i

Executive Summary
Hydraulic fracturing is a process which increases access to natural gas or oil trapped
below the surface of the Earth. This is done by breaking apart subterranean soil with a specially-
designed fluid, forming a fracture. These fractures allow access to pockets of fossil fuels, which
can then be pumped back to the surface for human usage. Hydraulic fracturing is an old
technology, but has become more widely used in recent decades due to improvements in the
fracture fluid. Currently, hydraulic fracturing has the potential to grant the United States
complete energy-independence from the rest of the world. This independence would most
notably boost a struggling economy, provide a transition to a more environmentally-friendly fuel
source, and save the United States government billions of dollars. However, hydraulic fracturing
is barely regulated by the United States federal government, leading to concerns that the fracture
fluid may be harming people and the environment. The hydraulic fracturing process itself may
also increase the chance of earthquakes, and new studies have shown the process may be
emitting sizable amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Overall, this report concludes
that the benefits of hydraulic fracturing have the potential to far outweigh the costs. Before this
can happen, more research and regulation is needed regarding the impacts of hydraulic
fracturing. This report additionally recommends that alternative fuels research continues with the
hope that in the future the United States will rely on a much safer source of energy.













1

Introduction
In recent years, the amount of oil and natural gas coming from within the United States
has increased dramatically. This is due to a recent breakthrough in an old technology known as
hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a process that increases the permeability (the ability
of a fluid to move through a given medium) of the ground. This is done by pumping a specially-
designed fluid, called fracture fluid, into the ground. Recent improvements in the properties of
the fracture fluid has made the hydraulic fracturing process more effective, bringing the United
States closer to complete energy security than any other time in recent history. However, as is
expected with any new technology, many issues have arisen related to hydraulic fracturing. First,
there is the risk the fracture fluid may contaminate drinking water. Additionally, there is a danger
in injecting or disposing of this fracture fluid near fault lines, both of which have been suggested
to trigger seismic activity. Finally, recent reports indicate that copious amounts of greenhouse
gases are emitted by current fracking procedures. This report assesses whether the benefits to
hydraulic fracturing, primarily the ramifications of energy security for the United States, are
worth the possible dangers to human health and the environment. To examine this, this report
touches on the history and current usage of hydraulic fracturing followed by a cost-benefit
analysis of the ramifications of hydraulic fracturing for various stakeholders, before concluding
with a series of recommendations for the regulation of future usage.


What is Hydraulic Fracturing?
The Hydraulic Fracturing Process
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is defined by engineers as the
creation of fractures in the soil. This process is commonly used because it increases the
permeability of the soil, which increases the rate at which underground resources can be
extracted. Most fossil energy sources of interest are found in shale, which has an incredibly low
permeability, and thus requires hydraulic fracturing to make the extraction of these fuels
economically feasible. In the United States, the primary energy source extracted from the shale
through hydraulic fracturing is natural gas. While the term hydraulic fracturing is technically
limited to this creation of soil fractures, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has broader
definition for hydraulic fracturing, which also includes the acquisition of source water, well
construction, [...] and waste disposal [1].
To begin inducing fractures in the soil, a hole is drilled into the earths crust to the depth
of the natural gas in which a section of pipe is lain. Natural gas is most commonly found at a
depth of 7000 feet below the surface of the earth, which is 6000 feet deeper than any water
aquifer used by humans [2]. Usually the piping is then extended at a constant depth horizontally,
a process called horizontal drilling, to increase access to the natural gas source from the
extraction well. At this point, the hydraulic fracturing process is ready to be implemented. This is
accomplished through the injection of a chemical mixture called fracture fluid at very high
pressures for the purpose of inducing fractures in the shale. The typical fracture fluid is a mixture
of 99.5% water and 0.5% various other chemicals [3].
2

