.1
Nevada NV -1.7 -5.5 -10.5 -9.9 -7.1
Missouri MO -1.9 -6.2 -10.5 -6.3 1.0
Maryland MD -1.9 -6.1 -10.2 -6.1 0.8
South Carolina SC -1.9 -6.0 -10.0 -6.2 0.5
Minnesota MN -1.7 -5.5 -9.5 -6.1 0.2
Indiana IN -2.2 -6.1 -9.0 -4.0 1.1
Alabama AL -2.0 -5.6 -8.9 -6.5 -3.4
Oregon OR -2.2 -5.3 -8.2 -5.5 -2.4
Utah UT -1.4 -4.2 -6.9 -5.7 -3.9
Wisconsin WI -1.4 -4.5 -6.6 -0.6 7.9
Mississippi MS -1.3 -3.8 -6.1 -4.4 -2.2
Kansas KS -1.4 -3.9 -5.8 -4.2 -2.5
Arkansas AR -1.5 -3.9 -5.3 -3.5 -1.5
New Mexico NM -1.0 -3.1 -5.1 -4.7 -3.7
Connecticut CT -0.9 -3.0 -5.1 -3.0 0.8
Wyoming WY -0.9 -2.9 -4.6 -4.5 -4.0
Iowa IA -0.9 -2.8 -4.0 -0.7 3.8
Nebraska NE -0.7 -2.0 -3.0 -2.1 -1.1
Montana MT -0.6 -1.7 -2.8 -2.3 -1.6
Idaho ID -0.5 -1.5 -2.6 -1.5 0.3
New Hampshire NH -0.5 -1.6 -2.6 -1.0 1.1
Maine ME -0.4 -1.3 -2.3 -1.6 -0.3
Hawaii HI -0.3 -1.0 -1.9 -1.4 -0.2
North Dakota ND -0.5 -1.3 -1.9 -1.4 -0.8
District of Columbia DC -0.3 -0.9 -1.8 -1.9 -1.0
Delaware DE -0.3 -0.9 -1.8 -1.4 -0.4
South Dakota SD -0.4 -1.1 -1.6 -1.0 -0.4
Rhode Island RI -0.3 -0.9 -1.5 -0.8 0.2
Alaska AK -0.2 -0.7 -1.4 -1.1 -0.5
Vermont VT -0.2 -0.6 -0.9 -0.4 0.4
US -139.7 -416.2 -675.5 -491.6 -221.0

Page 9
Estimated Economic Impacts of the UIC Compliance Scenario
Total Employment
Difference from Baseline, Percent
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
West Virginia WV -0.40% -1.21% -2.02% -1.98% -1.67%
Wyoming WY -0.32% -0.98% -1.49% -1.45% -1.27%
Kentucky KY -0.20% -0.61% -0.93% -0.72% -0.45%
Nevada NV -0.14% -0.43% -0.77% -0.69% -0.47%
Oklahoma OK -0.21% -0.56% -0.77% -0.61% -0.43%
Texas TX -0.17% -0.47% -0.67% -0.51% -0.34%
Colorado CO -0.13% -0.41% -0.66% -0.53% -0.36%
Florida FL -0.14% -0.41% -0.65% -0.54% -0.35%
Louisiana LA -0.13% -0.41% -0.64% -0.58% -0.47%
Virginia VA -0.11% -0.34% -0.61% -0.62% -0.55%
Arizona AZ -0.13% -0.37% -0.60% -0.47% -0.30%
Montana MT -0.14% -0.38% -0.58% -0.47% -0.33%
New Mexico NM -0.13% -0.36% -0.56% -0.50% -0.39%
Georgia GA -0.11% -0.34% -0.56% -0.37% -0.06%
Mississippi MS -0.12% -0.33% -0.50% -0.36% -0.18%
North Dakota ND -0.14% -0.35% -0.49% -0.34% -0.18%
Utah UT -0.11% -0.32% -0.49% -0.39% -0.26%
South Carolina SC -0.10% -0.31% -0.48% -0.29% 0.02%
Oregon OR -0.14% -0.31% -0.45% -0.30% -0.13%
Alabama AL -0.11% -0.28% -0.43% -0.30% -0.16%
Arkansas AR -0.13% -0.32% -0.42% -0.27% -0.12%
Pennsylvania PA -0.09% -0.25% -0.42% -0.31% -0.17%
California CA -0.09% -0.26% -0.42% -0.31% -0.19%
North Carolina NC -0.10% -0.27% -0.42% -0.22% 0.08%
Ohio OH -0.10% -0.28% -0.41% -0.25% -0.08%
Kansas KS -0.10% -0.28% -0.40% -0.28% -0.17%
Alaska AK -0.06% -0.22% -0.40% -0.32% -0.13%
Tennessee TN -0.09% -0.26% -0.38% -0.19% 0.10%
Delaware DE -0.07% -0.22% -0.38% -0.28% -0.07%
New Hampshire NH -0.08% -0.25% -0.38% -0.15% 0.16%
South Dakota SD -0.09% -0.26% -0.38% -0.23% -0.09%
Washington WA -0.08% -0.25% -0.38% -0.17% 0.12%
Idaho ID -0.08% -0.24% -0.37% -0.21% 0.04%
Maryland MD -0.07% -0.23% -0.37% -0.22% 0.03%
Maine ME -0.07% -0.22% -0.36% -0.25% -0.05%
Missouri MO -0.07% -0.22% -0.36% -0.21% 0.03%
Massachusetts MA -0.08% -0.23% -0.36% -0.18% 0.08%
New York NY -0.09% -0.24% -0.36% -0.23% -0.11%
New Jersey NJ -0.07% -0.21% -0.34% -0.19% 0.05%
Illinois IL -0.08% -0.22% -0.33% -0.16% 0.00%
Minnesota MN -0.06% -0.20% -0.33% -0.21% 0.01%
Nebraska NE -0.07% -0.20% -0.30% -0.20% -0.10%
Vermont VT -0.06% -0.19% -0.30% -0.13% 0.11%
Indiana IN -0.08% -0.21% -0.30% -0.13% 0.04%
Connecticut CT -0.06% -0.18% -0.30% -0.17% 0.05%
Rhode Island RI -0.06% -0.19% -0.30% -0.17% 0.05%
Michigan MI -0.08% -0.21% -0.29% -0.13% 0.02%
Hawaii HI -0.05% -0.16% -0.29% -0.21% -0.03%
