301 Final 1

1
THE PROS AND

CONS
OF HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING IN
SUSQUEHANNA
COUNTY
Cover Image Sources:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Susquehanna_County,_Pennsylvania.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susquehanna_Valley
Pros and Cons of Hydraulic

Fracturing in Susquehanna County
Presented by:
GeoTech Industries
Research Team 5
researchteam5@hotmail.com
(814) 867 - 5309
Presented for:
County of Susquehanna
Trout Unlimited
CONTENTS
Abstract
Executive Summary
11
Introduction
12
Regulations
20
Economics
28
Ecology
39
Reccomendation
40
Works Cited
ABSTRACT
Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/water-works/tag/fracking/#.Vxa5CPkrLcs

he purpose of this
report is to address the positive and
negative effects of the developing
industry
surrounding
Marcellus
shale gas deposits (the process of
hydraulic fracturing, or fracking) as
they pertain to the different interests
of Susquehanna County and Trout
Unlimited. The main areas of focus are
social, economic and environmental.
Natural gas drilling is a flourishing
industry, with numerous economic
benefits associated with it.

The process of hydraulic
fracturing introduces potential harms
to the environment and public health.

These two aspects of developing
natural gas were the fundamental
subject areas of research done for this
report. The sources of information
utilized
included
government
agencies and non-profit groups. The
findings shaped the recommendations
regarding the magnitude of risks and
benefits of fracking and its other
implications for Susquehanna County
and Trout Unlimited. This report
will aid in improving the general
understanding of drilling for gas in the
Marcellus shale.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T
he utilization of hydraulic
fracturing to harvest shale gas in the
Marcellus formation has raised various
concerns regarding its impacts on
human health and the environment. The
principal concern surrounding fracking
techniques is the contamination of
surface water and groundwater.
There are four main avenues

of potential drinking water
pollution:

Chemicals, some of which
are toxic, used in the fracking process
can enter aquifers directly due to
improper well construction. The
drilling operation creates a potential
for surface spills or leaching of harmful
waste products into groundwater.
Flowback from the fracking process
can pollute, unless properly treated,
upon discharge in surface waters
or when reinjected into the ground.
The fracturing of subterranean rock
formations can induce the migration
of gas and its contact with aquifers. In
addition to the risk of polluting surface
water and groundwater, the fracking
process requires millions of gallons of
water. The necessary constant demand
at the drill site can put strain on local
water resources. Communities in which
drilling occurs and the people who live
in them are affected in addition to the

environment.
The development of
Marcellus shale gas is
prospected to play an
essential role in the
future of domestic
energy production in
the United States.

The major economic benefits
gained from exploiting this natural
resource are materialized as corporate
profits reliant on the market and the
flow of supply and demand. The
inherent risks of the industry and its
accompanying consequences reside
at the local scale. Private landowners
are often incentivized by the financial
rewards and royalties in permitting gas
companies to drill on their property.
The easy money is often stimulating
for the residents of rural and
marginalized communities. Situations
of environmental injustice acted upon
citizens and their land by gas companies
are a hotbed topic. Job creation is a
mutual attribute of the growing natural
gas industry in the state.
Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
continued

The sudden influx of transient
workers to small communities can
be a temporary benefit initially, but
a detriment in the long-term. Federal
and state laws regulating the practice
of hydraulic fracturing impose a
considerable impact on the actual
process. Understanding the diverse
and intricate issue of fracking and
its potential dangers to public health
as well as the environment require
proper management and a complete
understanding of the regions ecology.
Source:
http://www.keyt.com/news/study-says-fracking-ban-ballot-initiative-bad-for-jobs-economy/25648688
10
INTRODUCTION
H
ydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale has been occuring since 1960
(DOE, n.d.). The process has developed since, although the fluids and processes
involved are timelessly harmful and destructive in the Susquehanna County area.
Susquehanna County is home to 1,079 active gas wells as of March, 2015
(Amico et al., 2015). The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
had issued 795 violations to operators in the county up to that date, the highest
amount for one county in the entire state (Amico et al., 2015). Harm to public
health and the environment in this area is possible as result of error or negligence
during the process of hydraulic fracturing.
Source:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/drilling/counties/susquehanna-county/
The orange dots depict wells that have expirenced violation of regulation; these
can range from small chemical spills to larger scale issues such as contamination of
wells or damaging of ecosystems. What these figures do not depict are the extent
of detriments that occur.
This report we will address the legal, economic, and the ecological implications
of hydraulic fracturing in Susquehanna County. Extracting natural gas begins
with drilling the well. Depths up to 3 kilometers are common in the Marcellus
formation. Horizontal drilling can then occur to access other areas of in the shale.
11
The borehole is encased in

concrete and steel near the surface to
contain fluids used and natural gas upon
extraction, in addition to maintaining
pressure. Creating microscopic fractures
in the rock is attained with the injection
of high-pressure fluid down into the
bore. The fracking fluid contains a
mixture of water, proppants such as
sand, and chemical additives. Fissures
in the rock are held open by the sand
thus allowing the release of trapped
natural gas. The fluid is returned to
the surface and the gas is harvested.
The infrastructure and logistics of
supporting a drilling operation can
include networks of roads for trucks
and pipelines for transport of the
natural gas. The use of toxic chemicals
in the fracking process is the primary
concern in regards to the potential of
contamination of the environment.
Understanding the full extent
of contributing factors that effect the
standard of living and water quality
in Susquehanna County is crucial to
any judgements made. Additionally,
understanding the scale of these effects
and how each facet interacts with one
another will allow the most appropriate
decisions to be made.
Fig. 1. A labeled diagram of the construction of a well head in the Marcellus

