Fracking in California

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Policy Logo-one line.pngin California

Energy Policy Logo on Ballotpedia.png
Fracking in California
Regulatory agency:
Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, California Department of Conservation
Fossil fuel reserves:
crude oil and natural gas
Crude oil wells:
49,153
Percent of U.S. crude oil wells:
13.65%
Crude oil production rank:
3rd
Natural gas wells:
1,346
Percent of U.S. natural gas wells:
0.28%
Natural gas production rank:
16th
Severance tax revenue:
$38,686,000
Water used for mining:
305,800 acre feet
Percent of state's water use:
0.72%
Injection wells:
47,624
Percent of U.S. injection wells:
28.33%
Public Policy Logo-one line.png
Fracking in the United States
Endangered species in California
Environmental policy in California
Energy policy in California
Energy and environmental news
Note: The above information was the most current available as of August 2015. This information was collected from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Data years
2009: crude oil well data
2010: estimated water use data
2011: injection well data
2013: natural gas well and production data
2014: crude oil production and severance tax data

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method of oil and natural gas extraction. A variety of factors affect the extent to which fracking plays a part in California's energy industry. These factors include available energy resources, the location and accessibility of energy resources, laws and regulations, political context, and the influence of environmental and industry groups. Decisions by policymakers and citizens at the state, local, and federal levels impact if and how fracking occurs in a state.

The article provides general and, where possible, state-specific information about fracking in California. Because detailed, state-specific information about fracking can be difficult to obtain, more general information about oil and natural gas production in California is provided for further context.

Fracking background

See also: Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method of oil and natural gas extraction. The process involves injecting fluid into subterranean rock formation at high pressure, creating a fracture network that allows the crude oil and natural gas inside dense rocks to flow into a wellbore and be extracted at the surface. The fluid used in this process is made up of sand and water, which comprise 95 percent of the fluid, and other chemical additives, which comprise less than 5 percent of the fluid.[1]

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), there were approximately 23,000 hydraulically fractured wells in the United States in 2000. By 2015, there were an estimated 300,000 hydraulically fractured wells. To learn more about fracking, see this article.[2][3]

History

The first reports of oil in what is now California date to the 1500s, when early explorers noticed that Native Americans gathered asphaltum, a thick oil, from natural seeps. The first oil well in the state was drilled in 1861 in Humboldt County. Although the well was unsuccessful, this event marked the beginning of extensive drilling efforts in California, according to the California Department of Conservation. The first offshore wells in California (and the nation as a whole) were drilled in 1896 in Santa Barbara County.[4]

According to the California Department of Conservation, the first significant natural gas zone discovered outside of an oil field was identified in 1926 in Kern County, although at the time drilling activity was minimal due to lack of demand. Gas exploration began in earnest in the late 1930s, increasing through the 1940s and 1950s. Beginning in the 1940s, gas demand exceeded supply, owing to population growth in the state. According to the California Department of Conservation, fracking was first used in California in the 1980s.[5][4]

According to the publisher of this photo, it is from a 1921 promotional brochure titled, "Orange County California, Nature's Prolific Wonderland - Spring Eternal."

Areas of activity

According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), California is home to crude oil and natural gas reserves. The map below and to the left displays all oil and natural gas wells in the state (outlined in red) and all wells that have been "stimulated," or fracked (dark red dots). The map to the right displays "stimulated," or fracked, wells (purple dots) and injection wells (orange dots) in California as of September 2015. According to the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, the Midway-Sunset oil field was the largest producing oil field in 2014. The Elk Hills gas field was the largest producing natural gas field in the state that same year. According to a 2015 study from the California Council on Science and Technology, roughly half of the wells drilled between 2005 and 2015 were fracked.[6][7][8][9]

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the majority of fracking in California occurs in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley, which covers two-thirds of California's Central Valley, stretches from Modesto, California, to Bakersfield, California. In 2007, the USGS estimated that the San Joaquin Basin Province contained 393 million barrels of oil and 1.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Monterey Shale formation, which runs from Northern California down to Los Angeles, was expected to hold 15.4 billion barrels of oil, or 65 percent of the technically recoverable shale oil in the lower 48 states, according to a 2012 report by the EIA. In May 2014, however, the EIA adjusted its estimate. Due to "the industry's difficulty in producing from the region," the estimate was revised down to 600 million barrels of recoverable oil. This estimate was further reduced in October 2015 to 21 million barrels of oil.[10][11][12][13][14][15]

Oil and gas wells in California as of September 2015. Traditional oil and gas wells are shaded in red; dark red dots indicate "stimulated," or fracked, wells.
Click to enlarge.
Hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells (purple) and injection wells (orange) in California as of September 10, 2015.

