Competing Objectives

* Choosing between different forms of energy often involves tradeoffs between competing objectives, such as affordability, environmental impacts, and energy security. These tradeoffs are sometimes impossible to objectively quantify.

* A 2019 Reuters poll of 3,281 Americans found that 78% believed the government should “invest more money to develop clean energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal.” When asked how much of the cost they were willing to bear:

66% were not willing to pay an additional $100 per year in taxes.

71% were not willing to pay an additional $100 per year on their electricity bill.

* A 2010 Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters found that:

56% were not willing to pay more taxes or higher utility costs to “generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.”

37% were willing to pay at least $100 more per year.

18% were willing to pay at least $300 more per year.

8% were willing to pay at least $500 more per year.

5% were willing to pay at least $1,000 more per year.

2% were willing to pay in excess of $1,000 more per year.

* A 2008 Harris poll of 1,020 U.S. adults found that 92% favored “a large increase in the number of wind farms.” The same poll found that among 787 U.S. adults who pay household energy bills:

40% were not willing to pay anything more for energy from renewable sources.

48% were willing to pay at least 5% more.

31% were willing to pay at least 10% more.

14% were willing to pay at least 15% more.

7% were willing to pay at least 20% more.

3% were willing to pay at least 30% more.

1% were willing to pay at least 40% more.

* During 2019, the average cost of ethanol without federal subsidies was 13% higher than gasoline, and the average cost of biodiesel without federal subsidies was 89% higher than gasoline.

* Per a 1992 EIA report:

Much current debate on energy policy focuses on externalities associated with energy use. Many believe there is a large implicit subsidy to energy production and consumption insofar as pollution results in environmental costs not fully charged to those responsible. …

In fact, the effort to deal with environmental concerns has become a central feature of Federal energy policy. Substantial costs which were formerly outside the market mechanism have, through the implementation of a series of taxes and regulations, been internalized to energy markets.

Subsidies

* “Subsidies,” as defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, are “payments or benefits provided to encourage certain desired activities or behaviors.” Per the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), subsidies “stimulate the production or consumption of a commodity over what it would otherwise have been.”

* EIA classifies government energy subsidies into two main categories: direct and indirect. Direct subsidies have explicit effects on government budgets, while indirect subsidies do not. For instance, tax breaks for the production of certain energy products are direct subsidies because they produce readily identifiable changes in tax revenues. In contrast, government mandates that require the use of certain energy products are indirect subsidies because the effects don’t appear as line items in government budgets, but they still impact energy consumers and producers.

* Reasons provided for enacting energy subsidies include but are not limited to:

promoting forms of energy that create less pollution or greenhouse gases.

correcting for the “energy paradox,” an “empirical observation that consumers require an abnormally high rate of return to undertake energy-efficiency investments.”

increasing the stability of a nation’s energy supply by promoting domestic sources of energy over those controlled by hostile or unstable foreign governments.

paying energy bills for low-income households.

* Ancillary consequences of government energy subsidies include but are not limited to:

increased energy costs, which reduce economic growth and leave people with less money “to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health.”

increased energy consumption caused by lowering the price of energy at the point of sale (though not necessarily the overall cost), which decreases consumers’ incentive to conserve energy.

increased food prices that augment hunger, particularly in poor nations.

increased emissions of certain pollutants.

increased taxes and/or government debts that exceed the benefits of the subsidies.

the government “paying firms or households to make choices about investment, production, or consumption that they would have made without the subsidies. For example, tax credits for energy-efficient windows might go to homeowners who would have purchased them anyway.”

guaranteeing corporations double-digit profits on certain energy projects, transferring the risks of their investments to the public, and supplying them with funds used for executive bonuses shortly before they declare bankruptcy.