Shale
Source: https://columbiasciencereview.
com/2014/04/23/hydraulic-fracturing-ill-wager-1-trebek/
In conclusion, at the end of

the report suggestions are made. We
understand that fracking is an integral
part of Pennsylvania and Susquehanna
Countys identity, however, taking
precautionary measures is key to
counteract issues in the future. Thank
you for your time, and if you have any
questions feel free to use the contact
information below:
GeoTech Industries
Research Team 5
researchteam5@hotmail.com
(814) 206 - 6136
12
SECTION 1:
REGULATIONS
SourceL http://www.examiner.com/article/epa-to-release-fracking-study-findings
he regulation of the oil and

gas industry is carried out at the state
and federal level. The federal Energy
Policy Act of 2005 amended several
major federal environmental statues,
creating various exemptions in favor
of oil and gas.
Under the law, hydraulic

fracturing is explicitly immune
to the Safe Drinking Water Act;
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; the Emergency
Planning and Community RightTo-Know Act; the National
Environmental Policy Act; the

Clean Water Act; the Clean Air
Act; and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(Brady & Crannell 2012).
j
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is responsible for
implementing these and other
environmental laws in the United
States. In regards to fracking and its
potential impacts on water resources,
the Safe Drinking Water Act mandates
that federal standards are included
in state regulations for underground
13
Section 1: REGULATIONS
injection.
The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) was enacted to protect the
quality of drinking water, above or
below ground (Safe Drinking Water
Act, 1974). The EPA is required under
Part C of the SDWA to establish
minimum requirements for state
programs to control underground
injection
including,
inspection,
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting. States also require a
permit for underground injections,
and the applicant must satisfy the
state that the underground injection
will not endanger drinking water
sources (Safe Drinking Water Act,
1974). Despite this, the SDWA clearly
states that control programs may not
prescribe requirements which interfere
with or impede - (A) the underground
injection of brine or other fluids which
are brought to the surface in connection
with oil or natural gas production or
natural gas storage operations, or (B)
any underground injection for the
secondary or tertiary recovery of oil or
natural gas, unless such requirements
are essential to assure that underground
sources of drinking water will not be
endangered by such injection (Safe
Drinking Water Act, 1974). Federal
law essentially prohibits the States
from directly restricting or inhibiting
a fundamental component of the
hydraulic fracturing process.
The
term
underground
injection was initially defined by
the SDWA to mean, the subsurface

emplacement of fluids by well
injection. Section 322 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 amended that
definition to specially exclude, (i)
the underground injection of natural
gas for purposes of storage; and (ii)
the underground injection of fluids
or propping agents (other than diesel
fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing
operations related to oil, gas, or
geothermal production activities. The
practice of fracking is exempt from
the SDWA according to this modified
definition.
The EPA subsequently

lacks the authority
under federal law to
regulate hydraulic
fracturing
despite the potential for its underground
injection of water, toxic chemicals,
and proppants used during the process
to endanger sources of drinking
water. The EPA still maintains the
power to control the management of
its hazardous wastes. As mentioned
earlier, this necessitates individual
states to devise their own legislation.
For the state of Pennsylvania,
the Department of Environmental
14
Protection (DEP) is responsible for the

regulation of oil and gas drilling within
Pennsylvania. Laws for governing oil
and gas are recorded in Title 58 of the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
(58 PA C.S.). The code for regulating
the development of oil and gas is listed
in Chapter 32 of the title. Section 3202
notes its purpose is to, permit optimal
development of oil and gas resources
of this Commonwealth consistent
with protection of the health,
safety, environment and property of
Pennsylvania citizens (58 PA C.S.
3202). Understanding the legislation
regarding oil and gas is fundamental
in evaluating the involvement and
role of state government in hydraulic
fracturing.
Subchapter B of Chapter 32
includes all the general requirements
pertaining to natural gas drilling.
Section 3211(a) prohibits the drilling
or altering of a well without first
obtaining a permit. The DEP has the
right to deny a permit application if,
the well site for which the permit is
requested is in violation of any of this
chapter or issuance of the permit would
result in a violation of this chapter or
other applicable law. Restrictions
of well site locations are addressed in
Section 3215. The DEP can consider
the impact of a proposed well on
public resources when evaluating a
permit application. Such resources
include, but are not limited to, parks,
state forests, game lands, and wildlife
areas (58 PA C.S. 3215). Comments

from municipalities describing local
conditions or circumstances regarding
a well to be drilled in the area can
be submitted to the DEP to be heard
during the determination of its permit.
The implications associated with
drilling operations can fluctuate based
on well location.
Local municipalities do
not have the authority
to enact ordinances that
would regulate natural
gas drilling within their
borders (Perkins, 2012).
Chapter 33 of Title 58 refers to
local ordinances relating to oil and gas.
All local ordinances for regulating the
development of oil and gas addressed
in Chapter 32 are surpassed, except for
those pursuant to the Municipalities
Planning Code (MPC) or the Flood
Plain Management Act. The ordinances
adopted in accordance to the MPC
or Flood Plain Management Act are
prohibited from including provisions
that, impose conditions, requirements
or limitations on the same features of
oil and gas operations regulated by
Chapter 32 or accomplish the same
purposes as set forth in Chapter 32.
15
The state of Pennsylvania preempts

