What is the True Cost of Hydraulic
Fracturing? Incorporating Negative
Externalities into the Cost of America’s
Latest Energy Alternative.
Katie Phillips
Environmental Science Program, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC
[email protected]
Abstract
Decreased technological costs and increased efficiency of horizontal drilling has
made obtaining natural gas from shale deposits through hydraulic fracturing a viable
economic option. However, current estimates of per kWh costs to obtain natural gas
through this method do not account for increased environmental risks. By incorporating damages from air and water pollution, the true cost of hydraulic fracturing can
be assessed. Results indicate air pollution from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is
higher for unconventional natural gas versus conventional natural gas. Without potential water pollution taken into account, the best estimate levelized cost of electricity for
unconventional natural gas is $13.99/kWh, $1.87/kWh lower than that of conventional
natural gas and $0.80/kWh higher than the best estimate for wind energy. Difference
in cost between conventional and unconventional natural gas is largely due to funds
spent procuring and protecting natural gas from other countries. The water pollution
externality is estimated by comparing the total cost of replacing the water of all of
the citizens in the water basin overlying the shale play to the total possible number of
kWh energy that could be extracted from that shale for five shale plays. Replacement
of water for 10 years results in an externality larger than the security cost for the Eagle
Ford shale, and about half of the security cost for the Marcellus and Barnett shales. The
water externality for the same period is smaller than the security externality for the
Fayetteville and Green River shales. More studies are needed to determine the cause
of the excess air pollution and to limit the range of water externalities.
1.0 Introduction
Shale gas, also referred to as unconventional
natural gas, is natural gas stored in shale deposits [1]. Shale has an extremely low permeability
(about 1 microdarcy versus 1000 microdarcy of
typical conventional natural gas storage rocks),
which, until recently, prevented large scale natural gas extraction [2]. Advancements in horizontal drilling technology, in combination with
hydraulic fracturing, have made shale gas production a viable option [3].
To extract natural gas from shale, wells are
drilled vertically to the depth of the shale deposit. From there, horizontal drills are used to
increase access to the shale. High-pressure injection of water and chemicals is then used to
hydraulically fracture the rock, increasing the
40
permeability of the shale [3]. Both methods have
been used in oil and gas extraction for many
years, but decreased technological costs, waning
conventional natural gas reserves, and increased
oil prices have driven a shale boom over the last
few years [4].
Shale gas deposits exist all over the Earth [3];
it is estimated that the United States has 1,836
trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, possibly enough to supply our energy needs for the
next hundred years [5]. Natural gas also produces less greenhouse gas emissions than coal [6].
Replacing coal and imported natural gas with
domestic natural gas could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from energy production
and fuel transport, respectively.
However, other environmental concerns
Journal of Student Research in Environmental Science at Appalachian
PR O O F #2
have dampened enthusiasm for increased unconventional natural gas production. Enormous
amounts of water are needed in hydraulic fracturing, and much of that water flows back to the
surface or requires treatment before it can be reinjected into the subsurface [2]. Most states do
not require companies to report what chemicals
are used in their drilling processes, raising questions about the potential for chemical contamination of soil and groundwater. Recent work
has indicated higher levels of air contaminants
surrounding hydraulic fracturing systems than
is usually found in conventional gas fields [7,8].
In addition, there is the concern that increased
unconventional natural gas production will take
away from renewable energy exploitation, further delaying the inevitable switch from nonrenewable resources [9].
In order to properly assess the potential benefits and costs of increased hydraulic fracturing,
negative externalities to production such as government subsidies, environmental remediation
efforts, and health care costs that are eventually
paid for by the taxpayers should be incorporated
into the calculation of the true cost per kWh of
energy for comparison to different forms of alternative energy (wind, solar, coal, biomass, etc.).
Until now, unconventional and conventional
natural gas costs have been lumped together.
However, increased environmental concerns
indicate that there may be a significant difference between the true cost of natural gas derived through conventional and unconventional
means. Using a method developed by Roth and
Ambs (2004) [10], with additional parameters for
water externalities, the real cost of unconventional natural gas was assessed and compared
with the levelized cost of wind power.
(see Table 1 for nomenclature).
