Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 176

International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction

A Literature Survey of the Fracking Economic and Environmental

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

Abstract

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

Keywords: Fracking; Energy Sustaibability; Environmental Sustainability

1. Introduction and Background

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

* Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany Tel.: +1-417-836-5222; fax: +1-417-836-8556.

E-mail address: MohammedMehany@MissouriState.edu

1877-7058 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction 2015
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.415
170 Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany and Angela Guggemos / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 176

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

2. The Economic and Environmental Sustainability Implications of Fracking

The main aspects of the fracking process during its various life cycle stages are its economic and energy stability
benefits and the threats to environmental sustainability. These main implications of fracking can be identified as
shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 identifies many benefits from the fracking process: economic benefits of lower fuel
prices, creating jobs and improving employment rates, and growth of domestic business. These benefits along with
national security and all its implications represent the economic gains of the fracking process. On the other hand, the
drawbacks of the fracking process due to the threat that it poses to environmental sustainability is significant. This
occurs through many environmental factors including: extreme water consumption, infrastructure deterioration,
increased carbon footprint, emissions from VOCs, contamination of water resources, and seismic effects.
 Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany and Angela Guggemos / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 176 171

Fracking
Environmental
Process Economics
Sustainablity
(LCC)

Water Consumption Lower Fuel Prices

Infrastructure Use Employment

Carbon Footprint Domestic Business Growth

VOCs

Water Resources Contamination

Seismic Effects

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

Since the fracking process provides both benefits and threats, its feasibility is an outstanding topic of argument
between its economic and energy stability benefits against its environmental sustainability threats. For this reason, an
unbiased in-depth literature review is needed and an evaluation tool should be recommended. The following sections
of this paper provide supporting evidence from the literature and discuss both the economic and environmental
impacts of the fracking process.

2.1. Economic Impacts

There is no doubt that the fracking process increased the accessibility to reserves of natural gas and oil which in
turn has an impact on the U.S. economy. The positive economic impacts are represented in lower energy and fuel
prices, higher employment rates, and domestic business growth. The number of employees in the extraction process
alone has increased by 67% from 2003 to 2012 [12]. In 2011, an extensive HIS Global Insight study sponsored by
Americas Natural Gas Alliance focused on the economic and employment inputs for the shale gas industry in the
US concluded that the shale gas industry supported 600,000 jobs in 2010 which was distributed between the
different sectors (45% Agriculture, 10-14% for each of Trade, Manufacturing, Construction, Mining, 7%
Transportation & Utilities & 1% for each of Government & Services) and is expected to increase to 870,000 jobs in
2015 and more than 1.6 million jobs by 2035 [13]. That same study estimated the total added value of shale gas to
the GDP was $76 billion in 2010 and projected to be $118 billion by 2015 and more than $231 billion by 2035.
Another study that included Colorado, Wyoming, and Texas concluded that for each $1 million in gas production,
there are 2.35 local jobs created [14]. Nationwide, the aforementioned benefits along with projected decreasing
energy prices for fuel and electricity can definitely improve the domestic economy and local business growth.
On the state level, a study by the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute studied
the economic contributions of shale development for the state of New York. The study estimated over $11.4 billion
in GDP along with $1.4 billion in tax revenue and 75,000 to 90,000 job creation opportunities in the case of full
accessibility of the shale sites in New York including the Marcellus and Utica shale sites [15]. Another state level
study in West Virginia found that due to fracking advancements, in 2009 the state collected $65.9 million in state
172 Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany and Angela Guggemos / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 176

revenue taxes from the natural gas industry alone and a total of $88.4 million in property taxes from the oil and gas
industry. It also concluded that the shale development in West Virginia impacted the state economy by adding $2.35
billion of business volume and generated about 76,000 jobs [16].
Although natural gas supports about 25% of the U.S energy supply currently, the industry claims to have the
ability to provide up to 50% of the energy supply by 2035 [17]. Along with all of these economic benefits and the
predictions for future economic growth due to the fracking technological advances, there is still another side of the
argument that questions the economic impact of the fracking industry. This argument questions the economic
stability of the industry and the estimates of the future economic benefits and questions whether it is worthy of the
environmental risks and its associated costs. The arguments have a lot of different bases, one of them is the fact that
the production at wells can drop off by as much as 60-90% within the first year which will make it hard to sustain
the production and the stability of that energy source [18]. Another issue is that most existing studies are industry-
funded and report inflated estimates of reserves and projections along with the fact that the current and projected
consumption rates will make the shale gas source last for only 23 years [19]. Another paper explored the job creation
and development in shale gas drilling communities and found, as an example, that the economic growth in four core
gas drilling counties in Texas was between 10% 16% compared to 21.2% for the whole state of Texas [20].