Iowa IA -0.06% -0.18% -0.26% -0.05% 0.23%
District of Columbia DC -0.04% -0.12% -0.24% -0.24% -0.13%
Wisconsin WI -0.05% -0.16% -0.22% -0.02% 0.26%
US -0.11% -0.30% -0.47% -0.33% -0.15%

Page 10
Estimated Economic Impacts of the UIC Compliance Scenario
Real Gross State Product
Difference from Baseline, Millions of 2000 $
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
California CA -2,367 -6,169 -10,395 -9,311 -7,423
Texas TX -1,986 -5,304 -8,335 -7,673 -6,437
Florida FL -1,086 -2,896 -5,049 -4,750 -3,804
New York NY -1,303 -3,167 -4,734 -3,219 -1,724
Virginia VA -589 -1,591 -2,702 -2,451 -1,888
Georgia GA -520 -1,455 -2,569 -2,204 -1,136
Illinois IL -705 -1,706 -2,418 -1,192 330
Pennsylvania PA -593 -1,506 -2,348 -1,483 -510
North Carolina NC -479 -1,294 -2,173 -1,624 -488
Ohio OH -517 -1,266 -1,854 -1,123 -364
Colorado CO -370 -1,048 -1,803 -1,697 -1,392
Arizona AZ -365 -987 -1,730 -1,614 -1,312
New Jersey NJ -461 -1,169 -1,673 -568 944
Massachusetts MA -393 -1,028 -1,623 -1,040 -76
Washington WA -357 -952 -1,551 -1,075 -204
Kentucky KY -305 -869 -1,401 -1,179 -865
Louisiana LA -271 -759 -1,253 -1,300 -1,229
Minnesota MN -267 -706 -1,155 -802 -128
Tennessee TN -275 -707 -1,137 -755 -51
Maryland MD -278 -718 -1,077 -461 449
Michigan MI -369 -830 -1,067 -335 294
Connecticut CT -237 -632 -1,045 -760 -205
Oklahoma OK -259 -680 -996 -889 -710
West Virginia WV -196 -578 -965 -919 -740
Missouri MO -233 -598 -883 -374 353
South Carolina SC -187 -508 -870 -700 -300
Oregon OR -252 -556 -847 -621 -357
Alabama AL -209 -525 -834 -656 -427
Nevada NV -173 -469 -810 -728 -533
Indiana IN -235 -530 -717 -295 108
Wisconsin WI -201 -501 -714 -198 543
Utah UT -153 -403 -686 -664 -566
Kansas KS -147 -363 -539 -390 -235
Arkansas AR -146 -354 -514 -400 -266
Iowa IA -125 -316 -467 -255 56
New Mexico NM -106 -278 -459 -442 -378
Mississippi MS -112 -284 -445 -342 -210
Wyoming WY -72 -220 -359 -379 -362
New Hampshire NH -71 -195 -336 -279 -138
District of Columbia DC -82 -205 -319 -181 46
Nebraska NE -88 -212 -318 -221 -126
Delaware DE -66 -179 -305 -230 -69
Idaho ID -51 -131 -200 -94 67
Alaska AK -34 -100 -187 -189 -140
Hawaii HI -46 -115 -186 -119 4
Maine ME -47 -119 -186 -116 0
Rhode Island RI -45 -115 -175 -93 33
South Dakota SD -44 -110 -174 -137 -93
North Dakota ND -44 -105 -158 -136 -108
Montana MT -45 -107 -147 -89 -31
Vermont VT -25 -64 -94 -41 36
US -17,587 -45,680 -72,980 -56,795 -31,762

Page 11
Estimated Economic Impacts of the UIC Compliance Scenario
Real Gross State Product
Difference from Baseline, Percent
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
West Virginia WV -0.44% -1.23% -1.93% -1.73% -1.33%
Wyoming WY -0.37% -1.05% -1.62% -1.60% -1.46%
Kentucky KY -0.24% -0.64% -0.98% -0.77% -0.55%
Oklahoma OK -0.25% -0.60% -0.81% -0.66% -0.50%
Colorado CO -0.18% -0.48% -0.76% -0.65% -0.50%
Texas TX -0.22% -0.53% -0.75% -0.62% -0.49%
Louisiana LA -0.18% -0.48% -0.74% -0.72% -0.65%
Virginia VA -0.18% -0.45% -0.70% -0.58% -0.42%
Arizona AZ -0.17% -0.44% -0.69% -0.58% -0.44%
Florida FL -0.18% -0.44% -0.69% -0.58% -0.43%
Nevada NV -0.17% -0.42% -0.66% -0.54% -0.37%
Utah UT -0.17% -0.42% -0.65% -0.57% -0.45%
New Mexico NM -0.17% -0.42% -0.64% -0.57% -0.46%
Georgia GA -0.15% -0.40% -0.63% -0.49% -0.24%
North Dakota ND -0.19% -0.42% -0.59% -0.47% -0.35%
New Hampshire NH -0.14% -0.37% -0.59% -0.45% -0.21%
South Carolina SC -0.15% -0.37% -0.58% -0.43% -0.17%
California CA -0.15% -0.37% -0.57% -0.47% -0.35%
Alaska AK -0.12% -0.33% -0.56% -0.52% -0.37%
Arkansas AR -0.18% -0.42% -0.56% -0.40% -0.25%
Mississippi MS -0.16% -0.37% -0.54% -0.39% -0.23%