Different types of power plants have different
levels of efficiency and environmental externalities. For the purposes of this study, both types of
natural gas - unconventional and conventional –
are assumed to have been fired in an Advanced
Combined Cycle facility, which has the lowest
levelized cost of energy of any natural gas burning power plant, according to Roth and Amb’s
[10]. The fixed charge rate (12%), discount rate
(5.5%), and operations and maintenance levelization factor (0.3865 for gas and 0.199 for wind)
were obtained from Roth and Ambs [10]. Other
plant parameters can be found in Table 2. Externality costs were determined using the Roth and
Ambs’s [10] formula:
XC=DC*EF*C1*HR*C2
(3)
Table 1. Variable Definitions, Equation 2.
Variable
Definition
LCOE
Levelized cost of energy, $/kWh
FCR
Fixed charge rate, %
PC
Plant cost, $/kWyear
HY
Hours per year, 8760 hr/yr
CF
Capacity factor, %
OLF
Operations and maintenance levelization factor, %
FOM
Fixed operations and maintenance cost, $/kWyear
VOM
Variable operations and maintenance cost, $/kW
FLF
Fuel levelization factor, %
FC
Fuel cost, $/MMBtu
HR
Heat rate, Btu/kWh
XC
Externality cost, $/kWh
e
Escalation rate, %
r
Real discount rate, %
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) was determined using a formula developed by the California Energy Commission [11] :
PL
Plant life, years
n
Percentage NOx removed via scrubbing, %
p
Percentage particulate matter removed by scrubbing, %
LCOE= [FCR*PC/HY/CF]+
[OLF*(FOM/HY/CF+VOM)]+
[FLF*FC*HR]+XC
where FLF is defined as:
DC
Damage cost, $/tonpollutant
EF
Emission factor, lbpollutant/MMBtu
C1
Conversion factor, 1 ton/2000 lbs
C2
Conversion factor, 106 MMBtu/Btu
C3
Conversion factor, 1 lb/ 453.59 g
2.0 Methods
FLF=[r*(1+r)PL/((1+r)PL-1)] *
(1+e)/(r-e) * [1-[(1+e)/(1+r)]PL]
(1)
(2)
Volume 2, 1st Edition • Spring 2012
41
PR O O F #2
Table 2. Plant Parameters Obtained from the
EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2011
Advanced
Combined Cycle
(Natural Gas)
Plant Cost ($)
Capacity Factor (%)
Table 3. Externality Damage Costs for Air
Pollution
Utility
Scale Wind
Turbine
$1003
$2438
0.87
0.34
Levelization Factor (%) 0.3865
0.199
Fixed Operating and $14.62
Maintenance Cost ($/
kWyear)
$28.07
Variable Operating $3.11
and Maintenance Cost
($/kWh)
$0
Fuel Cost ($/MMBtu)
0.0395*
$0
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
6430
n/a
Lower Range
($/ton)
Best Estimate
($/ton)
Upper Range
($/ton)
CO2
13.36
35.63
56.14
CO
683.17
1424.93
3366.07
SO2
2207.80
2523.31
6658.56
NOX
1416.02
10686.95
13536.80
PM
4222.06
6530.92
18375.61
VOC
1502.10
7106.33
8757.35
Petron et al. [8] found increased levels of
VOCs in areas where hydraulic fracturing had occurred. Using data from their study, the amount
of each VOC (recorded in ppm) was converted to
lb/MMBtu VOC (see Table 5). The conversion for
ppm to lb/MMBtu used is:
For greenhouse gas emissions, a global warming
potential (GWP) term was multiplied to the formula above [10].
XC=DC*EF*C1*HR*C2*GWP (4)
One-hundred-year IPCC global warming potentials were used for CO2 and N2O [12]. One-hundred-year global warming potentials for CO and
CH4 were taken from Shindell et al. (2009) [13].
Additional terms were added to compensate for
technology that can remove NOx and particulate
matter in Advanced Combined Cycle facilities
[10]:
XC=[DC*EF*(1-n)]NOx * C1 * HR * C2
(5)
XC=[DC*EF*(1-p)]PM * C1 * HR * C2
(6)
Damage costs for externalities were taken from
Roth and Ambs [10], but updated from 1999 to
2010 dollars (see Table 3). With the exception
of CH4 and volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
emission factors were also taken from Roth and
Ambs [10]. Howarth et al. [14] found fugitive CH4
emissions to be 30% to 50% higher over the lifetime of an unconventional shale well as opposed
to a conventional gas well. To incorporate this
finding, unconventional natural gas was given
a CH4 emission factor 30% higher than conventional natural gas (see Table 4).