and supersedes the regulation of oil
and gas by local governments under
this law (58 PA Consolidated Statute
3302). Subsequently, municipalities
are forbidden to enact laws that could
otherwise help protect local residents
and the environment from the potential
harms of fracking.
Section 3304 of Chapter 33 states
that, all local ordinances regulating
oil and gas operations shall allow for
the reasonable development of oil
and gas resources. Nearly a dozen
detailed statements then condition the
phrase, reasonable development of
oil and gas resources. The permitting
of oil and gas operations, other than
activities at impoundment areas,
compressor stations and processing
plants in all zoning areas, regardless
of local land use ordinances, of the
state is authorized under Subsection 5.
The only constraint to this condition is
the restriction of well sites within 500
feet of a building (58 PA Consolidated
Statue 3215).
Source: http://www.cleanwateraction.org/
our-priorities/oil-and-gas
The associated
infrastructure and
logistics required for
drilling operations have
a significant impact on
local communities and
their residents.
Subsection 10 imposes that a
local ordinance cannot limit the hours
of subterranean operations, operation
of compressor stations and processing
plants, nor the hours of operation
for the drilling of a gas well, or the
assembly or disassembly of its rig. The
noise levels from compressor stations
and processing plants are prohibited to
exceed 60dba at the nearest property
line in accordance with federal
standards (58 PA Consolidated Statue
3304). Drilling operations create ample
noise that can become a nuisance to
their neighboring inhabitants despite
the legal attempts to control it. The
logistics needed to sustain a drill site
has an impact on local infrastructure
as well. Local governments can
enforce restrictions on access routes
for overweight vehicles under Title
75 of PA Consolidated Statues and
the MPC as noted in Subsection 9 of
Chapter 33. Supplying sites with and
using water is essential to the process
of hydraulic fracturing.
16
The major concern

surrounding the
practice of hydraulic
fracturing is the possible
contamination of water
resources as result.
The various chemicals used
during the process are toxic and
carcinogenic. This associated risk to
the health of the local populace near a
drill site is of obvious interest to state
government.
Well operators are required
under Title 58 to disclose the
chemicals used on site for hydraulic
fracturing in a registry form.
Subsection 3222.1 specifies that in
the event that a chemical is a trade
secret or confidential proprietary
information, the operator must then
submit a signed written statement
that the record contains a trade
secret or confidential proprietary
information. The chemical
family or a similar description of
the anonymous chemical is to be
included in the registry instead (58 PA
Consolidated Statue 322.1(3)).
The registry of information
regarding the chemicals used by
an operator becomes public record
after being submitted to the DEP.
Information is mandated to be
released to the appropriate authorities

in response of a spill or discharge of
fluid (58 PA Consolidated Statue
3222.1(d)). The immense volumes of
water utilized in hydraulic fracturing
and the subsequent impact on water
resources is another concern in
addition to the contamination threat
posed from toxic chemicals.
The requirements for the water
management of gas drilling operations
are detailed in Section 3211(m) of
Title 58. An operator must submit a
water management plan to the DEP
for approval prior to withdrawing or
using water from sources within this
Commonwealth for the drilling and
hydraulic fracturing of a gas well.
Provisions relating to the quantity,
withdrawal rate and timing, and passby flow conditions must be included
in management plans.
Source: http://insideclimatenews.
org/news/20100823/wyoming-survey-points-high-incidence-fracking-related-health-problems
17
The following details are

required conditions regarding
water management:
- The water withdrawn must not
adversely affect the quantity
or quality of water available to
other users of the same water
sources (58 PA C.S. 3211)
There is additional extensive state

legislation in effect to help prevent
the contamination of water resources
above and below ground from
fracking and its environmental
dangers.
- Water management plans also

must protect and maintain the
designated and existing uses of
water sources and include a
reuse plan for fluids that will be
used to hydraulically fractures
wells (58 PA C.S. 3211).
- Lastly, the quality of water in
the considered watershed must
not have adverse impact as a
whole due to water withdrawal
(58 PA Consolidated Statue
3211).
Source: http://www.exurbanis.com/archives/category/100-adapting/150-water-sewage
18
Source: https://conbio.org/policy/scb-requests-additional-research-on-the-impacts-of-fracking-on-biodiversity
G a s We l l P r ox i m i t y t o Tr o u t S t r e a m s i n S u s q u e h a n n a C o u n t y
!
(
(
! !
(
!
(
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
( !
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
!
!
( (
(
!
(!
!
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!!
(
! !
! ( (
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!!
!
( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
!
(
! (
(
!
!
(
!
(
!
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
( !
(
! !
(
!
(
(
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
((
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!! !
(
( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(
! !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
! !
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(( !
(
!
( !
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(
(
!
( !!
(!
!
( !
(
(!
( ( !
(!
!
(
!
(!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
!
(
(
!
!
!
(
( ( !
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
(
(
!
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
!
( (
!
( !
(
!
(
( !
(!
( !
(!
!
(
!
( !
!
!
!
(
(
(
((
(
! !
(!
(!
! !
!
(
(
!
( (
!
( !
!
(!
!
(!
(
(
((
( !
!
!
(
(
!
(
(!
( !
!
( !
( !
(!
( !
(!
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(!
!
(!
( !
!
(
(
!
( !
(
(
( !
( !
( !
!(
( !
(
!
!
(!
( !
(
(!
!
!
( !
(!
(
(
((!
!
( !
( !
(!
( !
(!
(!
(
!
!
!
(
( !
(
!
(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( (
(!
(
!!
! !
(
(!
!
( (
!
( !
!
!
(
( (
( !
!
(
( !
!
!
(
(
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
( !
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
( !
!
(
( !
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
( !
(
(
!
!
(!
(
( !
!
(
( !
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(
!
! (
! (
(
!!
(
(
(
(!
!
(!
! !
(
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
!
( (
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
((
!
(
!
(
(
!
!!
( (
! !
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
( !
! !
(
(
!!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
! (
!
((
!
(
!
!
( (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!! !
! (
(
(( !
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
! (
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
( !
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
Gas Well
!
(
Gas Well within 1000 ft of a Stream
!
(
Miles
Gas Well within 500 ft of a Stream
Source: ArcMap
19
Federal
regulation allow
wells to be at
a minimum of
100 feet from a
stream, measured
horizontally
58 PA C.S. 3215 (b)
20
SECTION 2:
ECONOMICS
Source: https://newrepublic.com/article/120873/fracking-creates-jobs-how-many
erhaps the strongest driving

force behind fracking of the Marcellus
shale formation is economics.
Several major economic concepts

arise when discussing fracking
that are important to understand:
- How is revenue distributed across the
region?
- How much will production expand
over time?
- How do these generated profits
influence governments, local residents,
and specialized businesses?