The inclusion of chemicals in the fracture fluid is known as slickwater fracturing, the
benefit of which is increased control over the fluid properties. Fluid properties can increase the
rate at which the fluid can be injected and extracted from the well, which improves process
efficiency. These same properties can also extend the duration of the fracture, which allows for a
longer extraction period before the fracture closes [3]. Following completion of fluid injection,
the fracture fluid must then be extracted from the well. The rate of recovery of the fracture fluid
varies greatly between companies, typically ranging between 15% and 80% [4]. Sometimes the
fracture fluid is reused to cut down on costs and generate less waste from the hydraulic fracturing
process. Most often, however, the waste fracture fluid is disposed of either by injecting the fluid
into a disposal well on-site, or by transporting the fluid to wastewater treatment plants [5].


History and Current Usage

While the hydraulic fracturing has only recently become heavily used worldwide, the
technology of hydraulic fracturing is in fact a very old technology. Originating in the United
States, hydraulic fracturing was fully introduced by Stanolind Oil for the purpose of oil
extraction in 1949. At the time, fracture fluid consisted only of ungelled crude oil [6]. The
addition of water to the fracture fluid occurred a few years later in 1953, which greatly increased
the number of potential formulas for fracking fluid. However, for the next several decades the
primary ingredient in the fracture fluid continued to be an expensive gel-based fluid, rendering
the process too expensive to be economically feasible [5]. By the mid 1970s, the natural gas and
oil reserves in the United States that were contained within highly permeable soil were becoming
depleted, but it was only during the late 1990s that water became the main component in
fracturing fluid. This discovery by Mitchell Energy allowed access to the very low permeability
soil, which dramatically increased the United States access to pre-existing natural gas and oil
sources [7]. While the use of hydraulic fracturing in industry increased quickly following this
revelation, only recently has public awareness been sparked by the technology.
Hydraulic fracturing has significant implications for the energy future of the United
States. There are currently more than 500,000 natural gas wells in the United States, with over
16,000 new fracking wells built in 2011 alone, and over 12,000 more built in 2012 [8]. There is
an estimated domestic gas volume of 2500 trillion cubic feet trapped in shale that is accessible
only through hydraulic fracturing; this amount would provide the population of the United States
with natural gas for about 100 years at the current rate of consumption [9]. The impact of this
suddenly accessible source of natural gas has already been felt around the United States, and the
industry is continuing to expand quickly.

Regulations

Obtaining natural gas using hydraulic fracturing is a rapidly expanding industry that is
still in its infancy, and is thus mostly unregulated. The EPA does not currently regulate the entire
fracking process, only select portions such as waste storage under the authority provided by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In 2005, Congress excluded the underground injection of
fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations
related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities from federal control [4]. In 2009, a
proposal known as the Fracturing and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act) was introduced
3

to the United States Congress to give the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing regulation to
the EPA [4]. This proposal failed to become law both then, and when it was reintroduced to
Congress in 2011.
With the lack of federal oversight, certain states have enforced their own regulations with
regards to fracking. In September 2010, Wyoming became the first state to require full disclosure
of fracking chemicals, with other states like Michigan and Texas following suit. The state of
New York has even enacted temporary bans on high volume hydraulic fracturing wells [10]. A
comprehensive set of regulations for hydraulic fracturing is just one important aspect to consider
should fracking continue.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Though hydraulic fracturing could provide energy security to the United States, the
fracking process is associated with multiple ethical dilemmas. The contamination of drinking
water supplies is the most widespread concern with regards to the fracking process. Fracturing
fluid is composed of slurry of many acids and chemicals, many of which are known to be
carcinogenic. There have been reports that this hazardous fluid is seeping into groundwater,
partially as a result of inadequate wastewater disposal. Additional studies have observed
increased seismic activity in areas near hydraulic fracturing facilities. Finally, part of the appeal
of hydraulic fracturing is that natural gas produces relatively low greenhouse gas emissions on
combustion compared with standard petroleum products. However, studies have shown that the
hydraulic fracturing process releases copious amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere.


Economic Benefits

Currently the usage of hydraulic fracturing technology is a great boon to the economies
of not only the United States, but the entire world. By allowing access to unconventional gas,
hydraulic fracturing has nearly doubled the amount of natural gas the world has access to from
421 trillion cubic meters to 752 trillion cubic meters [6]. This access has in turn dramatically
reduced the price of natural gas by about $4.02 per thousand cubic feet, not adjusting for
inflation [11]. In a study done by Yale graduates, the total savings to consumers was estimated to
be about $100 billion dollars per year. To put this in perspective, these savings exceed the cost of
fracture fluid spill clean-up by a 400 to 1 margin, assuming 100 spills per year each costing $2.5
million dollars to clean-up after [11]. While the study is limited in scope, the economic benefits
to the United States are readily apparent. With the cost of natural gas on the decline, both energy
and production costs in industry are greatly reduced. Additionally, with vast reserves of natural
gas in the United States, the hydraulic fracturing industry is estimated to create over 1.6 million
jobs by 2035 [12]. This increase in the number of jobs is especially important now, due to the
recent global recession and the slowly increasing number of austerity measures enacted by the
US government. At the same time, tax revenues from hydraulic fracturing are expected to
increase to $14.5 billion in 2015 [12], which would certainly help to alleviate some of the
United States already crushing debt.
Furthermore, the United States gas and oil industry is still increasing in size. Recently
the International Energy Agency predicted that by 2030, the U.S. would be exporting more oil
4

than it imported, and that the United States could achieve virtual energy independence by 2035
[13]. By becoming self sufficient, the U.S. stands to eliminate any economic dependence on oil
prices set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This in turn would
benefit the national security of the United States since energy self-sufficiency means the United
States would never again experience a fuel shortage. This would also lessen the need for the
United States to be militarily invested in the security of the oil-producing countries. A decreased
military presence abroad will ultimately save both money, and the lives of soldiers and civilians.
Finally, a decrease in natural gas energy costs makes natural gas a more attractive
alternative to oil or coal for the energy needs of businesses. This opportunity for businesses to
save money will also benefit the environment, since natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gases
when burned compared to when coal or oil. Additionally, the Yale study mentioned earlier
predicts that if businesses switched from using one million barrels of oil to the equivalent in
natural gas, consumers in the United States would collectively save $25.6 billion per year [11].

Hidden Costs
Unfortunately, increased energy security as a result of hydraulic fracturing comes with
some hidden costs. First and foremost, the chemical mixture used for the fracking process
contains a number of extremely toxic chemicals that are harmful to both humans and the
environment, and there are concerns that this fracking fluid is contaminating groundwater.
Studies additionally show that hydraulic fracturing both has an effect on local seismic activity,
and is contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.


Problems with Fracturing Fluid

The fluid used during the hydraulic fracturing process is a complex mixture of chemicals, some
of which are harmful to humans and the environment. Based on data collected between 2005 and
2009 from 14 oil and gas service companies, more than 780 million gallons of hydraulic
fracturing product containing 750 different chemicals were used during this time period not
including the water added to the concoction [14]. Methanol, the most common of these
chemicals and a component in roughly 14% of the hydraulic fracturing products used during this
time, is an air pollutant and under consideration for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Additionally, at least 29 other chemicals are known or possible human carcinogens,
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or listed as
hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals, including benzene,
toluene, and xylene, are a part of more than 26% of the hydraulic fracturing products used in this
time period [14].
Furthermore, oil and gas companies have not yet provided a comprehensive list of the
chemicals they use during the hydraulic fracturing process. These companies withheld
information regarding certain chemicals they considered trade secrets, and between 2005 and
2009, 93.6 million gallons of product containing one or more of these secret chemicals was
injected into the earths crust [14]. In some of these cases, the companies provided proprietary
information regarding these secret chemicals, but the vast majority claimed they did not have
that information since the chemicals are typically purchased from chemical suppliers who also
5

have concerns for their trade secrets. In such cases, as summarized by the U.S. House Committee
on Energy and Commerce, companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about
which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the
environment [14].
Much of the debate surrounding the issue of hydraulic fracturing is centered on whether or
not the fluid from the process is contaminating groundwater. If not properly disposed of, it is
clear that hydraulic fracturing fluid could pose a risk to both the health of humans and of the
environment. When not recycled for future hydraulic fracturing, the fluid is either placed in
underground storage containers or is sent to a wastewater treatment facility. The gas industry
argues that these storage containers are already regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and so pose no threat to public safety [15]. There are additional concerns that wastewater plants
cannot effectively process fracking fluid without knowing its entire chemical makeup, but this is
equally unlikely to be a source of groundwater contamination since this transports the fluid far
from the actual site where the hydraulic fracturing is taking place. It is equally concerning,
however, that once the fluid is injected into the ground, it is impossible to accurately predict
where the fluid will migrate, much less account for any leaks during the process [15].
Despite the arguments of the gas industry, a strong correlation has been found between
hydraulic fracturing and local groundwater contamination. In a recent report from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, despite the presence of methane in 85% of
drinking-water wells across the southern New York region, concentrations of methane averaged
17-times higher in those wells close to active drilling and extraction areas [16]. The report,
published in 2011, additionally points out that the isotope composition of the higher-
concentration wells indicates the source of the methane to be organic matter deposited during the
Middle Devonian age and earlier, which corresponds to the target depths of the local drilling
operations [16]. Similar findings published a few months later in a report by the Environmental
Protection Agency suggest the source of groundwater contamination in Wyoming to be from
the gas production zone rather than the surface pits [17]. While both these reports admit that
more study needs to be done to determine the source conclusively, it appears that leaks in the
hydraulic fracturing process itself are at least partially responsible for groundwater
contamination in the surrounding area, strengthening arguments for increased federal regulation.

Seismic Activity

It is currently suspected that both the fluid storage wells and the hydraulic fracturing
process itself have the potential to cause earthquakes. Scientists discovered decades ago that they
could turn earthquakes on and off by injecting liquid into the ground. When faults are injected
with fluid, the friction experienced between layers is reduced, and the faults tend to slip causing
minor earthquakes [18]. While earthquakes positively linked to hydraulic fracturing are a rarity,
a study done on the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area quakes of 2008 suggests that drilling wells,
the fracking process, the extraction of gas and other fluids during the process, and saltwater
disposal afterwards all conceivably affect local seismic activity [2]. In light of the fact that over
50 earthquakes have occurred in the DFW area since 2008 when before there were none, these
conclusions do not seem far-fetched [18].
It is worth noting though, that the vast majority of hydraulic fracturing plants have never
been suspected of inducing an earthquake. Several other studies, like one published in 2006
6

where a geothermal reservoir in Basel was repeatedly injected with fluid, show no correlation
between fracking and induced seismic events [19]. Furthermore, none of the DFW earthquakes
caused any structural damage, the largest occurring in October 2011 with a magnitude of 4.8 on
the Richter scale [18]. However, with increasing amounts of fluid being stored in the ground, and
more demand for natural gas obtained from fracking, more and more fluid is being injected into
the ground. If it builds up over a certain area, for instance where a large deposit of natural gas is
found, recent findings from the U.S. Geological Surveys Earthquake Science Center suggest
that there is an increased likelihood of a larger earthquake. This means that in areas with long-
standing wells, such as Texas, the earthquakes will continue to get stronger and stronger as
fracking continues to occur [18]. There is also speculation that inactive faults can be reactivated
by fracking in the area [2]. As such, seismic activity associated with hydraulic fracturing,
particularly in the near future, is a legitimate concern.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A large part of the appeal of natural gas is that it burns cleanly and thus does not produce
nearly as many greenhouse gases upon combustion as other contemporary fuels like coal and oil.
Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is itself a greenhouse gas however. Researchers
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported in February of
2012 that up to 4% of the total methane production at a Denver gas field was escaping into the
atmosphere [20]. A similar report, from the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in December
of 2012 concerning an area of Utah, reported that preliminary results revealed that upwards of
9% of total methane production was leaking into the atmosphere [20]. Another study from two
researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates the total amount of escaped
methane from hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2010 to be on the order of 216
gigagrams, or about 3.6% of the total methane production that year [9]. This is an increase from
the estimated 2.4% of national methane production lost during the process of hydraulic fracturing
in 2009 [20]. These figures raise concerns that not enough is being done to regulate and reduce
methane emissions in what could be a much more eco-friendly hydraulic fracturing industry.