Reserves

The maps below show crude oil and natural gas proven reserves by state in 2013. This information comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which defines proven (or proved) reserves as "estimated volumes of hydrocarbon resources that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions." This means that proven reserves alter over time as prices fluctuate and technological advances are made. For example, the price of natural gas increased in 2013, making it economical to extract natural gas that previously had been too expensive to extract. This price increase led the EIA to increase its estimates of proven natural gas reserves.[16]


Crude oil reserves by state
A darker color indicates a greater number of reserves; scroll over a state to see its percentage of total U.S. crude oil reserves in 2013.

The table below provides information about crude oil reserves in California. Information about crude oil reserves in select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.[17]


Natural gas reserves by state
A darker color indicates a greater number of reserves; scroll over a state to see its percentage of total U.S. natural gas reserves 2013.

The table below provides information about natural gas reserves in California. Information about natural gas reserves in select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.[18]

Production

Note: This section provides information about oil and gas production on private and state-owned lands. Information on oil and gas production on federal lands is accessible here.

The graph and table below provide information about crude oil production in California. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.[19]

Crude oil production comparison California.png



The graph and table below provide information about natural gas production in California. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.[20]

Natural gas production comparison California.png



Coalbed methane, a type of methane that is similar to natural gas, was produced in 12 states from 2003 to 2013. California was not one of these states.[21][22]

Shale gas, natural gas found in shale plays, was produced in 14 states from 2007 to 2013. Shale gas was not produced in California from 2007 to 2013.[23][24]

Wells

The bar graph and table present information about the number of crude oil wells in California. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.[25]

Crude oil wells comparison California.png



The bar graph and table below present information about the number of producing natural gas wells in California. Information from select surrounding states is provided for comparative purposes.[26]

Natural gas wells comparison California.png



Injection wells

An example of a Class II injection well

Injection wells are used to store fluid or other substances (e.g., carbon dioxide) under the earth. There are a variety of injection well types, some of which are shallow and are used to store water and non-hazardous liquids. Class II wells are used to store salt water and other fluids produced during the oil and gas extraction process. In 2011, 32 states had Class II injection wells. The table below provides information about injection wells in California and select surrounding states. The map in this section displays the distribution of injection wells in each state that has Class II injection wells.[27][28][29]

Class II injection wells in California and adjacent states,
in 2011
State Class II injection wells Percent of total Class II injection wells
California 47,624 28.33%
New Mexico 4,616 2.75%
Nevada 18 0.01%
Oregon 8 0.0%
United States 168,089 --
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "UIC Inventory by State - 2011"


Injection wells by state, 2011
A darker color indicates a greater number of wells; scroll over a state to see the number of wells it had in 2011.


Economic impact

Taxes, fees and revenue

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, oil and gas booms (including fracking booms) can increase local government revenues through increases in property and sales tax collections. Federal and state governments collect revenues through mineral leasing and severance taxes. Mineral leasing revenues are generated by those who lease their property to oil and gas developers. Severance taxes are intended to compensate present and future citizens of the state from which natural resources are extracted ("severed") for the loss of those natural resources.[30][31]

The pie charts below compare oil and gas severance taxes in California to the United States average. The table below the charts presents tax revenue data for California and select surrounding states. This information comes from the United States Census Bureau.[32]

California state tax revenue by source, 2014
U.S. average state tax revenue by source, 2014

Economic impact studies

The studies below estimate the economic impact of the oil and natural gas industry (also categorized as the mining industry in some studies) in California and across the United States. The author(s) and sponsor(s) of each study have been listed.

Study for the American Petroleum Institute

Economic modeling
IMPLAN and REMI are two econometric modeling systems used in both the private and public sectors to predict economic outcomes of policy changes. Their results are theoretical and may not be universally accepted.