2.2. Environmental Sustainability Impacts

In contrast to the economic benefits, there are numerous negative impacts on environmental sustainability due to
the fracking process. These negative impacts include: excessive water consumption, deterioration from overloading
infrastructure, increased carbon footprint, VOC emissions, possibility of water contamination, and seismic effects of
fracking.

2.2.1. Excessive Water Consumption

An average fractured well will consume an average of 6 million gallons of pressurized water along with very
large volumes of chemicals, sand, and other materials to keep the fissures of the well open for extraction [21].
According to a 2011 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study, approximately 35,000 fractured wells across
the U.S required an estimated 70 to 140 billion gallons of water each year which is equivalent to the total amount of
water used annually to support 40 to 80 cities with a population of 50,000 or about 1 to 2 cities of 2.5 million people
[22]. Considering that the most valuable and vast majority of the shale gas is located within the east coast where
coastal communities can lose up to 50 percent more of their fresh water supplies than previously thought, according
to a study from Ohio State University and other studies that note that the coastal cities also have a higher risk of
inundation or increased erosion from sea level rise, it is paramount to pay attention to the water consumption issue in
such cities [23; 24]. The real problem is not just the consumption of water; it is the geographical locations of the
wells and whether they are threatening drinking water resources. In July 2012, when a record heat and drought
struck the mid-Atlantic region, the Susquehanna River Basin suspended 64 water withdrawal permits, the majority of
which were for in-state Marcellus shale gas drillers [25].

2.2.2. Infrastructure Use

One underestimated aspect of the fracking process is its effect on infrastructure. The fracking process consumes
vast amounts of water, chemicals, and other liquids which are hauled from their sources to the drilling sites by a
large number of tanker fleets along with other fleets for carrying other components to the drilling site. These heavy
truck fleets put a large amount of miles and deterioration on road and bridge infrastructure and consequently have to
be calculated and accounted for in the fracking process evaluation. The Texas Department of Transportation
(TXDOT) has reported a preliminary estimate of $2 billion dollars in damage to farm-to-market and local Texas
roads by drilling activity not including the costs of maintaining interstate and state highways [26]. TXDOT also
estimated that 1,200 loaded trucks are needed to bring one gas well into production, which is a traffic equivalent of
about 8 million cars. In New York, the impacts on the transportation infrastructure were preliminary estimated at
$0.4 billion dollars [27]. This road, bridge, and railway deterioration along with other infrastructure services such as
the increased presence of emergency services and law enforcement to account for the industrial accidents that comes
along with the drilling process need to be taken into consideration when evaluating the fracking process.
 Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany and Angela Guggemos / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 176 173

2.2.3. Carbon Footprint, VOCs and Emissions

Natural gas is often portrayed as a clean energy source that has a smaller carbon footprint and emissions, but that
may not be the case. Natural gas is mainly composed of methane which is more potent than carbon dioxide and has a
great probability to escape to the atmosphere during the fracking process. In 2012, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder conducted a study on the Denver-
Julesburg basin where it was found that natural gas producers are losing an average of 4% of the gas to atmosphere
[28]. Another very intriguing study focused on the fractured-obtained shale gass greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint
and found that it was more than that produced by conventional fuels represented in conventional gas, coal and diesel
oil over a 20 and a 100 year time frame [21].
According to EPA records, the fractured concentrated drilling areas in Wyoming have recoded an ozone level of
124 parts per billion (ppb) which is more than twice the EPAs maximum healthy limit of 75 ppb and more than the
worst day in Los Angeles of 114 ppb [29]. Other fractured drilling violations of the 2008 EPA ground level ozone
included Bakersfield, California; Jamestown, New York; multicounty regions around Denver, Dallas, Fort Worth,
Pittsburgh, Columbus, and Cleveland; and three counties in southwestern Wyoming [30]. Although shale gas might
replace more carbon-intensive fuels, the methane emissions might counteract these benefits and might make it even
worse [31].