Conclusion and Recommendations
The arguments for and against hydraulic fracturing are both quite strong. The opportunity
for increased energy security for the United States cannot be ignored in the current age of rising
foreign fossil fuel prices. In 2011, the Energy Information Administration projected the United
States to possess enough natural gas reserves to supply the population for approximately 110
years; this is more than double what that same administration predicted in 2010 [14]. Increased
energy security for the United States also decreases the need to militarily invest in the stability of
the Middle East, saving the lives of both soldiers and civilians. At the same time, there are a
number of environmental and human health concerns associated with the process of hydraulic
fracturing that need to be addressed. Most notably, there are problems with the chemical makeup
of the fracture fluid, a possibility of fracking stimulating seismic activity, and hidden greenhouse
gas emissions from the process. For the most part, however, these problems can be greatly
7

reduced, and possibly even eliminated through the enforcement of more stringent regulations,
such as those introduced in the FRAC Act. These regulations would ideally require the total
disclosure of all chemicals used in the fracture fluid, forbid fracking in seismically active (and
formerly active) areas, and require the implementation of regular checks for leaks throughout the
fracking process. This would allow the United States to continue to take advantage of its
newfound natural gas reserves, while at the same time ensuring that its population and
environment are safe from immediate harm.
In the long run, however, there are too many aspects of hydraulic fracturing that are left to
chance. It is likely that years from now there will still be no reliable way to predict the migration
of escaped fracture fluid through the Earths crust. Additionally, the long-term seismic
ramifications will not be known for certain until much more research is done over the next
several years, at the very least. By fixing the known problems with hydraulic fracturing through
increased regulation, the risk associated with a short-term gamble on hydraulic fracturing is low
compared with the highly beneficial reward of increased energy security. Thus, it is important to
continue to invest in green energy technologies to find a suitable long-term replacement for
hydraulic fracturing. One possibility is the production of biomethane from anaerobic digestion of
organic waste. A study recently released by Electrigaz Technologies shows that the organic
waste generated in the lower mainland area of Vancouver, BC, is enough to offset approximately
3.5% of the areas current natural gas consumption in an economically-competitive manner [22].
Such advances in technology can help to significantly reduce the negative impacts of hydraulic
fracturing by reducing the need for fossil fuels obtained through fracking.














8

References
[1] U.S. EPA. Hydraulic Fracturing Research Study Available:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/hfresearchstudyfs.pdf June 2010 [Mar. 7, 2013].
[2] C. Frolich, C. Hayward, E. Potter, and B. Stump. Dallas-Fort Worth earthquakes coincident with activity associated with
natural gas production Available: http://smu.edu/newsinfo/pdf-files/earthquake-study-10march2010.pdf Mar. 10, 2010
[Mar. 9, 2013].
[3] J. D. Arthur and B. Langhus. An Overview of Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States Available:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20100210093849_large.pdf 2008 [Mar. 7, 2013].

[4] U.S. EPA. Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Internet:
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm [Mar. 7, 2013].

[5] Internation Energy Agency Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas Availible:
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/goldenrules/WEO2012_GoldenRulesReport.pdf Nov. 12,
2012 [Mar. 7, 2013].