North Carolina NC -0.14% -0.35% -0.54% -0.37% -0.10%
Alabama AL -0.15% -0.36% -0.52% -0.38% -0.23%
Delaware DE -0.13% -0.33% -0.52% -0.36% -0.10%
South Dakota SD -0.15% -0.35% -0.51% -0.37% -0.24%
Oregon OR -0.18% -0.36% -0.50% -0.33% -0.18%
Washington WA -0.13% -0.33% -0.49% -0.31% -0.06%
Connecticut CT -0.13% -0.32% -0.49% -0.33% -0.09%
Kansas KS -0.15% -0.35% -0.48% -0.32% -0.19%
Montana MT -0.16% -0.37% -0.48% -0.27% -0.09%
Pennsylvania PA -0.13% -0.32% -0.47% -0.28% -0.09%
Tennessee TN -0.13% -0.32% -0.47% -0.28% -0.02%
Massachusetts MA -0.13% -0.31% -0.46% -0.28% -0.02%
Minnesota MN -0.12% -0.30% -0.45% -0.29% -0.04%
New York NY -0.14% -0.31% -0.43% -0.27% -0.14%
Ohio OH -0.14% -0.31% -0.43% -0.25% -0.08%
Illinois IL -0.14% -0.32% -0.42% -0.19% 0.05%
Maine ME -0.12% -0.28% -0.41% -0.24% 0.00%
Missouri MO -0.12% -0.30% -0.41% -0.16% 0.14%
Maryland MD -0.12% -0.29% -0.40% -0.16% 0.15%
Nebraska NE -0.13% -0.29% -0.40% -0.26% -0.14%
Rhode Island RI -0.12% -0.28% -0.40% -0.20% 0.07%
Vermont VT -0.12% -0.28% -0.39% -0.16% 0.13%
Iowa IA -0.11% -0.27% -0.38% -0.20% 0.04%
New Jersey NJ -0.12% -0.28% -0.37% -0.12% 0.19%
Idaho ID -0.11% -0.27% -0.37% -0.16% 0.11%
District of Columbia DC -0.10% -0.24% -0.36% -0.19% 0.05%
Hawaii HI -0.09% -0.21% -0.32% -0.19% 0.01%
Wisconsin WI -0.10% -0.24% -0.31% -0.08% 0.21%
Michigan MI -0.12% -0.26% -0.31% -0.09% 0.08%
Indiana IN -0.12% -0.25% -0.31% -0.12% 0.04%
US -0.15% -0.37% -0.54% -0.39% -0.21%

Page 12
Estimated Economic Impacts of the Fluid Restrictions Scenario
Total Employment
Difference from Baseline, Thousands
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
Texas TX -39.5 -113.9 -178.3 -155.4 -105.4
California CA -28.2 -84.6 -141.0 -114.0 -65.8
Florida FL -22.4 -66.5 -116.0 -106.5 -69.5
New York NY -14.4 -41.4 -63.1 -41.7 -15.3
Georgia GA -9.0 -29.5 -51.1 -41.7 -17.2
Pennsylvania PA -10.2 -28.8 -44.5 -30.6 -10.9
Illinois IL -9.1 -27.9 -42.5 -23.3 1.3
Virginia VA -7.1 -22.5 -42.2 -44.5 -37.7
Ohio OH -8.8 -25.7 -38.4 -21.9 -0.3
North Carolina NC -7.9 -23.5 -38.0 -26.2 -3.1
Louisiana LA -6.6 -22.9 -37.8 -38.7 -32.2
Arizona AZ -6.7 -20.7 -36.0 -31.7 -20.1
Colorado CO -6.6 -20.9 -36.0 -32.4 -21.7
Oklahoma OK -7.0 -20.0 -30.0 -27.0 -19.1
New Jersey NJ -5.5 -17.8 -29.7 -21.8 -5.2
Massachusetts MA -5.1 -15.9 -25.0 -16.3 -1.4
Michigan MI -6.4 -17.5 -24.9 -12.1 2.6
Washington WA -5.1 -15.8 -24.4 -14.7 1.2
Nevada NV -3.7 -12.2 -23.4 -23.3 -16.8
Kentucky KY -5.1 -15.2 -23.2 -16.9 -6.7
Tennessee TN -5.0 -14.7 -23.2 -15.3 -0.2
Missouri MO -4.0 -12.9 -21.6 -16.2 -4.3
Maryland MD -3.9 -12.6 -21.2 -15.9 -4.7
Alabama AL -4.4 -12.6 -20.7 -16.6 -9.0
South Carolina SC -4.0 -12.3 -20.6 -15.5 -4.1
Minnesota MN -3.4 -11.4 -19.6 -15.9 -6.0
Indiana IN -4.7 -13.2 -19.3 -9.8 2.5
Oregon OR -3.8 -10.9 -17.5 -12.9 -5.5
Arkansas AR -4.5 -11.6 -15.4 -11.7 -6.5
Mississippi MS -3.0 -9.0 -14.5 -11.7 -6.3
Utah UT -2.9 -8.7 -14.4 -12.6 -8.0
West Virginia WV -2.7 -8.4 -13.9 -13.3 -10.2
Wisconsin WI -2.8 -9.3 -13.5 -4.1 10.2
Wyoming WY -2.6 -8.3 -13.2 -13.5 -11.9
Kansas KS -2.9 -8.1 -12.3 -9.3 -5.0
New Mexico NM -2.5 -7.5 -12.3 -11.9 -9.2
Connecticut CT -1.9 -6.2 -10.5 -7.9 -1.9
Iowa IA -1.9 -5.8 -8.3 -3.2 4.6
Nebraska NE -1.4 -4.1 -6.3 -4.5 -1.9
Montana MT -1.2 -3.5 -5.8 -5.1 -3.5
Idaho ID -1.0 -3.2 -5.3 -3.9 -0.9
New Hampshire NH -1.1 -3.4 -5.3 -2.9 0.8
Maine ME -0.9 -2.8 -4.8 -4.1 -2.0
Hawaii HI -0.6 -2.1 -4.0 -3.6 -1.9
North Dakota ND -0.9 -2.5 -3.8 -2.9 -1.4
District of Columbia DC -0.5 -1.8 -3.8 -4.5 -3.6
Delaware DE -0.6 -2.0 -3.6 -3.3 -1.8
South Dakota SD -0.8 -2.2 -3.4 -2.2 -0.6