These are just a few questions
whose answers can assist in
understanding the economic impacts
of shale gas extraction.
Faculty from the Pennsylvania
State University compiled an
exploratory report for the Marcellus
Shale Coalition in 2010. The report
focused on the development of natural
gas drilling in Pennsylvania in the
Marcellus formation. This further
demonstrates the rapid growth of the
Marcellus and the rapid expansion of
the gas industry. The rapid expansion
of the gas industry denotes abundant
investment and revenue. There are
considerable profits to be gained
in the exploitation of natural gas in
Pennsylvania.
21
Section 2: ECONOMICS
The Marcellus
formation has the
potential to be the
second largest natural
gas field in the world,
if fully developed
(Considine, Watson, &
Blumsack 2010).
The
Energy
Information
Administration (EIA) indicated the
daily natural gas production of the
Marcellus region to be 17,427 million
cubic feet for the month of March in
2016 alone (EIA, 2016). This total far
exceeds those of the other six major
gas fields (EIA, 2016). The leading
annual producer of natural gas in the
United States has repeatedly been the
Marcellus region of West Virginia and
Pennsylvania (EIA, 2016). The scale
of economic development possible
across the shale gas play as the result
of hydraulic fracturing is significant.
The potential amount of energy
that is accessible through the utilization
of high-volume hydrolic fracturing
technology is staggering. According
to Considine, Watson, and Blumsack
(2010), the natural gas found in the
Marcellus could be equivalent to the
energy content of 87 billion barrels of

oil. This was estimated at the time to
be enough to meet the demand of the
entire world for nearly three years.
The benefits of fracking utlimately
rely on its economic value.
There are two major ways

in which natural gas drilling can
enlarge and stimulate national,
state, and local economies:
- Business-to-business spending
-Payments to private land owners
(Considine, Watson, & Blumsack
2010).
- Individual citizins and their
communities

The natural gas industry
requires goods and services from
various sectors of the economy.
The money gained and exchanged
through these transactions during the
exploration, drilling, processing, and
transportation of gas is considered
business-to-business. Some of the
largest external players apart of the
natural gas industry are construction,
trucking, steelmaking, and engineering
(Considine, Watson, and Blumsack,
2010).
22
Gas companies
invested $4.5 billion
in 2009 during that
early stage of the
development of the
Marcellus formation
(Considine, Watson,
& Blumsack 2010).
The secondary economic benefit
of fracking pertains to individual
citizens and their communities. The
majority of natural gas drilling in
Pennsylvania occurs on private land.
The land owners receive lease and
royalty payments from gas companies
for permitting them to drill on their
land. This income is taxed and can also
then be freely spent.
Revenues from state

and local taxes totaled
$389 million in 2009
(Considine, Watson, &
Blumsack 2010)
and have since substantially risen
as the industry has expanded. The
average royalties paid per well in
Susquehanna County were estimated to
be $148,561 in 2010 (Kelsey, Shields,

Ladlee, & Ward 2012) . The county
only had 276 gas wells drilled at that
time (Kelsey, Shields, Ladlee, & Ward
2012). Payments from gas companies
to individual residents have helped
increase median household income
in otherwise restricted communities.
This situation of choosing reward over
risk has become appealing due to the
financial opportunity involved.
The increased production

of energy stimulates all other
sectors of the economy.
Hydraulic fracturing directly
stimulates high rates of employment,
income, and tax revenue.
The
production of low cost natural gas can
contribute to inexpensive electricity,
which in turn can promote industrial
development and additional economic
growth. Pennsylvania, and Susquehanna
County, have the opportunity of
attracting further gas manufacturing
industries to do business within
their borders (Considine, Watson, &
Blumsack 2010). An increase of 10.1%
in state sale tax revenue was collected
in Susquehanna County between 2007
and 2010 (Kelsey, et al. 2010). The
remainder of Pennsylvania as a whole
experienced a 3.8% decrease in state
sales tax revenue at the county level
during this same period (Kelsey, et al.
2010). This discrepancy suggests a
clear surge in local retail purchasing
in Susquehanna County. This data
demonstrates the
23
subsequent economic benefit of natural

gas drilling in Susquehanna County.
The development of natural gas
drilling in the Marcellus formation of
Pennsylvania has increased rapidly
since its rise to prominence in 2005
(Considine, Watson, and Blumsack
2010). Considine, Watson, and
Blumsack (2010) also reported that 710
gas wells were drilled during 2009 in the
state. A substantial growth in drilling
occurred in the three northeastern
counties of Bradford, Tioga, and
Susquehanna during this time period.
282 gas wells were drilled in these three
counties alone, an increase of 347%
in activity, from only 63 wells drilled
the year prior (Considine, Watson, &
Blumsack 2010).
The DEP issued just 1 permit
for unconventional gas drilling
in Susquehanna County in 2006
(Considine, Watson, and Blumsack
2010). That number now totals 2,455
at the beginning of 2016 (PA DEP
2016). For the state of Pennsylvania as
a whole, there have been 20,387 similar
permits issued during this same time
(PA DEP 2016).
The continued expansion of

drilling the Marcellus formation
in the state necessitates
additional employment.
Employment related to natural
gas totaled 44,098 in 2009 (Considine,
Watson, & Blumsack 2010). The
creation of jobs across various sectors of
the economy is a clear benefit from the
growth of the natural gas industry. The
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and