[6] C. Montgomery and N. Smith. Hydraulic Fracturing: History of An Enduring Technology Availible:
http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf Dec. 2010 [Mar. 7, 2013].

[7] R. Miller, A Loder, and J. Polson. Americans Gaining Energy Independence With U.S. as Top Producer Bloomberg.
Internet: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/americans-gaining-energy-independence-with-u-s-as-top-
producer.html Feb. 6, 2012 [Mar. 7, 2013].

[8] How much land do all the fracking wells in the United States take up Internet: http://www.causes.com/actions/1712550-
how-much-land-do-all-the-fracking-wells-in-the-united-states-take-up Nov.12, 2012 [Mar. 14, 2013].
[9] K. Callahan. The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act of 2011 Department of Applied Earth
Sciences Management, Columbia University, New York, NY, 2011. Availible:
http://mpaenvironment.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Summer%2011%20reports/Fall%20reports/FRAC%20Act.pdf Dec. 12,
2012 [Mar. 7, 2013].

[10] J. Pless. Fracking Update: What States Are Doing to Ensure Safe Natural Gas Extraction National Conference of State
Legislatures. Internet: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/energyhome/fracking-update-what-states-are-doing.aspx June
2011[Mar. 14, 2013].
[11] R. Ames, A. Corridore, J. Ephross, E. Hirs, P. MacAvoy, and R. Tavelli. The Arthmetic of Shale Gas Available:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2085027 Jun. 26, 2012 [Mar 7, 2013].

[12] R. Miller, A Loder, and J. Polson. Americans Gaining Energy Independence With U.S. as Top Producer Bloomberg.
Internet: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/americans-gaining-energy-independence-with-u-s-as-top-
producer.html Feb. 6, 2012 [Mar. 7, 2013].

[13] P. Domm. US Is on Fast-Track to Energy Independence : Study CNBC. Internet: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100450133
Feb, 11, 2013 [Mar. 7, 2013].

[14] U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Availible:
http://www.springsgov.com/units/boardscomm/OilGas/Congressional%20Fracturing%20Report.pdf Apr. 2011 [Mar 10,
2013].
[15] Americas Natural Gas Alliance. The Truth about Gasland Internet: http://anga.us/critical-issues/the-truth-about-
gasland#.UT49lRz_mSo [Mar. 10, 2013].

[16] S. Osborn, A. Vengosh, N. Warner, and R. Jackson. Methane contamination of drinking wateraccompanying gas-well
drilling and hydraulic fracturing Availible: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.full.pdf April 14, 2011 [Mar. 10,
2013].

[17] J. Tollefson. Is fracking behind contamination in Wyoming groundwater? Internet: http://www.nature.com/news/is-
fracking-behind-contamination-in-wyoming-groundwater-1.11543 Oct. 5, 2012 [Mar. 7, 2013].
9


[18] D. Barer, K. Connelly, and Y. Skorobogatov. State Impact How Oil and Gas Disposal Wells Can Cause Earthquakes
Internet: http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/earthquake/ [Mar. 10, 2013].

[19] H. Asanuma, M. Haring, Y. Mukuhira, H. Niitsuma. Characteristics of large-magnitude microseismic events recorded
during and after stimulation of a geothermal reservoir at Basel, Switzerland Availible:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375650512000429 Jan. 2013 [Mar. 9, 2013].

[20] J. Tollefson . Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas Nature. Internet:
http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123 Jan. 2, 2013 [Mar. 10, 2013].

[21] F. OSullivan and S. Paltsev. Shale gas production: potential versus
actual greenhouse gas emissions http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044030/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044030.pdf Nov.
26, 2012 [Mar. 10, 2013].

[22] Feasibility Study Biogas upgrading and grid injection in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia Electrogas Technologies
Inc. www.lifesciencesbc.ca/files/PDF/feasibility_study_biogas.pdf June 2008 [Mar. 8, 2013].