Rhode Island RI -0.6 -1.8 -3.0 -2.2 -0.6
Alaska AK -0.4 -1.5 -2.8 -2.7 -1.8
Vermont VT -0.3 -1.2 -1.9 -1.2 0.1
US -285.3 -859.2 -1,391.3 -1,101.2 -538.1

Page 13
Estimated Economic Impacts of the Fluid Restrictions Scenario
Total Employment
Difference from Baseline, Percent
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
Wyoming WY -0.90% -2.81% -4.30% -4.36% -3.82%
Louisiana LA -0.34% -1.16% -1.85% -1.87% -1.54%
West Virginia WV -0.37% -1.11% -1.77% -1.66% -1.25%
Oklahoma OK -0.45% -1.22% -1.75% -1.53% -1.06%
Nevada NV -0.30% -0.97% -1.71% -1.61% -1.12%
Texas TX -0.37% -1.03% -1.52% -1.27% -0.84%
Colorado CO -0.29% -0.87% -1.42% -1.24% -0.82%
Florida FL -0.30% -0.85% -1.36% -1.18% -0.75%
New Mexico NM -0.31% -0.87% -1.35% -1.26% -0.96%
Arizona AZ -0.27% -0.79% -1.28% -1.07% -0.66%
Arkansas AR -0.39% -0.96% -1.23% -0.91% -0.50%
Montana MT -0.27% -0.78% -1.22% -1.05% -0.70%
Mississippi MS -0.27% -0.78% -1.20% -0.95% -0.51%
Kentucky KY -0.28% -0.82% -1.20% -0.84% -0.33%
Georgia GA -0.23% -0.71% -1.16% -0.91% -0.37%
Virginia VA -0.19% -0.58% -1.04% -1.06% -0.88%
Utah UT -0.23% -0.66% -1.03% -0.86% -0.53%
South Carolina SC -0.22% -0.64% -1.00% -0.73% -0.19%
Alabama AL -0.23% -0.64% -1.00% -0.78% -0.42%
North Dakota ND -0.24% -0.67% -0.98% -0.73% -0.35%
Oregon OR -0.23% -0.64% -0.97% -0.70% -0.29%
California CA -0.20% -0.56% -0.89% -0.70% -0.39%
North Carolina NC -0.20% -0.57% -0.86% -0.57% -0.07%
Kansas KS -0.21% -0.58% -0.84% -0.62% -0.33%
Alaska AK -0.12% -0.45% -0.81% -0.77% -0.49%
Tennessee TN -0.19% -0.53% -0.79% -0.50% -0.01%
Delaware DE -0.14% -0.45% -0.78% -0.69% -0.37%
New Hampshire NH -0.17% -0.52% -0.78% -0.42% 0.12%
Washington WA -0.18% -0.53% -0.78% -0.46% 0.04%
South Dakota SD -0.19% -0.52% -0.77% -0.51% -0.14%
Idaho ID -0.16% -0.49% -0.77% -0.54% -0.13%
Maryland MD -0.15% -0.48% -0.76% -0.56% -0.16%
Maine ME -0.15% -0.45% -0.75% -0.64% -0.31%
Missouri MO -0.15% -0.46% -0.75% -0.55% -0.15%
Massachusetts MA -0.16% -0.49% -0.75% -0.48% -0.04%
Pennsylvania PA -0.18% -0.49% -0.74% -0.50% -0.18%
Ohio OH -0.17% -0.49% -0.71% -0.40% -0.01%
New Jersey NJ -0.14% -0.44% -0.71% -0.51% -0.12%
New York NY -0.17% -0.47% -0.70% -0.45% -0.16%
Illinois IL -0.16% -0.48% -0.70% -0.38% 0.02%
Minnesota MN -0.13% -0.41% -0.68% -0.53% -0.20%
Indiana IN -0.17% -0.45% -0.64% -0.32% 0.08%
Nebraska NE -0.15% -0.42% -0.62% -0.43% -0.18%
Michigan MI -0.16% -0.45% -0.62% -0.30% 0.06%
Rhode Island RI -0.13% -0.38% -0.61% -0.45% -0.11%
Vermont VT -0.12% -0.38% -0.61% -0.38% 0.02%
Connecticut CT -0.11% -0.37% -0.61% -0.45% -0.11%
Hawaii HI -0.10% -0.33% -0.60% -0.53% -0.27%
Iowa IA -0.13% -0.38% -0.53% -0.20% 0.28%
District of Columbia DC -0.07% -0.24% -0.50% -0.58% -0.46%
Wisconsin WI -0.10% -0.33% -0.45% -0.14% 0.33%
US -0.21% -0.62% -0.96% -0.74% -0.36%

Page 14
Estimated Economic Impacts of the Fluid Restrictions Scenario
Real Gross State Product
Difference from Baseline, Millions of 2000 $
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
California CA -4,927 -12,932 -21,935 -20,643 -15,507
Texas TX -4,320 -11,576 -18,790 -18,512 -15,072
Florida FL -2,252 -6,019 -10,544 -10,455 -7,970
New York NY -2,582 -6,242 -9,337 -6,524 -2,723
Georgia GA -1,074 -2,999 -5,307 -5,182 -3,494
Illinois IL -1,463 -3,568 -5,111 -2,823 762
Virginia VA -1,084 -2,853 -4,729 -4,203 -2,794
North Carolina NC -989 -2,666 -4,492 -3,945 -2,091
Pennsylvania PA -1,220 -2,951 -4,211 -2,400 -112
Colorado CO -786 -2,220 -3,889 -3,906 -3,106
Arizona AZ -771 -2,103 -3,687 -3,625 -2,826
Louisiana LA -662 -2,063 -3,509 -3,906 -3,614
New Jersey NJ -950 -2,408 -3,464 -1,752 877