* Forms of energy subsidies include but are not limited to:

giving money to producers and consumers of certain energy products.

offering preferential tax treatments to producers and consumers of certain energy products.

mandating that consumers and producers use specified amounts of certain energy products.

purchasing through government agencies certain energy products that are significantly more expensive than other alternatives.

providing loans for energy projects that are unable to obtain private financing due to the risk of default or guaranteeing to pay the loans in the event of default.

spending money on research and development for certain energy products.

* Examples of subsidies for:

coal include direct federal subsidies totaling $1.4 billion in 2010, with 49% of this going to the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct research primarily aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Another 41% of these subsidies were for tax preferences, with 61% of this going to clean coal facilities and pollution control equipment.

renewables in general include 679 federal initiatives that support solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, or waste conversion energy. In 2010, direct federal subsidies for renewables amounted to $14.7 billion. As an example of an indirect subsidy, 30 states and the District of Columbia require utilities to generate or obtain specified amounts of their electricity from renewable sources.

solar include direct federal subsidies including cash grants, tax preferences, research and development (R&D) expenses, and loan guarantees totaling $1.1 billion in 2010. The states of California and Arizona have forced utilities to purchase electricity from customers with solar panels at rates that don’t account for the transmission or distribution costs of this energy. This pushes these costs, which amount to about 40% of the typical electricity bill, onto other customers.

wind include direct federal subsidies totaling $5.0 billion in 2010, with 97% of this coming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a. Obama stimulus). The most prominent of these subsidies is a renewable energy tax credit/grant that is twice as high for wind, geothermal, and certain biofuels than it is for other renewable energy sources.

biofuels include the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renewable Fuel Standard program, which “generally requires the volume of biofuels used in the transportation sector … to increase through 2022 to an annual total of 36 billion gallons.” (For a point of reference, the U.S. transportation sector consumed 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2004. ) This subsidy was enacted to “encourage the domestic production of ethanol and other biofuels” and to reduce “greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation sector.”

natural gas and petroleum include direct federal subsidies totaling $2.8 billion in 2010, with 95% of this coming from tax preferences. The largest of these (comprising 36% of the preferences) is called “percentage depletion,” a tax break on properties mined for natural resources such as oil, gas, coal, minerals, uranium, and geothermal steam. Since 1975, major oil and gas companies have been excluded from this tax preference, and the primary beneficiaries are small independent companies and property owners. The purpose of this subsidy is to maximize the yield of resources from each property.

energy conservation/efficiency include direct federal subsidies totaling $6.6 billion in 2010, with 51% this going to cash payments and 49% to tax preferences. The largest of these (comprising 48% of total subsidies) is a tax preference for installing energy-efficient windows, furnaces, boilers, roofs, doors, etc. in existing homes.

nuclear include direct federal subsidies totaling $2.5 billion in 2010, with 47% of this going to R&D. Of these R&D subsidies, the largest item (comprising 34% of total R&D subsidies) is for the environmental cleanup of government-sponsored nuclear research facilities. Although EIA classifies the environmental cleanup of “nuclear weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research” facilities as subsidies for “non-defense environmental cleanup,” EIA has explained that these are not subsidies in the true sense of the word.

* As of July 2020, neither EIA nor the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has published annual historical data providing a comprehensive and consistent measure of direct federal energy subsidies. EIA has published such data for certain years, although the level of detail varies, and definitions of what constitutes direct subsidies are not always consistent. CBO has published data on federal energy-related tax preferences going back to 1977. These EIA and CBO data are reviewed below. They do not account for:

state and local subsidies.

all indirect subsidies, such as mandates that force energy producers and consumers to use specified amounts of certain energy products and government agencies that purchase certain energy products that are more expensive than other alternatives.

federal tax preferences that are generally available to wide-ranging industries.

federal energy subsidies that have negligible value.

* Per EIA, energy subsidies in the range of one percent of total energy sales are “in general, too small to have a significant effect on the overall level of energy prices and consumption in the United States.” Likewise, per EIA, “market impacts are negligible” for “programs that offer small subsidies for products for which there are huge existing markets….”

Year Direct Federal Energy Subsidies as a Portion of Total Energy Sales 1990 1–2% 1999 0.7% 2007 1.4% 2010 3.1% 2013 2.1% 2016 1.4%

* Energy tax preferences, unlike R&D subsidies, are “directly linked” to energy production, consumption or conservation, and individuals and corporations must take “specified actions” to receive these subsides.

* From 1985 through 2016, inflation-adjusted federal tax preferences for:

fossil fuels averaged $4.0 billion per year.

renewables averaged $4.7 billion per year.

energy efficiency averaged $1.3 billion per year.

nuclear averaged $0.3 billion per year.

* Per EIA, “some forms of energy receive subsidies that are substantial relative to” the energy they produce, and thus, a “per-unit measure” of energy subsidies “may provide a better indicator of its market impact than an absolute measure.” For example, in 2010, coal received federal electricity production subsidies totaling $1,189 million, while solar received $968 million. However, coal produced 44.9% of the nation’s electricity, and solar produced 0.1%.

* From 1985 through 2016, inflation-adjusted federal tax preferences per unit of primary energy production for:

renewables averaged $588 per billion Btus.

fossil fuels averaged $68 per billion Btus.

nuclear averaged $37 per billion Btus.

* Aggregating energy subsidies into broad categories (like fossil fuels and renewables) can obscure their nature, because specific components of these broad categories sometimes receive relatively large portions of the subsidies. Per EIA, federal energy subsidies are often “targeted at narrow segments of the energy industry” and provide “relatively large payments to producers using specific energy technologies that otherwise would be uneconomical.” For example:

Under a previous federal subsidy enacted to ease dependence on foreign oil, “institutional investors such as insurance companies, banks, utilities, and large corporations with substantial net revenues” reduced their tax burdens by billions of dollars through a tax preference for “synthetic coal.” When this subsidy ended in 2007, “none of the 59 coal synthetic plants … remained profitable and all ceased production at the end of 2007.”

In 2012, the U.S. Navy procured 450,000 gallons of biofuels for its “Great Green Fleet” program. These fuels (made from used cooking oil and algae) cost $26.75 per gallon, while conventional fuel cost $3.60 per gallon.

In 2010, hydropower received 3% of all renewable electricity subsidies while producing 60% of all renewable electricity. In comparison, wind received 76% of all renewable electricity subsidies while producing 22% all renewable electricity, and solar received 15% of all renewable electricity subsidies while producing 0.6% of all renewable electricity.

* EIA has published comprehensive accountings of direct federal energy subsides for 1992, 1999, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Only the last four of these disaggregate subsidies for specific renewables, like wind, solar, and biofuels. Combining this data with EIA’s primary energy production data reveals the following levels of inflation-adjusted per-unit energy subsidies:

Direct Federal Energy Subsidies Per Billion Btu 2007 2010 2013 2016 Coal $185 $48 $55 $86 Natural Gas & Petroleum $67 $82 $63 -$15 Nuclear $221 $182 $169 $43 Geothermal $82 $399 $1,673 $410 Hydroelectric $76 $37 $91 $15 Solar $2,984 $12,334 $25,637 $3,923 Wind $1,524 $6,178 $3,864 $604 Biofuels $4,493 $3,930 $948 $1,237

* Per EIA, there can be considerable lag times between subsidies and their effects on energy production. Thus, subsidies divided by production in any given year are not always representative of the larger picture. For example, many subsidies during 2007–2010 were provided to facilities still under construction as of 2011. Also, subsidies for research and development (R&D) of new technologies can take “many years” to yield results. However, EIA has noted that the outcomes of R&D subsidies are “inherently uncertain,” and:

“Several studies suggest that the return on overall Federal R&D investment is much lower than the return on private-sector R&D, implying relatively high failure rates.”

“Much of what is defined as energy R&D in the Federal government’s budget accounts is not directly expended on energy research or development. Rather, a portion of the funds are expended on environmental restoration and waste management associated with the byproducts of energy-related research facilities, e.g., nuclear waste disposal.” (Note that such subsidies are for government facilities; the owners of commercial nuclear power plants must pay for nuclear waste disposal. )

“The creation of a Federally-funded R&D program could, under some circumstances, displace private-sector R&D. In that case, the Federal program would not produce new knowledge that could not be developed by the private sector, but would simply reduce private R&D costs.”

Taxes

* From 2007 to 2017, companies in the S&P 500 paid an average of 30% in federal, state, local, and foreign corporate income taxes. Among energy sector companies in the S&P 500, the average corporate income tax rate was 37%.

* The burden of corporate income taxes falls upon: (1) business owners in the form of decreased profits, (2) workers in the form of reduced wages, and (3) possibly consumers in the form of higher prices.

* The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 75% of corporate income taxes are borne by owners/stockholders and 25% are borne by workers. Other creditable sources estimate that owners/stockholders bear anywhere from 33% to 100% of this tax burden. For more detail, see Just Facts’ research on tax distribution.

* Excise taxes are similar to sales taxes, except that they are imposed on specific goods and services.

* In addition to raising government revenue, excise taxes are sometimes levied to discourage or penalize certain activities. Per the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

Energy excise taxes are disincentives to the production and consumption of the fuels on which they are levied. Excise taxes increase fuel prices and reduce volumes consumed.

* In 2020, federal and state excise taxes on gasoline averaged 55 cents per gallon.

* In 2018, state and federal governments collected about $85 billion in motor fuel excise taxes. This equates to 7% of total U.S. energy expenditures and 14% of U.S. transportation sector energy expenses.

* The economic burden of excise taxes primarily falls on retail customers in the form of higher prices. Per the Congressional Budget Office:

The effect of excise taxes, relative to income, is greatest for lower-income households, which tend to spend a greater proportion of their income on such goods as gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco, which are subject to excise taxes.

* To reduce greenhouse gases, government officials and scientists have proposed increasing taxes on electricity, gasoline, crude oil, steel and aluminum, flying and driving, or any activity that emits carbon dioxide.

Regulations

* Per the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):

“The regulation of energy markets can have the same consequences for energy prices, production, and consumption as the direct payment of a cash subsidy or the imposition of a tax.”

“Regulation is the most consequential form of federal intervention in the energy industries. … Many of these interventions are designed to yield environmental benefits.”

“Regulations more often explicitly penalize rather than subsidize the targeted fuel.”

“There are so many Government regulations concerning energy that it is difficult to identify and analyze all of them.”

* Regulatory costs for hydroelectric power plants increased from 5% of the total costs of generating hydroelectricity in 1980 to 25–30% of the costs in 2010.

* Regulations on the sulfur content of diesel fuel have played a role in raising the price of diesel above that of gasoline.

* Regulation of hydropower plants has sometimes reduced output from wind farms.

* During a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Barack Obama stated:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a [greenhouse gas] cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there. …

[U]nder my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses: coal power plants, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

* In June of 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would have capped most sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. at 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and at 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. This bill passed the House by a vote of 219–212, with 82% of Democrats voting for it and 94% of Republicans voting against it. The bill was then forwarded to the Senate and never voted upon.

* In December of 2009, the Obama administration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This finding allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

* In May of 2013, the Obama administration made a regulatory decision that a metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) has a “social cost” of $38. This figure is used by EPA and other agencies under the authority of the president to assess and justify regulations on greenhouse gases.

* Per EIA projections made in 2013, a CO2 tax of $25 per metric ton that begins in 2014 and grows to $37 in 2022 would increase gasoline prices by 11% and electricity prices by 30% in 2022. These increases are relative to a situation in which no government greenhouse gas reduction policies are enacted and “market investment decisions are not altered in anticipation of such a policy.”

* In June of 2019, the Trump administration repealed and replaced the Obama administration regulations that governed power plant CO2 emissions.

* The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), which is under the authority of the president, manages 500 million acres or about one fifth of all U.S. surface land and more than three times as much acreage in offshore areas. DOI leases some of these lands for energy projects such as oil drilling and solar energy facilities. Since 2003, the energy from fossil fuels produced on federal and American Indian lands has varied as follows:

* A 2013 paper in the journal Wildlife Society Bulletin estimated that 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds are killed each year by wind turbines in the U.S. Approximately 83,000 of the bird fatalities are raptors such as hawks, eagles, owls and falcons, which are protected under federal and state laws.

* An investigation published by the Associated Press in May 2014 found that:

wind farms in Converse County, Wyoming, “have killed more than four dozen golden eagles since 2009….”

the Obama administration has charged oil companies for drowning birds in their waste pits and power companies for electrocuting birds on power lines. “But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly.”

“Getting precise figures is impossible because many companies aren’t required to disclose how many birds they kill. … When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public….”

* In November 2013, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration:

for the first time has enforced environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities, winning a $1 million settlement from a power company that pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two Wyoming wind farms.

* In December 2013, the Obama administration issued a regulation that allows it to give permits to wind farms to accidentally kill eagles for periods of up to 30 years.

* In June 2014, the Obama administration gave a permit to a California wind farm that allows it to kill up to five golden eagles over five years.

* In December 2017, the Trump administration issued a ruling that states:

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act only criminalizes “purposeful actions, such as hunting and poaching.”

government threats of prosecution for accidental bird deaths inhibited “a host of otherwise lawful and productive actions.”

“Interpreting the” Migratory Bird Treaty Act “to criminalize incidental takings raises serious due process concerns and is contrary to the fundamental principle that ambiguity in criminal statutes must be resolved in favor of defendants.”

Fracking

* Some natural gas and oil resources are located in semi-porous or non-porous rocks that don’t allow the fuel to freely flow when accessed through drilling. Such fuels are often found in shale formations and are referred to as “tight oil” and “tight gas.” These resources can be extracted by using a combination of technologies known as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

* Horizontal drilling involves penetrating the ground vertically (like traditional drilling) and then turning horizontally in order to drill along the layer that contains the fossil fuel resources. This method of drilling exposes more of the fossil fuel resources to the bore of each well, thus increasing yields and decreasing the surface footprint of drilling operations.

* Horizontal drilling was first successfully employed in 1929 and has been used commercially since the late 1980s. By 1990, more than 1,000 horizontal wells were drilled worldwide, almost all for the purpose of extracting crude oil.

* Hydraulic fracturing or fracking involves injecting fluids at high pressures from the bore of a well into the layer that contains the fossil fuel resources. This process creates fractures in the rock, which allows the fuels to flow to the bore of the well. The fluids used for fracking typically contain sand or ceramic beads that serve to hold open the fractures after they have been created. This fluid also contains varying chemicals that are used for purposes such as preventing pipe corrosion. (A detailed description of the process is shown in the video below.)

* Hydraulic fracturing was first successfully employed to drill for oil in 1947 and has been used commercially since the 1950s. By 1955, more than 100,000 fracking treatments were performed. In the 1980s and early 1990s, Texas oilman George Mitchell refined the process of fracking to extract natural gas from shale in a cost-effective manner.

* In the early 2000s, horizontal drilling coupled with hydraulic fracturing became widely used to extract tight gas. In the mid-2000s, the combination of these technologies also became widely used to extract tight oil. The process is shown in this video:

* From 2005 to 2019, U.S. natural gas production increased by 86%, primarily due to the use of horizontal drilling coupled with hydraulic fracturing in shale formations.

* From 2005 to 2019, U.S. crude oil production increased by 127%, primarily due to the use of horizontal drilling coupled with hydraulic fracturing in tight oil formations.

* In 2019, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that conventional drilling was “becoming less common” and that “horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing have become standard practice for oil and natural gas production in the United States.”

* Per a 2012 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report:

[A]ccording to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, shale oil and gas development poses risks to air quality, generally as the result of (1) engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, (2) emissions from diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, (3) gas that is flared (burned) or vented (released directly into the atmosphere) for operational reasons, and (4) unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment or impoundments—temporary storage areas. Similarly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals.

The risks identified in the studies and publications we reviewed cannot, at present, be quantified, and the magnitude of potential adverse effects or likelihood of occurrence cannot be determined for several reasons. First, it is difficult to predict how many or where shale oil and gas wells may be constructed. Second, the extent to which operators use effective best management practices to mitigate risk may vary. Third, based on the studies we reviewed, there are relatively few studies that are based on comparing predevelopment conditions to postdevelopment conditions—making it difficult to detect or attribute adverse conditions to shale oil and gas development.

* The primary concern about fracking is that the fuels it releases from tight formations will migrate to the surface of the earth and contaminate wells and other bodies of water.

* In areas that are rich in petroleum and natural gas (methane), these fuels commonly seep up to ground level through natural processes:

Per the Institute for Plasma Physics in the Netherlands: “In 1859, the first petroleum was pumped out of the ground in Pennsylvania in the USA. For long the petroleum had been a nuisance, contaminating wells for drinking water.”

Per the U.S. Geological Survey: “Reports from the 1800’s document [methane] gas bubbles in water wells, in streams, and in fields after heavy rains; this evidence suggests that migration has always existed.”

Per the academic textbook The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum: “Most of the crude oil currently recovered is produced from underground reservoirs. However, surface seepage of crude oil and natural gas are common in many regions.”

Per the Encyclopædia Britannica: “The first discoveries of natural gas seeps were made in Iran between 6000 and 2000 BC. Many early writers described the natural petroleum seeps in the Middle East, especially in the Baku region of what is now Azerbaijan.”

Per the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection: “Water wells located in pump houses, well pits, basements or any enclosed structure should be properly vented as a safety precaution to prevent the buildup of methane. … Naturally occurring gases, such as methane and hydrogen sulfide, may be present in some wells. These gases occur naturally in the subsurface, accumulating in voids within the rock and as dissolved gas in groundwater.”

Per GAO: “Methane can occur naturally in shallow bedrock and unconsolidated sediments and has been known to naturally seep to the surface and contaminate water supplies, including water wells.”

* Because methane is odorless, invisible, and generally nontoxic, people who have naturally occurring methane in their wells may be unaware of it until they test for it.

* Fracking is typically performed at depths of 6,000 to 10,000 feet, and the fractures can extend for several hundred feet. Drinking water is commonly located at depths of less than 1,000 feet.

* As with conventional drilling and other industrial processes (including biofuel production), in cases of accidents and negligence, fracking can and has caused gas leaks, contaminant spills, and other environmental damage.

* In May of 2011, Lisa Jackson, head of the Obama administration EPA stated: “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself affected water, although there are investigations ongoing.”

* A 2012 GAO evaluation of three major studies and a series of interviews with regulatory officials in eight states found no proven cases where groundwater contamination was caused by properly conducted fracking. However, GAO noted that:

the widespread development of shale oil and gas is relatively new. As such, little data exist on (1) fracture growth in shale formations following multistage hydraulic fracturing over an extended time period, (2) the frequency with which refracturing of horizontal wells may occur, (3) the effect of refracturing on fracture growth over time, and (4) the likelihood of adverse effects on drinking water aquifers from a large number of hydraulically fractured wells in close proximity to each other.

* In 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy published the results of an investigation to determine if natural gas or fracking fluids had migrated upward to an underground gas field that is “1,300 feet below the deepest known groundwater aquifer” at six fracking wells in Greene County, Pennsylvania. The study found there was “no detectable migration of gas or aqueous fluids” to the gas field.