Economists use forecasting models, such as IMPLAN and REMI, to predict the impact increased fossil fuel extraction has on the economy. These studies measure both direct impacts (the jobs and income being added within the oil and gas industry) and indirect impacts (jobs created throughout the supply chain). These studies also address induced impact (jobs created through the increased spending that results from industry growth).[36]

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), a research consulting firm, completed a study for the American Petroleum Institute about the economic impact of the oil and natural gas industry in 2011 in California. According to the PwC study, the oil and gas industry added $131.45 billion in total value in California in 2011, including direct, indirect, and induced value. Of this total, $69.47 billion was direct, $27.79 billion was indirect, and $34.19 billion was induced.[36]

Employment
A rig worker in Williston, North Dakota

The PwC study attributed 793,210 jobs, or 4.1 percent of California's total employment in 2011, to jobs created directly or indirectly by, or induced from, the oil and natural gas industry. The industry directly employed 182,777 people. Indirectly, the industry employed 235,546 people. There were 374,887 induced jobs.[36]

Direct, indirect, and induced labor income, according to this study, totaled $58.88 billion, comprising 4.9 percent of the state's total labor income in 2011. Direct labor income from the mining sector totaled $21.73 billion. Indirect labor income totaled $17.16 billion. Induced labor income equaled almost $20 billion.[36]

Study by the Congressional Budget Office

In December 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is responsible for nonpartisan analysis for Congress, published a study on the economic and budgetary effects of increased oil and natural gas production. The study estimated that without the increase in oil and gas production, natural gas and oil prices would be 70 percent and 5 percent higher, respectively. The CBO also predicted that due to increased oil and gas production, gross domestic product (GDP) would be 1 percent higher in 2040. The growth in fracking would also, according to the study, contribute $43 billion in federal taxes by 2040 and $300 million annually in federal royalties by 2040.[38][39]


Environmental impact

See also: Oil and natural gas pollution

Because of the sudden and unprecedented growth in fracking across the United States, getting high-quality, unbiased, state-specific information on the environmental impacts of fracking is difficult. Most studies that fit those first two qualifications are government studies that focus on the nation as a whole. As such, much of the information that follows in this section may only apply generally to the state. State-specific information has been added where possible. If you would like to nominate another study for inclusion on this page, please send an email to [email protected].

An oil rig off the coast of Surfside, CA

Air impacts

See also: Air pollution

As with any type of energy extraction, there are steps throughout the extraction process during which air pollution can occur. In the case of fracking, air pollution can occur when oil or natural gas is extracted, transported, or distributed. There are different types of pollutants that can be released, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), particulate matter, and methane. For example, methane can potentially leak as oil and natural gas wells are drilled, resulting in pollution. Fracking operations can also emit known carcinogens, which have been linked to increased rates of cancer.[40][41][42][43]

Emissions

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in a July 2015 report that, on average, 1,672 pounds of carbon dioxide, 12 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and four pounds of nitrogen oxide are emitted per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced from burning oil. Natural gas-fired energy generation emits 1,135 pounds of carbon dioxide per MWh of electricity, 0.1 pounds of sulfur dioxide per MWh, and 1.7 pounds of nitrogen oxide per MWh.[44][45]

Earthquakes

See also: Seismicity
Differences betwee wastewater, produced water, and flowback
The terms wastewater, produced water, and flowback are used interchangeably, but all three refer to different types of water.


According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), "the number of earthquakes has increased ... over the past few years within the central and eastern United States. Nearly 450 earthquakes magnitude 3.0 and larger occurred in the four years from 2010 to 2013, over 100 per year on average, compared with an average rate of 20 earthquakes per year observed from 1970 to 2000." Regarding the possible link between fracking and the increased frequency of earthquakes in the eastern and central United States, the USGS made the following observation:[48][49]

“ Many questions have been raised about whether hydraulic fracturing — commonly known as 'fracking'— is responsible for the recent increase of earthquakes. USGS’s studies suggest that the actual hydraulic fracturing process is only very rarely the direct cause of felt earthquakes. While hydraulic fracturing works by making thousands of extremely small 'microearthquakes,' they are, with just a few exceptions, too small to be felt; none have been large enough to cause structural damage.[50] ”
—U.S. Geological Survey

According to the USGS, "scientists have found that at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides with the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells. Much of this wastewater is a byproduct of oil and gas production and is routinely disposed of by injection into wells specifically designed for this purpose." Once a well has been fracked, water returns to the earth's surface; this water contains salt and other contaminants. Some of this water can be recycled, but the water that cannot be recycled is often stored in injection wells. According to NPR, injection wells are generally considered the safest and most cost-effective place for wastewater to be stored. Injection wells are located thousands of feet underground and are encased in cement. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that, as of 2011, there were 144,000 injection wells across the United States receiving 2 billion gallons of frack fluid per day. According to the EPA, California had 47,624 injection well(s) in 2011, 28.33 percent of all such wells across the country.[48][51][52][53][51]

Map of areas with man-made earthquakes that the USGS said are related to "fluid injection, mining, and conventional oil and gas production."[49] Click to enlarge.