42
Pollutant
lb/MMBtu = ppmmeasured *
[(21-0)/(21-%O2 measured)] *
(MW)* Fd /VM
(7)
where VM is molar volume (385 dscf/mol), Fd
is the ratio of the volume of dry flue gas to the
heat of the fuel (8,710 dscf/MMBtu), and MW is
the molecular weight of the VOC [15]. Increased
VOCs could be due to exposed produced water
or the well drilling process. Air samples were taken from the surrounding area, not directly from
flue gas, so the percentage of O2 was ignored,
leaving the formula:
lb/MMBtu = ppmmeasured *
(MW)* Fd /VM
(8)
The lb/MMBtu for each VOC was calculated and
added together to give a total VOC emission factor. The VOC emission factor for unconventional
shale gas was altered appropriately. All other air
pollutant emission factors were obtained from
Roth and Ambs [10].
Roth and Ambs [10] noted three other externalities for natural gas production: energy
supply, energy depletion, and energy loss due
to distributed production. Energy supply or energy security cost is a valuation determined by
Coiante and Barra [16] of the military cost per
kWh to obtain, protect, and transport fuel from
overseas. The energy depletion externality is
the cost of depleting finite resources per kWh
Journal of Student Research in Environmental Science at Appalachian
PR O O F #2
Table 4. Emission Factors and Global Warming Potentials for Natural Gas
Global Warming Potential
Pollutant
Conventional Natural Gas
Unconventional Natural Gas
Low
Best
High
CO2
117
117
1
1
1
CH4
0.0169
0.01352
26
34
41
N2O
0.00018
0.00018
320
320
320
Upstream
24.5
24.5
1
1
1
CO
0.082
0.082
3
5
7.5
SO2
0.00058
0.00058
-
-
-
NOx
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
PM
0.0066
0.0066
-
-
-
VOC
0.0066
0.30633
-
-
-
Table 5. Total VOC from Petron et al. Converted
from ppm to lb/MMBtu.
Chemical
lb/MMBtu
Ethane
7.50 x 10-2
Propane
8.80 x 10-2
n-Butane
5.80 x 10-2
i-Butane
2.32 x 10-2
n-Pentane
2.52 x 10-2
i-Pentane
2.16 x 10-2
n-Hexane
4.30 x 10-3
n-Heptane
2.50 x 10-3
Cyclopentane
1.05 x 10-3
n-Octane
5.70 x 10-4
n-Nonane
3.20 x 10-4
n-Decane
2.13 x 10-4
n-Undecane
1.56 x 10-4
Toluene
1.38 x 10-3
Benzene
1.17 x 10-3
m&p-Xylenes
5.30 x 10-4
o-Xylene
2.65 x 10-4
Benzene_1ethyl
2.12 x 10-4
Benzene_135trimethyl
5.99 x 10-5
Ethene
1.12 x 10-3
Propene
2.10 x 10-4
Styrene
4.68 x 10-5
Isoprene
1.70 x 10-5
Ethyne
1.30 x 10-3
Total
3.06 x 10-1
[17]. The distribution externality is a valuation
of downstream emissions and energy loss due
to transport of energy to consumers over large
distances [18].
Assuming all unconventional natural gas
used in the U.S. would be produced in the U.S.,
the energy security externality was removed
from the unconventional natural gas cost. All of
the values for these externalities were obtained
from Roth and Ambs [10] and updated to 2010
dollars.
For wind production, only the distribution
externality was applied. Another externality,
labeled “other”, incorporates land, visual impact,
and noise externalities associated with wind [19].
2.1 Water Externality
The amount of money to buy extra water for hydraulic fracturing is negligible per kWh of unconventional natural gas extracted. However, the
threat that leaky cement casings and unknown
fractures in the shale pose to surrounding water
supplies needs to be accounted for. To estimate
possible water damage, the amount of technically recoverable resources for five shale plays (the
Marcellus, Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, Green River,
and Barnett) was obtained from the EIA [20] (except the Marcellus shale, which was obtained
from EIA [21]) and compared to the amount of
water that could be polluted and would have to
be replaced.
Since the amount of water in most aquifers is
not known, the water pollution externality was
estimated by comparing the total cost of replacing the water of all of the citizens in the water basin overlying the shale play to the total possible
Volume 2, 1st Edition • Spring 2012
43
PR O O F #2
Table 6. Lower, Best Estimate and Upper Values for Other Externalities, in ¢/kWh
Conventional Natural Gas
Unconventional Natural Gas
Utility Scale Wind Turbine
Low
Best
Upper
Low
Best
Upper
Low
Best
Upper
Energy Security Supply
2.481
2.553
5.341
-
-
-
-
-
-
Energy Security Depletion
0.769
1.543
3.090
0.769
1.543
3.090
-
-
-
Distribution
0.945
2.699
9.447
0.945
2.699
9.447
0.9447
2.699
9.447
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1184
0.1754
0.1754
Other
number of kWh energy that could be extracted
from that shale for five shale plays. Population
estimates for the Marcellus shale and the Eagle
Ford shale were obtained from Arthur et al. [22]
and the National Wildlife Federation [23], respectively. For the other shale plays, water basin
populations were estimated using county data
from the U.S. Census Bureau [24], which was then
multiplied by the average number of gallons of
water used per year per person in the U.S. and
the average cost of the water per gallon [25]. The
number of years the water would need to be replaced before the pollution was remediated was
given a base estimate of ten years.
tance traveled roundtrip by trucks to adjoining
water basins for all the shale plays investigated
was 300 miles. The price per gallon of diesel
was estimated based on current diesel costs at
$4.00. The gallons of H2O per truck was estimated based on an 18-wheel transfer truck carrying
capacity of 44,000 lbs., divided by the number of
lbs. per gallon of water for 5282.11 lb. H2O/per
truck, which corroborates well with Chesapeake
Energy’s 2008 estimate of truck water carrying
capacity of 5,040 - 6,300 gallons of water per
truck. Other variables used in the water externality equation are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Water Externality Variable Values
$H2O replacement=(# of people)*
(gal H2O/person/year)*
($H2O/gal)*year
kWh=tcf gas * (1000 bcf/1 tcf )*
(1.03 x 109 Btu/1 bcf) *
(1012 Btu/ 1.03 x 109 Btu)*
(1kWh/3413 Btu)
(9)
Variable
Value
lb diesel/gal
7.3
gal diesel/mil
0.2
lb/truckload
44000
gal H20/(person*year)
32850
lb/gal water
8.33
(10)
The ten-year water replacement cost only includes the cost of the water, not the cost of
transporting it from another water basin. To estimate the cost of transport, a second equation
was used:
Diesel combustion produces CO2, CH4, and
N2O. To account for the additional greenhouse
gas emissions, the following equations were
used:
$ Transport=(miles/truck)*
(11)
(gal diesel/mile)*
($/gal diesel)*
(gal H2O per year/gal H2O per truck)*
years
The number of miles from the center of the Marcellus shale to the nearest unaffiliated water basin is 150 miles. Trucks transporting water would
therefore travel 300 miles to deliver water to this
location. For the sake of comparison, the dis44
$ CO2=gal diesel*
(lb CO2/gal diesel)*
DC* C1
(12)
$ CH4=(g CH4/lb diesel)*
(13)
(gal H2O per year/gal H2O per truck)*
years*(miles/truck)*DC*GWP*C1*C2*
($/gal diesel)*(lb diesel/gal)
Journal of Student Research in Environmental Science at Appalachian
PR O O F #2
$ N2O=(g N2O/lb diesel)*
(14)
(gal H2O per year/gal H2O per truck)*
years*(miles/truck)*DC*GWP*C1*C2*
($/gal diesel)*(lb diesel/gal)
Emission factors for diesel fuel were obtained
from the EPA (2007) [26].
A water externality estimate was calculated by adding the replacement, transport, and
greenhouse gas costs together and dividing by
the total number of kWh energy the shale play
could produce.
The number of years of water replacement
needed for the total cost of replacing the water
to equal the total profit that could be obtained
extracting the natural gas was also determined.
The profit per kWh of natural gas was estimated
to be $ 0.04/kWh by subtracting the levelized
cost of electricity without externalities ($ 0.058/
kWh) from the average retail price of electricity
per kWh ($ 0.098/kWh [19]). It was then multiplied by the number of kWh of energy the shale
play could produce to determine the total potential profit of each play.
2.2 Unquantified Externalities
Studies have shown that injecting hydraulic fracturing water into the ground can cause earthquakes; however, there has been no reported
damage related to these earthquakes [27]. Increased cancer risk due to air pollution is also an
issue, but is highly variable and dependent upon
proximity to a well [28]. In addition, federal and
state subsidies are also part of the true cost of
the electricity. These externalities are noted but
not quantified in this study.
3.0 Results and Discussion
Based on the Petron (2012) [8] study, the emission factor for volatile organic compounds from
unconventional shale gas extraction is more
than 145 times higher than that for conventional
gas (0.30633 lb/MMBtu vs. 0.0021 lb/MMBtu).
Associated best estimate externality costs vary
from 0.0048 ¢/kWh (emission factor of 0.0021
lb/MMBtu) to 0.700 ¢/kWh (emission factor of
0.30633 lb/MMBtu).
Levelized costs of unconventional natural gas
without incorporating the water externality vary
from 8.83 – 25.36 $/ kWh, while levelized costs of
conventional natural gas vary from 11.16 – 29.84
Table 8. Levelized Cost of Energy for
Conventional, Unconventional and Wind Power
Without Water Externality.
Conventional Unconventional
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Wind
Best Estimate
($/kWh)
15.86
13.99
13.19
Lower ($/kWh)
11.16
8.827
11.58
Upper ($/kWh)
29.63
25.14
19.94
$/ kWh (see Table 8). All estimates for the levelized cost of electricity are lower for wind than
conventional natural gas, but the lower range of
wind energy cost is more than that of unconventional natural gas. Water externalities vary between shale plays
due to differences in the ratio between the possible amount of energy that could be extracted
from the shale play and the number of people
dependent upon connected water supplies.
Costs for water replacement alone are substantially lower than costs due to water transport
and greenhouse gas externalities from burning
diesel.
Water externalities, including replacement,
transport, and greenhouse gas emission costs,
with an assumption of 10 years of water replacement, vary from 0.100 ¢/kWh in the Fayetteville
shale to 4.167 ¢/kWh in the Eagle Ford shale
play. With a value of 10 years of water replacement, the water externality for the Eagle Ford
shale play is larger than the conventional gas security externality, but is smaller in the other four
shale plays. The number of years for the water
externality to equal the conventional natural
gas security externality varies from 6.47 to 250.
The number of years for the price of replacing
the water to equal the profits gained from the
energy extraction ranges from 9.60 to 371 years
(see Table 9).
Increases in air pollution externalities (methane and volatile organic compounds) for unconventional natural gas are not equal to the
security cost of securing and purchasing conventional natural gas abroad. However, the cost of
replacing polluted water for ten to twenty years
could equal or exceed the cost of energy security
in most shale plays. The data show a large gap
between the Marcellus, Barnett, and Eagle Ford
shale plays that are all heavily populated and
Volume 2, 1st Edition • Spring 2012
45
PR O O F #2
Table 9. Estimated Water Externality by Shale Play
Marcellus
Barnett
Green River
Eagle Ford
Fayetteville
141
43
4
21
32
Total Profit ($)
1.412 x 1012
5.191 x 1011
4.829 x 1010
2.535 x 1011
3.863 x 1011
Population
2 .000 x 107
1.000 x 107
6.028 x 104
1.200 x 107
4.734 x 105
Replacement ($)
1.314 x 1010
6.570 x 109
3.961 x 107
7.884 x 109
3.110 x 108
Transport ($)
2.985 x 1011
1.493 x 1011
8.998 x 108
1.791 x 1011
7.065 x 109
Air Pollution ($)
1.284 x 1011
6.422 x 1010
3.872 x 108
7.707 x 1010
3.040 x 109
$ water damage/kWh
(10 year estimate)
1.246
1.696
0.110
4.167
0.108
Years for water externality =
security externality
28.08
15.92
245.6
6.478
250.2
Years water damage = profit
41.61
23.59
364.0
9.600
370.8
Technically recoverable gas (tcf )
have large water externalities versus the Green
River and Fayetteville shale plays, which have
small populations and small water externalities.
4.0 Conclusion
To more accurately estimate the water pollution
associated with unconventional shale gas, the
amount of water in nearby basins would need to
be approximated and the amount of additional
water stress to surrounding aquifers incorporated. Water stress due to hydraulic fracturing
itself may already be problematic in some areas,
so water stress due to the need for replacement
from adjoining aquifers may be substantial. Contaminant flow models of each shale play may
also aid in determining potential costs of water
pollution. By determining the amount of dispersal chemicals hydraulic fracturing fluid could
possibly attain, the amount of fluid that could
be pumped into the subsurface without causing
tremendous damage due to leaking could be assessed.
Obtaining better estimates of the amount of
recoverable shale gas is also key to determining
the relative weight of potential water pollution
costs to potential energy gains. In the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook Early Release 2012 [21], the
amount of technically recoverable cubic feet of
natural gas dropped in the Marcellus shale from
410 tcf to 141 tcf. Such differences create large
changes in the ratio of potential profits to potential water losses. It would take 81.7 years of
water replacement to equal the conventional
security externality in the Marcellus shale, if the
shale could produce 410 tcf versus 28.08 years
46
with 141 tcf of recoverable gas.
Research on the source of the increased
volatile organic compound levels is needed. Increased methane from hydraulic fracturing wells
is due to leaks and flowback, but where the excess volatile organic compounds originate is unknown. Is it a result of evaporation of hydraulic
fluid during flow back or treatment? Or is it a
property of the shale itself? Unless the excess air
pollution is solely due to shale play geochemistry, taking air quality samples is unlikely to solve
this issue. Hydraulic fracturing fluids vary in formula from company to company and likely from
shale to shale. Only by combining shale geochemistry and hydraulic fracturing fluid data can
a likely cause of the air pollution be determined
and a remediation solution proposed.
Although renewable energy costs more per
kWh when externalities are not considered, the
best estimate levelized cost of wind is less than
that of conventional or unconventional natural
gas with and without water externality considerations. Policy makers should consider levelized
energy costs when making value assessments
of unconventional natural gas. When externalities are considered, short- and long-term costs
of wind energy are less than that of conventional natural gas. Like unconventional natural
gas, wind energy does not need to be secured
abroad, but wind energy also has negligible air
and water pollution concerns without any worry
of increased prices due to energy depletion.
Although not available everywhere, wind
power is not currently being used to its full potential. In allocating subsidies and zoning per-
Journal of Student Research in Environmental Science at Appalachian
PR O O F #2
mits, lawmakers should take into consideration
the full cost of energy technology, not just the
price on an electric bill. This can be done by
creating a polluter-pays-system or by simply acknowledging taxpayer cost for pollution externalities.
The security cost of obtaining conventional
natural gas is large, but the water externality
cost may be larger still. More studies are needed
to determine potential environmental harm of
large scale hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling before implementing any more largescale unconventional shale gas extraction projects.
References
[1] U.S. Department of Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (2011),
Shale Gas: Applying Technology to Solve
America’s Energy Challenges, http://www.
netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/brochures/Shale_Gas_March_2011.
pdf.
[2]Stephenson, T., J. E. Valle, and X. Riera-Palou
(2011), Modeling the relative GHG emissions of conventional and shale gas production, Environ. Sci. Tech., 45, 10757-10764,
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2024115.
[3] Sakmar, S. L. (2011), The global shale gas
initiative: will the United States be the role
model for the development of shale gas
around the world?, Houston Journal of International Law, 33(2),369-416.
[4]Rahm, D. (2011), Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: the case of Texas,
Energy Policy, 39, 2974-2981, doi:10.1016/j.
enpol.2011.03.009.
[5]Verrastro, F., and C. Branch (2010), Developing America’s unconventional gas resources: benefits and challenges, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC.
[6] Jiang, M., W. M. Griffin, C. Hendrickson, P.
Jaramillo, J. VanBriesen, and A. Venkatesh
(2011), Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
of Marcellus shale gas, Env. Res. Lett., 6, 1-9,
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034014.
[7] Kemball-Cook, S., A. Bar-Ilan, J. Grant, L.