Massachusetts MA -812 -2,118 -3,360 -2,625 -1,029
Ohio OH -960 -2,292 -3,242 -1,789 11
Washington WA -738 -1,965 -3,209 -2,663 -1,239
Minnesota MN -551 -1,456 -2,389 -2,002 -915
Tennessee TN -568 -1,457 -2,355 -1,900 -733
Oklahoma OK -555 -1,481 -2,265 -2,193 -1,720
Michigan MI -762 -1,730 -2,255 -833 714
Maryland MD -573 -1,479 -2,229 -1,310 265
Connecticut CT -490 -1,303 -2,160 -1,863 -970
Alabama AL -447 -1,155 -1,894 -1,641 -1,051
Kentucky KY -458 -1,203 -1,849 -1,464 -837
Nevada NV -380 -1,048 -1,832 -1,763 -1,280
Missouri MO -479 -1,232 -1,826 -1,060 197
Oregon OR -450 -1,136 -1,811 -1,454 -787
South Carolina SC -385 -1,048 -1,798 -1,667 -1,025
Indiana IN -491 -1,125 -1,549 -743 251
Wisconsin WI -414 -1,031 -1,478 -685 582
Utah UT -315 -838 -1,434 -1,453 -1,178
Arkansas AR -393 -981 -1,386 -1,190 -828
Kansas KS -302 -751 -1,134 -877 -475
New Mexico NM -247 -659 -1,079 -1,093 -907
Mississippi MS -251 -660 -1,056 -897 -558
Wyoming WY -198 -614 -1,010 -1,105 -1,041
Iowa IA -259 -650 -967 -681 -171
West Virginia WV -200 -536 -790 -601 -296
New Hampshire NH -147 -403 -695 -660 -439
District of Columbia DC -168 -423 -660 -481 -115
Nebraska NE -181 -439 -659 -486 -236
Delaware DE -137 -370 -630 -559 -299
Idaho ID -105 -269 -415 -265 4
Alaska AK -71 -206 -386 -435 -377
Hawaii HI -96 -237 -385 -312 -127
Maine ME -97 -245 -385 -298 -109
Rhode Island RI -93 -237 -362 -247 -38
South Dakota SD -89 -224 -357 -298 -184
North Dakota ND -79 -201 -319 -291 -214
Montana MT -89 -217 -310 -205 -62
Vermont VT -51 -131 -195 -115 17
US -36,163 -94,145 -151,120 -128,080 -74,870

Page 15
Estimated Economic Impacts of the Fluid Restrictions Scenario
Real Gross State Product
Difference from Baseline, Percent
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
Wyoming WY -1.00% -2.95% -4.55% -4.67% -4.20%
Louisiana LA -0.44% -1.30% -2.06% -2.15% -1.90%
Oklahoma OK -0.53% -1.31% -1.85% -1.64% -1.21%
Texas TX -0.47% -1.16% -1.69% -1.50% -1.14%
Colorado CO -0.39% -1.02% -1.63% -1.50% -1.12%
West Virginia WV -0.45% -1.14% -1.58% -1.13% -0.53%
Arkansas AR -0.49% -1.16% -1.51% -1.19% -0.78%
New Mexico NM -0.40% -1.01% -1.51% -1.40% -1.09%
Nevada NV -0.37% -0.94% -1.49% -1.31% -0.89%
Arizona AZ -0.37% -0.93% -1.47% -1.30% -0.94%
Florida FL -0.37% -0.92% -1.43% -1.28% -0.91%
Utah UT -0.35% -0.87% -1.35% -1.24% -0.94%
Georgia GA -0.32% -0.81% -1.30% -1.16% -0.73%
Kentucky KY -0.35% -0.89% -1.29% -0.96% -0.53%
Mississippi MS -0.35% -0.87% -1.28% -1.01% -0.60%
Virginia VA -0.34% -0.81% -1.22% -1.00% -0.63%
New Hampshire NH -0.30% -0.77% -1.22% -1.07% -0.67%
South Carolina SC -0.30% -0.76% -1.20% -1.03% -0.60%
California CA -0.32% -0.77% -1.20% -1.03% -0.73%
North Dakota ND -0.34% -0.81% -1.19% -1.00% -0.70%
Alabama AL -0.33% -0.79% -1.19% -0.95% -0.57%
Alaska AK -0.24% -0.67% -1.16% -1.20% -0.98%
North Carolina NC -0.29% -0.73% -1.12% -0.90% -0.45%
Delaware DE -0.28% -0.69% -1.07% -0.87% -0.44%
Oregon OR -0.31% -0.74% -1.07% -0.78% -0.40%
South Dakota SD -0.30% -0.71% -1.05% -0.81% -0.48%
Washington WA -0.27% -0.68% -1.02% -0.78% -0.34%
Connecticut CT -0.27% -0.66% -1.01% -0.81% -0.40%
Kansas KS -0.31% -0.72% -1.01% -0.73% -0.38%
Montana MT -0.32% -0.75% -1.00% -0.62% -0.18%
Tennessee TN -0.27% -0.66% -0.97% -0.71% -0.26%
Massachusetts MA -0.26% -0.64% -0.95% -0.69% -0.26%
Minnesota MN -0.25% -0.62% -0.94% -0.72% -0.31%
Illinois IL -0.29% -0.67% -0.89% -0.46% 0.11%
New York NY -0.27% -0.61% -0.86% -0.55% -0.22%
Maine ME -0.24% -0.58% -0.86% -0.62% -0.22%
Missouri MO -0.25% -0.61% -0.84% -0.46% 0.08%
Pennsylvania PA -0.28% -0.63% -0.84% -0.45% -0.02%