Water impacts

See also: Water pollution
The stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle
Click to enlarge.

2016 EPA study on fracking

See also: The EPA study on fracking and drinking water resources (2016)

On December 13, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final report requested by Congress in 2010 on the impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on drinking water resources. The EPA report stated that there was "scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources in the United States under some circumstances." An earlier draft version of the report, released in June 2015, concluded that fracking had not resulted in any widespread or systemic impact on drinking water quality. That conclusion was deleted in the report's final version. Instead, according to Tom Burke, EPA Deputy Administrator, "We [the EPA] found scientific evidence of impacts to drinking water resources at each stage of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle."[54] According to the report, the agency based its study on 1,200 scientific sources, peer review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and input from federal, state, local, tribal, and industry officials.[55][56] However, the EPA acknowledged that its findings were limited in scope, reporting that "uncertainties and data gaps limited the EPA's ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally."

The December 2016 report is a finalized version of an interim report issued by the EPA in 2015. To read more about the interim report, see this article.

Findings

The EPA concluded that, in some circumstances, poorly constructed drilling wells and incorrect wastewater management affected drinking water resources, particularly near drilling sites. According to the report, effects on drinking water "ranged in severity, from temporary changes in water quality to contamination that made private drinking wells unusable." Instances where drinking water resources were more vulnerable included the following:

“
  • Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
  • Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
  • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
  • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
  • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and
  • Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.[50]
 ”
—Environmental Protection Agency[55]

The report focused on the potential impact on water sources during five stages of the fracking process:[55][56]

  • The acquisition of water to be used for fracking
  • The mixing of chemical additives and water to make fracking fluids
  • The injection of fracking fluids into a production well to create and enlarge fractures in the targeted production zone.
  • The collection of wastewater that returns through a well after the injection of fracking fluids
  • The management of wastewater through disposal or reuse.

Reactions

  • The American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents the oil and natural gas industry, criticized the EPA report as misleading. "It is beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the door. The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports, and peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process. Decisions like this amplify the public's frustrations with Washington," said API Upstream Director Erik Milito. Milito further stated, "Fortunately, the science and data clearly demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing does not lead to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources. Unfortunately, consumers have witnessed five years and millions of dollars expended only to see a conclusion based in science changed to a conclusion based in political ambiguity."[57]
  • Energy in Depth, a website established by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, an oil and gas industry group, endorsed the EPA's conclusion, which it argues reinforces its view that there is no systematic impact from fracking, but also criticized the EPA's role in the report. A spokesperson for the website said, "EPA’s report blows apart the anti-fracking campaign’s most common claim, namely that hydraulic fracturing is polluting groundwater all across America" but that the "EPA did its best to inject politics into this good news by inflating concerns about groundwater, no doubt as a parting thank-you gift to the ‘Keep It In the Ground’ movement." The Keep It In the Ground movement refers to a collection of individuals, legislators, and organizations that oppose future oil and natural gas drilling.[54][58]
  • Food and Water Watch, an environmental group that opposes fracking, said the report confirmed its view that fracking contaminates drinking water. According to Wenonah Hauter, the group's executive director, "The EPA has confirmed what we’ve known all along: fracking can and does contaminate drinking water. We are pleased that the agency has acted on the recommendations of its Science Advisory Board and chosen [sic] be frank about the inherent harms and hazards of fracking. Today the Obama administration has rightly prioritized facts and science, and put public health and environmental protection over the profit-driven interests of the oil and gas industry."[59]
  • The Sierra Club, an environmental group that opposes fracking, said the report confirmed its view that fracking negatively affects drinking water. According to the group's official statement, "The Sierra Club applauds the EPA for its science-based fracking report, confirming what so many already knew; fracking presents a clear and present threat to our water, our public health, and our communities. For far too long, communities around the country have faced the daily threat of contaminated water, earthquakes, and an uncertain future due to fracking, all while oil and gas companies peddled the false claim that the process was safe. Today’s report ends this charade. No longer will families be told a lie as their health and safety are threatened."[60]