Parker, J. Jung, W. Santamaria, J. Mathews,
and G. Yarwood (2010), Ozone impacts of
natural gas development in the Haynesville
shale, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 9357-9363.
[8]Pétron, G., G. Frost, B. R. Miller, A. I. Hirsch,
S. A.Montzka, A. Karion, M. Trainer, C.
Sweeney, A. E. Andrews, L. Miller, J. Kofler,
A. Bar-Ilan, E. J. Dlugokencky, L. Patrick,
C. T. Moore Jr., T. B. Ryerson, C. Siso, W.
Kolodzey, P. M. Lang, T. Conway, P. Novelli,
K. Masarie, B. Hall, D. Guenther, D. Kitzis,
J. Miller, D. Welsh, D. Wolfe, W. Neff, and P.
Tans (2012), Hydrocarbon Emissions Characterization in the Colorado Front Range:
A Pilot Study, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D04304,
doi:10.1029/2011JD016360.
[9]Paltsev, S., H. D. Jacoby, J. M. Reilly, Q. J. Ejaz,
J. Morris, F. O’Sullivan, S. Rausch, N. Winchester, and O. Kragha (2011), The future of
U.S. natural gas production, use, and trade,
Energy Policy, 39, 5309-5321.
[10]Roth, I. F., and L. L. Ambs (2004), Incorporating externalities into a full cost approach to
electric power generation life-cycle costing,
Energy, 29, 2125-2144.
[11] California Energy Commission (1998). Energy technology status report, 1996. California Energy Commision, Sacramento, CA.
[12] Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen,
M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L.
Miller (2007), Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.
html.
[13] Shindell, D.T., G. Faluvegi, D. M. Koch, G. A.
Schmidt, N. Unger, and S. E. Bauer (2009),
Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to
Emissions, Science, 326, 716-718.
[14]Howarth, R. W., R. Santoro and A. Ingraffea
(2011), Methane and the greenhouse-gas
footprint of natural gas from shale formations, Climate Change, 106, 679-690.
[15]Lee, M. K. C. (2008), Source Specific Permit
Handbook, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/
media/Files/Engineering/Permit%20Handbook/PH_00_05.ashx
[16] Coiante D, Barra L (1995), Practical method
for evaluating the real cost of electrical energy, International Journal of Energy Research, 19(2), 159–68.
[17]Vollebergh H (1997), Environmental externalities and social optimality in biomass
markets: waste-to-energy in the Netherlands and biofuels in France, Energy Policy,
25(6), 605–21.
[18] Distributed Power Coalition of America
Volume 2, 1st Edition • Spring 2012
47
PR O O F #2
(1999), Benefits of distributed power,http://
www.dpc.org/utilities.html.
[19]Pace University Center for Environmental
Legal Studies (1990), Environmental costs
of electricity, Oceana Publications, New
York.
[20]Energy Information Agency (2010), Annual
Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to
2035, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
[21]Energy Information Agency (2011), Review
of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and
Shale Oil Plays, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C.
[22] Arthur, J. D., M. Uretsky, and P. Wilson (2010),
Water Resources and Use for Hydraulic
Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region,
http://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/
publications/water_resources_and_use_
for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_marcellus_shale_region.PDF.
[23]National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, and Lone Star Chapter of the
Sierra Club (2006), The 16 water regions of
Texas, http://www.texaswatermatters.org/
regions.htm.
[24] U.S. Census Bureau (2010), State and County Quick Facts, http://quickfacts.census.
gov/qfd/index.html.
[25]Environmental Protection Agency (2009),
Water on tap: what you need to know, http://water.epa.gov/drink/guide/upload/
book_waterontap_full.pdf.
[26]Environmental Protection Agency (2007),
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2005, http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.
[27] Shampton, J. F., and D. Ritter (2011), Making the earth move: liability for earthquake
damage associated with oil and gas production activities, Southern Law Journal,
21, 91-100.
[28] McKenzie, Lisa M.; Witter, Roxana Z.; Newman, Lee S. (2012), Human health risk
assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources, Science of the Total Environment,
424: 79-87
48
Journal of Student Research in Environmental Science at Appalachian
PR O O F #2
Volume 2, 1st Edition • Spring 2012
49
PR O O F #2