2.2.4. Water Resource Contamination

Water resource contamination has been one of the most debated issues between the public and the oil and gas
industry. Main causes of water contamination can be attributed to unlined and leaky storage pits of fracturing
backflow liquids, faulty well cementing, and the possible connection of deep fractures with surface water. Howarth,
et. al [32] attributed most of the water contamination in the fracking process to three main reasons: (1) accidental
blowouts, (2) surface spills from storage facilities, and (3) improper disposal of fracking fluids. The industry debates
this issue. However, there have been several cases reported of actual contamination specifically on the east coast of
the US. A study that analyzed samples from over 60 private drinking water wells found methane in 51 of those
overlying the Marcellus Shale in northeastern Pennsylvania and the Utica Shale in upstate New York in which the
research team attributed the contamination to faulty cementing [33]. Many other cases have been documented for
different infractions due to the fracking process which led to contamination of several water resources such as the
tributaries of the Ohio River coming from Pennsylvania and New York [32]. Other cases have been also reported in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, Colorado, and British Colombia in Canada [34; 35].

2.2.5. Seismic Effects

The seismic effects from the fracking process are difficult to quantify because the probability and consequences
vary drastically and because of the lack of sufficient data and research on this subject. However, several studies have
related significant seismic activity to the fracking process in drilled wells including a study by the Colorado School
of Mines which related seismic activities to the pore fluid change and subsurface stresses around ground faults
during the fracking process [36; 37]. There have been several incidents where seismic activity was caused by the
different aspects of the fracking process, specifically underground injection by or through a fault such as in Fort
Worth, Dallas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Britain [38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44]. Estimating seismic effects is still in its
infant stage.

3. Evaluation Recommendation

It is evident that the fracking process has several positive and negative impacts and implications which beg the
question of a fair evaluating process using the right tool. Currently, there are few assessment tools that were mostly
directed towards the environmental impact of the fracking process or towards the fracking impacts on a specific
geographical location. Among these tools is spatial analysis of environmental impacts [45] and the integrated
assessment of fracking in Michigan, USA [46]. A recommended evaluation tool that can use the aforementioned
impacts and implications in a more holistic approach is the Life Cycle Costing (LCC). LCC can be defined briefly as
174 Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany and Angela Guggemos / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 176

an economic assessment of a process that considers all significant costs of ownership over its economic life
expressed in terms of equivalent dollars [47].
LCC can be used for evaluating the fracking process during all of its life cycle phases taking into account the
aforementioned economic gains and environmental impacts, along with all of the other factors and costs to come up
with a net value of the fracking process. One of the challenges is to find cost estimates for certain environmental
issues such as the seismic effects. Hopefully, the awaited 2014 EPA report studying hydraulic fracturing and its
potential impact on drinking water resources can answer some questions or provide more data for better evaluation
[48; 49].

4. Conclusion and Recommendation

Review of existing literature has shed light on the different impacts and implications of the fracking process
which provides several opportunities for future research. An LCC analysis of the fracking process will require
extensive multidisciplinary efforts to cover all the economic and environmental aspects identified in this framework.
The disciplines required for an LCC study should include, but are not limited to, engineering and construction, oil
and gas industry, environmental engineering, economy, ecology, geology, computer engineering, and atmospheric
science.
Also, additional detailed case studies that can address different fracking sites around the U.S. will be helpful to
provide more representative samples of the process. These case studies can compare the different fracking sites in
terms of similarities and differences and their environmental and economic influences throughout the different
regions including those that have oil and gas industry booms like the East Coast, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming,
etc. Additional research should include the prediction of water consumption by the fracking process and its impact
on drinking water supplies. A geographical and precipitation analysis will be very helpful to address this aspect of
the fracking process with the help of scientists in the atmospheric science discipline.
Oil and shale gas fracking is increasing, yet major decisions about the process validity have not yet been made.
The development of more innovative ways to limit the environmental damages of the fracking process should be on
the priority list of the construction and engineering communitys research agendas. Finally, an international
assessment of fracking would be very useful in addressing the opportunities and threats of the fracking process.