2015 Duke University study

A September 2015 study from researchers at Duke University found that fracking operations used 250 billion gallons of water from 2005 to 2014, which accounted for less than 1 percent of all water use nationwide. During that time, fracking also produced 210 billion gallons of wastewater. The study also found that "compared to other energy extraction methods, fracking is less water-intensive in the long run" because less water is used for each unit of energy that is produced. This study was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Duke University Energy Initiative.[61][62][63]

Water use in California

There is limited information available about the amounts of water used to frack in each state. The graphs and table below present information about estimated water use in the mining sector as of 2010. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines mining as "quarrying, milling of mined materials, injection of water for secondary oil recovery or for unconventional oil and gas recovery (such as hydraulic fracturing), and other operations associated with mining activities." As such, not all of the water use detailed below can be attributed to fracking operations. According to the USGS, the mining sector accounted for the largest increase in water use from 2005 to 2010.[64]

Water use in California, 2010
Average water use in the United States, 2010


In 2014, SB 1281 became law, requiring oil and gas producers in the state to file quarterly water use reports beginning in 2015. The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources released the first summary of these reports in August 2015. The report, which accounted for the water used by almost 60 percent of all oil and gas operators in the state at the time (242 operators), found that the oil and gas industry consumed 69,000 acre feet of water in the first quarter of 2015; of this total, 41,402 acre feet were used for hydraulically fracturing wells.[65][66][67][68]


Recent legislation

The following is a list of recent fracking policy bills that have been introduced in or passed by the California state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, then no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.


Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California fracking. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles; they are included to provide readers with the most recent news articles on the subject. Click here to learn more about this section.

Fracking in California - Google News Feed

  • Loading...

Energy in the 50 states

Click on a state below to read more about energy in that state.

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Frack Wire, “What is Fracking,” accessed January 28, 2014
  2. ↑ University of Oklahoma, "Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources," accessed March 12, 2014
  3. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Hydraulic fracturing accounts for about half of current U.S. crude oil production," March 15, 2016
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 California Department of Conservation, "Oil and Gas Production History in California," accessed July 23, 2014
  5. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named frackhistory
  6. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "California Profile Analysis," updated December 18, 2013
  7. ↑ California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, "2014 Preliminary Report of California Oil and Gas Production Statistics," July 2015
  8. ↑ California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, "Hydraulic Fracturing in California," accessed September 11, 2015
  9. ↑ KSBW, "Study: Half of California's new wells involve fracking," January 15, 2015
  10. ↑ U.S. Geological Survey, "San Joaquin Valley, California," accessed September 11, 2015
  11. ↑ U.S. Geological Survey, "Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California," 2007
  12. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Review of emerging resources: U.S. shale gas and shale oil plays," accessed May 6, 2014
  13. ↑ Oil Shale Gas, "Monterey Shale," accessed September 11, 2015
  14. ↑ California Council on Science and Technology, "An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California Summary Report An Examination of Hydraulic Fracturing and Acid Stimulations in the Oil and Gas Industry," July 2015
  15. ↑ The Washington Post, "Study: No fracking bonanza for California’s Monterey Shale," October 6, 2015
  16. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves," December 19, 2014
  17. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Crude Oil Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production," December 4, 2014
  18. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Natural Gas Reserves Summary as of Dec. 31," December 4, 2014
  19. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Crude Oil Production," July 31, 2015
  20. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production," July 31, 2015
  21. ↑ U.S. Geological Survey, "Coal-Bed Methane: Potential and Concerns," October 2000
  22. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Coalbed Methane Production," December 4, 2014
  23. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Energy in Brief,” accessed January 28, 2014
  24. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Shale Gas Production," December 4, 2014
  25. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Distribution and Production of Oil and Gas Wells by State," January 7, 2011
  26. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Number of Producing Gas Wells," July 31, 2014
  27. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Basic Information about Injection Wells," May 4, 2012
  28. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Classes of Wells," August 2, 2012
  29. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "UIC Inventory by State - 2011," accessed August 25, 2015
  30. ↑ Internal Revenue Service, "Tips on Reporting Natural Resource Income," February 19, 2015
  31. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Oil and gas Severance Taxes: States Work to Alleviate Fiscal Pressures Amid the Natural gas Boom," February 2012
  32. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "State Government Tax Collections Summary Report: 2014," April 16, 2015
  33. ↑ IMPLAN, "IMPLAN€'s History of Expert Economic Data," accessed September 17, 2014
  34. ↑ REMI, "About Us," accessed September 17, 2014
  35. ↑ REMI, "Clients," accessed September 17, 2014
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 PricewaterhouseCooper LLP, "Economic Impacts of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry on the US Economy 2011," July 2013
  37. ↑ International Monetary Fund, "Gross Domestic Product: An Economy’s All," accessed September 1, 2015
  38. ↑ Congressional Budget Office, "The Economic and Budgetary Effects of Producing Oil and Natural Gas From Shale," December 2014
  39. ↑ Congressional Budget Office, "Home," accessed September 1, 2015
  40. ↑ University of Oklahoma, "Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources," accessed March 15, 2014
  41. ↑ National Resources Defense Council, "Written Testimony of Frances Beinecke President, Natural Resources Defense Council Hearing on 'Opportunities and Challenges for Natural gas' Before the Committee on Energy & Natural Resources U.S. Senate," accessed September 10, 2015
  42. ↑ Stanford Law School Student Journals, "Local Government Fracking Regulations: A Colorado Case Study," January 2014
  43. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Oil," September 25, 2013
  44. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Emissions from the Oil & Natural Gas Industry," July 1, 2015
  45. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Natural Gas STAR Program (Methane Emissions)," accessed July 24, 2015
  46. ↑ Seismology Society of America, "Fracking Confirmed as Cause of Rare 'Felt' Earthquake in Ohio," January 5, 2015
  47. ↑ Energy in Depth, "Underground Wastewater Disposal," accessed July 9, 2015
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 U.S. Geological Survey, "Man-Made Earthquakes Update," January 17, 2014, accessed March 10, 2014
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 United States Geological Survey, "Incorporating Induced Seismicity in the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model—Results of 2014 Workshop and Sensitivity Studies," 2015
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 National Geographic, "Scientists Warn of Quake Risk From Fracking Operations," May 2, 2014
  52. ↑ National Public Radio, "How Oil and Gas Disposal Wells Can Cause Earthquakes," accessed June 2, 2014
  53. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "UIC Inventory by State - 2011," accessed August 25, 2015
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 The Hill, "EPA reverses course on fracking safety," December 13, 2016
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 55.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States (Final Report)," accessed December 13, 2016
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Releases Final Report on Impacts from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities on Drinking Water," December 13, 2016
  57. ↑ PR News Wire, "API: EPA distorts science in hydraulic fracturing study," December 13, 2016
  58. ↑ Energy in Depth, "*UPDATE* EPA Finalized Groundwater Report Reinforces No Widespread, Systemic Impacts from Fracking," December 13, 2016
  59. ↑ Common Dreams, " Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch," December 13, 2016
  60. ↑ Sierra Club, "EPA report confirms threat posed by fracking," December 13, 2016
  61. ↑ American Chemical Society, "Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing," September 15, 2015
  62. ↑ Duke University, "How Much Water Does U.S. Fracking Really Use?" September 15, 2015
  63. ↑ Reuters, "Water demand from fracking less than 1 percent of U.S. total: study," September 15, 2015
  64. ↑ U.S. Geological Survey, "Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010," accessed August 25, 2015
  65. ↑ Power Source "California used 70 million gallons of water in fracking in 2014," April 4, 2015
  66. ↑ Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, "Water use reporting for Oil and Gas Production," accessed September 11, 2015
  67. ↑ Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, "Water Use SB 1281 Data and Reports," accessed September 11, 2015
  68. ↑ Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, "SB 1281 Water Report Summary Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources First Quarter 2015," August 12, 2015

Budget Policy Logo.png
Civil Liberties Policy Logo.png
Education Policy Logo.png
Election Policy Logo.png
Energy Policy-Logo.png

Environmental Policy Logo.png
Policypedia Finance Final.png
Healthcare Policy Logo.png
Policypedia Imigration Final.png
Pension Policy Logo.png

This article is curated by the Public Policy Desk:
 Jerrick Adams • Sarah Groat • Taylor Kempema • Adam Vaughn
Contact the desk
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fracking_in_California&oldid=6604926"