Industry released an update for the third
quarter of 2015 indicating that 72,133
jobs were present in connection to the
natural gas industry. These workers are
either employed in gas extraction, by
its suppliers, or by companies which
provide goods and other services to the
industry.
Further economic stimulation
can be expected in Pennsylvania
as development of the Marcellus
formation and the extraction of its shale
gas continues into the future.
Susquehanna County was
one of the first counties to

have Marcellus Shale drilling.
Currently it has 1,079 active
wells with 795 violations among
these, with statistics fluctuating
in real time (Amico et al., 2015).
Purchasing or leasing from nonresidents is called leakage; this is the
amount of revenue that is leaving the
county. In small geographic areas,
such as Susquehanna County, there are
not typically the resources necessary
for fracking. Because of the lack of
immediate resources, leakage is a
detriment to the income of the county
and its citizens. An estimated 66.7
percent of leasing income in 2010 went
to residents of the county, and of that
amount 55 percent went to state and
federal taxes.
There was only a 2 percent net
increase in employment as of 2011.
Local employment equates to 13 full
24
time equivalent jobs per well. Many of

the jobs created by fracking are filled by
transient workers and therefore income
is funnelled outside of the county. The
size of this small rural town, such as
those in Susquehanna County, inhibits
the ability for the large proportion of
economic stimuli to have a long-term
impact on thei economy.
During our research it has been
found that development of the shale
play has been met with great amounts
of enthusiam; specifically, by those
incolved in the drilling and natural gas
retail processes.
To rebuttal to the above
statement, Author Joe Massaro, writing
for EnergyinDepth.org published The
Economic Impacts of the Pennsylvania
Marcellus Shale Gas Play: An Update
in 2010. The article assessed whether
or not the Marcellus Region lived up to
the predictions of the report we used in
the above assessment,
This study estimates

a dramatic expansion
of Marcellus gas
production from
slightly over 327 million
cubic feet per day
during 2009 to over 13
billion cubic feet per
day by 2020.(Massaro
2010)
It was found through the US

Energy Information Agency that as
of November 2014, the Marcellus
Shale produced 16 billion cubic feet of
natural gas per day. This has significant
economic impacts, however, with the
Marcellus being exploited at this rate
the economic effects will be dramatic
but short lived.
Source: http://www.ideastream.org/news/statepromises-quarterly-reports-fracking-jobs
25

During 2015, the Marcellus
gas industry generated more than $14
billion in value added, $1.4 billion
in state and local tax revenues, and
increasing state employment by
160,000 (EIA, 2016).

In 2020, the impacts will grow
even larger with over $18 billion in
value added, over $1.8 billion in state
and local tax revenue, and a workforce
200,000 larger. (Joe Massaro 2010)

The industry is predicted to
grow in terms of jobs, revenue, and
value (Joe Massaro 2010). Based on
a study by the American Petroleum
Institute, Pennsylvanias natural gas
industry is contributing a $34.7 billion
to state economy, making up 5.8
percent of the states total economic
activity.
A
PriceWaterhouseCooper
report stated that jobs stemming in oil
and natural gas industries is around
340,000, attributing to 4.7 percent of
the states total employment.

Finally, the Associated Press
reported that the natural gas industry
has paid a sum greater than $2 billion
in state taxes since 2007. The oil and
natural gas industry, with help from
the Marcellus Shale has far surpassed
any predictions from the 2010 report.

This positive feedback is
proving to be extremely beneficial
for investors. It is unknown whether
fracking in the Marcellus will be
sustainable over an extended period of
time.
Will the Shale continue

to create such
tremendous outcomes
or has the climax of
this boom period been
reached?
26
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/24/fracking-generate-investment-jobs-industry-report-uk
27
substantial growth
inAdrilling
occurred in
the three northeastern
counties of Bradford,
Tioga, and Susquehanna
during this time
period. 282 gas wells
were drilled in these
three counties alone,
an increase of 347% in
activity, from only 63
wells drilled the year
prior
(Considine, Watson, & Blumsack 2010).
28
SECTION 3:
ECOLOGICAL
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/18/news/economy/drilling-regulations/
hen talking about hydraulic

fracturing, it is impossible to overlook
the myriad of potential environmental
and human health risks created by the
process. Fracking can adversely affect
the health of the environment via the
infrastructure required for production,
the chemicals involved, by the huge
volume of water required to operate a
well, and lastly from the byproducts of
the fracking process.
First, it is important to understand
the full extent of the Marcellus shale
formation and what this shale play

impacts even beyond the region itself.
The Marcellus Shale

formation is the largest
in the United States
and covers more than
160,934 km2 (Evans
and Kiesecker, 2014).
29
Section 3: ECOLOGICAL
As of 2014, 7,500 wells have