5. References

[1]EIA. (2012). International Energy Statistics. from U.S Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=44&pid=44&aid=1.
[2]EIA. (2011). US Energy Information Administration, Shale Gas Production. Retrieved September 30th 2013:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_shalegas_s1_a.htm.
[3]EIA. (2013). International Energy Statistics. from U.S Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#summary.
[4] U. S. Government. (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act 2007.
[5] Sissine, F. (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A Summary of Major Provisions. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, The Library of Congress.
[6] Melvin, J., & Zabarenko, D. (2008). Gore: Make All US Electricity From Renewable Sources. Planet Ark.
[7] Domm, P. (2013). US Is on Fast-Track to Energy Independence: Study. CNBC-Market Insider.
[8] Charlez, P. A. (1997). Rock Mechanics: Petroleum Applications (Vol. 2). Paris: E'ditions Technip.
[9] GWPC, & ALL. (2009). Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. Oklahom City and Tulsa, OK: Ground Water
Protection Council, ALL Consulting, U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Fossil Energy.
[10] Solomon, D. (2011). SEC Bears Down on Fracking. The Wall Street Journal: Business. Retrieved from http://online.
wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576528484179638702.html?mod=googlenews_wsj[8/31/2011.
[11] Loder, A. (2013). Fracking Moves U.S. Crude Output to Highest Level Since 1989. Bloomberg. Retrieved from
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-11/fracking-pushes-u-s-crude-output-to-highest-level-since-1989.html.
[12] Hassett, K. A., & Mathur, A. (2013). Benefits of hydraulic fracking. Oxford Energy Forum, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. , (91), 11-
13.
[13] Bonakdarpour, M., Flanagan, B., Holling, C., & Larson, J. W. (2011). The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the
United States. Washington DC: IHS Global Insight (USA) Inc.
[14] Weber, J. G. (2012). The effects of a natural gas boom on employment and income in Colorado, Texas, and Wyoming. Energy Economics,
34(5), 1580-1588.
 Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany and Angela Guggemos / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 176 175