Maryland MD -0.26% -0.61% -0.84% -0.45% 0.09%
Nebraska NE -0.27% -0.60% -0.83% -0.57% -0.26%
Rhode Island RI -0.24% -0.58% -0.83% -0.53% -0.08%
Vermont VT -0.24% -0.58% -0.81% -0.45% 0.06%
Iowa IA -0.24% -0.57% -0.79% -0.53% -0.13%
New Jersey NJ -0.24% -0.58% -0.77% -0.37% 0.18%
Idaho ID -0.23% -0.55% -0.76% -0.45% 0.01%
Ohio OH -0.25% -0.57% -0.75% -0.39% 0.00%
District of Columbia DC -0.21% -0.50% -0.74% -0.51% -0.12%
Indiana IN -0.24% -0.52% -0.67% -0.30% 0.10%
Hawaii HI -0.19% -0.44% -0.67% -0.50% -0.20%
Michigan MI -0.25% -0.53% -0.65% -0.23% 0.19%
Wisconsin WI -0.21% -0.49% -0.65% -0.28% 0.22%
US -0.31% -0.76% -1.12% -0.88% -0.49%

Page 16
Estimated Economic Impacts of the No Fracturing Scenario
Total Employment
Difference from Baseline, Thousands
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
Texas TX -48.9 -217.6 -364.5 -318.3 -235.8
California CA -120.5 -190.1 -291.9 -220.4 -144.8
Florida FL -86.7 -145.0 -228.2 -197.9 -143.7
New York NY -66.3 -101.0 -143.1 -94.1 -50.8
Pennsylvania PA -46.0 -70.9 -108.3 -80.2 -48.7
Georgia GA -31.4 -63.5 -105.5 -90.6 -54.2
Illinois IL -42.9 -69.3 -104.3 -64.8 -25.1
Ohio OH -39.6 -65.4 -98.9 -66.6 -32.4
Virginia VA -26.6 -50.0 -87.2 -85.1 -74.6
North Carolina NC -29.2 -54.9 -85.9 -69.3 -34.8
Arizona AZ -25.4 -45.8 -75.7 -63.6 -46.0
Colorado CO -17.7 -43.2 -74.1 -65.0 -47.7
Michigan MI -32.3 -45.6 -65.0 -39.3 -15.5
Louisiana LA -8.7 -32.7 -62.1 -62.1 -51.9
New Jersey NJ -18.6 -38.1 -61.9 -50.7 -26.1
Oklahoma OK -0.3 -35.7 -61.0 -56.6 -43.9
Washington WA -18.1 -34.2 -53.0 -38.5 -14.4
Kentucky KY -11.9 -32.3 -52.7 -41.6 -25.3
Massachusetts MA -17.5 -34.4 -52.6 -39.9 -17.3
Indiana IN -24.3 -35.3 -52.3 -33.8 -14.2
Tennessee TN -17.6 -33.1 -50.8 -39.4 -16.7
Nevada NV -13.6 -27.2 -50.1 -47.6 -38.2
Missouri MO -14.6 -28.4 -46.7 -39.3 -21.7
South Carolina SC -14.5 -28.2 -45.8 -38.7 -21.8
Alabama AL -16.3 -28.0 -44.4 -35.7 -23.8
Maryland MD -13.1 -26.7 -43.2 -35.4 -18.7
Minnesota MN -11.6 -24.0 -40.1 -34.9 -20.2
Oregon OR -14.8 -24.2 -37.2 -27.4 -16.1
Wisconsin WI -11.1 -23.3 -36.9 -24.2 -2.3
Utah UT -8.2 -18.9 -32.2 -28.2 -20.5
West Virginia WV 0.1 -15.3 -30.8 -31.3 -25.8
Mississippi MS -10.6 -18.9 -30.2 -24.3 -16.0
Arkansas AR -4.7 -18.0 -27.3 -21.3 -13.6
Kansas KS -9.9 -17.1 -25.9 -19.2 -12.1
New Mexico NM -3.7 -13.0 -23.7 -22.9 -18.7
Connecticut CT -6.6 -13.5 -22.2 -18.6 -9.8
Wyoming WY 2.7 -10.8 -22.2 -24.1 -21.4
Iowa IA -8.0 -14.4 -21.8 -15.0 -3.5
Nebraska NE -7.0 -10.2 -14.7 -10.4 -6.2
Montana MT -2.0 -7.4 -12.9 -11.5 -8.7
New Hampshire NH -3.9 -7.9 -12.3 -8.6 -2.9
Idaho ID -3.2 -6.6 -10.9 -8.7 -4.2
Maine ME -3.2 -6.1 -9.9 -9.2 -6.2
North Dakota ND -1.0 -6.0 -9.9 -8.4 -5.8
Hawaii HI -2.2 -4.5 -8.0 -7.9 -5.5
South Dakota SD -3.1 -5.3 -7.8 -5.5 -3.0
Delaware DE -2.2 -4.5 -7.8 -7.6 -5.4
Rhode Island RI -2.2 -4.2 -6.6 -5.6 -3.0
District of Columbia DC -1.7 -3.4 -6.6 -7.9 -6.8
Alaska AK -0.4 -2.3 -5.1 -5.4 -4.0
Vermont VT -1.2 -2.6 -4.3 -3.4 -1.4
US -922.4 -1,858.9 -2,976.3 -2,406.2 -1,531.4

Page 17
Estimated Economic Impacts of the No Fracturing Scenario
Total Employment
Difference from Baseline, Percent
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
Wyoming WY 0.93% -3.62% -7.24% -7.78% -6.86%
West Virginia WV 0.02% -2.02% -3.92% -3.90% -3.18%
Nevada NV -1.12% -2.15% -3.65% -3.29% -2.55%
Oklahoma OK -0.02% -2.18% -3.56% -3.21% -2.45%
Texas TX -0.46% -1.96% -3.10% -2.60% -1.88%
Louisiana LA -0.45% -1.66% -3.04% -3.00% -2.48%
Colorado CO -0.77% -1.80% -2.93% -2.49% -1.79%
Montana MT -0.45% -1.63% -2.71% -2.36% -1.76%
Kentucky KY -0.67% -1.74% -2.71% -2.07% -1.24%
Arizona AZ -1.02% -1.75% -2.69% -2.16% -1.51%
Florida FL -1.16% -1.85% -2.68% -2.20% -1.54%
New Mexico NM -0.45% -1.51% -2.60% -2.44% -1.95%
North Dakota ND -0.27% -1.60% -2.54% -2.08% -1.42%
Mississippi MS -0.96% -1.64% -2.50% -1.97% -1.28%
Georgia GA -0.79% -1.53% -2.39% -1.98% -1.15%
Utah UT -0.66% -1.44% -2.30% -1.93% -1.36%
South Carolina SC -0.78% -1.45% -2.23% -1.82% -1.01%
Arkansas AR -0.41% -1.49% -2.17% -1.64% -1.03%
Virginia VA -0.72% -1.30% -2.15% -2.02% -1.73%
Alabama AL -0.86% -1.42% -2.15% -1.68% -1.10%
Oregon OR -0.91% -1.42% -2.06% -1.47% -0.85%
North Carolina NC -0.74% -1.32% -1.95% -1.52% -0.74%
California CA -0.84% -1.26% -1.85% -1.35% -0.87%
Ohio OH -0.78% -1.26% -1.83% -1.22% -0.59%
New Hampshire NH -0.62% -1.21% -1.81% -1.25% -0.41%
South Dakota SD -0.77% -1.27% -1.81% -1.25% -0.67%
Pennsylvania PA -0.81% -1.21% -1.80% -1.31% -0.79%
Kansas KS -0.73% -1.22% -1.77% -1.28% -0.80%
Indiana IN -0.86% -1.22% -1.74% -1.11% -0.46%
Tennessee TN -0.66% -1.19% -1.73% -1.30% -0.54%
Illinois IL -0.75% -1.18% -1.72% -1.05% -0.40%
Delaware DE -0.53% -1.02% -1.69% -1.59% -1.11%
Washington WA -0.63% -1.14% -1.69% -1.20% -0.44%
Missouri MO -0.54% -1.01% -1.61% -1.34% -0.73%
Michigan MI -0.83% -1.16% -1.61% -0.96% -0.38%
New York NY -0.77% -1.15% -1.59% -1.02% -0.55%
Maine ME -0.53% -1.00% -1.58% -1.43% -0.96%
Massachusetts MA -0.55% -1.05% -1.57% -1.17% -0.51%
Idaho ID -0.51% -1.01% -1.56% -1.21% -0.57%
Maryland MD -0.51% -1.01% -1.56% -1.24% -0.64%
Alaska AK -0.13% -0.71% -1.50% -1.54% -1.12%
New Jersey NJ -0.47% -0.94% -1.48% -1.19% -0.60%
Nebraska NE -0.74% -1.04% -1.44% -0.99% -0.58%
Vermont VT -0.40% -0.87% -1.39% -1.06% -0.45%
Minnesota MN -0.43% -0.87% -1.39% -1.18% -0.67%
Iowa IA -0.54% -0.94% -1.38% -0.93% -0.21%
Rhode Island RI -0.48% -0.88% -1.35% -1.13% -0.61%
Connecticut CT -0.40% -0.81% -1.29% -1.07% -0.56%
Wisconsin WI -0.40% -0.82% -1.24% -0.79% -0.08%
Hawaii HI -0.36% -0.71% -1.21% -1.16% -0.80%
District of Columbia DC -0.24% -0.47% -0.87% -1.02% -0.86%
US -0.69% -1.35% -2.06% -1.63% -1.02%

Page 18
Estimated Economic Impacts of the No Fracturing Scenario
Real Gross State Product
Difference from Baseline, Millions of 2000 $
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
California CA -18,468 -28,937 -43,689 -38,017 -28,972
Texas TX -6,462 -22,225 -36,796 -35,371 -29,037
New York NY -10,338 -15,302 -20,795 -14,653 -8,002
Florida FL -8,240 -13,256 -20,441 -18,881 -14,831
Illinois IL -5,931 -9,024 -12,361 -7,979 -2,276
Pennsylvania PA -4,892 -7,451 -10,357 -6,944 -3,026
Georgia GA -3,344 -6,256 -10,174 -9,930 -7,262
Virginia VA -3,807 -6,526 -10,028 -8,637 -6,237
North Carolina NC -3,169 -5,791 -9,054 -8,254 -5,315
Ohio OH -3,888 -5,982 -8,254 -5,499 -2,426
New Jersey NJ -3,196 -5,715 -8,054 -5,590 -1,374
Colorado CO -2,218 -4,610 -7,686 -7,326 -5,928
Arizona AZ -2,729 -4,586 -7,334 -6,735 -5,393
Massachusetts MA -2,630 -4,660 -6,829 -5,730 -3,154
Washington WA -2,378 -4,234 -6,453 -5,630 -3,337
Michigan MI -3,322 -4,669 -6,038 -3,386 -725
Louisiana LA -1,107 -3,098 -5,653 -6,087 -5,500
Maryland MD -1,893 -3,436 -4,999 -3,692 -1,204
Minnesota MN -1,761 -3,179 -4,849 -4,293 -2,550
Tennessee TN -1,850 -3,236 -4,831 -4,190 -2,329
Oklahoma OK -261 -2,691 -4,508 -4,439 -3,634
Connecticut CT -1,563 -2,831 -4,344 -3,895 -2,453
Indiana IN -2,194 -3,051 -4,122 -2,611 -930
Missouri MO -1,591 -2,870 -4,120 -3,012 -999
Kentucky KY -1,270 -2,686 -4,098 -3,327 -2,215
Alabama AL -1,574 -2,580 -3,900 -3,281 -2,278
Nevada NV -1,332 -2,331 -3,816 -3,514 -2,717
Oregon OR -1,644 -2,548 -3,737 -2,930 -1,836
Wisconsin WI -1,426 -2,524 -3,591 -2,506 -490
South Carolina SC -1,220 -2,244 -3,554 -3,347 -2,321
Utah UT -889 -1,794 -2,962 -2,876 -2,365
Kansas KS -1,019 -1,714 -2,477 -1,920 -1,206
Arkansas AR -570 -1,620 -2,412 -2,045 -1,451
Iowa IA -889 -1,526 -2,187 -1,758 -904
Mississippi MS -848 -1,415 -2,132 -1,769 -1,200
New Mexico NM -468 -1,208 -2,059 -2,060 -1,731
West Virginia WV -185 -1,109 -1,898 -1,678 -1,138
Wyoming WY 47 -840 -1,672 -1,898 -1,774
Nebraska NE -740 -1,092 -1,509 -1,107 -655
District of Columbia DC -542 -961 -1,397 -1,141 -545
New Hampshire NH -464 -853 -1,355 -1,290 -928
Delaware DE -438 -806 -1,270 -1,171 -762
Idaho ID -341 -608 -885 -672 -241
Maine ME -321 -559 -818 -698 -393
Hawaii HI -325 -547 -807 -724 -430
Rhode Island RI -310 -547 -791 -626 -285
South Dakota SD -328 -534 -776 -627 -427
Montana MT -206 -522 -768 -578 -325
North Dakota ND -129 -474 -763 -708 -562
Alaska AK -155 -360 -668 -763 -662
Vermont VT -170 -305 -439 -325 -113
US -114,985 -207,923 -314,513 -266,118 -176,850

Page 19
Estimated Economic Impacts of the No Fracturing Scenario
Real Gross State Product
Difference from Baseline, Percent
2010 2012 2015 2018 2020
Wyoming WY 0.24% -4.03% -7.53% -8.01% -7.15%
West Virginia WV -0.41% -2.36% -3.79% -3.15% -2.05%
Oklahoma OK -0.25% -2.39% -3.67% -3.32% -2.57%
Louisiana LA -0.74% -1.96% -3.32% -3.35% -2.89%
Texas TX -0.70% -2.22% -3.31% -2.87% -2.20%
Colorado CO -1.10% -2.12% -3.22% -2.81% -2.14%
Nevada NV -1.29% -2.10% -3.11% -2.60% -1.89%
Arizona AZ -1.30% -2.03% -2.92% -2.41% -1.80%
New Mexico NM -0.76% -1.84% -2.88% -2.64% -2.09%
Kentucky KY -0.98% -1.98% -2.86% -2.19% -1.40%
North Dakota ND -0.55% -1.92% -2.85% -2.43% -1.83%
Utah UT -1.00% -1.87% -2.79% -2.46% -1.90%
Florida FL -1.37% -2.04% -2.78% -2.30% -1.69%
Arkansas AR -0.72% -1.91% -2.63% -2.05% -1.37%
Virginia VA -1.18% -1.86% -2.60% -2.05% -1.40%
Mississippi MS -1.19% -1.87% -2.59% -2.00% -1.29%
Georgia GA -0.98% -1.70% -2.50% -2.22% -1.52%
Montana MT -0.75% -1.80% -2.48% -1.75% -0.94%
Alabama AL -1.15% -1.76% -2.45% -1.90% -1.25%
California CA -1.19% -1.73% -2.39% -1.90% -1.36%
South Carolina SC -0.95% -1.64% -2.38% -2.06% -1.35%
New Hampshire NH -0.94% -1.63% -2.38% -2.09% -1.43%
South Dakota SD -1.10% -1.69% -2.27% -1.71% -1.11%
North Carolina NC -0.94% -1.59% -2.25% -1.88% -1.14%
Kansas KS -1.04% -1.64% -2.21% -1.59% -0.95%
Oregon OR -1.15% -1.65% -2.20% -1.57% -0.92%
Delaware DE -0.89% -1.50% -2.16% -1.82% -1.12%
Illinois IL -1.17% -1.69% -2.15% -1.30% -0.34%
Pennsylvania PA -1.11% -1.59% -2.07% -1.31% -0.55%
Washington WA -0.88% -1.46% -2.05% -1.64% -0.92%
Connecticut CT -0.85% -1.44% -2.04% -1.70% -1.02%
Alaska AK -0.53% -1.17% -2.01% -2.11% -1.73%
Tennessee TN -0.90% -1.46% -1.99% -1.57% -0.82%
Massachusetts MA -0.85% -1.41% -1.94% -1.52% -0.80%
Ohio OH -1.02% -1.48% -1.92% -1.20% -0.51%
Nebraska NE -1.08% -1.50% -1.91% -1.31% -0.74%
New York NY -1.07% -1.50% -1.91% -1.24% -0.64%
Minnesota MN -0.81% -1.36% -1.90% -1.55% -0.87%
Missouri MO -0.83% -1.42% -1.90% -1.29% -0.41%
Maryland MD -0.84% -1.41% -1.88% -1.28% -0.40%
Maine ME -0.80% -1.33% -1.82% -1.45% -0.78%
Vermont VT -0.80% -1.36% -1.82% -1.26% -0.42%
Rhode Island RI -0.81% -1.34% -1.82% -1.35% -0.59%
New Jersey NJ -0.81% -1.37% -1.80% -1.17% -0.28%
Indiana IN -1.08% -1.42% -1.78% -1.06% -0.36%
Iowa IA -0.81% -1.33% -1.78% -1.37% -0.69%
Michigan MI -1.07% -1.44% -1.75% -0.93% -0.19%
Idaho ID -0.75% -1.24% -1.63% -1.13% -0.38%
Wisconsin WI -0.73% -1.20% -1.57% -1.02% -0.19%
District of Columbia DC -0.68% -1.14% -1.56% -1.20% -0.55%
Hawaii HI -0.64% -1.02% -1.39% -1.17% -0.66%
US -0.99% -1.67% -2.33% -1.82% -1.15%

Page 20