been drilled in Pennsylvania alone
(Noura, Gurian, Olson 2014) to access
the 410.3 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas trapped beneath the shale rock
(Meng 2015). The Marcellus Shale
region is important both as a potential
energy source for the near future and
because it is home to 22 million people.
With the current enthusiasm
towards fracking, it is estimated that
some 106,004 wells will be present
in the formation by 2030 (Hjowarth,
Ingraffea and Engelder, 2011). It is also
estimated that by 2020, we will have
the capacity to extract this resource
at a rate of 3 million barrels a day
(Hjowarth, Ingraffea and Engelder,
2011).
Often referred to as being a
clean alternative to conventional oil
extraction, natural gas is still a finite
resource. The statement that natural
gas is clean can be misleading;
fossil fuels extracted by the fracking
process still strongly influences global
atmospheric composition in a number
of ways. Methane (CH4) is a more
potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
However, methane is cleaner than coal
as it is about 50% more efficient than
when producing electricity. Methane
also has a much shorter half-life than
CO2, so it does not linger as long as
CO2 in the atmosphere (Howarth,
Ingraffea and Engelder, 2011). This is
not to say that natural gas should be
viewed as an alternative and certainly
not a solution.
The sequestration, storage, and
transport of CH4 has some problems.
An estimated 3.9 to 7.9% of total
methane is leaked from wellhead,
pipelines and storage throughout the
life of a well (Howarth, Ingraffea,
Engelder 2011). This is supported
by Caulton et al. (2014) as there are
large emissions averaging 34g CH4/s
or 2.937 ton/day per well as found
from seven hydraulic fracking wells
in the drilling phase. These estimates
are 2-3 orders of magnitude greater
than the EPA estimate (Meng, Ashby
2014). To help mitigate this, we advise
that greater effort forth to capture this
escaped methane.
Fracking has been the source of
major problems in some regions due to
volumes of water consumption.
Fracking uses on
average 20 million
liters of water per well
with an additional
200,000 liters of
additives
(Howarth, Ingraffea
and Engelder, 2011).
30
Given that the availability

of water varies widely across the
U.S., the viability a fracking well
is circumstantial and should not be
installed unless water demands can be
met without straining its availability
for agriculture use or for potable
water. In Susquehanna County, as in
much of Pennsylvania, precipitation is
abundant and so water availability is a
non-issue.
A chart of the composition of

injection brine and commonly used
chemicals in the fracking process can
be found on the next page:
Chart Source: EPA (2015)
31
Fig. 2. A list of the basic composition of fracking fluid.
32
Material safety information

for additives in fracking brine are
located at FracFocus.org. No company
is required to disclose entire lists of
chemicals used if they consider it a
trade secret. As previously mentioned,
the practice of fracking is exempt
from federal environmental laws, most
notably, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Fig. 3. A stream of suffiecient size

must be at least 100 feet from the
well bore measured horizontally or
100 feet from the edge of a well site
(whichever is greater) (58 PA C.S.
3215 (b)).
Source: http://www.marcellus-shale.us/MARCELLUS-AIR-II.htm
In addition to availability, water

quality has been one of the largest
concerns with hydraulic fracking.
After the initial pumping of the brine
into the bedrock, it then flows back
up the well as the natural gas is pulled
from the fractures created in the shale
formation. About 1/5th of the fluid
flows back in the first two weeks and
continues to flow back for the life of
the well. Flowback or brine is collected
in either large tanks or open pits until
disposed of, recycled, or treated.
Flowback brings with it barium

salts, heavy metals, hydrocarbons,
and radionuclides known to exist
in at concentrations above the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agencys
sanctioned
background
levels
(Howarth, Ingraffea, Engelder 2011).
In fact, Noura, Guirian, Olson (2014)
found that the mean concentrations
from seven different wells had
dichloroethane, antimony, barium,
benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, chloride,
dibromochloromethane, gross alpha
(a radionuclide), iron, manganese,
pentachlorophenal, radium, thallium
and vinyl chloride all at concentrations
more than 10 times the EPA maximum
contamination levels. In New York and
in Pennsylvania, fracking wastewater
is often treated in municipal sewage
plants not designed for toxic and
radioactive substances. Subsequently,
Barium, Strontium, bromides as
well as brominated hydrocarbons
concentrations have been found in
the Ohio River (Howarth, Ingraffea,
Engelder 2011). Fortunately, the
industry is moving towards full
recycling of wastewater but until then,
it is crucial that these toxic solutions
be contained properly.
Regardless of how careful a crew
may be, accidents happen. Human
error is something that we all live
with every day but extra precautions
must be taken to avoid blowouts or
other equipment failures, overfills, or
accidents such as vehicle collision.
Other facets of the operation such as
leaking flowback tanks or wellheads
must also be monitored scrupulously.
33
Fig. 4. Shows the interactions

between natural gas and ground
water, including likely sources of
contamination (Howarth, Ingraffea,
Engelder 2011).
Source: http://www.lloydwarwick.com/news/in-the-
Regulations are in place to

prevent any unnecessary leakage but
chemicals still find their way out of
the well system. CH4 is in fact the
most commonly leaked chemical in
the hydraulic fracking process (Meng
and Ashby, 2014). CH4 can frequently
be found in drinking water and
streams at high concentrations up to
1 km away from a well site. CH4 can
be traced back to fracking wells as its
source using isotopic fingerprints but
it is a tasteless and odorless chemical
naturally found in drinking water

In fact, of the 141 drinking water
wells across the Appalachian Plateau
in of northeastern PA, Jackson et al.
(2013) found that CH4 exists in 82%
of the wells.
The issue then becomes
proximity to the well. Drinking
water within 1 kilometer of a well
site might have six times the normal
concentrations of methane, 23 times
the normal concentration of ethane as
well as propane. Concentration levels
can reach the point where explosions
are a serious concern, especially
in enclosed spaces such as a home
(Meng, Ashby 2014).
In addition to groundwater
contamination
within
certain
proximity to a well site, people within
0.8 kilometers of a well are exposed
to a significant amount of emissions.
Air quality has been another issue
surrounding fracking for all of its
existence. It was found that 37% of
the chemicals used during the fracking
process are volatile and become
airborne. 71% of these volatile
chemicals can harm the cardiovascular
system and blood while 66% of the
volatile chemicals can cause kidney
damage with chronic exposure.
Furthermore, inhalation exposure
to petroleum hydrocarbons known
to exist in and around fracking well
sites increase risk for eye irritation,
headaches,
asthma
symptoms,
acute childhood leukemia, acute
34
myelogenous leukemia, and multiple

myeloma (Meng 2015).
Diesel pumps and trucks
have produced benzene in such
high concentrations that in Texas
levels exceed acute toxicity levels.
In Pennsylvania, there have been
instances reported of benzene
concentrations reaching 2,349 of
the accepted 100,000 ppm, which
still poses the risk of cancer from
chronic exposure (Howarth, Ingraffea,
Engelder 2011). In addition, maternal
exposure to high levels of benzene can
lead to increased rates of neural tube
defects in infants (Meng 2015).
Lastly, emissions from drills,
compressors, trucks and other
machinery produce high levels of
tropospheric (ground-level) ozone
which is known to cause reduced
respiratory function, aggravate asthma
and increase risk for respiratory
infections
(Howarth,
Ingraffea,
Engelder 2011).
Fracking also has a direct impact
on forest and riparian ecosystems.
Road construction, power grids,
pipelines, water extraction systems all
fragment habitat and are all universally
associated with fracking (Meng and
Ashby, 2014). Habitat fragmentation
is know to cause a decrease in species
richness across a landscape (Meng
and Ashby, 2014). Land clearing, pad
construction, sump hole excavation,
soil stabilization also directly impact
the local landscape and tend to increase
rates of erosion and runoff (Meng and

Ashby, 2014). In turn, water systems
are at a higher risk of contamination
as the movement of toxic chemicals is
uninhibited and has little chance for
diffusion (Burton et al. 2014).
Lastly, it should be
noted that hydraulic
fracking has been
known
to
cause
seismicity.
Fracking has caused 109
earthquakes in Youngstown, Ohio
after they began injecting wastewater
into the ground for storage in
December 2010. There had not been
any earthquakes since they began
recording seismic activity in 1776,
but on Dec. 31 2011 a 3.9 earthquake
was recorded. The seismic activity
is certainly linked to the Northstar 1
well as the first earthquake began 13
days after they began pumping and
tremors ceased shortly after the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources shut
down the well. Shultz (2013) notes
that of the 177 wells of its size active
in Ohio during 2011, only Northstar 1
was associated with seismicity.
35
The earthquakes had occurred

along a previously dormant fault
that existed near the Northstar1 well.
Pressure from the wastewater caused
the fault to slip down its length from
east to west. This example seems to
be of somewhat careless placement
of the well and a reminder that the
spatial aspect of hydraulic fracking is
a critical factor.
Viability of a well site is
circumstantial. As Burton et al. (2014)
notes, the relative risk of an ecosystem
depends on its own sensitivities, the
manner in which fracking is carried
out and, as with humans and
ecosystems alike, the proximity of the
habitat to a well.
The fracking process is certainly

flawed as we have seen, but this
technology is only in its infancy being
about 15 years old. At present, not all
the effects of the chemicals used and
produced in the fracking process are
fully understood. Given this fact, it is
advisable to be weary of the fracking
process.
This is not to say that it is all
bad. High-pressure fracking is in fact
incredibly precise. New technology
allows us to drill a well that follow the
contours of a shale layer for about 3
kilometers or more at depth and for
more than 2 kilometers horizontally
In addition, a single well is not as large
as many people think. It might take up,
but is not limited to, 5 acres with a 0.8
km right of way a, which accounts
for the high levels of air pollution
surrounding the well.
Fig. 5. Distance based risk assessment

of fracking wells according to
potential damaging impacts on water
resources and urban lands (Meng,
Ashby 2014).
Source: Meng and Ashby, 2014
36
Source: http://www.aceweekly.com/2015/03/kentucky-fracking-protested-at-berea-meeting/
Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+jobs&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1099&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk3aDW2KDMAhUF8j4KHei2DywQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=C2nzVnqqMrWxIM%3A
37
Fracking also has a

direct
impact on forest
and riparian ecosystems.
Road construction,
power grids, pipelines,
water extraction systems
all fragment habitat and
are all universally
associated with
fracking
(Meng and Ashby, 2014).
38
39
SECTION 4:
RECOMMENDATIONS
G
iven
the
economic
interest and relative efficiency of the
process, hydraulic fracking currently
has significant industrial inertia. If
hydraulic fracturing is to continue
being used for the extraction of natural
gas, it is crucial that a full spatial
and ecological analysis is completed
before the commencement of drilling.
In addition, we advise strict operating
policy and monitoring of safety
procedures throughout the entirety
of the life of each well. We also
recommend the elimination of open
flowback ponds to minimize the risk
of overflow and subsequent leaching
of toxic chemicals into drinking water
and that greater effort be put towards
the complete recycling of the hydraulic
fluid.
Regardless, the assortment of
environmental hazards, legal and
social issues surrounding fracking
prevents us from supporting its
continued practice. In efforts to curb
the frequency of fracking, we suggest
the implementation of stricter laws
to better protect ground water, other

forest resources, and to protect human
health. Lastly, in an effort to develop a
sustainable future, we suggest that tax
revenues from fracking be invested
into renewable energy technologies.
Natural gas fiercely competes
with renewable energy sources
and investment funding for new
technologies. The utilization of
fossil fuels, including natural gas, is
a temporary solution to Americas
growing demand for energy. Despite
the implication of natural gas
production increasing the energy
independence of the United States,
we do not even come close to
independence when comparing current
estimates for natural gas production
and future energy consumption rates.
To ensure the availability of energy
for future generations, we recommend
that we focus on both economic
and environmentally sustainable
development rather than hydraulic
fracking.
Source: https://www.google.com/
search?q=marcellus+construction&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1099&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLsfWV4qLMAhUEGh4KHYfvBPAQ_AUICCgD#tbm=isch&q=fracking+well+site&imgrc=GUW-QkmCcCmfrM%3A
40
Works Cited

Considine, T. J., Ph. D., Watson,
R., Ph. D., P.E., & Blumsack,
S., Ph. D. (2010, May 24).
The Economic Impact of the
Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale
Natural Gas Play: An Update.
Retrieved April 11, 2016, from
http://marcelluscoalition.org/
wp-content/uploads/2010/05/PAMarcellus-Updated-EconomicImpacts-5.24.10.3.pdf

Kelsey, T. W., Shields, M.,
Ladlee, J. R., Ward, M.,
Brundage, T. L., Micheal, L. L.,
& Murphy, T. B. (2012, January).
Economic Impacts of Marcellus
Shale in Susquehanna County:
Employment and Income in 2010.
http://aese.psu.edu/research/
centers/cecd/publications/
marcellus/economic-impacts-ofmarcellus-shale-in-susquehannacounty-employment-and-incomein-2010

Massaro, J. (2014, November
19). Marcellus Shale Exceeds
Economic
Expectations.
http://energyindepth.org/
marcellus/marcellus-shaleexceeds-economic-expectations/

Pedersen, C. (2014, August 17).
Marcellus Shale Continues to
Prove Analysts Wrong | OilPrice.
com. Retrieved April 11, 2016,
from http://oilprice.com/Energy/
Natural-Gas/Marcellus-ShaleContinues-to-Prove-AnalystsWrong.html

Pedersen, C. (2014, August 17).
Marcellus Shale Continues to
Prove Analysts Wrong | OilPrice.
com. Retrieved April 11, 2016,
from http://oilprice.com/Energy/
Natural-Gas/Marcellus-ShaleContinues-to-Prove-AnalystsWrong.html
Powers, B. (2014, September 3).

The Popping of the Shale Gas
Bubble. Retrieved April 11,
2016, from http://www.forbes.
com/sites/billpowers/2014/09/03/
the-popping-of-the-shale-gasbubble/#20e66b844df2
Abualfaraj Noura, Gurian Patrick L.,
and Olson Mira S. September 2014.
Characterization of Marcellus Shale
Flowback
Water.
Environmental
Engineering Science.
http://online.liebertpub.com.ezaccess.
libraries.psu.edu/doi/abs/10.1089/
ees.2014.0001
41
Works Cited
R.B. Jackson, A. Vengosh, T.H.
Darrah, et al. 2013. Increased stray
gas abundance in a subset of drinking
water wells near Marcellus shale gas
extraction. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America. Vol. 10. Accessed on
3/6/16 from:
http://www.pnas.org.ezaccess.libraries.
psu.edu/content/110/28/11250.abstract
3/6/16 from:
http://sk8es4mc2l.search.
serialssolutions.com/?ctx_
ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_
enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.
serialssolutions.com&rft_val_
fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.
genre=article&rft.
R.W. Howarth, A. Ingraffea, T.
Engelder. 2011. Natural gas: Should
Fracking Stop? Comment. Accessed on
Perkins, N. D. (2012). The

Fracturing of Place: The Regulation
of Marcellus Shale Development
and the Subordination of
Local Experience. Fordham
Environmental Law Review,23.
Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42
USCS 15801 (2005).
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 USC
300f et seq. (1974).

Brady, W. J., & Crannell, J. P.
(2012). Hydraulic Fracturing
Regulations in United States: The
Laissez-Faire Approach of the
Federal Government and Varying
State
Regulations.
Vermont
Journal of Environmental Law,14.
D.R. Caulton, P.B. Shepson, R.L.
Santoro, et al. 2014. Toward a better
understanding and quantification
of methane emissions form shale
gas development. PNAS, 111 (17)
(2014), pp. 62376242
Q.Meng, S. Ashby. 2014.
Distance: A critical aspect for
environmental impact assessment
of hydraulic fracking. Extractive
Industries Society. Accessed on
3/28/16 from:
h t t p : / / w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t .
com/science/article/pii/
S2214790X14000513
Abualfaraj Noura, Gurian Patrick
L., and Olson Mira S. September
2014.
Characterization
of
Marcellus Shale Flowback Water.
Environmental
Engineering
Science.
http://online.liebertpub.com.
42
Works Cited
ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/doi/
abs/10.1089/ees.2014.0001
C.Shultz. 2013. Marcellus Shale
fracking waste caused earthquakes
in Ohio. EOS, American
Geophysical Union (AGU). Vol.
94 pg. 296. Accessed on 3/6/16
from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.
ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/
doi/10.1002/2013EO330008/
43

301 Final 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

301 Final 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE PROS AND

Cover Image Sources:

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic

to the environment and public health.

There are four main avenues

in them are affected in addition to the

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

The borehole is encased in

Fig. 1. A labeled diagram of the construction of a well head in the Marcellus

In conclusion, at the end of

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

he regulation of the oil and

Under the law, hydraulic

Environmental Policy Act; the

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

the SDWA to mean, the subsurface

The EPA subsequently

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

Protection (DEP) is responsible for the

areas (58 PA C.S. 3215). Comments

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

The state of Pennsylvania preempts

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

The major concern

released to the appropriate authorities

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

The following details are

There is additional extensive state

- Water management plans also

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

Gas Well within 1000 ft of a Stream

Gas Well within 500 ft of a Stream

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

58 PA C.S. 3215 (b)

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

erhaps the strongest driving

Several major economic concepts

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

energy content of 87 billion barrels of

There are two major ways

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

Revenues from state

be $148,561 in 2010 (Kelsey, Shields,

The increased production

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

subsequent economic benefit of natural

The continued expansion of

Pennsylvania Department of Labor and

one of the first counties to

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

time equivalent jobs per well. Many of

This study estimates

It was found through the US

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

Will the Shale continue

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

(Considine, Watson, & Blumsack 2010).

Pros and Cons of Hydraulic Fracturing in Susquehanna County

hen talking about hydraulic