[15] Considine, T. J., Watson, R. W., & Considine, N. B. (2011). The Economic Oppurtunities of Shale Energy Development. Manhattan, NY:
Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute.
[16] Higginbotham, A., Pellillo, A., Gurley-Calvez, T., & Witt, T. S. (2010). The Economic Impact of the Natural Gas Industry and the Marcellus
Shale Development in West Virginia in 2009. West Virginia University.
[17] Manuel, J. (2010). MINING: EPA Tackles Fracking. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(5).
[18] Ahmed, N. M. (2013). The Great Oil Swindle. Foreign Policy in Focus, 2.
[19] Williams, C. (2013). Why Im against fracking. http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/why-im-against-fracking.
[20] Barth, J. M. (2012). The Economic Impact of Shale Gas Development: Can New York Learn from Texas? Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93169057/Shale-Gas-Texas-Impacts.
[21] Howarth, R., Santoro, R., & Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Climatic
Change, 106(4), 679-690.
[22] EPA. (2011). Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Research and Development - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
[23]Science Daily. (2007). Climate Change Threatens Drinking Water, As Rising Sea Penetrates Coastal Aquifers. Science News - Science Daily,
Ohio State University (2007, November 7). Retrieved October 2, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com
/releases/2007/11/071106164744.htm.
[24] Gornitz, V. M., Daniels, R. C., White, T. W., & Birdwell, K. R. (1994). The Development of a Coastal Risk Assessment Database:
Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise in the U.S. Southeast. Journal of Coastal Research, 327-338.
[25] Magyar, R. (2012). Near drought conditions impacting Marcellus shale gas drilling. The Examiner, Industry. Retrieved from
http://www.examiner.com/article/near-drought-conditions-impacting-marcellus-shale-gas-drilling.
[26] Shlachter, B. (2012). Drilling trucks have caused an estimated $2 billion in damage to Texas roads. Retrieved from http://www.star-
telegram.com/2012/07/02/4075195/drilling-trucks-have-caused-an.html.
[27] NYDOT, & DEC. (2011). Transportation Impacts of Potential Marcellus Shale Gas Development. New York: New York Department of
Transportation.
[28] Tollefson, J. (2012). Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field. Nature, 482(7384), 139-140.
[29] Gruver, M. (2011). Wyoming's natural gas boom comes with smog attached. Environment - NBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41971686/ns/us_news-environment/.
[30] Weinhold, B. (2012). The Future of Fracking: New Rules Target Air Emissions for Cleaner Natural Gas Production. Environ Health
Perspective, 120(7).
[31] Weber, C. L., & Clavin, C. (2012). Life Cycle Carbon Footprint of Shale Gas: Review of Evidence and Implications. Environmental Science
& Technology, 46(11), 5688-5695.
[32] Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. (2011). Natural gas: Should fracking stop? [10.1038/477271a]. Nature, 477(7364), 271-275.
[33] Jackson, R. B., Vengosh, A., Darrah, T. H., Warner, N. R., Down, A., Poreda, R. J., et al. (2012). Increased stray gas abundance in a subset
of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America.
[34] Mooney, C. (2011). The Truth about Fracking Scientific American, 305(5), 80-85.
[35] Earthwork. (2013). Hydraulic Fracturing 101. Retrieved 9-15-2013, 2013, from
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#GROUNDWATER.
[36] Showstack, R. (2012). Induced seismicity from fracking and carbon storage is focus of study and hearing. Eos, Transactions American
Geophysical Union, 93(27), 251-251.
[37] Balcerak, E. (2012). Studies investigate effects of hydraulic fracturing. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 93(47), 475-475.
[38] Henry, T. (2012). How Fracking Disposal Wells Are Causing Earthquakes in Dallas-Fort Worth. State Impact - Texas Energy and
Environment Reporting. Retrieved from http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/08/06/ how-fracking-disposal-wells-are-causing-earthquakes-
in-dallas-fort-worth/.
[39] Choi, C. Q. (2013). Confirmed: Fracking practices to blame for Ohio earthquakes. NBC News - Science. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/fracking-practices-blame-ohio-earthquakes-8C11073601#fracking-practices-blame-ohio-earthquakes-
8C11073601.
[40] Choi, C. Q. (2011). Did Fracking Cause Oklahoma's Largest Recorded Earthquake? . Scientific American. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=did-fracking-cause-oklahomas-largest-recorded-earthquake.
[41] BGS. (2011a). Fracking and Earthquake Hazard. British Geological Survey, Research. Retrieved from
http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquake_hazard_shale_gas.html.
[42] BGS. (2011b). Blackpool earthquake | Magnitude 1.5 | 27 May 2011. British Geological Survey, Research. Retrieved from
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquakes/blackpoolMay2011.html.
[43] Begley, S. (2013). Distant seismic activity can trigger quakes at 'fracking' sites. Reuters. Retrieved from
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/11/science-fracking-earthquakes-idUSL1N0FG0VT20130711.
[44] Griffiths, S. (2013). Fracking could lead to an 'earthquake domino effect' as it weakens fault lines deep in the earth's crust, scientists claim.
Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2361876/Fracking-lead-earthquake-domino-effect-weakens-
fault-lines-deep-earths-crust-scientists-claim.html.
[45] Meng, Q., & Ashby, S. (2014). Distance: A critical aspect for environmental impact assessment of hydraulic fracking. The Extractive
Industries and Society, 1(2), 124-126. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.07.004.
176 Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany and Angela Guggemos / Procedia Engineering 118 (2015) 169 176

[46] HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN - INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT. (2015). http://graham.umich.edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-

fracturing.
[47] Kirk, S., DellIsola, A. (1995) Life Cycle Costing for Design Professionals, McGraw-Hill, New York, second edition.
[48] EPA. (2012). Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources - Progress Report. Washington, DC: US
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development.
[49] EPA. (2013). EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources. Retrieved 9-25-2013, 2013, from
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy.